Re: Plea for a reasonable RHASv3 license option
John <spam-awV0wQp4Vu3DYUAvPcDoSaaDwS/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.redhat.taroon |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Monday 01 September 2003 08:30, Tom \ wrote: > If you've got questions like this, I highly recommend you send them to > [email protected] Better to have [email protected] respond to the concerns here: most of the people here I suspect will, for various reasons, not take it up with your lawyers, and there are always the archives of the list. People are much more likely to read the entire thread and make up their minds from what they've seen. Besides that, these concerns are raised in a public forum, and if Red Hat wishes to avoid any possibility of being seen to make special deals, it ought address those concerns in public. It's absolutely astonishing to me that anyone might think the GPL allows me to redistribute software on any terms I like regarding payment, but doesn't actually allow me to run it on any computer without a further licence. I don't see any GPL-given freedom in that. Where is the point in any of the freedoms to copy, distribute and modify computer programs if not to run them? If I don't have a licence from original authors/copyright holders to run programs "protected" by the GPL, them, how can Red Hat pretend to give people a licence to do so? Does Red Hat have more rights than I do? If binaries are not explicitly covered, then surely they are covered as "derived works." -- My bits for Taroon: are pulled. -- Taroon-beta-list mailing list [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/taroon-beta-list