-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At some point hitherto, Bill Bogstad hath spake thusly: > Certainly they can restrict copying on bits that they wrote > themselves. If he's talking about individual GPLed packages though, > I think there may be a legal problem here. The issue is whether the > following clause from the GPL applies to binaries based on GPLed > sources. No, the issue is, IMO, whether people actually pay attention to (or perhaps understand) exactly what Ransom said. I really don't think people have. Based on everything I've seen Ransom say, I have no reason to believe they intend to violate the GPL in any way. > Ransom: > > The binaries that are certified by the major ISVs and OEMs will not be > made freely available for distribution by anyone. Please note the precise language of this, and what it does and does not say. Note that there is no mention of "redistribution" anywhere in it. It says that the binaries provided by partners will not be freely distributed. As in, not by the vendors. Under the GPL, a vendor has *every right* not to freely distribute binaries of their programs. I have heard rms himself clarify this point in no uncertain terms. More than once. "Certified binaries" are, no doubt, those provided specifically by the vendors. Binaries which are provided by anyone but the vendors clearly are, as defined by the vendors, not certified. Ransom has stated in previous interviews (I've lost the link, but posted it previously on this list) that yes, anyone can redistribute binaries as allowed by the GPL, but that they can not call the result UnitedLinux. This is just as Red Hat does not allow anyone to redistribute Red Hat binaries, and call it Official Red Hat Linux. To do so is a violation of trademark law. There's very little that's really new about this, that other Linux vendors aren't already doing. They're just not being quite as vocal about it. The only thing that's new is they're not providing binaries for free download. And there's nothing anywhere in the GPL or in any law that says they are required to do so. > This is to limit the support liability for these companies and to > ensure a high quality, consistent product around the world for > support purposes. The UnitedLinux product produced is not just a > binary, but 12-months of maintenance. This says by buying UnitedLinux, or a product based on it, you're also buying a maintenance contract. This is explicitly not included when you redistribute binaries compiled (whether by you or by them) as you are allowed to do under the terms of the GPL. This is, in part, why they don't want you to call any binaries that you distribute based on their distribution "UnitedLinux" -- only their products can be called that, as they include trademarked services provided by them. > The source code for the server will be made freely available for all > in compliance with all of the Open Source licenses. Which agrees with what Ransom said before, as I pointed out above... > There will be programs for developers who need access to the binaries > and they will include options for ongoing updates and patches to > ensure continued certification compliance. Our desire is to make > UnitedLinux easily available for serious developers, and give them > means to make the development process easier. So, if you're unable to get binaries from someone who has already purchased them, or if you're unwilling to compile your own, you can sign up for this program and get them from the vendors. Yes, clearly they want to discourage people from obtaining their binaries through other sources that don't involve paying them. Ransom has chosen his language very precisely and carefully, so that it does not violate the GPL, but does discourage (though *not* prohibit) people from obtaining binaries without paying the vendors for them. As I've said before, these people are in business to make money. When they stop being able to make money by selling Linux distributions, they will go out of business, and there will be a shortage of choices in the realm of (reletively) high-quality, professional Linux distributions. This is a Bad Thing(tm) for Linux users. Contrary to everything I keep hearing from people about this issue, neither Ransom Love, nor the consortium of vendors who want to actually make money on the product they're paying people to produce, are evil incarnate. Nor do they intend to violate the GPL. They just want to provide as much encouragement as possible for you to buy their products. And why shouldn't they? They spend money on development, polish, and packaging their products; and after all, they're here to make money. That's what businesses do. FWIW, this kind of issue is precisely why pedants like myself complain about bad grammar, spelling, and incorrect word usage in posts (and other forms of communications when we find them). There is no understanding without common ground. You're not likely to understand the meaning of someone's post, a news article, or a Presidential speech, if you can't be bothered to know the commonly accepted meaning of the words they're using (o.k. in the latter case, it may not help)... =8^) The meaning of a sentence frequently changes when punctuation is misplaced or when grammar is misused. If you're asking the list for help, and you can't phrase your questions in intelligible sentences, then you're not likely to get an answer that addresses your problem. English is already one of the most ambiguous languages in use today, without people mucking it all up. Yeah, I know no one else cares about our society's diminishing capacity to communicate, but I do; so occasionally I do feel the need to make noise about it. Imprecise language breeds misunderstanding, which can further breed prejudice, hate, ill will, and sometimes jail time. No one is expected to be perfect, of course; nor am I trying to suggest otherwise. But is it so much to ask to care, and to try? These days, it certainly does seem to be too much to ask. Caring and trying take too much time, and might even cost money. So screw that... Now that I've offended half the list, please note that this diatribe is not directed at the original poster, or anyone in particular. It's all only part of my rms-like plot to stamp out bad grammar everywhere... =8^) Ok, now back to our regularly scheduled programming... - -- Derek Martin ddm@pizzashack.org - --------------------------------------------- I prefer mail encrypted with PGP/GPG! GnuPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D Retrieve my public key at http://pgp.mit.edu Learn more about it at http://www.gnupg.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9F+DpdjdlQoHP510RAkMDAKC4NuaRmngyA29/D+ZOdfDhxHHXmQCgufxn EMOuO+6djRx3Y5CkD+E5X2Q= =KV2F -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----