Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract
Nick Yeates wrote:I too am curious what this compilation licenseing is and what its benefits are. Mr Kuhn asked, and Larry responded saying basically 'its not so odd - I use it often' and Larry did not state *why* he advises use of this licensing strategy from a business, social or other standpoint. 1) Why? 2) What is the standard way of doing this? Frequent cases are submitted when developers (in particular European administrations and Member states) have build applications from multiple components, plus adding their own code, and want to use a single license for distributing the whole compilation. In many cases their policy is to use the European Union Public Licence (EUPL) for administrative or linguistic reasons (using a license with working value in multiple languages). Therefore I published a matrix on Joinup ( https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/software/page/eupl/eupl-compatible-open-source-licences ). (the matrix should be updated due to new license versions, i.e. the recent OSI-approved CeCILL 2.1 which is now fully EUPL and GPL compatible) 2013/9/10 Nick Yeates nyeat...@umbc.edu From 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. Bradley Kuhn wrote at 15:46 on Monday: … 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. Larry Rosen wrote at 23:28 on Thursday: I often recommend that licensing method to those of my clients who combine various FOSS works into a single software package. It isn't odd at all. Even if GPL applies to one or more of those internal components, there is no need to license the entire collective work under the GPL. We've even distributed GPL software as part of collective works under the OSL. I too am curious what this compilation licenseing is and what its benefits are. Mr Kuhn asked, and Larry responded saying basically 'its not so odd - I use it often' and Larry did not state *why* he advises use of this licensing strategy from a business, social or other standpoint. 1) Why larry? 2) What is the standard way of doing this? How do most other org's license many works together? Full disclosure: I work for Red Hat, though am writing this from my personal account and perspective. I am a beginner on my knowledge into OSS license details, so please realize that I am attempting to learn. I could go and ask around in my company about this, yet I would rather engage with the community on this for now. -Nick Yeates ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss -- Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz pe.schm...@googlemail.com tel. + 32 478 50 40 65 ___ 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
Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz wrote at 04:31 (EDT): Frequent cases are submitted when developers (in particular European administrations and Member states) have build applications from multiple components, plus adding their own code, and want to use a single license for distributing the whole compilation. While the description you give there is a bit too vague to analyze against the USA copyright statue (i.e., the example lacks any real world facts), I'd suspect that the default case of that situation, at least in the USA, is the creation of a new single work that derives from those components, plus their own code. The compilation copyright situation, at least in the USA, comes up more with putting a bunch of unrelated works on the same medium, like a CD ISO image. Making a single work of software that includes many components is very different from mere compilation. -- -- 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
Nick Yeates asked: Larry did not state *why* he advises use of this licensing strategy from a business, social or other standpoint. I do so because my clients expect to profit (either financially or in reputation credits) for delivering comprehensive solutions that include FOSS components. That's a business and social good. They are entitled to choose their own license for their collective works or compilations. I don't care a fig for the claims of GPL licensors that everything that touches their code must be under the GPL, although please don't accuse me of trying to infringe their works. I insist that my clients honor the demands of GPL licensors that THEIR components be under an enforceable GPL. That is why I want to see software companies fully disclose the FOSS components (and licenses) in their software, even as they distribute the overall programs (including perhaps its proprietary parts) under licenses of their choice. /Larry Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Office: 707-485-1242 Linkedin profile: http://linkd.in/XXpHyu -Original Message- From: Nick Yeates [mailto:nyeat...@umbc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:35 PM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract From 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 HatR Enterprise LinuxR is a collective work which has been organized by Red Hat, and Red Hat holds the copyright in that collective work. Bradley Kuhn wrote at 15:46 on Monday: . 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. Larry Rosen wrote at 23:28 on Thursday: I often recommend that licensing method to those of my clients who combine various FOSS works into a single software package. It isn't odd at all. Even if GPL applies to one or more of those internal components, there is no need to license the entire collective work under the GPL. We've even distributed GPL software as part of collective works under the OSL. I too am curious what this compilation licenseing is and what its benefits are. Mr Kuhn asked, and Larry responded saying basically 'its not so odd - I use it often' and Larry did not state *why* he advises use of this licensing strategy from a business, social or other standpoint. 1) Why larry? 2) What is the standard way of doing this? How do most other org's license many works together? Full disclosure: I work for Red Hat, though am writing this from my personal account and perspective. I am a beginner on my knowledge into OSS license details, so please realize that I am attempting to learn. I could go and ask around in my company about this, yet I would rather engage with the community on this for now. -Nick Yeates ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ 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
