|
|
Wed, Jun. 11th, 2003, 03:51 pm
Letter to FSF on Red Hat GPL compliance:
(Followup: the total of my correspondence with the FSF can be seen here. The FSF continually demonstrates that they aren't even familiar with the Red Hat EULA, and finally RMS gives me a brushoff because he lacks the energy to read the license.</a>
Today I sent a letter to the FSF asking for their opinion on an apparant discrepancy I've noticed in the Red Hat Linux EULA and the requirements of the GPL. Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:00:01 -0500 From: David McNett To: Free Software Foundation Subject: Confusion over Red Hat additions to GPL covered code In an effort to perform compatibility testing on a variety of GNU/Linux based systems I have purchased a copy of Red Hat's Advanced Server version of GNU/Linux. Along with this software I have encountered an End User License Agreement which would appear to be at odds with the also included GNU General Public License. I'd like the benefit of the FSF's opinion on this matter, as I believe these two documents to be conflicting and it is unclear to me which constraints should take precedence. I'll assume that you guys are familiar with the txt of the GPL, so I won't bother to quote it in this email. :) However, here are excerpts of the EULA[1] which is provided with my copy of Red Hat Advanced Server. "Red Hat Linux is a modular operating system made up of hundreds of individual software components, each of which was individually written and copyrighted. Each component has its own applicable EULA. The EULAs are located in the source code provided with the product. Throughout this document the components are referred to, individually and collectively, as the "Linux Programs." Most of the Linux Programs are licensed pursuant to a Linux EULA that permits you to copy, modify, and redistribute the software, in both source code and binary code forms." "Red Hat Linux itself is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. Red Hat grants you a license in this collective work pursuant to the GNU General Public License." From this it appears safe to assume that they are releasing their own content as GPL-covered code and are not implying and modification to the underlying licensing of the component software. So far, so good... However, the Red Hat Linux Advanced Server and Services Agreement[2] is not in keeping with the EULA. Specifically, it draws no distinction between an installed copy of the GNU/Linux software and an instance of the software which is participating in their paid services program. In fact, the document appears to specifically deny the existince of such a distinction, effectively binding me into purchasing their professional services simply as an inherent byproduct of installing GNU/Linux. Along these lines, simply installing GNU/Linux binds me to the following "extensions" to the GPL: "If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed Servers, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed Server." "During the term of this Agreement and for one (1) year thereafter, Customer expressly grants to Red Hat the right to audit Customer's facilities and records from time to time in order to verify Customer's compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement" The gross deviation from the spirit of the GPL notwithstanding, I do not comrehend how such contractual burdens are not in conflict with with item 4 and especially item 6 of the GPL. I'm doubly confused when faced with the claim in the EULA that Red Hat is releasing all of its own code as GPL'd code, so the restrictions in the agreement can't even reasonably be construed as covering some non-specified product of Red Hat which they have licensed under a non-Free license. In seeking non-contractual but authoritative supplemental information I also discovered a Red Hat published help site[3] which contained the reaffirming text: "This means that, like the Red Hat Linux products before it, the sources for the software comprising Advanced Server will be available to anyone wanting a copy. And -- as always -- any code written by Red Hat is GPL'ed, with the sources being freely available." This reinforces my belief that Red Hat is claiming no license other than the GPL for included code which they have created. Can you please provide your perspective on which of the conflicting documents takes precedence or if I am mistaken on the inherent conflict between these two differing sets of obligations. Thank you in advance. -David McNett nugget@distributed.net [1] http://www.redhat.com/licenses/advancedservereula.html [2] http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhlas_us.html [3] http://www.redhat.com/advice/ask_shadowman_may02.html
Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 05:30 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): think before you write
from slashdot today:
Red Hat License Challenged
Posted by michael on Thursday June 12, @08:20AM
from the challenge-is-good dept.
An anonymous reader writes: "David McNett has noticed an apparent discrepancy between the Red Hat Linux EULA and the GPL. He has written an open letter to the FSF asking for their opinion on the matter. Does Red Hat have the right to "audit your facilities and records" to ensure compliance with their license?" McNett misreads the Red Hat documents. Their contract is for the various services, not the software, and for the services they are entitled to demand whatever concessions they think the market will bear.
Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 08:42 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): Re: think before you write
they license support, not the software (the GPL software).
so how can they audit "support"? supposedly one would violate their EULA if he installs the software on >1 server and then asks RH for support for all these servers.
but how can RH prove someone has done that?
they come to your server room and then what?
incidentally, i was at a customer site today and they asked me about the RH AS licensing.
i checked ibm-sdk and ibm-jdk, they are both GPL. it seems all packages there are GPL.
suppose one gets SRPMS from the source CD ROM and builds RH AS 2.1 on 10 servers. how can that be challenged? RH's EULA is as is - one shouldn't violate support license (or "steal" support) but there is no way they can prevent people post their ISO's on the Web the moment they buy them (at least for the 2.1 version or future versions' GPL packages.
--------
from the challenge-is-good dept.
An anonymous reader writes: "David McNett has noticed an apparent discrepancy between the Red Hat Linux EULA and the GPL. He has written an open letter to the FSF asking for their opinion on the matter. Does Red Hat have the right to "audit your facilities and records" to ensure compliance with their license?" McNett misreads the Red Hat documents. Their contract is for the various services, not the software, and for the services they are entitled to demand whatever concessions they think the market will bear. Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 04:52 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): Re: think before you write
The binary ISO's from what I recall have binary images that are not covered under a redistributable arrangement, so in order to redistribute them Redhat AS CD's, you would have to remove the Images and replace them with something else. Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 07:52 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): Re: think before you write
>so how can they audit "support"?
The support and services are per machine.
>supposedly one would violate their EULA if he installs the software on >1 server and then asks RH for support for all these servers.
>but how can RH prove someone has done that?
If unregistered/unsupported machines use Red Hat Network, they can tell. Tech support personnel can also often easily tell if someone calls with very certain issues and call back with other seemingly unrelatable issues, or hardware that is obviously not the same as the entitled machines. But, it's hard in either case to prove.
>they come to your server room and then what?
Probably just cancel all support and network entitlements.
Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 09:19 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): Re: think before you write
>>so how can they audit "support"?
>The support and services are per machine.
That's right.
I mean - I wouldn't violate their support license.
I would use one machine as "golden master" for downloading RPM updates to serve as archive for other AS servers. Then have a cronjob (scp root@gold:/root/updates . and send mail to root "new update released") on other AS servers to get updates from the main machine.
>>supposedly one would violate their EULA if he installs the software on >1 server and then asks RH for support for all these servers.
>>but how can RH prove someone has done that?
>If unregistered/unsupported machines use Red Hat Network, they can tell. Tech support personnel can also often easily tell if someone calls with very certain issues and call back with other seemingly unrelatable issues, or hardware that is obviously not the same as the entitled machines. But, it's hard in either case to prove.
You're right - if you connect with different hosts, they can tell. I meant this: if one does not violate their service agreement (use AS in a manner described above) and only installs RH AS on more servers than one, how can they claim you have violated their license even if you've installed AS on more servers than one?
>>they come to your server room and then what?
>Probably just cancel all support and network entitlements.
I think most companies are afraid of such news breaking out so most would probably just pay up to settle things down.
It's good the licensing got challenged...
Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 05:32 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): section 6 of the GPL
Doesn't that allow one to legally copy GPL'd software in both source and binary forms? How can redhat say its distribution is GPL'd then demand you pay for each copy? Redhat was a favorite on clusters up until these recent changes. I can assure you people worldwide are now re-considering whether using RedHat is appropriate for clustering based on these "new rules" they have put forth. Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 05:44 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): Two separate issues
The GPL covers the software; you are free to copy the GPL software within the confines of the licence. The EULA covers the services provided with the software; it states that if you take up RH's support on any server, you must have it on all servers. If you don't subscribe to Red Hat's support services, you are only bound by the GPL.
