does anybody really understand GNU general public licenses?
I have the impression that not that many people understand the scope and limitations of GNU General Public License. For sure, I don't really understand it. Moreover, after reading a few threads I'm pretty sure there is a lot of confusion.
This is somehow my basic understanding of it. If I take a program covered under the GNU license, first of all I have the right to get the source code. Second, I can modify it at will. Third, I can redistribute it as will too but the new code will necessarily will have the same GNU license. This made me wonder how people actually can charge for software derived from Linux, for instance, Red Hat. Well, my impression is that they really make profit only out of services. In this thread http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...rhel-5-624311/ I think I found a lot of confusion, even from a moderator (not intended to offend). Red Hat is based on Linux and it is necessarily covered under GNU. Somebody probably bought the program from RHE and can make it available at no cost if she wants. Then, there should be no harm in asking for it. Nevertheless, the moderator decided to warn the user. In this article http://searchenterpriselinux.techtar...989787,00.html it says the following:"Our training is not designed to promote vendor lock-in. Though these courses are based on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, the source code for [RHEL] is available to the community via the GPL [GNU General Public License]," said Red Hat spokewoman Leigh Day. This thread http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...g+red+hat+free shows yet more confused people. Is there is a glitch in this type of license that prevents programs like RHEL to be redistributed for free? Why their license page doesn't mention GNU license? Or the problem is just that people get overwhelmed by this license and are afraid to be penalized and get paralyzed? By the way, RHEL is just the example. The key question is about the license!! |
IMO:
There is a lot of misunderstanding because the people here aren't lawyers - including me. I believe that the message that Red Hat gets its money from services has finally made it across to most people, but it's taken a long time. However there is still an automatic aversion to helping people with RHEL questions. Some of that is probably overkill, but let's face it, if you are going to insist on running RHEL, the least you could do is purchase their service contract. Doing otherwise just confuses the issue. If you don't want to pay for a service contract, then why are you using RHEL? Use CentOs, instead. There's also the issue that RedHat owns the trademarks to their name, "RHEL", and any logos involved, and perhaps other things that don't come to mind. What that means in the legal world, IOW whether or not they can or will sue you for giving free support on a RHEL product, I haven't a clue. I'm not a lawyer. |
You don't charge for the program. You charge for the service and cost of distribution.
Just because you have source code doesn't mean you have the ability (software or knowledge wise) to compile said software. Take xchat for example. Their windows binaries cost a one time fee of $20. But technically you have the source code available to you if you know how to compile it on Windows. Binaries are completely different than source code. Additionally, source art and graphics are a separate realm as well. For example, you can make a game that is 'open source' but keep the graphics on a separate license. |
Quote:
The binary versus source code discussion is not that relevant. Somebody for sure can make the binaries, or else, you get them from the original distribution together with the code. |
ah yes but centos for example is a free system based on RHEL source code so at least source wise you could distribute rhel probably just not under the RHEL name
|
Quote:
|
These are always helpful:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/LGPL/2.1/ |
Quote:
Otherwise, I insist, there is a loophole. People won't be able to get the program and redistribute it (which is part of the license rights) without enough ability. Also one can not wait to be sued to be able to find the code of the artwork!! The link from H_TeXMeX_H says that all the conditions can be waived by the copyright holder. What does it mean? Any sub-product of linux depends exclusively on whether the the copyright owner (Linus Torvalds?) decides to allow any type of license? This have many possible interpretations. Potentially I can pay him to let me have, say LinuxExtreme a private software right? (LinuxExtreme is imaginary) Is this perhaps, what's going on with Red Hat? (Their license page does not look at all like a GPL.) This should be very relevant to people deciding on contributing to any linux derivative right? |
I believe it's this very artwork issue that has caused Debian to change FireFox to IceWeasel.
It's my understanding that you can add closed source (including artwork) to an open-source project and sell the result. However, you have to make the source code available for the open-source part. And, you can't simply change the names of variables and call a bit of code yours. I believe that when people do this, they supply their own stuff as object code when the customer wants it. We also see the case where commercial vendors supply closed object modules, art, open source code, and makefiles, to create proprietary Linux drivers. Nvidia's proprietary drivers come to mind. |
Quote:
As for Red Hat, they can license the software that they develop under whatever license they want. The Linux kernel however is still under the GPL, they cannot change that. Remember that Linux = a kernel, but the rest is completed by GNU software (licensed under GPL or compatible). |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Now that said, I believe that in the past there has been some chicanery about this sort of thing. SugarCRM once had a license that claimed to be open source, but you couldn't distribute any changes without also including the SugarCRM trademarks. However, they would never give permission for anyone to use their trademarks so the end result was that their code wasn't really open source. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
For clarification, Firefox uses a different license and not the GLP.
Quote:
By the way, I talked to a Red Hat representative and her claim is that any previous version of RH is available online. Also that they don't really charge for the software but just for the services they provide. Also they claim that the license of their software is indeed GNU GPL. I still don't know what does this mean though. To my understanding, this indeed means I can, if I want and already have their code, distribute it freely. Quote:
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:15 PM. |