would someone kindly clarify this paragaph,please (RH business model)

[Martin Stricker]

Elton Woo wrote:

> I am aware and I would even dare to say that I *understand* the GPL.
> ... as *I* understand it (please correct me if I am off-base):
> 
> I am free to download the code, and re-engineer or even reverse
> engineer it ... AS LONG AS I provide the original code, my modified
> code is OPEN to view by anyone, and that I MAINTAIN *all
> accreditation* to the original sources and developers (to wit, the
> programmers who developed the original code, and where this is
> applicable, accreditation to Red Hat's participation).

Right. Specifically, if you change GPLed code, all your code must be
GPLed as well.

> What I may NOT do is to copy and redistribute the source with parts
> of it being CLOSED, and / or stripping any references to the
> originators or developers of the code, *OR* claim that the work is
> solely MINE.

Correct. Even more, closed source software may not even use GPLed
software, like libraries - that's why the glibc is under the LGPL and
not the GPL. If the glibc would be under the GPL, closed source software
for Linux would be nearly impossible, because it wouldn't be allowed to
call functions from a GPLed library. Closed source kernel modules are a
violation of the GPL - the kernel developers just don't enforce it.

> I am also free to CHARGE for the media on which the code is
> distrubuted, even to the point of selling in a boxed set, and
> charging for printed (*hard-copy*) documentation, _as long as)_ I
> do NOT charge for the actual software.

As far as I understand the GPL, you may charge for the software. The GPL
is about source code, not money. You may even deny the redistribution of
your *binaries* (like RHEL does). But anyone who buys your GPLed
software has the right to request the complete source code from you, and
you must provide it to anyone you have distributed your software to.
This source code must of course be under the GPL (that's why the GPL is
"contagigous"), so all your customers may change and/or distribute (and
sell!) your code. The GPL is about source code, not binaries.

> So, going by that, if I download Red Hat Fedora, and burn some
> CD's, I am not "stealing", and I can even print a manual, and creat a
> shrink-wrapped set for resale, _as long as_
> 
> 1) I do not claim the code as my own,
> 2) Either I strip Red Hat's trademarks from the code, or licence such
> marks from Red Hat. AND clearly indicate this has been done.
> 3) Charge only for the _physical_ media: CD or DVD disks, printed
> manual(s), container.

You may redistribute the binaries from Fedora Core because Red Hat does
allow so. But you may *not* call it Fedora, Red Hat or other trademarks.
The GPL is about source code, not trademarks or names. By the way, Red
Hat decided you may not redistrinute the binaries of RHEL, but you could
compile the source yourself and distribute those binaries (of course
with another name). Red Hat isn't even required to make the source
publically available - only the RHEL customers have the right to obtain
the RHEL source (but they also have the right to redistribute it).

The GPL wasn't written to make cheap software available, but to protect
the intellectual property of programmers and reward them: You cannot use
GPLed software for the benefit of closed source, and all your changes of
GPLed software go back into public and the initial programmer. The GPL
does *not* forbid that you make money with GPLed software!

At least this is *my* understanding of the GPL. IANAL, so I might be
quite wrong...

Best regards,
Martin Stricker
-- 
Homepage: http://www.martin-stricker.de/
Linux Migration Project: http://www.linux-migration.org/
Red Hat Linux 9 for low memory: http://www.rule-project.org/
Registered Linux user #210635: http://counter.li.org/