Re: FSF information (was : Re: Plea for a reasonable RHASv3 license option)

Here is a copy of my discussion with Richard on this issue:

Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 21:56:57 -0400
From: Richard Stallman <rms-mXXj517/[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Need insight into RedHat's "license" for enterprise server

    "If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed System, then
    Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each
    additional Installed System."

That seems to refer to paying for support on all of your systems.
It does not say anything about the case of distributing this system
to someone else.

    Now are you saying that you believe I am free to take the GPL binaries off 
    the cd and redistribute/use them however I like (BSD / APACHE licensed 
    software excluded?).

Yes, that is the case.

    Or that you believe I am free to install/use the "operating 
    system", removing any packages that do not qualify as free and or is 
    copywritten by RedHat?

(You mean "copyrighted".)

I think that is the case too.  I think the license includes a clause
saying that for any package that is under a free software license,
that license prevails.  But I don't remember the details.

      Seeing as they 
    wrote the installation application which installs these packages 
    wouldn't they have the right to place any restrictions they want on 
    this binary, 

No they don't.  Writing an installer does not exempt them from
the requirements of the GPL.

    It seems to me that RedHat is purposely making it difficult/impractical to 
    legally make use of the Free Software they are distributing without great 
    deal of research and effort?

I don't think so.  However, I think they are distributing non-free
software, and that probably really is restricted.


Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2003 13:07:58 -0400
From: Richard Stallman <rms-mXXj517/[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Need insight into RedHat's "license" for enterprise server

    Excuse me, I meant to say if someone is the author of a program and they 
    release the source code under the GPL couldn't they compile this source 
    code, place a binary on a CD and then license that binary however they 
    wish?  

Certainly not.  The GPL states the rules for distributing binaries
in section 3.

    Perhaps the Redhat employee in question was just mistaken, but he said 
    very clearly that his understanding of the license was that users are not 
    allowed to install Redhat Advance Server on a server without a valid 
    Redhat Advanced Server license.

That may be true, because part of Redhat Advanced Server may
be some non-free programs.


On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Steinar Skjelanger wrote:

> Hi!
> 
> Are there any recent development in this case? Are FSF still looking into it?
> 
> Regards,
> Steinar Skjelanger
> 
> At 07:33 14.09.03 +0200, Féliciano Matias wrote:
> >On Sun, 2003-09-14 at 06:05, Féliciano Matias wrote:
> > > Obviously, RedHat is welcome to take part to the discussion.
> >
> >David Turner <novalis-mXXj517/[email protected]> mainly and Loic Dachary <[email protected]> of
> >the FSF are in charge of this issue.
> >
> >Notice that this can take some weeks.
> >
> >You can also contact me.
> >
> >--
> >Féliciano Matias <[email protected]>
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Taroon-beta-list mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/taroon-beta-list
> 

-- 
"People position you as the nemesis to Bill Gates. He started Microsoft and 
you started Linux, the big competition to Microsoft's dominance of operating 
systems. Is that an unfair or inaccurate characterization?" --New York Times

"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely 
unintentional side effect. --Linus" 
                                                                              --


--
Taroon-beta-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/taroon-beta-list