On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 18:40, Ed Wilts wrote: > On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 05:23:44PM -0800, Cliff Wells wrote: > > On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 15:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Ed Wilts wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 03:28:10PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > RedHat provides source on their website. They always have. I'm not > > aware of anything in the GPL that requires them to provide the source on > > the same *medium* as the binaries (in this case, CD's). It would be > > nice, but I don't see how it's required. > > Actually, providing the source on media is a requirement. I'm too lazy to > look up the exact wording, but they're even allowed to charge a nominal > fee for shipping the media to you. Don't forget, not everyone has Internet > access and not everyone who has Linux systems has them connected to the > Internet. OK, so I'm not too lazy - the text says the source must be > provided in a "medium customarily used for software interchange". The > lawyers can hash out if the Internet would be acceptable to meet this > requirement or not. To make life more interesting, they could give you > a letter that says that you can download it, and then *charge* you to > download it for the costs of "physically performing source > distribution". As we all know, providing the sources for downloading is > not cheap. Assuming, of course, that the courts decided that the > Internet is a "medium customarily used for software interchange", and > I'm not too sure I'd disagree with that - electronic software > distribution is sure getting common...
Er, so... we agree? Sorry, I can't tell your exact position after reading the entire paragraph. FWIW, IANAL but I suspect the courts would allow downloadable sources as an appropriate "media". > > > How long does a GPL violation need to take place before it stops being > > > "minor"? How many exceptions to the GPL is RH allowed before they are > > > violating too many of the terms? > > They're allowed exactly 0 violations. Just because I said it's minor > doesn't mean I condone it. And you replying to a quoted paragraph in a mail I sent doesn't mean I wrote it <wink>. > > > You asked for why I considered RH the distributor as the basis of an > > > attack as to if RH was violating the GPL. I have provided the actual text > > > of where RH has declaired themselves the distributor. You now attack the > > > claim on the basis of if the violation is "minor" or not. Is your > > > defination of GPL violation always an unreachable moving target? > > I'm not attacking the claim. You have clarified as to who the violator > is and I agree with you - it's Red Hat. You have identified a GPL > violation. Didn't write that one either. > > However, your vehemence seems misplaced. RedHat is not Caldera. I am > > not aware of any part of RedHat Linux that is not GPL'd (they do have > > non-GPL'd products, but they are not part of RH Linux). They have a > > Minor nit - redhat-logos is copyrighted by Red Hat, and I can't give you > this package by itself - the license prevents this. If you want to have > a giggle, do the following: > rpm -qai | grep License: > See how many non-GPL licenses there are. Yup, all of them are free with > the exception of redhat-logos, but they're definitely not all GPL. Nitted, although I don't have too much of a problem with that. Redhat's position has always been "branding". That is, rather than take the Caldera approach of distinguishing their distro by adding proprietary software, they distinguish themselves by brand. That being the case, I can see how they would want to protect their logo (so as to prevent Mandrake Redhat Linux from becoming a reality ;) > > long history of contributing back to the community and I don't see this > > minor violation as a reason to get our collective panties in a bunch. > > Well, Cliff, I'll let you unbunch your panties :-) Whew. Thanks. > > > Anyone who can't figure out to go to www.redhat.com and get source code > > probably doesn't have the knowledge or tenacity to do anything with it > > anyway. > > Agreed. However, even though it's minor, Red Hat does have the legal > obligation to live up to the terms. I wouldn't expect (nor support) > legal action, but that doesn't mean that Red Hat can sweep it under the > rug either. So the question is whether providing source on their website (and numerous mirrors) constitutes "medium customarily used for software interchange". I'll agree that that's a question for the lawyers, and I'll assume Redhat has already hired some who assure them that it is. As an aside, I think it would be *polite* of RedHat to provide source CD's to anyone who has purchased (whether separately or as part of a bundled PC) the Redhat binary CD's, but I'm not sure they're obligated to. Regards, -- Cliff Wells, Software Engineer Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net) (503) 978-6726 x308 (800) 735-0555 x308
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
