On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > Johnny Hughes wrote: > > > >>> And in this case, the precedents of hundreds years of contractual law > >>> would have to be overturned. The GPL license covers source code > >>> access. The RHEL license covers binary access without restricting your > >>> rights towards source code. > >> > >> I don't recall any distinction between what you can do with binaries > >> and source mentioned in the GPL beyond the requirement that sources > >> must be made available too. And section 6 (of GPLv2) states explictly > >> that "You may not impose any further restrictions...". Of course not > >> all of RHEL is covered by the GPL. > >> > > > > They are not imposing any restrictions on the software ... you have > > signed an agreement that as long as you are entitled to get updates from > > RHN that you will not do those things (it is an if/then statement). > > But those things involve restrictions on the software. I think the problem is that what is thought in these arguments to be a restriction on the software is not considered a legal restriction on the software. RMS and the FSF has said this is not a restriction on the software.. it is a restriction upon you for getting a compilation and update service from Red Hat. You are free to give the source code to whoever you want. Your compilation/update service is not covered under the GPL and can restrict you as long as Red Hat gives you access to the software. > > > > It > > is a contract, no one is forcing you to sign it. If you do sign it, > > then you are obligated to to meet the requirements in it. > > > > If you don't like the conditions, then cancel the subscription and you > > can use their software without updates. > > It's not a matter of liking it or not, I just don't understand how > someone can distribute software with a license that says as a condition > of redistribution you can't impose further restrictions along with a > required contract that imposes further restrictions - regardless of a > tie-in with a subscription. > > > > Red Hat is a great open source company, it is because of the way they > > distribute their source code that CentOS can exist. > > No argument there, but restrictions are restrictions. No they aren't. In law, it all comes down to fine points that do not make sense in 'colloquial' language. It comes down to the classic stupid line of "it depends upon your definition of 'is'" It really does come down to what the license defines software to be, what it defines restrictions are, etc. And if the license does not clearly define it because it is using an existing precedent.. then it is dependant on that precedent where it is, when it is, etc. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"