Re: Plea for a reasonable RHASv3 license option
John <spam-awV0wQp4Vu3DYUAvPcDoSaaDwS/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.redhat.taroon |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tuesday 02 September 2003 11:45, Tom \ wrote: > > I interpret this like : For GPL program, the source is driven by the GPL > > license and for the binary RedHat apply its own license (that is what > > they want). > > OK. I'm not a lawyer. I don't speak as the voice of Red Hat in these > matters. Please refrain from drawing your own interpretations and > claiming they came from me. If you make such a statement as you did, to a public list, and don't wrap it in disclaimers, then you are more than a little naive if you expect that people won't believe you don't speak with the voice of Red Hat Inc. Further, the process of comprehending what it is you appeared to say is what you call interpretation. I think that in your position, I'd have referred the matter to Legal myself, and asked the folk there to provide a suitable public response. I can't speak for anyone else, but for sure _I_ will not be asking _Red Hat's_ counsel for legal advice. _I_ will do one of two things: a) Acquire my software from a source where these licencing issues do not arise b) Consult counsel of my choice, and keep that advice to myself. For sure, I would expect any legal advice I obtained from Red Hat's counsel to be biased and to support whatever Red Hat says it wants to do. It may well be that my counsel would advise me that Red Hat's stance is ill-founded in law and that I am free to do was I wish. -- My bits for Taroon: pulled -- Taroon-beta-list mailing list [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/taroon-beta-list