> > > Under a special agreement you may use SuSE Linux Enterprise Server > > > for S/390 and zSeries for sixty (60) calendar days for testing > > > purposes (e.g. proof of concept). Trial versions must not be used in > > > production, and they must not be redistributed. > > > isn't this a violation of section 6 of the GPL? > > The trial and evaluation versions contain "pay"-series software.
There can be no such thing if the effect overall is to create a "work" based on the "Program". It's not so much Section 6 as Section 2(b): 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: ... b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. It seems quite clear to me that no one can charge extra for a distribution that contains their own software, since that is obviously a 'work' within the terms of the GNU Public Licence 2(b). What surprises me is that the word 'must' in 2(b) also seems to preclude a bundled maintenance contract. Anyone adding value (under the terms of 2(b)) MUST (my emphasis) license their 'work' AS A WHOLE (my emphasis) to me at no charge - and if I refuse their maintenance contract, they still MUST license the 'work' at no charge no matter how much effort they've put into it. One wonders how you're supposed to make any money at this game. It's obvious from "... in whole or in part contains or is derived from ..." that you can add just as much "pay software" as you like - the result still has to be shipped at no charge. -- Phil Payne The Devil's IT Dictionary - last updated 2002/02/01: http://www.isham-research.com/dd.html UK +44 7785 302803 Germany +49 173 6242039