In other words, the two licences do not conflict; one says that if you want support for one server, RH insist you buy support for all your RH servers. The other says that you can copy the software without warranty. Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 09:25 am (UTC)
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) nugget: Re: Two separate issues
While such an interpretation would make sense, it is in fact not at all what the documents actually say. The EULA forbids you from installing the software on a machine without purchasing a service agreement. The EULA attempts to cover installations of the software, not just installations for which the customer has purchased a service agreement for. The customer is not given the option of not subscribing to Red Hat's support services. Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 05:48 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): /. and nugget
Heh, regarding the first post, that sounds like something Slashdot would do. Post a story saying "Oh, somebody's challenging Red Hat's license claims but they're wrong so we'll post a story on it anyway."
The only thing that makes this funny is that it's Nugget.
Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 06:04 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): Make a new distribution a change the name
What I will do is to create a new installation media without the redhat-artwork removed and install my new distribution. When RedHat comes to do the accounting, I will tell them that i have 1 RH AS and X MyLinux Super Server (or whathever you want) Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 06:38 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): It's a service contract, retard
It's not a software license, it's a service contract. Retard... Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 06:51 am (UTC)
sqlrob: Re: It's a service contract, retard
A service contract that requires itself to be expanded on additional installs of GPL software? How is that any different from a software license? Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 08:15 am (UTC)
jeran
Simple: you don't have to take the support contract to use the software. If you want the support you have to abide by it's terms, but if all you want is the RHAS software you can ignore the EULA for the support contract and use RHAS under the terms of the GPL. Just don't expect RedHat to provide you support under the support contract you declined. Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 08:30 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): You ARE required to take the support contract
In order to obtain (buy a copy of) the software, you MUST agree to the support requirements:
Enterprise:
http://www.redhat.com/apps/commerce/cart.html?store_cart:add_item_cb=SER0103US
(includes Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES 2.1 Basic Support subscription agreement)
or
Advanced:
http://www.redhat.com/apps/commerce/cart.html?store_cart:add_item_cb=RHF0084US
(includes Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 2.1 Standard subscription agreement) Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 09:18 am (UTC)
jeran
And? Remember that nothing in the GPL requires a company to distribute to you. The GPL only governs what they can do if they decide to distribute the product to you. RedHat's entirely within their rights under the GPL to decline to sell their Linux distribution to you if you're not buying a support contract. Now, if they attempt to prevent someone who has bought it from distributing the GPL'd portions as allowed by the GPL, then they'd be in violation, but that's not the case here. Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 09:27 am (UTC)
nugget
They are, however, attempting to prevent someone who has bought it from installing it on other machines. I don't understand how this is not a violation of the GPL which expressly prevents this sort of behavior. Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 11:58 am (UTC)
jeran
I think you're forgetting that that license agreement wasn't written for techies. It was written for PHBs to whom the concept of "we can install as many copies as we want, regardless of licenses" is totally alien and makes them very uncomfortable. The license is written in terms the PHBs like: you can install as many copies as you have licenses for, if you want more copies you buy more licenses. Since RHAS contains more than just GPL'd software (services, updates, support, non-GPL'd software are also included in what you're buying), they're entirely entitled to sell the whole thing under the terms they've written. They're just giving the PHBs what they want. If you want, you can go in, extract just the GPL'd software parts, roll your own ISOs and ignore the RHAS license from that point on. In fact, if you read the EULA, it specifically says you should review the GPL terms and that nothing in the RHAS license limits your rights under the GPL. Techies are expected to be smart enough to read that as the loophole big enough to drive a semi rig through that it's meant to be, while still keeping it in language that won't short-circuit a PHB's brain with concepts that just don't exist in their world. Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 07:09 am (UTC)
(Anonymous)
I would request from Red Hat, or ask the FSF to request from Red Hat, an official statement of interpretation on this. There are many within Red Hat that fully believe you will be in violation of their EULA if you even so much as copy the 'enterprise' code to another server, whether or not you ask for or use their 'services'. There are still some with a great fear that someone will post the ISO's to an 'enterprise' Red Hat product somewhere for public download where they can't enforce trademark or EULA violations so easily. Red Hat has specifically and intentionally failed to be up front and forthcoming with their customers, potential customers, and the public on this, and it has caused some distress. Remember, the enterprise series of products are Red Hat's business model, and their recent support, errata, and update policy changes are all an effort to drive adoption of their 'enterprise' products. Red Hat is first and foremost beholding to its stockholders (especially the Executive staff) and the overriding factor in most all decisions made, even and especially within Engineering, is meeting the financial performance commitments that they make the Wall Street and thus drive that stock price to an even more inflated state. It is only through determined and very painful effort by an ever shrinking group internally at Red Hat who have a clue about the complexity of the problem and still give a rat's ass about more than a paycheck and status quo, that Red Hat is able to accomplish all the contributions to open source software and ideals that they do. However, keep in mind that for Red Hat as a business, the average user of Linux becomes more and more a necessary evil to deal with and mostly just an opportunity to scheme methods of revenue generation. Make NO mistake in that. Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 07:20 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): Service Provision Vs Licencing
The situation as I understand it is that Red Hat provides support services for their Advanced Server. The Support service is the product. If an enterprise or an individual had one copy or Advanced Server and signed up for the support service then they and Red Hat are happy.
