🚀 go-pugleaf

"Kevin D. Snodgrass" <nobody@spamcop.net> writes:

]Gregory Toomey wrote:
]> The new Redhat licensing forces to pay for support if you use the product. If you use the software & dont pay, you are in breach of the Redhat Licence.
]> This is in breach of the GPL, which always allows derivative works to be distributed for free.
]> (You can pay of course, but there must always be a free version).

]RedHat is charging for their copyrighted logos and some 
]proprietary IBM software.  You can make your own distro from 
]a RH distro if you remove all the non-GPL stuff.

So, I add a module to the kernel, and I put a restrictive license on
that module. I can therefor license the whole kernel under a more
restrictive license? No. That kernel as a whole is a derivative work,
just as the distribution as a whole is a derivative work, and as a
derivative work of a GPL licensed work, it must also be released under
the GPL.

If Redhat wants to create a distribution, and then release an "upgrade",
that upgrade being a separate independent work, whcih the user can add
to the original if they wish, then they can certainly make that upgrade
rely on any license they wish ( as long as it does not contain any GPL
code). They cannot make a derivate work more restrictive simply by
adding some more restrictive code, and still use GPL code. 

Ie, im myopinion, they are in violation of the GPL, just as SCO is.
Maybe we will see Redhat joining SCO in its attack on the the GPL,
claiming that the GPL is invalid, etc.


]Try reading this thread:
]http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2003-October/msg01215.html

]I linked to the "answer", but you might want to read the