On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 17:37, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > > The GPL covers anything that can be considered a derivative work under > > copyright law. That certainly includes binaries. > > Now you're mixing things. > > The GPL does _not_ address binaries, just what is required -- availability > of source, and no restrictions on that source for things that are required > for that source to work -- _regardless_ of what is redistributed. Are you reading the same COPYING file that accompanies pretty much every product covered by the GPL? Please quote anything that exempts binaries. They are clearly derived works. You don't have to distribute them at all. If you do, all of the terms of the GPL apply, including not adding any other restriction on redistribution. > It also states that you can't use GPL source with someone non-GPL > that requires it to function. Trademarks do not. The software functions > the same regardless whether or not you have the trademark. It says that anything that is a derivative under copyright law is covered and that the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of the GPL license. No exceptions. > > No one is obligated to provide them, but they cannot prohibit copying > > or redistribution as long as the requirement to include or offer source is > > met. > > No one can prohibit restricting the _source_. Again, you are mixing things. I'm just reading what it says. There are no exceptions that I can find. > I can restrict whatever I want on the binaries, as long as I'm abiding > by the other terms of the GPL on the source. That means I don't > redistribute anything in any form, unless the source for that is freely > available in a way that is unrestricted that the software works the same. You don't have to redistribute anything. If you do, you can't impose any restrictions but the GPL itself on anything which can be considered a derivative work. So you can't restrict redistribution of binaries of anything containing GPL'd parts. > SuSE, Dan's Guardian and other distros/software go farther in not > even making source packages available. Red Hat at least dumps out > _all_ SRPMs, even the overwhelming majority they could point to > Fedora for. > > > No, it covers all derivative works. > > No, copyright law does. If a copyright holder explicitly states that > he/she will not allow trademarks to be bundled with the software, or > any installer or other "helper" software, then he/she has the right > to do that. > > But the GPL itself does _not_. Copyright law defines a derived work. The GPL says that anything that is a derivative work must, as a whole, be distributed under GPL terms. Whether something is a separate 'bundled' work or a derivative work can be argued. > > Otherwise it could not prohibit distribution of something that must be > > linked to a proprietary dynamic library to function. > > But trademarks are _not_ required for the software to function exactly > the same. That's the difference! > Again, you're mixing things. Only leaving the 'derivative' question open. Including a trademark in a way that does not make a derivative work is not an issue. > > Typically the FSF has claimed that anything linked into a binary > > becomes part of the derivative work. > > [ The BS watches Les drop off the deep end ;-] > > > I don't particularly agree with it > > You don't particularly seem interested in realizing that Red Hat > is the _least_ of our problems among commercial companies. > And you don't seem to be interested in Trademark Law, and the > whole concepts of why it exists. No, just in whether something meets the terms of the GPL or or not. The document doesn't mention any names to exempt. > Red Hat's "goodwill" severely crippled their ability to deal with > some companies who have no problem with trashing their name. > I don't think you realize that Microsoft could have flooded the > market with an ultra-crappy "Red Hat(R) Linux" that would have > destroyed mindshare overnight. Does that change the meaning of 'no additional restrictions'? If not, I don't see how it is relevant. > > - I'm just reading what it says, and 'no additional restrictions' > > seems pretty clear. > > Take "Red Hat(R)" out of the GPL software and it works _exactly_ > the same. > > If you really have a bug up your ass about this, ask FSF lawyers. ;-> > Red Hat can only say they've cleared it with the FSF so many times > before people who don't want to believe will _never_ believe (like > yourself). If they really want the license to say that some companies can create derivatives that have restrictions besides the GPL and some can't, they should change it to say that. > > 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. > > If the GPL 3.0 says this, then pretty much not only will _all_ > commercial distributions die, but pretty much all support avenues > for Linux. The current GPL says that you can't distribute any derivative work unless the whole can be distributed under the GPL terms. > I don't think you realize the precedent you're asking for. I'm just reading the document, and I can't find the exceptions you seem to think are there. Please quote them. > > 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. > > What do you mean by "embedded"? Whatever meets the legal definition of a derivative work. Something compiled into a binary would be clearly an inseparable part. > RPM is merely just a USTAR 5KB block size (cpio System-V) archive. > Even an ISO9660 "Yellow Book" track (data CD) can be considered > an "archive." > > Do you _really_ want to open up that "subjective" door? I'm not qualified to interpret the legal concept of derivative work but I'd expect the separate items within an RPM to fit the 'mere aggregation' clause, but not the binaries as installed. > At this point, ask the FSF. I think you're just going to argue this > until you get the answer you like. Good luck with the FSF. The FSF isn't the copyright holder on all of the contents, although I suppose that realistically they would be the only ones likely to sue. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com