This is indeed depending on the case: people (developers) always declare (often after the work has been done, and not before as it should be) that they used products X,Y, Z. But what do they mean by use? Aggregating? Linking? Copying only some APIs or data formats in order to ensure that software is interoperable? Or really merging their code with the existing one? Depending on the case, solution will differ, but the need for simplifying (or just making legally possible) distribution is there. Cases are indeed multiple, and these developers want to license under FOSS conditions (not proprietary). Incompatibilities between copyleft FOSS licences (including between GPLv2 only and GPLv3 only) produce a lot of FUD in such cases... Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz On 11 sept. 2013, at 16:00, Bradley M. Kuhn bk...@ebb.org wrote: Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz wrote at 04:31 (EDT): Frequent cases are submitted when developers (in particular European administrations and Member states) have build applications from multiple components, plus adding their own code, and want to use a single license for distributing the whole compilation. While the description you give there is a bit too vague to analyze against the USA copyright statue (i.e., the example lacks any real world facts), I'd suspect that the default case of that situation, at least in the USA, is the creation of a new single work that derives from those components, plus their own code. The compilation copyright situation, at least in the USA, comes up more with putting a bunch of unrelated works on the same medium, like a CD ISO image. Making a single work of software that includes many components is very different from mere compilation. -- -- bkuhn ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ 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
Lawrence Rosen scripsit: I do so because my clients expect to profit (either financially or in reputation credits) for delivering comprehensive solutions that include FOSS components. It's kind of hard to see how this could be the case for releasing a compilation under the GPL. There's no money in it, and people don't get a good reputation when they do things others find incomprehensible: quite the reverse. That is not to say it is not a Good Thing in itself. -- Normally I can handle panic attacks on my own; John Cowan co...@ccil.org but panic is, at the moment, a way of life. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Joseph Zitt ___ 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
From 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. Bradley Kuhn wrote at 15:46 on Monday: … 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. Larry Rosen wrote at 23:28 on Thursday: I often recommend that licensing method to those of my clients who combine various FOSS works into a single software package. It isn't odd at all. Even if GPL applies to one or more of those internal components, there is no need to license the entire collective work under the GPL. We've even distributed GPL software as part of collective works under the OSL. I too am curious what this compilation licenseing is and what its benefits are. Mr Kuhn asked, and Larry responded saying basically 'its not so odd - I use it often' and Larry did not state *why* he advises use of this licensing strategy from a business, social or other standpoint. 1) Why larry? 2) What is the standard way of doing this? How do most other org's license many works together? Full disclosure: I work for Red Hat, though am writing this from my personal account and perspective. I am a beginner on my knowledge into OSS license details, so please realize that I am attempting to learn. I could go and ask around in my company about this, yet I would rather engage with the community on this for now. -Nick Yeates ___ 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
Quoting Nick Yeates (nyeat...@umbc.edu): I too am curious what this compilation licenseing is... Copyright law recognises the possiblity of an abstract property called a 'compilation copyright', that being the ownership interest gained by someone who _creatively_ collects and assembles other people's works in such a way that the collective set can be legitimately seen as _itself_ constituting an original work of authorship. An example would be the editor of a short-story anthology collecting and arranging other people's stories to create a themed book. Copyright law recognises that the act of picking stories and arranging them and presenting them in a particular way is an act of creation deserving of recognition as an abstract property, completely aside from the copyright title existing in the constituent works. When I operated a dial-up BBS from (if memory serves) 1988 to 1993, my Policies bulletin asserted that I owned compilation copyright over the design and implementation of the BBS as a whole. Your term 'compilation licence', or whatever it was that people said upstream seems to refer to Red Hat's published policy asserting a compilation copyright over RHEL as a whole. By the way, when the whole 'Red Hat is violating other people's copyrights' drumbeat started in the early 2000s, I did my best to FAQ the extant situation. (I make no apologies if things have changed since then, but I doubt they have changed much.) http://linuxmafia.com/faq/RedHat/rhel-isos.html (If memory serves, the situation was then new enough that I merely speculated that RH asserts compilation copyright. It does, and grants GPLv2 redistribution permission to its rights over the collective work, while clarifying at the same time that their conveyance does not include any right to transgress Red Hat's trademark rights.) ...and what its benefits are. Mu. ___ 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
Al Foxone wrote at 04:18 (EDT) on Saturday: en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:License This agreement governs your download, installation, or use of openSUSE 12.3 and its ...The openSUSE Project grants to you a license to this collective work pursuant to the ...openSUSE 12.3 is a modular Linux operating system consisting of ... Is SUSE licensing that compilation/arrangement copyright under GPL, though, or a broad permissive license? Looks like the latter, from the selective quoting you give above. -- -- 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
Rick Moen wrote at 16:55 (EDT) on Friday: 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. GPL (and other copylefts too) *do* give other rights downstream, beyond source access, of course. While I really disagree with how Al has been raising these suspicions, *if* Al has any valid argument [0], it would relate to other provisions of GPL, and not the source-code provisions in GPLv2§3 and GPLv3§6. [0] And, to be clear to those who seem to have missed this point: I *don't* agree with Al's accusations/insinuations. In fact, I'm arguing against them, in case you missed it. -- -- 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
