Re: [ossig] What's your take on this.

[Dinesh Nair <dinesh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 28/08/2004 14:41 Simon said the following:
> The freedom, with regards to the GPL licence, refers to the source code 
> of the software. When you market
> open-source software, you need to provide somehow the source code. It 
> does not mean that anyone can
> ask for your binaries (compiled software, ready to be installed) or 
> resell them. *You* can set the rules for the binaries.
> In these cases of illegal copies we have to do with binaries, possibly 
> copied

maybe i'm grokking what you said above wrongly, but if the binaries are 
of GPLed software, then Redhat, or anyone else for that matter, can't 
change the license. isn't this the very viral-nature of the GPL which 
some say is good and some say is bad ? as such, the binaries are GPL 
licensed and the rights inherent in the GPL have to be passed on by 
Redhat. of course, binaries of software which is not under the GPL but 
under some closed source license may then be liable for piracy charges 
if they exist on the same CD.

> if you  infringe on a registered trademark ("Red Hat Linux" in this 
> case). I think this is point (2) from below.

trademark violation sounds like a realistic bet though, and you're right 
here.

-- 
Regards,                           /\_/\   "All dogs go to heaven."
dinesh@alphaque.com                (0 0)    http://www.alphaque.com/
+==========================----oOO--(_)--OOo----==========================+
| for a in past present future; do                                        |
|   for b in clients employers associates relatives neighbours pets; do   |
|   echo "The opinions here in no way reflect the opinions of my $a $b."  |
| done; done                                                              |
+=========================================================================+


---------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe: send mail to ossig-request@mncc.com.my
with "unsubscribe ossig" in the body of the message