GPL Licensing

Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
Tue Oct 14 19:41:12 UTC 2008


Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
> 
>> I didn't say anything about getting the first copy.  What I am saying 
>> is that the GPL forbids restrictions that could keep someone from 
>> redistributing their copy after they get it and there is no 
>> distinction in that regard whether the binary or source is involved.
> 
> Copy of the entire product is not bound by a single license. You are 
> conflating two different things. Let's assume that what you claim is 
> true. Even then, GPL is only a copyright license and applies only to 
> selective components within the product. Red Hat still has its own 
> trademarks on the product and Red Hat decides (within free use 
> limitations) how that trademarks should be used. It is not free for all.

So if I'd like to circumvent GPL requirements, all I have to do is add a 
trademarked item to it?

>> I do think that if there is a penalty involved for redistributing 
>> copies of GPL'd code, binary or not, it conflicts with the 'no 
>> additional restrictions' clause of the GPL.  If they apply this 
>> restriction only to the non-GPL components, that would be different, 
>> but I don't know if that is the case.
> 
> The conflict in only in your mind. Without the subscription agreement, 
> you don't get the initial binaries and you are only guaranteed ongoing 
> updates from Red Hat if you agree to it. The requirements of GPL is 
> orthogonal to this since this is a additional service as Gregory Maxwell 
> has indicated to you as well with other examples.

The GPL says 'any further restrictions'.  It doesn't say some kinds of 
restrictions are OK and some not.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com




More information about the devel mailing list