John Cowan wrote at 19:42 (EDT) on Thursday: So it's perfectly parallel, reading packages for patches. Not quite, the details are different since it's different parts of the copyright controls. Patches are typical derivative works themselves of the original work. Thus, both the arrangement/compilation copyright control *and* the preparation and distribution of derivative works control are *both* involved when a maintainer selects and arranges all patches for the final release. Meanwhile, this copyright of the CD is probably just a compilation/arrangement issue. I agree that I don't know of anyone else who has done this. ... except Larry's clients, apparently. :) -- -- 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
Bradley M. Kuhn scripsit: Patches are typical derivative works themselves of the original work. That's a very debatable point, though I doubt there is much point in debating it here yet again. My view is that a patch by itself makes only fair use of the original, though it's true that a *patched work* is a derivative work. (That assumes the patch is substantial and not de minimis, of course.) IANAL, TINLA. -- Using RELAX NG compact syntax toJohn Cowan co...@ccil.org develop schemas is one of the simplehttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan pleasures in life --Jeni Tennison co...@ccil.org ___ 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): 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
Bradley M. Kuhn scripsit: When I think of compilation and arrangement copyright on copylefted software, I'm usually focused on things like the maintainer chose which patches were appropriate and which ones weren't for the release So it's perfectly parallel, reading packages for patches. I agree that I don't know of anyone else who has done this. -- Why yes, I'm ten percent Jewish on my manager's side. John Cowan --Connie Francis http://www.ccil.org/~cowan ___ 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
Bradley Kuhn asked: It's odd in that Red Hat is the only entity that I know of to ever claim this sort of licensing explicitly. Are there any other examples? When I think of compilation and arrangement copyright on copylefted software, I'm usually focused on things like the maintainer chose which patches were appropriate and which ones weren't for the release within a single package, and not big software archive, with lots of different Free Software works under different Free Software licenses. Again, I'm *not* saying the latter is an invalid or problematic use of copyleft -- I chose my words carefully: it's odd, as in beyond or deviating from the usual or expected. :) I often recommend that licensing method to those of my clients who combine various FOSS works into a single software package. It isn't odd at all. Even if GPL applies to one or more of those internal components, there is no need to license the entire collective work under the GPL. We've even distributed GPL software as part of collective works under the OSL. Of course, the original GPL applies to the original component, and always will. /Larry -Original Message- From: Bradley M. Kuhn [mailto:bk...@ebb.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 11:19 AM To: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Red Hat compilation copyright RHEL contract John Cowan wrote at 14:56 (EDT) on Monday: 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. It's odd in that Red Hat is the only entity that I know of to ever claim this sort of licensing explicitly. Are there any other examples? When I think of compilation and arrangement copyright on copylefted software, I'm usually focused on things like the maintainer chose which patches were appropriate and which ones weren't for the release within a single package, and not big software archive, with lots of different Free Software works under different Free Software licenses. Again, I'm *not* saying the latter is an invalid or problematic use of copyleft -- I chose my words carefully: it's odd, as in beyond or deviating from the usual or expected. :) -- -- bkuhn ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss ___ 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
John Cowan wrote at 14:56 (EDT) on Monday: 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. It's odd in that Red Hat is the only entity that I know of to ever claim this sort of licensing explicitly. Are there any other examples? When I think of compilation and arrangement copyright on copylefted software, I'm usually focused on things like the maintainer chose which patches were appropriate and which ones weren't for the release within a single package, and not big software archive, with lots of different Free Software works under different Free Software licenses. Again, I'm *not* saying the latter is an invalid or problematic use of copyleft -- I chose my words carefully: it's odd, as in beyond or deviating from the usual or expected. :) -- -- 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
Al Foxone wrote at 07:57 (EDT): 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. Do you have evidence that Red Hat's trademark requirements aren't of the nature that are permitted by GPLv3§7(e) and similar clauses in other Free Software licenses? Nothing you said above seems to be such evidence. (quoting Red Hat Enterprise Agreement with [snip] editing) Noting your [snip], you selectively quoted from the RHEA. I admit it's been many years since I reviewed the RHEA in detail, and my arguments are based on that old version I read. If it has changed in some way that now causes a new problem under GPL, I'm just not following your arguments as to why. My understanding is that when the GPL licensee distributes copies of derivative works prepared under the GPL permission, the GPL insists on licensing the copyright in a derivative work under the GPL and only the GPL. Correct, AFAIK. Since creation of derivative work (and even distribution of adaptations under 17 U.S.C. 117) requires permission I can understand that demand. ... Please prove me wrong. :-) You seem to be arguing that RHEA has some sort of GPLv2§6/7 (or GPLv3§10/12) problem. However, you've not shown any evidence for that. Determining such a violation likely hinges on what Red Hat's restrictions on their customer are if the customer fails to comply with RHEA. Meanwhile, I've spent the plurality of my life enforcing the GPL and other copyleft licenses. I hope based on that you'll take seriously my next point: it's unfair and aggressive to publicly accuse and/or insinuate that someone is violating the GPL without exhausting non-public remedies first. If you believe someone is actually violating the GPL but need help collecting the facts, you should report it to the copyright holders, not a license-discuss list. At the very least, it seems this subthread is more appropriate for http://lists.gpl-violations.org/mailman/listinfo/legal/ -- -- 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)
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
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
