[lug] Redhat Enterprise Linux

[Michael D. Hirsch]

On Wednesday 20 August 2003 10:59 am, Michael J. Hammel wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 09:32, Michael D. Hirsch wrote:
> > How can they justify this?  They are distributing GPLed code, so why
> > can't I just pay for one and install it on 10 or 100 machines?  I can
> > only ask for support on 1, of course, but is there any legalities
> > keeping me from doing multiple installs?
>
> I think it's because the binaries are not GPL, just the source is.  What
> they have to do is make source available for those binaries and then
> only to those who actually ask (they don't even have to put it online if
> they don't want).  The CDs can be licensed like this, most especially if
> they have proprietary applications included on the CD.

Binaries are not GPLed?  That doesn't sound right.  If anything is a 
"derivative work" of the source, I'd say that the binary is.   Do you have 
a reference for that?  I've read the GPL in the past and don't remember 
that.

> The GPL doesn't prevent companies from making money with GPL'd code in
> this way.  It does try to level the playing field, however, by making
> sure code is available to those who ask for it.

The GPL doesn't restrict companies from making money, but I thought that it 
restricted companies from putting restrictions on copying.  So you can 
sell it, but you can't prevent the purchaser from giving it away.

> Interesting side note:  It appears Evolution's automatic spell checking
> doesn't recognize "GPL".  It keeps underlining it while I type this
> message.  Hmmm.....

chuckle.

Michael