Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract (was Re: License incompatibility)
Quoting Al Foxone (akvariu...@gmail.com): My understanding is that the GPL applies to object code aside from source-access obligations. [Reminder: There _are_ other copyleft licences. In RHEL, even.] Show me an object-code RPM in RHEL for which Red Hat, Inc. do not provide the open source / free software source code under the specified copyleft or permissive licence, then You'll pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting. You seem to be trying to imply without saying so that the source-access obligations of copyleft licences somehow give you additional rights in other areas _other_ than source acccess. What I'm saying is, no, that's just not the case. Many people dislike that fact. You're hardly the first. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract (was Re: License incompatibility)
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Rick Moen r...@linuxmafia.com wrote: Quoting Al Foxone (akvariu...@gmail.com): Red Hat customers receive RHEL compilation as a whole in ready for use binary form but Red Hat claims that it can not be redistributed in that original form due to trademarks (without additional trademark license, says Red Hat) and under pay-per-use-unit restrictive contract. I would not call that GPL. You're entitled to be mistaken. Last I checked, all source-access obligations under GPLv3, GPLv2, and My understanding is that the GPL applies to object code aside from source-access obligations. Suppose I bought let's say 'install package' from Red Hat and want to help my neighbour by simply giving him a copy of that stuff or say a copy of a VM image with RHEL installed and running so to speak. Note there is absolutely no confusion that this is really really original Red Hat stuff (not something made by some other entity) so I don't quite understand why should I need a trademark license... hope this clarifies what I mean (suppose also that no Red Hat services will be used by neighbour). ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract (was Re: License incompatibility)
Quoting Al Foxone (akvariu...@gmail.com): Red Hat customers receive RHEL compilation as a whole in ready for use binary form but Red Hat claims that it can not be redistributed in that original form due to trademarks (without additional trademark license, says Red Hat) and under pay-per-use-unit restrictive contract. I would not call that GPL. You're entitled to be mistaken. Last I checked, all source-access obligations under GPLv3, GPLv2, and other applicable copyleft licences were being fully complied with here: ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/ The choice of licence for the asserted compilation copyright is indeed a little weird, but it's rather unlikely to be adjudicated. Contract and trademark are a different matter. My recollection is that Red Hat, Inc. assert trademark encumbrances concerning two non-software SRPMs containing artwork, etc. Those two are not asserted to be GPL, so it doesn't matter what you 'call it', I think. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract (was Re: License incompatibility)
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org wrote: Al Foxone asked me on Friday at 13:58 (EDT) about: http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/RH-3573_284204_TM_Gd.pdf ... At the same time, the combined body of work that constitutes Red Hat® Enterprise Linux® is a collective work which has been organized by Red Hat, and Red Hat holds the copyright in that collective work. Red Hat then permits others to copy, modify and redistribute the collective work. To grant this permission Red Hat usually uses the GNU General Public License (“GPL”) version 2 and Red Hat’s own End User License Agreement. It's certainly possible to license all sorts of copyrights under GPL, since it's a copyright license. Red Hat has chosen, IMO rather oddly, to claim strongly a compilation copyright on putting together RHEL and Red Hat licenses that copyright under terms of GPL. Red Hat customers receive RHEL compilation as a whole in ready for use binary form but Red Hat claims that it can not be redistributed in that original form due to trademarks (without additional trademark license, says Red Hat) and under pay-per-use-unit restrictive contract. I would not call that GPL. It's certainly possible to do that. It's admittedly a strange behavior, and I've been asking Red Hat Legal for many years now to explain better why they're doing this and what they believe it's accomplishing. I've yet to receive a straight answer. Can anyone from Red Hat on the list tell us if Red Hat Legal's answer remains: No comment? I doubt that Red Hat’s own End User License Agreement is 'compatible' (according to you) with the GPL'd components in that combined work as whole. Anyway, that combined work as a whole must be full of proclaimed 'incompatibly' licensed components (once again according to you). How come that this is possible? However, don't conflate RHEL's compilation copyright issue with the RHEL customer contract. They're mostly unrelated issues. The RHEL customer contract has long been discussed, and it amounts to a if you exercise your rights under GPL, your money is no good here arrangement. Money is no good? (quoting Red Hat Enterprise Agreement with [snip] editing) Client agrees to pay Red Hat the applicable Fees for each Unit. Unit is the measurement of Software or [snip] usage defined in the applicable Order Form. ... 5.1 Reporting. Client will notify Red Hat (or the Business Partner from whom Client purchased Software or [snip]) promptly if the actual number of Units of Software or [snip] utilized by Client exceeds the number of Units for which Client has paid the applicable Fees. In its notice, Client will include the number of additional Units and the date(s) on which such Units were first utilized. Red Hat (or the Business Partner) will invoice Client for the applicable Services for such Units and Client will pay for such Services no later than thirty (30) days from the date of the invoice. 