Re: rhel-r] RE: Redhat response?
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Robert Jenkins wrote: > The GPL states that the source of any program distributed under the GPL must > be freely available to 'all third parties' - Redhat cannot restrict it to > their customers only, paying or otherwise. > > Extract from the GPL at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html > Paragraph 2:b > You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in > part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be > licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of > this License. ummm -- the section 2b requirement is one of _licensure_, not of provision or access to sources or the compilation scripts. which is in section 3. -- Russ Herrold rhel-rebuild mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hosted at the University of Innsbruck, Austria
RE: Redhat response?
The work must be "Licensed to...", but not distributed to. I think they are only required to provide it to their customers, although anyone can modify and redistribute. At any rate, lets keep in mind who the good guys are here. RedHat does give everyone the source, and their entire distribution rebuilds easier and with less missing dependencies and build quirks than many single application open source projects out there. If one or two packages turn up a bit amiss, just buzilla the build problem with redhat. Odds are they will fix it up, and thank you for your input. dave On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 13:56, Robert Jenkins wrote: > Hi, > > The GPL states that the source of any program distributed under the GPL must > be freely available to 'all third parties' - Redhat cannot restrict it to > their customers only, paying or otherwise. > > Extract from the GPL at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html > Paragraph 2:b > You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in > part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be > licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of > this License. > > > Regards, > Robert Jenkins. > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Magnus Hedemark > Sent: 03 December 2003 16:08 > To: rhel-rebuild list > Subject: Re: Redhat response? > > > Stuart Low wrote: > > > Perhaps I'm missing something, but shouldn't we be able to write a > > formal letter to Redhat requesting that their exact SRPM's posted for > > their Enterprise editions be released? If they've been building the > > system for distribution wouldn't that indicate that the SRPM's (or > > perhaps the build system used?) they use and the SRPM's they release > > are out of sync? > > Keep in mind they are under no obligation to do this unless you are a > paying RHEL customer. If you are, make sure to say so when you talk to > your account manager. Otherwise, don't bother, as it can only hurt the > RHEL rebuild scene if you become a pain in the ass demanding freebies. > > rhel-rebuild mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hosted at the University of Innsbruck, Austria > > > rhel-rebuild mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hosted at the University of Innsbruck, Austria -- --- David E. Cox[EMAIL PROTECTED] (757) 864-6658 --- rhel-rebuild mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hosted at the University of Innsbruck, Austria
RE: Redhat response?
Hi, The GPL states that the source of any program distributed under the GPL must be freely available to 'all third parties' - Redhat cannot restrict it to their customers only, paying or otherwise. Extract from the GPL at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html Paragraph 2:b You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. Regards, Robert Jenkins. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Magnus Hedemark Sent: 03 December 2003 16:08 To: rhel-rebuild list Subject: Re: Redhat response? Stuart Low wrote: > Perhaps I'm missing something, but shouldn't we be able to write a > formal letter to Redhat requesting that their exact SRPM's posted for > their Enterprise editions be released? If they've been building the > system for distribution wouldn't that indicate that the SRPM's (or > perhaps the build system used?) they use and the SRPM's they release > are out of sync? Keep in mind they are under no obligation to do this unless you are a paying RHEL customer. If you are, make sure to say so when you talk to your account manager. Otherwise, don't bother, as it can only hurt the RHEL rebuild scene if you become a pain in the ass demanding freebies. rhel-rebuild mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hosted at the University of Innsbruck, Austria rhel-rebuild mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hosted at the University of Innsbruck, Austria
Re: Redhat response?
Stuart Low wrote: I was under the impression that since the software contained in the SRPMS is GNU GPL covered (in most cases) Redhat would be required to release the SRPMS anyway? Only if they gave/sold you binaries covered under GNU GPL. rhel-rebuild mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hosted at the University of Innsbruck, Austria
Re: Redhat response?
Stuart Low wrote: Perhaps I'm missing something, but shouldn't we be able to write a formal letter to Redhat requesting that their exact SRPM's posted for their Enterprise editions be released? If they've been building the system for distribution wouldn't that indicate that the SRPM's (or perhaps the build system used?) they use and the SRPM's they release are out of sync? Keep in mind they are under no obligation to do this unless you are a paying RHEL customer. If you are, make sure to say so when you talk to your account manager. Otherwise, don't bother, as it can only hurt the RHEL rebuild scene if you become a pain in the ass demanding freebies. rhel-rebuild mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hosted at the University of Innsbruck, Austria
Re: Redhat response?
