> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 2:12 AM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: Stop the disinformation! (Was Re: Download Redhat 9 right > now ) > > > On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Ward William E DLDN wrote: > > > I want to correct at least one egregious error in this > > list of correcting errors; it's a big one, though. > > > > > Again, bootleg would be the wrong term but if you mean that > > > you can not > > > violate the license then your wrong--all you need to do to > > > violate the GPL > > > when distributing is to only provide the binaries without > offering > > > availablity of the source code. Once you with-hold the > > > source code, it is > > > no longer Free Software in spirit since it is no longer > > > modifiable in the > > > preferred form (source code) for performing modification. > > > > Uh, not QUITE.... close, but not quite, and it's a big difference. > > You DON'T have to offer the source RPMs of packages that > you distribute > > the binaries for AS LONG AS THEY ARE AVAILABLE from the > original site, > > i.e., if I make a distro, but include only the binary for apache, > > I STILL don't have to make the source available for Apache > FROM MY SITE > > since it can be freely acquired from http://www.apache.org, > for example. > > I do need to tell you what version, and I need to give you > any special > > changes I may have made, plus the configuration files, etc. > Now, if > > I'm WRITING Apache, I would need to make the source > available, but that's > > a horse of a different color. > > I'm sorry to confuse you. My statements where in regards to software > licensed under the GPL, not the Apache Software License. The Apache > Software License goes beyond the scope of what I intended to discuss. > > If you want more information about the Apache Software License see > http://www.apache.org/LICENSE-1.1 > > While the Apache Software License does qualify as being a > Free Software > license, it does not contain the same protections that a > Copyleft license > does (such as the GPL) and it has additional requirements > which make it > incompatible with the GPL.
Doh! Forgot Apache itself wasn't a good example, I just used it as one. Ok, substitute "mysql" for Apache where I mentioned it... I don't have to give you the source for a package I'm including binaries for AS LONG AS THE SOURCE IS AVAILABLE ELSEWHERE easily. That's the real point of the statement. > > Also, no one says I can't CHARGE for the source; I just can restrict > > you from giving it away afterwards. > > I never said the source needed to be provided for free--I > said an offer of > availablity of the source code needed to be provided. The GPL clearly > says "for a charge no more than your cost of physically > performing source > distribution" This does clearly indicate that a charge is > allowed for. > > > And no one says I have to give you the source > electronically; I could > > always publish the source in a book, and make you buy the > book to get > > the source. > > How exact did you arrive at that from "a complette > machine-readable copy > of the corresponding source code ... on a medium customarily used for > software interchange"?? It seems to me that EVERY copyright > holder which > publishes under the GPL is saying that the offer for the > source code must > be electronically readable which I believe is far from being "no one." Until just the last few years, one of the more common methods of software source interchange WAS printed out program listings; not EFFICIENT, but acceptable. I have a half dozen examples >=20 years old now that are not GPL that distributed their DELIVERIES that way. (We won't even get into whether or not Punch Cards, for example, represent printed media). The point is, that machine readable is open to interpretation, as is "medium customarily used". Machine Readable, in this case, could even mean "OCR Readable", i.e., a book. Shoot, with a recent piece of software I've seen, machine readable may soon include "being pressed into a vinyl LP disk", although that would fail the "customarily used" test... > > I just have to make it available to you under reasonable > terms. Now, I > > haven't seen anyone actually DO that yet... but I do have a > book called > > Linux IP Stacks, which is 90% just the IP Networking Stacks for the > > kernal, plus some commentary... > > What GPL works does "Linux IP Stacks Commentary: Guide to Gaining > Insider's Knowledge on the IP Stacks of the Linux Code" > redistribute in > *BINARY* format? Just as the scope of my statements does no > include the > Apache Software License, they also do not apply to source code only > redistribution. I was using the point that there are already books giving source for the IP stack, for example, as a possible method of fulfilling the Source Distribution Requirement (although not actually fulfilling the terms I'm postulating, as it's a commentary on code already distributed in source in, for example, the Redhat sources, the Linux From Scratch sources, the Kernal Sources, etc.) BTW, as an aside, you must have a slightly different edition of the book I'm discussing, as mine is "Linux IP Stacks - Commentary - In-Depth Code Annotation" (three lines, each separate). Again, I'm only giving it as an example of a possible method of distribution, but NOT an actual method used IN THIS CASE as it's primary method; the authors of the book, in this case, used a fully electronic method to create their information.) > > Note, this little bit (the not requiring that >I< give you > the source > > for things that are available from others that are not my copyright) > > means that Redhat (and most of the other mainline distros) go above > > and beyond, by hosting it in one easy to find group, and paying the > > bandwidth charges to get it; they don't have to do that, as some > > of the smaller (more specialized) distros refuse to do; they only > > have to give you source on what they changed to comply with the GPL. > > In other words, Redhat pays out of pocket to give you something they > > don't have to give you by the GPL, as they could say "Here's what > > we used, go find it on the Internet". > > Are you and the smaller distros charging for access to the > binaries? If a > smaller distro is performing **non-profit** redistribution > then they can > pass along an existing offer for the source code from the party they > recieved the source from. This "proxy" of a source code offer > during non-profit redistribution is permitted under GPL Section 3c. Obviously not, in my case :) The only distro I'm currently involved in is IPCop, which is totally free (speech and beer) within the limits of what we can do while respecting the other author's rights under the GPL. Since we use Sourceforge, as good neighbors, we point to the other sites for their packages and source. > During the first week of April, Red Hat required you pay at > least $60 to > get access to the binaries. This is known as **commerical** > distribution > of which GPL Section 3c is *NOT* an option. Rather, the RHN > redistribution complied with the last paragraph of GPL > Section 3 instead. > If RHN did not provide anything that met any of the terms of GPL > Section 3 then it would be in violation of the license. Not QUITE. Redhat offered the distro up EARLY to those who had paid the $60, but anyone could get it (just not directly from Redhat) until folks stopped supporting the folks on BitTorrent by disconnecting. RedHat could, by rights, have stopped BitTorrent from doing it's thing... "Redhat" is a registered trademark, and is NOT either a GPL term, or in the public domain, and as such, they could have held it for a week off of other sites by claiming a temporary trademark infringement. I'm not sure how well that would hold up, because AFTER the week, Redhat would be encouraging everyone and their brother to put it up, and have a history that way, but there it is. The point is, they didn't require you to pay the $60 to get it, just to use THEIR bandwidth to get it. You paid the $60 for the bandwidth (and other services). In addition, as I recall (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I recall incorrectly, so feel free to do so if I'm in error), the source is only required to be provided to someone who requests it, and it needs to be provided in a "reasonable manner"... it doesn't specify a >TIME< for a reasonable manner, either, which means "Ok, we can get you the source in 2 weeks" is fine, as long as "reasonable" people would consider 2 weeks a "reasonable" time (which, depending on the details, may or may not be true). If Redhat had chosen to release the binaries ONLY for now, and release source next week, that, by my understanding, would be acceptable, as it would be "reasonable". YMMV, of course. > In short, the smaller distros are granted an additional exception for > non-commerical redistribution. This exception does not apply > to the RHN > commerical redistribution and RH is not going above and beyond. > > > Feel free to post any more of your confusion regarding the > terms of the > GEL and I'll try to respond to them as best I can. Or you > can try reading > the GEL itself at http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html I have read the GEL, a number of times, as well as the LAPEL, but it's been a while, so all of this is "as memory serves", and a bit of thought about a few ambiguities. I'm all for the GEL; it's a good license, but there are still a few ways to comply with the LETTER while not quite being where some people would think the spirit of the GEL is... and in that case, yes, Red hat (and many other groups) go above and beyond. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
