🚀 go-pugleaf

In aus.computers.linux Jeffrey Silverman <jeffrey@jhu.edu> wrote:
> No I am not wrong.  I did go back and read the GPL. I read the GPL FAQ, as
> well.

Read it more carefully then.

> Your original statement said that the GPL says that anyone should be able
> "to buy the Redhat disks and then load them onto their web server and
> allow anyone else to download them for free."  This is a misunderstanding
> of the GPL.

Any software covered by the GPL can be redistributed with or without charge
in the form of binary plus source or just source. The only way to stop someone
from distributing GPL software is to prove it "tainted" with non-free code
or to use a software patent. Red Hat has not attempted either of these tactics.

> The Red Hat disks are *binary program disks*.  They are Red Hat's
> property.  All Red Hat has to do to comply with the GPL is to publish the
> full source for those disks.  They can do whatever they want with the
> binaries, including limiting distribution of the binary disks.

They cannot limit redistribution of any binaries covered by the GPL,
provided that whoever is doing the redistribution also distributes source.

I might also point out that the disks themselves are the property of whoever
buys them. I might further point out that Red Hat does not have to publish
the full source for those disks because not all of the disk contents ARE
covered by the GPL. I believe that RedHat do happen to publish source
for things like Apache but the GPL does not compel them since Apache is
not under GPL. Lastly, I believe that there is enough non-GPL and non-free
material on the Red Hat CDs to disallow a simple distribution of the
exact images, I haven't checked package by package yet.

 	- Tel