On Sat, 2002-04-13 at 00:08, Greg Schmidt wrote:
> IANAL - but... Section 3 of the GPL reads:
>
> 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under
> Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1
> and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: (The
> following are 3 ways to make source code available.)
>
> I think that means I could just copy SuSE CDs and hand them out like
> candy. I think that means I could put the CD contents into an ISO image
> and put it on an anonymous FTP server.
>
> I was curious because cheapbytes.com is charging about what SuSE charges
> and linuxiso.org doesn't have SuSE Intel ISOs. What's stopping them?
> Other than incurring the wrath of the fine folks at SuSE, and perhaps
> burying my server and connection, what's stopping me? Or anyone? In
> OpenBSD the CD layout is copyrighted by Theo de Raadt and he doesn't want
> you making copies willy-nilly. But BSD is not GPLed. I know there are a
> lot of SuSE fans on this list, and I don't want to upset them. It may
> also be worth noting the recent thread on Mandrake's financial woes and
> that they offer Intel ISO images for download.
>
> If no one has ever done it, that seems odd.
Not that odd really. There might be commercial licensed binaries on that
CD that should *NOT* be copied. This co-mingling of GPLed OpenSource
software with ClosedSource commercial package was once unthinkable. In
the past, most distributions (particularly RedHat) have been good about
breaking commercial software off on to their own CDs. This makes copies
trivial - no need to worry about commercial software when you duplicate
a distribution.
Today, however, the binaries are a slurry of intermixed packages (it
would seem). There is no other reason I can think of NOT to freely copy
the distribution CDs.
As long as the distribution legally distributes source tarballs,
however, it is possible to build "most" of the CD image.
A prime example of this GPL<>Commercial nonsense would be the Darwin
project and MacOS/X. Sure, you can get Darwin and run it as a GPLed
platform (on Intel even!), but the native Carbon platform / Aqua look /
everything-that-makes-a-mac-what-it-is, are all commercial binaries
built upon the OpenSource scaffolding. Darwin itself is quite anemic
(but becoming less sickly over time).
Is things wrong? No (IMHO) These businesses have adapted to the reality
of an OpenSource world by slapping quality commercial code on top and
market an established brand very well. There's nothing to stop this, nor
should there be, (again, IMHO).
- Ian C. Blenke <icblenke@nks.net> <ian@blenke.com>
http://ian.blenke.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:07:42 EDT