If on the other hand this enterprise makes several copies of the Advanced server and uses them in various ways eliciting different support requirements and is only paying for one Advanced Server Support, then Red Hat is working several times as hard for the same price. This can hardly be called fair, and is frankly suicidal for a company that depends on sales of services.
Therefor, it is quite reasonable for Red Hat to do whatever it needs to, to make sure that it is not providing services that have not been paid for.
When I first read this letter I had the image of a sex worker being blindfolded while providing their services on the condition that they could take off the blindfold every now and again to make sure that the punter had not changed places with a friend in the meanwhile. If the punters were complaining about such a provision then they are probably trying to take advantage of of the situation. Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 07:47 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): Re: Service Provision Vs Licencing
Thank you Bill. I was wondering when you'd get around to reposting a paraphrase of your infamous "everyone's a pirate' letter. Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 08:32 am (UTC)
nugget: IANAL
(also posted to slashdot) I am not a laywer. Nor am I embarassed by having been confused by these documents. They *are* confusing, as is evidenced by the spectrum of commentary we're now seeing here on slashdot. Neither is michael a lawyer, which is why I sent my email requesting clarification to the FSF and not Slashdot, but that's neither here nor there. I welcome the additional exposure of my confusion to other people who may be able to provide a meaningful analysis. I do not agree that the EULA and additional license cover only the services side of Red Hat's offering. In fact, to my eye the read exactly the opposite -- expressly disallowing the installation of the Red Hat product in the absence of a matching service agreement. These documents would appear to me to be specifically denying me the ability to install the software without buying services. I do not believe that the GPL permits such subversion and I am unconvinced that Red Hat has found a loophole that allows this sort of restriction on usage. Even if they have found a loophole in the GPL, I think that most would agree that such restrictions on usage are not in keeping with the spirit of the GPL and I am very interested in hearing the FSF's opinion on the matter. Thanks for all the feedback, those who provided reasoned commentary. Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 08:45 am (UTC)
(Anonymous)
For even more fun, read's SuSE Licensing FAQ for SLD 1 (their new desktop edition) Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 09:47 am (UTC)
(Anonymous)
SuSE is just following RedHat's lead. It just shows you that these issues need to be addresses in no uncertain terms now. If the GPL doesn't prevent wrapping GPL software with another license with additional restrictions, then the GPL is fundamentally flawed. I don't write GPL software so that somone else can wrap it in licenses that make it proprietary. The GPL contains terms that expressly disallows this practice. If the FSF isn't going to enforce those terms then I need to start using a different license. Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 09:59 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): Enforcement
YOU have to enforce the license that YOU put on YOUR software. If someone (incl. a company) violates the license which you distribute your software under, you have to challenge them. FSF can only challenge when the copyright has been explicitly given to the FSF. Please see:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 10:18 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): Re: Enforcement
Of course much of the software we are discussing IS copyrighted by the FSF. Hence the FSF term "GNU/Linux". Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 11:45 am (UTC)
(Anonymous): Re: Enforcement
I understand that I have to enforce the GPL on my own software. At the same time though, the FSF needs to make some effort to enforce the GPL generally, and they do in some cases. If they don't, they leave the door open for others to reinterprit the license to allow anything. The support contract clearly places "additional restrictions" on the use of GPL software. If the FSF doesn't care about that then how am I going to convince other developers that they can't place additional restrictions on my software? Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 07:54 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): This is why I switched to Mandrake
I used SuSE for several years. The longer I used it the more they fussed about their proprietary YaST and YaST2. For that and other reasons I decided to try another distro. A friend suggested I try Mandrake. I loved it.
I also love the fact that Mandrake is guaranteed 100% GPL which, after knowing SuSE's EULA and seeing RH's EULA, is why I will be staying with Mandrake. (Oh, I try the ISOs but I BUY the boxed sets. I just wanted Bill G's avatar to know that!) Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 12:58 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): right so...
I buy a copy of Red Hat advanced server, on a DVD, and it's associated support products. It comes with source code, binary RPMS, packaged with logos, images and some books.
Under the terms of the GPL I can:
1. Incorporate source code into any other GPL software.
2. Redistribute the software in source or binary form, and charge for this if I want.
Under the terms of the Red Hat EULA I cannot:
1. Redistribute the Red Hat logos and imagery for commercial gain (ie. clone the package and sell it as Red Hat advanced server)
2. Use the support service for more than one machine.
3. Use the non-GPL software on more than one machine
4. Copy the books.
Now, Red Hat Advanced Server in the EULA means all of the stuff including the support package, books, logos and non-free software. The EULA covers this, the whole package.
The GPL software only covers the source code and associated binaries, written by, say, the GNOME project or Linus Torvalds. If I were to get all of the GPL source code (or binaries), copy it to a DVD and make sure the Red Hat logos and non-free software are all gone, then I can do whatever I want with it, including sell it and install it on multiple machines.
Am I right? Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 03:03 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): Re: right so...
No.
If you agree to support for one machine you've given up your right to use RHAS on any other machine without paying for a support agreement. RedHat's tools are GPL software as well. Whether or not the software is GPL is immaterial as for as RedHat seems to be concerned. Moreover, RedHat's trademark goes beyond logos. The Linux kernel contains RedHat's trademark over and over in the changelogs. If RedHat asserts that you do not have a right to use their trademarks other than in the very limited circumstances they have outlined on their website, then it's simply an impossible sitation. You'd have to remove copyright notices to eliminate the trademarks, and the GPL doesn't allow you to remove the copyright notices. This issue was brought up quite a while back when Mandrake claimed that it's network firewall distro could only be distributed after removing all Mandrake trademarks and logos. The issue was never properly resolved and as a result it makes distribution in any form a legally questionable activity. You would have to guess about where the imaginary boundary is between their trademark rights and the GPL.
The key point in all of this though is that the GPL expressly prohibits sublicensing or additional restrictions on the use or distribution of GPL software. There can be little doubt that through their trademark claims and support contract RedHat is placing additional restrictions on both use and distribution. Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 02:38 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): The Point You Are All Missing...
... is that companies large and small do not spend the time, effort, and money writing a EULA without ensuring it serves an ultimate purpose. The intent of the EULA is to give Red Hat the ability (in the future) to partake in the now common practice of litigation for profit and to exercise rights management over its products. The EULA reads precisely as the letter says it does and therefore specifically disallows the redistribution or copying of the source if you do not purchase additional licenses. IT DOESN'T matter whether those licenses are for services or for source because RH has been careful not to offer an option to purchase them separately.
Does it not strike anyone as odd that RH AS comes with this EULA but doesn't give you the option to decline or accept the support?
Why choose the rather expensive and difficult to enforce "on site" audits for every RH AS you sell rather than a support program that the End Users opt in for?
That is easy, because now the entire RH AS user base is subject to future changes to the EULA including an increase in pricing (or change in cost structure) of the future licenses you purchase.
Someone earlier suggested that you simply ignore the EULA, not accept the support, and you are free to do with the source as you please pursuant to the GPL. Well, as blissful as that sounds it somewhat defeats the purpose of a EULA. When you purchase, install and use RH AS you inherently accept its EULA.
