Re: [Gnu-arch-users] licensing question

[Peter Conrad]

Hi,

(IANAL)

On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 03:51:28PM -0800, Thomas Lord wrote:
> 
> A plain language version of the essence of the support contract is as
> follows:
> 
> 
>   You will pay me $5,000/yr for every CPU on which your installation
>   of a GNU Hello binary, compiled from the sources I provide, is
>   runnable.  For this purpose, multi-core chips count as a single CPU.
> 
>   In return I will provide support.  Because the GNU hello program
>   is a joke, support consists of emailing you a joke once per quarter.
>   For obvious reasons, I can not promise that you will find the joke
>   funny.
> 
>   I reserve the right to come and inspect your facilities and records,
>   twice per year, during business hours, to ensure compliance.  If I
>   discover that you have made a binary derived from the sources I
>   provide runnable on more CPUs than you have paid for, you will owe
>   me $5,000 per additional CPU, plus 4% interest compounded monthly --
>   because presumptively, that means you are using my support services
>   to a greater degree than you've paid for.
> 
>   It therefore follows that you are not free to copy and use my
>   version of GNU Hello without additional restriction.
> 
>   Of course, this contract doesn't override the GPL.   Far from it.
>   It's just that if you exercise your GPL rights in certain ways
>   you will owe me more money.
> 
> So what do you think?  The GPL allows this, right?

In this specific wording, it doesn't.
You effectively sublicence "your version of GNU Hello" with additional
restrictions, which is forbidden by the GPL.

What you *could* do, however, is to create a per-CPU support contract
*without* delivering the software. Or make two contracts of it: one
for delivering the software under GPL terms, and a per-CPU support
contract.

IMO.

> Pretty winning, eh?  It's not an original idea, of course.   I got
> the idea from this:
> 
>     http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html

I don't have the time to read through all that fine-print. So do you
think redhat is violating the GPL? If so, why exactly?

Bye,
        Peter
-- 
Peter Conrad                        Tel: +49 6102 / 80 99 072
[ t]ivano Software GmbH             Fax: +49 6102 / 80 99 071
Bahnhofstr. 18                      http://www.tivano.de/
63263 Neu-Isenburg

Germany