[CentOS] Vote For CentOS :)

[Lamar Owen]

On Thursday 02 June 2005 18:12, Les Mikesell wrote:
> I don't particularly agree with it - I'm just reading what it says,
> and 'no additional restrictions' seems pretty clear.   If someone
> adds their trademark to something that becomes a derivative work
> of something carrying the GPL, they should either not be able to
> distribute at all, or they have to allow redistribution.  Things
> that aren't embedded in a GPL work would be different, like artwork
> that happens to be on the same disk and there is no requirement to
> make it easy to separate the 'merely aggregated' parts, though.

Have you actually read the SLA?

Quoting (and trying to stay within the 'Fair Use' quoting rules...) the Red 
Hat SLA for the US for Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS (a registered trademark of 
Red Hat Software, Inc.):

"If Customer makes a commercial redistribution of the Software, unless a 
separate agreement with Red Hat is executed or other permission granted, then 
Customer must modify any files identified as "REDHAT-LOGOS" and 
"anaconda-images" to remove all images containing the "Red Hat" trademark or 
the "Shadowman" logo. Merely deleting these files may corrupt the Software."

Earlier in the agreement:
"1. The Software. Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Red Hat Applications (the 
"Software") are either a modular operating system or application consisting 
of hundreds of software components. The end user license agreement for each 
component is located in the component's source code. With the exception of 
certain image files identified in Section 2 below, the license terms for the 
components permit Customer to copy, modify, and redistribute the component, 
in both source code and binary code forms. This agreement does not limit 
Customer's rights under, or grant Customer rights that supersede, the license 
terms of any particular component."

Yes, Virginia, you can redistribute binaries, as long as the Red Hat 
Trademarks are not included.  That means you cannot redistribute verbatim 
ISO's because they include the trademark covered image files.  Notice that 
the files in question are part of a package whose license is not GPL, and 
that the trademarked images do not appear in any package that is covered by 
the GPL.  Check it for yourself.  And the GPL states that mere aggregation is 
not making a derivative work, right?

Even earlier in the agreement:
""Software" means the software purchased under this Agreement, which is 
provided under Red Hat's trademarks and is subject to the applicable end user 
license agreement."

Simple enough.  The part most people don't like:
"The Support Services purchased by Customer are intended for use only for the 
benefit of the Customer and only for the Installed Systems with 
subscriptions. Customer may not use one subscription for Services for more 
than one Installed System. Any unauthorized use of the Services will be 
deemed to be a material breach of this Agreement."

Earlier in the agreement:
""Support Services" means the support services provided with the purchased 
subscription as further defined in this Agreement."

That is, Support Services!=Software, right?

What happens if you are found to be in Material Breach of the agreement?  Red 
Hat Says:
"1.2 Termination for Breach. Red Hat may terminate this Agreement (a) in the 
event Customer fails to pay an invoice when due, (b) in the event Customer 
commits a material breach of this Agreement and fails to remedy that breach 
within thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice of material breach,..."

What is terminated?  The agreement is:
"1.1 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be for the duration of all 
Services provided under this Agreement. "

What is the term for?  SERVICES.  What can be TERMinated?  SERVICES.  What are 
the SERVICES?  The RHN access for each Installed System.  What cannot be 
terminated because it's not covered by the term?  The use of the SOFTWARE.

Read the agreement for yourself; it's publicly available on www.redhat.com; I 
accessed http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html?country=United+States& 
to read it.

Now, as to the derivative work angle, remember that the kernel license carries 
the exemption that merely using kernel services is not making a derivative 
work.  And the glibc package is NOT GPL covered, but LGPL covered.  This 
covers the biggest places where derivative work rights could be asserted; 
neither apply the GPL to code that is linked to glibc or uses kernel 
services.  Now, track the X libraries and the other libraries found on your 
CentOS system.  To which ones are the trademarked images attached on an RHEL 
system?  Not to GPL covered ones.  And, again, mere aggregation of two or 
more pieces of software (all linked to the non-GPL glibc) does not make the 
result a derivative work of any of its packages.  The GPL itself says this; 
read it.

So exactly how does Red Hat's SLA restrict your right to use, modify, and 
redistribute GPL software?  You can use the RHEL kernel and redistribute it 
all day long.  You can use. modify, and redistribute any component of RHEL 
except the non-GPL trademarks all day long (note that the SLA covers the 
'modified RHEL' case quite well: you install something that is unsupported, 
or modify the system, then they don't have to provide you with Support 
Services for that system (but you still don't lose the right to use the 
software!)).  

The non-GPL trademarks are not a derivative work of any of the GPL code in the 
distribution.  The only thing restricted is redistribution of the binary ISO 
(containing trademarks of Red Hat Software, Inc). The ISO is a mere 
aggregation and not a derivative work of the GPL covered software included. 

If you want to build a binary ISO that does not contain the images that are 
trademarked YOU CAN.  You cannot use an RHN entitlement for that box, 
however.  Again, how does this restrict the use or distribution of the GPL 
covered software in any way?  Yes, I know, in order to get the ISO you have 
to purchase the Subscription Service.  Just exactly where does the GPL say 
that you can't charge money for access to the software initially?   Just 
exactly where does the GPL require aggregations of GPL-covered works be 
available to all in the aggregated form (the installable ISO and installable 
binaries)?  And just exactly how is restricting the distribution of the ISO 
and of access to the RHN update service violating the GPL in any way by 
adding restrictions to the licenses of the individual component software 
packages of RHEL?

Having said all that, I'm glad CentOS presents a much easier choice.  And it's 
the choice I currently use.  And voted for. :-)
-- 
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC  28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu