Conversion to Linux

[Hal Duston]

On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 11:36:55AM -0600, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> 
> First off, I'm not an armchair lawyer and I don't look for loopholes in "The
> Law" to exploit for my benefit so this argument of yours is lost on me.  I
> believe the GPL is intended, based on Richard Stallman's exhaustive
> explications of his ideas, to be intended to encourage (albeit forcefully)
> developers to share their contributions with the rest of the community.
> Re-branding isn't a contribution in my view, it is a theft of ideas.  It is
> taking someone else's labor and "making it yours" without providing
> value-add.

--SNIP--

> Again, I don't nitpick the GPL and look for loopholes.  I go by what I feel
> Richard Stallman intended.  Your contention that there is no single "spirit
> of the GPL" document notwithstanding.

I can't even figure out how to differentiante what you might view as a loophole
from what I might view as a permitted use, or vice versa.  That's where the
problem lies.  RMS, ESR, Bruce Perens, Linus, and Alan Cox all have different
views of what the spirit of the GPL morally and ethically permits.  What
everybody does (for the most part) agree upon, however, is that the actual GPL
legally permits.  That's why that is exactly what I follow when deciding what
to do.

--SNIP--

> My own reason for being "up in the air" about CentOS is that I don't care
> for Red Hat's distribution model.  While it's perfectly "legal" for them to
> refuse to provide their distribution freely to users who have not purchased
> a support contract, and certainly fits in the "letter" of the GPL, I think
> it's wrong.  In order to receive Red Hat's enhancements to GPL software
> directly from Red Hat, I'm *required* to pay for a support contract.
> 
> The "letter" of the GPL is only that I'm allowed source code to binaries I
> receive.  The spirit of the GPL, in my view, is that they distribute
> binaries they have enhanced (in whatever form that distribution takes
> place), and they are free to ask for money for access to them -- I feel
> those binaries should also be provided freely (ie; if distribution of
> binaries takes place, it should also take place in a form that is free).
> Obviously they already provide free source code.
> 
> I'm honestly surprised I don't see more people bellyaching about Red Hat
> Enterprise Linux's distribution model than I see about CentOS.

I don't complain about either RHEL, or CentOS, as they are both in full
compliance with the legal requirements of the GPL.  If they were to take
the software I have released under the GPL, I would have no standing to
complain in either case, as I am fully aware of the permitted actions of
anyone receiving that software.

> -- 
> Chris

Thanks,
--
Hal