24 Nov
2004
24 Nov
'04
7:44 p.m.
Brent Frère wrote:
Indeed, the problem is that RedHat imposes restrictive
conditions on copying or
running copies of its "softwares" (you can understand it as their binaries).
But
if RedHat publish the exact sources of all the software and patches on their ftp
server, how could they disctinct a host running a copy of RedHat binaries with a
host running the compiled sources found on their web site and published under
the GPL ??? Or RedHat DOES NOT publish the exact sources matching their
binaries, and then they ALSO violate the GPL !!!
There are always small differences if you compile something yourself.
The timestamps of the binaries in the RPM are certain to be different.
The Linux kernel prints the hostname of the machine which compiled the
kernel while booting and so on. Maybe they view the pure act of
compiling as a "service". In their view, the GPL does not protect
services like compiling as well as burning, shipping and so on.
I do not know the solution. I only know that RedHat is *not* willing to
clarify the situation. Sun pretended that RedHat is proprietary
software. RedHat did *nothing* to prove the opposite. Yesterday,
Computerworld published a response from RedHat to Sun:
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;403740966;fp;16;fpid;0
They did not say that they are not proprietary because you can copy the
binaries. No, all they do is attacking Sun's FOSS plans and proclaiming
that RedHat is not proprietary because:
...for an end user to port something from Red Hat to Debian [GNU/Linux]
with a fast computer is "five minutes work"...
Under this definition all modern Unices (AIX, Sol, even SCO) are not
proprietary because of source code portability. The fact that you can
port software from one Unix to another by recompiling is absolutely no
news to us! In the past this may not have been too easy, but today newer
versions AIX and Solaris have a relatively high degree of Linux API
affinity!
So, trying to understand those conditions as applying
on the binaries only does
not lead to a solution. The problem remains here that RedHat has the right to
put conditions on the use of their SERVICES (such as RedHat Network) but in NO
CASE on the GPLed software !
In looked at the PDF you posted in another mail. At the bottom of every
page is marked "Confidential". This is not really a FOSS friendly
attitude. Why are the conditions "confidential"??? Does the public
(including programmers of Apache, Samba and so on) not have the rights
to know how RedHat distributes *their* software?
Greetings, Patrick Kaell