5.2 Inspection. During the term of this Agreement and for one (1) year thereafter, Red Hat or its designated agent may inspect Client's facilities and records to verify Client's compliance with this Agreement. Any such inspection will take place only during Client's normal business hours and upon no less than ten (10) days prior written notice from Red Hat. Red Hat will give Client written notice of any noncompliance, including the number of underreported Units of Software or [snip], and Client will have fifteen (15) days from the date of this notice to make payment to Red Hat for the applicable Services provided with respect to the underreported Units. If Client underreports the number of Units utilized by more than five percent (5%) of the number of Units for which Client paid, Client will also pay Red Hat for the cost of such inspection. That's not an arrangement that I think is reasonable (and it's why I wouldn't be a RHEL customer myself), but there's nothing in GPL (that I'm aware of) that requires that one keep someone as a customer. Imagine if GPL *did* forbid firing your customers! It'd really hurt independent contractors who offer Free Software support. Also, I encourage discerning carefully between mundane GPL violations and Free Software license incompatibility. While both could be classified as GPL violations, Free Software license incompatibility usually refers to a situation where Free Software authors seek to DTRT but are confused when navigating contradictions between two Free Software licenses for works they seek to combine. At most, you could say Free Software license incompatibility is a specialized case of a potential copyleft violation. However, that's a technically accurate but misleading characterization, since the motives are usually non-commercial, coupled with a desire to DTRT for the community. My understanding is that when the GPL licensee distributes copies of derivative works prepared under the GPL permission, the GPL insists on licensing
[License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract (was Re: License incompatibility)
Al Foxone asked me on Friday at 13:58 (EDT) about: http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/RH-3573_284204_TM_Gd.pdf ... At the same time, the combined body of work that constitutes Red Hat® Enterprise Linux® is a collective work which has been organized by Red Hat, and Red Hat holds the copyright in that collective work. Red Hat then permits others to copy, modify and redistribute the collective work. To grant this permission Red Hat usually uses the GNU General Public License (“GPL”) version 2 and Red Hat’s own End User License Agreement. It's certainly possible to license all sorts of copyrights under GPL, since it's a copyright license. Red Hat has chosen, IMO rather oddly, to claim strongly a compilation copyright on putting together RHEL and Red Hat licenses that copyright under terms of GPL. It's certainly possible to do that. It's admittedly a strange behavior, and I've been asking Red Hat Legal for many years now to explain better why they're doing this and what they believe it's accomplishing. I've yet to receive a straight answer. Can anyone from Red Hat on the list tell us if Red Hat Legal's answer remains: No comment? I doubt that Red Hat’s own End User License Agreement is 'compatible' (according to you) with the GPL'd components in that combined work as whole. Anyway, that combined work as a whole must be full of proclaimed 'incompatibly' licensed components (once again according to you). How come that this is possible? However, don't conflate RHEL's compilation copyright issue with the RHEL customer contract. They're mostly unrelated issues. The RHEL customer contract has long been discussed, and it amounts to a if you exercise your rights under GPL, your money is no good here arrangement. That's not an arrangement that I think is reasonable (and it's why I wouldn't be a RHEL customer myself), but there's nothing in GPL (that I'm aware of) that requires that one keep someone as a customer. Imagine if GPL *did* forbid firing your customers! It'd really hurt independent contractors who offer Free Software support. Also, I encourage discerning carefully between mundane GPL violations and Free Software license incompatibility. While both could be classified as GPL violations, Free Software license incompatibility usually refers to a situation where Free Software authors seek to DTRT but are confused when navigating contradictions between two Free Software licenses for works they seek to combine. At most, you could say Free Software license incompatibility is a specialized case of a potential copyleft violation. However, that's a technically accurate but misleading characterization, since the motives are usually non-commercial, coupled with a desire to DTRT for the community. -- -- bkuhn ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract (was Re: License incompatibility)
Bradley M. Kuhn scripsit: It's certainly possible to license all sorts of copyrights under GPL, since it's a copyright license. Red Hat has chosen, IMO rather oddly, to claim strongly a compilation copyright on putting together RHEL and Red Hat licenses that copyright under terms of GPL. I don't see where the oddity comes in. If we grant that the compilation which is RHEL required a creative spark in the selection (for the arrangement is mechanical), then it is a fit object of copyright. By licensing that selection of works under the GPL, Red Hat permits another party (call it Teal Hat) to create and publish a derivative work (that is, a collection based on RHEL but containing additional works, or fewer works, or both). But Teal Hat must *not* prevent a third party (call it Chartreuse Hat) from creating yet a third collective work based on Teal Hat's. That seems to me a worthy purpose, and one that the FSF should encourage. RHEL is not as such free software, but it is a free collection-of-software, as opposed to a proprietary collection of free software. The RHEL customer contract has long been discussed, and it amounts to a if you exercise your rights under GPL, your money is no good here arrangement. That's not an arrangement that I think is reasonable (and it's why I wouldn't be a RHEL customer myself), but there's nothing in GPL (that I'm aware of) that requires that one keep someone as a customer. Indeed, it seems very reasonable to me that Red Hat doesn't want a direct competitor as a customer. It probably has customers that are competitors in a more indirect sense: IBM comes to mind as a possibility. -- I Hope, Sir, that we are notJohn Cowan mutually Un-friended by thisco...@ccil.org Difference which hath happened http://www.ccil.org/~cowan betwixt us. --Thomas Fuller, Appeal of Injured Innocence (1659) ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