One last point, the person that pointed out that on site audits for services was ridiculous is absolutely correct. One does not inspect facilities in hopes of finding proof of support abuse... it does so to do a head count of licenses. If what the RH AS supporters are saying of the EULA is true then what good would these audits do.
Do I not have the right to install and use the support for one machine but have multiple copies of it on other machines that I am not using the support for?
No, you say... that’s the point if I install multiple copies I forfeit my right to the support, right?
Then why not state that in the EULA... instead of stating I cannot install multiple copies without multiple licenses. Open your eyes, the devils in the details.
-NKFD Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 04:21 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): RedHat-long time violators of the GPL
Unfortantly, the "Sr. Vice President and General Counsel" for RedHat (that being Mark Webbink) has shown complette lack of understanding the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation. When I informed him that Dell was violating the GPL by shipping RedHat binaries without shipping the source code or the a written offer for the source code, he responded with:
Dell preloads various Red Hat operating system products pursuant to agreements between our companies which clearly specify that Red Hat, not Dell, is the distributor.
He later added:
Red Hat sources are shipped by Dell in compliance with the GPL
A month after Mark Webbink declaired that the sources are provided, I ordered an updated copy from Dell. The new copy also had neither the source code or a written offer of source code. I got confirmation from Brent Schroeder at Dell that neither the source code or a written offer was being provided when I ordered the update. Brent Schroeder went on to explain that future orders would get a written offer but not the source code.
So, a quick review of Mark Webbink, Sr VP of General Counsel for Red Hat:
- Declaired that RedHat is the distributor of the GPL violation
- "Resolves" the problem by declairing that the source code is now distributed
- Dell even admits that the source code was not being distributed when Mark Webbink declaired it to be so and also states that the source code won't be added
Based on my expierences with Mark Webbink, I have come to the conclusion that of the following is true of RH Sr. VP General Counsel:
- a flat out liar willing to make falsely declair GPL compliance when he knows there is still a violation
-or-
- an idiot who can't understand what source code is so actually believes that source code is being provided when it is not
Either way you look at it, as long as Mark Webbink is Sr. VP General Counsel it should not be surprising that RH will release an EULA which also conflicts with the GPL. Thu, Jun. 12th, 2003 05:23 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): My understanding
The source code is covered under the GPL license. You are free to roll your own version or created derived works, so long as RH trademarks are removed.
The CD distribution media and errata binary RPMs from RHN are covered under the service agreement. You cannot use these on multiple systems without purchasing additional licenses.
Sat, Jun. 28th, 2003 02:35 pm (UTC)
(Anonymous): Distribution of sources
The GPL doesn't say you have to distribute source with the binaries. It says you must provide the sources if you are asked for them, and only if you modify the original. So if Redhat includes, say, "bash" in their distribution, as long as they don't change the source code, they don't have to give you the source code.
They CAN (the GPL allows them to), but they do not HAVE to. There's a VERY big difference here. If they distribute a modified version THEN they would have to allow acces to the sources to whomever wanted them - they still would NOT have to distribute the sources with the binaries.
Redhat probably doesn't even HAVE to offer the full ISOs, it'd be equally within the GPL to just allow download of the software they developed/modified.
As such, Dell computers shipping with binaries of a Redhat installation are perfectly within the GPL. They specifically say Redhat is the distributor, not Dell. Anyone wanting the source code just needs to head to Redhat's website and download it.
Sorry for the anonymous post, email is Kell_pt at users.sourceforge.net Sat, Jun. 28th, 2003 05:47 pm (UTC)
nugget: Thank you for taking the time to comment
I appreciate that you took the effort to comment, but I am more than a bit puzzled by your reply. While the points you raise are GPL-related, they are not at all related to the concerns I raised in my letter to the FSF. My concern has nothing to do with the inclusion or availability of source code. Rather, I am concerned over the additional licensing and EULA that Red Hat requires all users of their advanced server product to accept. This EULA places additional restrictions on all users of the advanced server product which I believe to be violation of the GPL. The point you mention, while factual, is not relevant to my concerns. |
confused