> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 1:22 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: Stop the disinformation! (Was Re: Download Redhat 9 right > now ) > > > On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Ward William E DLDN wrote: > > > > 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. > > Your mixing up the availablity of redistribution from a different > non-profit source (BitTorrent) with the availablity from Red > Hat. Red Hat > still performed commerical redistribution themselves regardless of the > nature in which other redistribution of the same material was > done. If > you payed $60, you got access of redistribution from Red Hat. > If you did > not pay $60 then during the first week of April you did not > get access of > redistribution from Red Hat. The fact that they allowed use of their > trademarks and copyrighted images (the Red Hat name, the logo > package and > anaconda images) to also be redistributed by a third party > does not make > that third party Red Hat. So, Red Hat still was not > providing a *direct* > method of non-profit redistribution. The user which downloads from a > payed RHN is recieving **commerically** redistributed > software regardless > of the other methods available to them for getting an identical copy.
I'm not sure I buy this part of the arguement; I agree, and accept, that the EASIEST way for Redhat (or any other distro) to comply with section 3 of the GPL while SELLING the >BOXED< sets is to include the source disks; technically, I still think all they need to do is provide the diffs between the source and their compiled binaries, but in practice I think that would actually be harder to do. Even THAT is limited to the boxed sets, where they are actually selling the distro itself, AND could as easily be settled by using the "offer" clause of 3b. Now, in practice, there's no "gain" to be made by doing that (other than, perhaps, the cost of a couple of CDs and the goodwill of the Open Source community and Redhat's reputation), but it's a viable alternative LEGALLY. On the other hand, what Redhat did this week is sell a service SEPERATE from a boxed set... they offered the use of the premier RHN servers for someone for period of time (the standard RHN subscription) and IN ADDITION offered those users a sneak preview of the distro that would be coming out (and Redhat would be charging for) in a week. The BOXED SETS require the offer of source; technically, Redhat's download of RH9 this week is NOT the primary purpose of the RHN subscription, and therefore IS a "free" distro. In the end, IANAL (and I don't THINK you are either), and even if we were, it would only matter if the FSF stepped in over that (which we would have to ask THEM about, in this hypothetical case) AND if the judge agreed with your (or my!) interpretation. By then, in the one off situation we're talking about, it would have long since become moot. I guess the best person to ask would be to fire off a query to Richard Stahlman, and get his interpretation. I would imagine there would be quite a few friends of the court briefs in that from folks like GameSpot and such, though, as that kind of decision could ultimately effect them 5 or 6 years from now, when Linux becomes a mainstream GAME platform, too. > Slightly off topic from GPL discussion: if Red Hat did decide > to go after > BitTorrent from TradeMark/Copyright violation it would > encourage BT to > also move to distributing "PinkTie" instead. Once all > references have > been changed to PinkTie and the images in redhat-logos & > anaconda-images > have also been changed approbately, there really isn't much > RH can do. > Based on my understanding, Red Hat really has only gone on > the offensive > with their Trademark/Copyright when they believe someone is > misleading the > public into thinking they are buying a Red Hat boxset instead > of unoffical > copies. I didn't say it was LIKELY, as it would be anathema to the whole rational behind much of the Open Source movement, and would be contrary to Redhat's long standing history of just HOW they protect their rights. You are correct, someone could turn around and reverse build the RH9 (because Redhat kindly allowed the sources to be downloaded, as well, see what I say below to understand what kindly means), remove all references to Redhat, and redistribute it. However, Redhat effectively ALLOWED that by distributing the source early with the binaries, and if the "PinkTie" distribution were created, it would take time, even with the sources; a day? A couple days? Would anyone BOTHER when it was going to be freely available in a week (except out of spite or anger over the hypothetical blocking of the distro)? I don't think it would have happened... it would have been too much hassle. Of course, as I stated, Redhat has tradionally been a "Good Partner" in the Open Source movement, so I don't see it as a realistic thing they would do Companywise, but it would have been possible. > > 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). > > By charging for their bandwidth, they have performed commerical > redistribution. The offer of source code availablity must also be > provided from them directly and GPL 3c does not apply. But the bandwidth!