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Stuart Low wrote: > > If you are a customer of theirs they MUST give you the src. If not it is > > optional. The fact that they give non-customers anything is a bonus. One of > > the things I want to do one of these days is look to see if the srpms on > > rhn are different from those on the web site. I just have not had the time > > to diff them. My own opinion is that they are not but this is just a guess. > > I have been wrong before. :-) > > I was under the impression that since the software contained in the > SRPMS is GNU GPL covered (in most cases) Redhat would be required to > release the SRPMS anyway? Well since IANAL you could be right but I do not think so. The GPL in part states: 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. Note the term recipient. It does not say you have to give it to anyone who wants it. There is nothing to stop said recipient from redistributing software licensed under the GPL but whether the Red Hat iso's are actually GPL'd software or not is an argument I do not wish to get involved in. The above is my $.02 and I am done with this thread since regardless of who is right or who is wrong nothing will be accomplished here. The standard advice of "If you need legal advice consult your lawyer" applies. Regards, .Tom rhel-rebuild mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hosted at the University of Innsbruck, Austria
Re: Redhat response?
On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 14:15, Stuart Low wrote: > > If you are a customer of theirs they MUST give you the src. If not it is > > optional. The fact that they give non-customers anything is a bonus. One of > > the things I want to do one of these days is look to see if the srpms on > > rhn are different from those on the web site. I just have not had the time > > to diff them. My own opinion is that they are not but this is just a guess. > > I have been wrong before. :-) > > I was under the impression that since the software contained in the > SRPMS is GNU GPL covered (in most cases) Redhat would be required to > release the SRPMS anyway? > > Stuart RedHat is not required to distribute RMPS on its FTP server. But Sources used to compile binary must be provided freely plus medium cost. Chapter 3 of the GPL is very clear : 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.) The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. rhel-rebuild mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hosted at the University of Innsbruck, Austria
Re: Redhat response?
> If you are a customer of theirs they MUST give you the src. If not it is > optional. The fact that they give non-customers anything is a bonus. One of > the things I want to do one of these days is look to see if the srpms on > rhn are different from those on the web site. I just have not had the time > to diff them. My own opinion is that they are not but this is just a guess. > I have been wrong before. :-) I was under the impression that since the software contained in the SRPMS is GNU GPL covered (in most cases) Redhat would be required to release the SRPMS anyway? Stuart -- Work: ServerPeak.com - Need a Linux Admin? Contact Us! Personal: Seekbrain.com - Brain seeking at it's best! rhel-rebuild mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hosted at the University of Innsbruck, Austria
Re: Redhat response?
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Stuart Low wrote: > Hi there, > > Perhaps I'm missing something, but shouldn't we be able to write a > formal letter to Redhat requesting that their exact SRPM's posted for > their Enterprise editions be released? If they've been building the > system for distribution wouldn't that indicate that the SRPM's (or > perhaps the build system used?) they use and the SRPM's they release are > out of sync? If you are a customer of theirs they MUST give you the src. If not it is optional. The fact that they give non-customers anything is a bonus. One of the things I want to do one of these days is look to see if the srpms on rhn are different from those on the web site. I just have not had the time to diff them. My own opinion is that they are not but this is just a guess. I have been wrong before. :-) ..Tom rhel-rebuild mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hosted at the University of Innsbruck, Austria
Redhat response?
Hi there, Perhaps I'm missing something, but shouldn't we be able to write a formal letter to Redhat requesting that their exact SRPM's posted for their Enterprise editions be released? If they've been building the system for distribution wouldn't that indicate that the SRPM's (or perhaps the build system used?) they use and the SRPM's they release are out of sync? Like I said, could be way off track, Stuart -- Work: ServerPeak.com - Need a Linux Admin? Contact Us! Personal: Seekbrain.com - Brain seeking at it's best! rhel-rebuild mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hosted at the University of Innsbruck, Austria
