[CentOS] Red Hat CEO: Go Ahead, Copy Our Software

Sat Aug 17 13:10:58 UTC 2013
James B. Byrne <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca>

On Fri, August 16, 2013 11:06, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Reindl Harald
> <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
>>> So which section of the GPL is it that exempts binaries from being
>>> considered derived works with the same requiremnets?

>> the GPL doe snot talk about binaries at all
> Exactly my point.  Everything is about derived works.  So binaries
> cannot be exempt from the requirement that the work as a whole can
> only be distributed under a license that permits free redistribution
> and that additional restrictions cannot be added.  If you want to
> refute that, please quote the section stating what you think permits
> it.

Which, if true, is to say that one may not rebuild GPL source on
systems whose architecture and/or cpu instruction set are propriety. 
Binaries are not open by definition.  They are built for one specific
environment by one specific compiler and one or both both of those may
not be covered by a GPL of some sort.  How then can such a binary be
considered a derived work under the GPL?

The GPLs that I have read are concerned with the source and only the
source.  From that source you may build the software without
consideration of the nature of the build tools and therefore the
results (binaries) I believe are not, and meaningfully cannot be,
covered by the GPL.

***          E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel          ***
James B. Byrne                mailto:ByrneJB at Harte-Lyne.ca
Harte & Lyne Limited          http://www.harte-lyne.ca
9 Brockley Drive              vox: +1 905 561 1241
Hamilton, Ontario             fax: +1 905 561 0757
Canada  L8E 3C3