-------- Original Message -------- > From: "Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith at ieee.org>" <thebs413 at earthlink.net> > Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 2:31 PM > To: CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org>, centos at centos.org > Subject: Re: [CentOS] Vote For CentOS :) > > From: me at prestoncrawford.com > > I'm not confused. I think the point is (and this has seemingly > > been a persistent issue since the RHEL rebuilds appeared on the > > scene) > > Blame US Trademark Law then. I blame it for a lot already, thanks. :-) > > that Red Hat puts licensing restrictions on GPL software. > > Red Hat does not put any restriction on your use of their trademarks > internally. But due to US Trademark Law, Red Hat cannot let you This is what I don't get, though? What's the difference between internal and external? I know, I know, it's all about the trademarked logos, names, etc. But at the end of the day, the source code is still the source code. And it's still GPL. So they have to provide (assuming they're distributing a GPL product) if you ask for it, regardless of whether it's internal to your company, external, whatever. Once they've distributed GPL-based software, they have to offer the source. Period. They can ask that you not include the trademarks, but that aside, they can't tell you that since it's "internal" it can't be redistributed. That's not my understanding of the GPL when it comes to source. > publicly redistribute anything "Red Hat(R)" in a way that would allow > a judge to rule Red Hat allows free redistribution of their trademark > without a license. Understood. But their trademark is different from the other 99.99999% of the distribution, which is Open Source code. > Furthermore, please point me to the section where the GPL says I > have the right to binaries and other package distributions of GPL > software? It only says I have a right to any GPL source code, and I never said anyone had the right to binaries. I'm simply confused as to how you can put licensing restrictions on source code simply because it's "internal". That is the issue in question, I believe. > any required source code (which is then also GPL) for the software > to function under no other terms than GPL. > > > And that strikes many of us as odd. > > What is odd to me is that people see this as a Red Hat-only issue. > Not only is Trademark Law really a PITA for Red Hat, but Trademark > Laws in other countries -- notably Germany -- is why SuSE's hand > has been forced even more. Agreed. > [ E.g., does anyone remember the KIllustrator name change? > It wasn't Adobe's doing at all! ] > > And most don't stop to read the GPL, and what it's real terms are. > > If I sell GPL software, I do _not_ have to put the source code on > my site. In fact, Red Hat could choose to _only_ distribute the > GPL source code on CDs or -- better yet, do what SuSE does -- > and say the GPL source code is available in Fedora Core. They could not do the latter as far as I understand it. Because Fedora Core is not the source code (letter for letter) of RHEL. So they HAVE to make the RHEL source code available somehow. Even if it's "pay us for the CDs". > Let me say that again, Red Hat doesn't even need to offer SRPMS. > They could just plunk out the "raw" source code, or just point to > Fedora Core -- or maybe just the few SRPMS (like the kernel) that > differ -- and make it 100x more difficult for distros like CentOS to > exist! I agree. What I don't agree with is this idea that once the SRPMS are out there in the wild that somehow Red Hat can put restrictions on the distribution of the source. They just can't, as far as I understand the GPL. Once the source has been made available to SOMEONE, regardless of whether it's internal, external, whatever, it can be passed on. > Red Hat doesn't play such games. They put out source packages > for _both_ Fedora Core _and_ RHEL -- so there are no questions. That's good that they stick "closer" to the letter. I'm not so sure they're following it completely, though. Preston