Is linux free 5026
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 00:36:32 -0400, Rick Moen
Coming from you, that disrespect surprised me.
The point is that the agreement - whatever it is intended to be - simultaneously licences a collective work (and most of the component works) under the GPL, yet restricts rights to (a) copy - by restricting personal installation - and (b) distribute - by commercial trademark barriers - that work in a manner contradictory to the GPL (paragraph 4).
Because their left hand does not know what their right hand is doing. I would guess that they paid some lawyers to invent a licence agreement for...
After reading through the RedHat agreement I concur with the reasoning of
Now point (a) is pretty straightforward, but (b) wrt commercial distribution is more tenuous and depends partly on the answer to the questions: * as PTB has raised: what is the "source code" for a collective work such as a distribution? * is it consistent with the GPL to distribute under that licence a collection in which not all of the components themselves are licenced under the GPL?
I would argue that this is only the case where the collected items are unencumbered to the extent that they are at least as freely redistributable as under the GPL - the ability to modify, copy and distribute a collection of necessity depends on the ability to rearrange and redistribute that which it aggregates. This ability is not present when trademark law is used to limit commercial redistribution of certain components - as RedHat is doing with its "GPL distribution".
Oh, I was just getting warmed up. Further on, this ill-mannered stranger had the unbelievable temerity to accuse me of dishonesty! My civility often gets immediately cut to the utter bare...
Right, there's no argument that the "licence-service agreement-subscription agreement" is badly conflicted. e.g. in Appendix 1, p1 it states:
"With the exception of certain image files identified in Section 2 below, the license terms for the components permit Customer to copy, modify, and redistribute the component, in both source code and binary code forms."
So it's OK to unconditionally install all components (excepting the image files) on an additional system by Appendix 1, but not to install an additional "System" without payment by Section 4 of "General Terms and Conditions". A very subtle and largely meaningless distinction.
I agree with you that this document probably should be a service agreement, but its wording is very confused and lacking and currently that's not what it is. It is blatantly in contradiction of the GPL.
--
Linux groups from Newsgroups