=CONTENT. Redhat has a right to charge for the use of their bandwidth to deliver their content... that's what the RHN >IS<, a way of segregating specific users willing to pay for the privledge to special machines with dedicated bandwidth; they aren't paying for the CONTENT, which can be gotten for free eventually over the regular RHN channels. It's ONLY a fee for using the bandwidth and resources, which is NOT covered by the GPL. By the way, RHN prefered servers are not the same servers used by the free demo accounts, IIRC. That would further isolate the bandwidth vs. content debate in the direction of the fact that you are purchasing bandwidth, and not the content, with a subscription. Hmmm... I'll have to see a copy of the license agreement that Redhat uses on the RHN account to verify that they did indeed put a term in there that says you're purchasing access to the server and bandwidth, though, and not "plus content" or some such. Anybody got a copy they want to put up here? > After a week, commerical forms of redistribution will still > be commerical > forms of redistribution. So even when Red Hat provides > direct access for > redistribution in a non-profit way via ftp, the terms of GPL 3c only > applies to that individual method. When Red Hat sells a RH > boxset then it > continues to be a commerical method of redistribution and GPL > 3c does not > apply. They then need to either follow 3a (provide the source during > redistribution--which they do in the boxset) or follow 3b (provide a > written offer for the source code). But here you're contradicting yourself (kinda). Each and every copy is UNIQUE in it's path to the end user; downloads are NOT 3a or 3b, but are 3c (since you didn't buy the copy), while Boxed Sets are 3a or 3b, because you "bought" the copy in that case. Redhat, and most other MAJOR distros, use 3a for EVERYTHING... but for the FTP server, since no money changes hands SPECIFICALLY over the distros, 3c applies, i.e., they don't have to put the source disks up on the internet. Again, though, it's probably easier for them to just DO that, as opposed to putting up the diffs. But "easier" is not the same as "required" when it comes to the actual mechanics and compliance. > > 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. > > While you can withhold the source, they can not withhold the > *offer* for > the source. So, yes, they can provide the binaries + offer > now and in a > reasonable manner provide the source two weeks later and get > away with it. > But if they provide the binaries without an offer and then > provide the > source two weeks later they are still in violation of the GPL > since at > least part of GPL Section 3 must be honored immediately at > the time of > distribution. I didn't spell it out, but yes, that's my understanding, since you agree, I bet that's right, too. We agree on that. They need to OFFER the source during "sale" (however we define that, and we seem to be disagreeing on when that is) to comply with section 3. Even when not a "sale" situation, (such as a free distro, that would fall under Section 3.c), they need to point out that the sources are available (but not necessarily supply them themselves). Now, a simple "The sources for package X is available at http://www.X.org and the diffs that were used in compiling to the current binary state will be available On or After April 8, 2003 from http://www.redhat.com/rh9/diffs"; should, by my understanding, be sufficient for the downloaded disk. That's more trouble than just putting up the source disks from the boxed set, though, when you break it down like that, but it would be in compliance, I believe. I guess that's a slight refinement over what I was trying to say, but you understood my arguement. :) > The last paragraph of GPL Section 3 explains that by providing equal > access to the source at the time of redistribution that Section 3a > applies. But if they did not provide the source, then 3a > would not apply. > If they did not provide an offer for the source then 3b would > not apply. > And if they charge for direct access then 3c would not apply. > Once all > three parts of Section 3 are not honored the redistribution > is not granted > under the GPL and the licensing terms revert to standard > Copyright law. Ah, but then we come back to the "are they charging for bandwidth, or content" arguement..... which I think we're just going to disagree on unless you want to ask someone over at the FSF for their opinion of the hypothetical situation. In the end, though, Redhat made the source available, didn't stop anyone else from redistributing either the source or binaries, and behaved in a reasonable manner as far as the FSF and the GPL is concerned. Whether they did that because that's EXACTLY the way the >HAD< to do it, or they did it because it was the easiest way to fullfill the obligations they had, or they did it that way because it was the best for the Open Source Community as a whole, it really doesn't matter in this case... I think they went a bit beyond what they were required to do (and continue to do so), while you are indicating you think they are hewing to the exact letter... that's the only real arguement I think we have here. :) Oh, one last addendum, before I send this: To all the folks who got it off BitTorrent, how about going BACK to BitTorrent and letting OTHER folks who couldn't finish get it? I'd like to install this weekend (two machines now, one more in a month), but a 1-2K/sec (over a Cablemodem) I might as well wait for the mirrors to kick in on Tuesday.... 'cuz BitTorrent won't be done until th 13th at this rate. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
