Luchezar Georgiev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I don't know really. If anyone is competent on licensing issues (albeit not a lawyer) fell free to comment.
I am not a lawyer, but I think I understand this stuff reasonably well. I do not believe there is any incompatibility with the GPL.
Not quite.
The driving idea behind the GNU GPL is "copyleft". From <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/>:
>>In the GNU project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we ``copyleft'' it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom.
And from the Preamble of the GNU GPL <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html>:
>> When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
>>To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
>>For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
And:
>>4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
So from that, if packed binaries can be freely distributed for non-commercial purposes, but commercial use requires a separate license, then you have stripped away the freedoms of commercial entities. Also, you have further required sub-licensing of the GNU GPL program, which is invalid.
As an example: One user (say, a home user - non-commercial use, so that's okay) distributes a copy of the FreeDOS kernel under the terms of the GNU GPL to a friend who wants to use it at work (say, to run a print system to generate for-sale banners and posters.) If the kernel were aPack'd, now the friend at work has had his freedoms stripped away - he cannot use the software unless a separate license is obtained.
The GPL requires that if you distribute binaries, you must also distribute the corresponding source code. The GPL puts no further restrictions on how those binaries themselves are distributed or licensed. For example, Red Hat Linux Enterprise Edition has a restrictive license on its binaries (you have to buy one copy per machine). But the source code is still available because the GPL requires it.
There are a few misconceptions here.
First, the GNU GPL does not require that you distribute the source code WITH the program you distribute. It only requires that the source code be available upon request. From the GNU GPL:
>>3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
>> * a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
>> * b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
>> * c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Of course, the safest (and preferred) way to distribute a GNU GPL program is to provide the source code with the program (see 3a). But GNU GPL programs may also be distributed with a written offer to provide the source code to you upon request (see 3b). Book publishers do this sometimes - I believe there is a book "Linux for Moms" that will provide discs 1-2 of Fedora Linux Core 1.0, but will not include the SRPMS. They will instead include a note with the book that many of the programs distributed in Fedora are under the GNU GPL, and the publisher will provide source code for those GNU GPL programs upon request.
The book example is a great example of how 3c can be used. If you buy this book (with included install discs), you don't get source code, but the publisher has provided a written offer to provide source code. If you share the discs with a friend (note: "noncommercial" in this case is a noncommercial redistribution - if you sell the discs, you have to follow 3a or 3b), if you include the written offer from the publisher to provide source code, you have complied with section 3c.
Second, the issue of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (although I'm getting off-topic for the FreeDOS list.) While Red Hat asks that you not redistribute the binaries from Enterprise Linux (rather, they ask that you not install on more than one machine) they really are restricting your access to the Red Hat Network service, which is a for-pay service that requires an account for a system to update itself.
From the Red Hat Enterprise Linux faq <http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/faq/#six>:
>>Except for a few components provided by third parties (for example, Java) all the code in Red Hat products is open source and licensed under the GPL (or a similar license, such as the LGPL). So you always have free access to the source code. In fact you can download it from our FTP servers at any time. However, Red Hat does not provide free access to the binaries of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and these, combined with an annual subscription to Red Hat Network, access to upgrades, and a selected support services, are the components that Red Hat bundles into each Red Hat Enterprise Linux solution. Since every Red Hat Enterprise Linux product includes support for the system on which it is installed, Red Hat supplies the products with a per-system usage/support subscription. This simple model ensures that systems which useRed Hat Enterprise Linux are able to access the maintenance, services and product upgrades to which they are entitled. Of course, as mentioned before, this has no impact on your access to the Red Hat Enterprise Linux source code.
If you ask a Red Hat salesperson, they will tell you that you *can* install Enterprise Linux on more that one machine. But since Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHES/RHAS/RHWS) is bundled with a per-system update subscription to Red Hat Network, you would technically violoate the terms of Red Hat Network. But you don't violate the terms of the GNU GPL.
The restriction of redistributing Red Hat Enterprise Linux has more to do with Red Hat Network, and not the GNU GPL.
The "one system, one license" verbiage that is attached to Red Hat Network is there to provide an easy-to-understand purchase agreement for management. The faq #6 is there to provide clarification for the geeks (like me) who wonder about the "one system, one license" and how it meets the GNU GPL. But when in doubt, I asked my sales rep.
By the way, I cannot find a LICENSE file in emm386.zip. The closest thing I see are comments in the source which read: "If you would like to use parts of this driver in one of your projects, please check up with me first" and "Copyright (c) 1995, Till Gerken". Asking people to "check up" before using the source is DEFINITELY not compatible with the GPL...
The full text of the GNU GPL is included in DOCS/LICENSE.TXT (in the http://www.drivesnapshot.de/freedos/emm386.zip version). The GNU GPL supercedes the comments by Till asking that you contact him first if you would like to re-use parts of the driver in other projects. One may assume that Till wants to make sure you understand the GNU GPL before you use it - for example, someone may want to re-use the GNU GPL code in a non-GPL (or even "closed source") program, and not realize that things like that are not allowed under the GNU GPL.
-jh (IANAL)
-- Currently playing: DDR:Max2, SSX Tricky, Ratchet&Clank, Sly Cooper Favorite DDR dance: "Break Down" (Be For U)
------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ Freedos-kernel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-kernel
