LinuxQuestions.org
LinuxAnswers - the LQ Linux tutorial section.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General
User Name
Password
Linux - General This Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.

Notices



Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 03-31-2010, 12:47 PM   #31
Hangdog42
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 7,791
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 414Reputation: 414Reputation: 414Reputation: 414Reputation: 414

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrism01
3. A can now issue a new version v1.1 under a new license. This has NO effect on v1 or v2. Licenses cannot(!) be changed retroactively.
Actually, I think A can issue v1 under a new license, it is just that they can't do anything about the copies of v1 that have already been distributed under the old license. Those can continue to circulate under the old license.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cien
RHEL end up being able to charge monies for a product that is in essence the contribution of many souls and, by adding some more work and a few tricks they get shielded from people using it freely.
Absolutely false. CentOS is an exact code duplicate of RHEL, the ONLY thing missing is the Red Hat logos and trademarks. The programs are exactly the same. CentOS is freely using what Red Hat is producing. No tricks involved unless you consider having a CentOS logo where there used to be a Red Hat logo to be a trick. Allow me to quote from the interview you linked to:

Quote:
if you republish a RHEL CD in either form, you could get sued for illegal use of the embedded trademarks. I think I just found the user license in question.
See, TRADEMARKS, not code. As long as you don't distribute RedHat's trademarks, Red Hat can't sue you. In fact a couple of questions down from the above quote is this:

Quote:
That's the beauty of it. The possibility of sharing the code is unaffected--what you can't "share" is Red Hat's integration work and branding.
 
Old 04-01-2010, 01:48 AM   #32
chrism01
Guru
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Location: Sydney
Distribution: Centos 6.6, Centos 5.10
Posts: 16,324

Rep: Reputation: 2041Reputation: 2041Reputation: 2041Reputation: 2041Reputation: 2041Reputation: 2041Reputation: 2041Reputation: 2041Reputation: 2041Reputation: 2041Reputation: 2041
Yeah, using a v num was not as clear as I meant; should have called it 'X'. As you say, the originally GPL SW cannot be put under a different license, but you can issue (distribute) another 'copy' of 'X' under a new license.

Disclaimer: X does not mean X windows, just a random name; call it Z if it helps
 
  


Reply

Tags
gnu, legal, redhat


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: FSF releases the GNU General Public License, version 3 LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 06-29-2007 12:46 PM
LXer: Gnu released new drafts of Free Documentation Licenses LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 10-02-2006 04:54 AM
LXer: The GNU "Lesser" General Public License gets some love LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 07-18-2006 06:54 PM
Redhat 8 - Copyright/distribution does it fall under GNU General Public License luther737 Red Hat 1 02-05-2005 04:57 PM
GNU Public License Question fang0654 General 8 12-30-2003 04:10 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:58 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration