> ".....This EULA does not permit User to distribute the Programs or their > components using Red Hat's trademarks, regardless of whether the copy has > been modified....." > > *Courtesy: Redhat <http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_rha_eula.html>
Thanks Smruti. I was going to point the list members to the EULA link myself. The GPL only talks about the source code. What someone compiles out of the source, is their "work". How the "authors" of this binary "work" licenses that "work", is their prerogative. The GPL only dictates that the source must accompany the binary. You can charge for the binary, and copy protect it. GPL v3 of course has interesting caveats, which prevent "Tivo-isation", to use a word coined by Stallman. To put it trivially, you can copy protect the binary, as long as you don't prevent the user from removing your binary firmware from the device altogether, and putting in their binaries. The RedHat EULA is actually pretty accommodative. Other EULAs I've read in the past, specifically prohibit redistribution of binaries. I think Novell made SUSE that way - you couldn't redistribute SUSE 10. Then they had to create OpenSuse to appease the community. If we're going to divert ourselves into a licensing discussion, shouldn't we change the thread subject ;-) _______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
