Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
>> >>> copyright law?
>> >>>
>> >>> Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the
>> >>> SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source
>> >>> code unless it is specifically licensed differently.
>> >>>
>> >>> So, distributing the RPMS (the GPL ones) would probably be OK.
>> >>>
>> >>> Using them is also OK, so long as you PAY Red Hat on every machine
>> >>> where you use things that cam from RHN.
>> >>
>> >> By why is adding a restriction to enforce that OK, unless it only
>> >> applies to the non-GPL'd portions?
>> >>
>> > It is not a restriction, it is a agreement ... if you want to download
>> > the file from them, you agree to pay for it every place you use it.
>>
>> Agreeing to a restriction doesn't make it any less of a restriction, and
>> it isn't the end user's agreement that matters, it is the one doing the
>> software redistribution that can't add restrictions.
>>
>
> Agreements and restrictions have separate legal definitions. You
> really need to get a lawyer to explain this clearly to you, as it is
> one of those items where it looks like they are saying 1+1=0 and
> 1-1=2, but they aren't.
They may seem like two different things, but they aren't if one is
required as a condition of the other. I'm sure a lawyer could be paid
to take either side on this issue if you felt like paying a lawyer.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com