I see a couple slight modification to the GPL that would've fixed some of the controversy around RedHat and SuSe's questionable practices, and would certainly make it a much more fair playing field for developers:
1. The GPL license ought to require that any binary distribution of the software _identical to the distribution media's format_ be made freely available.. or some similar lingo that would require RedHat to make their compilations freely available, so if they want to sell RedHat Enterprise Linux, they must also make the CD image freely available to anyone who only wants the media. This would keep them from sticking packages up on their FTP while they charge for the CD compilation. 2. The GPL should have a redistribution clause stating something to the effect that all other software being distributed in a compilation or distribution have a compatible license as well; e.g. SuSe can't go and close the source for their installer or distribute GPLd packages with any other tools that aren't open-source and freely available. This is basically saying, "If you want to redistribute it in binary form, you are free to do so, but if you're going to make any money off of my software you better make yours freely available and open-source too" I realize companies like RH have to make a living, but their success is completely hinged on the generosity of the open-source community...and that demands a level of fairness for software developers that they're not going to be "used" to make someone else rich. There's no reason the GPL can't be modified to continue promoting open-source/freely available software, without giving large commercial entities the ability to screw the community in this fashion. > You agree in a contract that you'll only use what you get from that > support and updates on the registered machines (for which you will pay a > certain amount per machine). _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html