>________________________________
> From: Paul Robert Marino <prmari...@gmail.com>
>To: zxq9 <z...@zxq9.com>; scientific-linux-users@fnal.gov
>Sent: Friday, 10 January 2014, 2:15
>Subject: Re: Centos / Redhat announcement
>
>
>
>Absolutely right. Red Hat is only obliged to provide source code to those who
>they have shared the software with, nor are they required to package the
>software and thief patches in an easy to compile format like source RPM
>packages.
>Now there is absolutely nothing that prevents some one who pays for Red Hat
>'support' from re-sharing it but Redhat has always gone above and beyond the
>requirements of the GPL. But their is also nothing in the gpl that requires
>them to make it easy which they do.
>There are plenty of companies I've worked for that license software the write
>as GPL but don't share it with any one else but their subsidiaries and based
>on their employment contracts the employees who use the software as part of
>their job are not technically covered under the shared with clause of the GPL
>so its highly unlikely you will se any of them on a public web server ever.
>
>The GPL is far more subtle in legal terms than most programmers it users
>really understand.
>
I am well aware of the above, but I am typing this from a fully subscribed RHEL
workstation. :)
I always assumed that the SL devs had at least one real RHEL subscription, to
ensure access to the source. I was always amazed how helpful Red Hat have been
in that regard and was always a bit nervous about rebuild distributions for
that reason. Let's be thankful that SL linux guys were invited to a conf call
with RH/CentOS. I bet Oracle never got such an offer.
>
> That said...
>As I've said before can we please stop this speculation train its giving me a
>migraine and I want to get off lol.
>
>-- Sent from my HP Pre3
>
>
>________________________________
>On Jan 9, 2014 20:46, zxq9 <z...@zxq9.com> wrote:
>
>On Friday 10 January 2014 01:14:02 Ian Murray wrote:
>> On 10/01/14 00:16, jdow wrote:
>> > Don't forget that GPL means you must have the sources available when
>> > asked for.
>
>And this obligation only applies to Red Hat's customers, not to us.
>
>> I have been struggling with this myself tbh. If RH adds a line in a GPL
>> program that says "Welcome to Red Hat", releases the binary as RHEL and
>> then modifies it for CentOS to read "Welcome to CentOS" and only
>> releases the source that says "Welcome to CentOS", then they are in
>> technical violation of the GPL, I would say. (IANAL).
>
>No, if you received the CentOS binaries you are only entitled to receive the
>sources to those binaries (not the Red Hat ones).
>
>GPL does not mandate that sources get released publicly, only to parties to
>whom a program has been directly distributed. Folks who are not Red Hat
>customers have not received programs from Red Hat, we've received the same
>programs from other places (CentOS, SL, or to be more legally accurate, mirror
>locations) and it is those other projects/providers who are obliged to make
>programs available in source form.
>
>The fact that the GPL and related licenses also guarantee that any customer
>can distribute the source (but not a copy of the binary) to anyone they want
>means its almost impossible to can or gag a successful piece of GPL software.
>As a business it is better to control that release process than to be
>blindsided by it, so Red Hat has fully embraced the open source community idea
>and always provided public access to source -- but they are not obligated to
>do so.
>
>
>
