[Gnu-arch-users] re: licensing question

[Thomas Lord]

> 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?

Yes.  I Am Not A Lawyer, either, so don't take this as legal advice.

I see at least two GPL violations:

* 1st Violation: Restrictions on Copying and Use

   The license contains these definitions (section I.A., "GENERAL
   TERMS AND CONDITIONS"):

      The term "Software" means the subscription for the family of 
      software products purchased under this Agreement and defined
      herein, if any. The term "Installed Systems" means the number
      of Systems on which Customer installs or executes the Software.
      The term "System" means any hardware on which the Software is
      installed, which may be, without limitation, a server, a work
      station, [....]

  Next, the license contains this restriction (section I.A.4., 
  "Reporting and Audit")

      If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed System,
      then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for
      each additional Installed System. [Red Hat may audit the
      customer's systems and if the customer has installed software
      on more systems than they've paid for, they owe more money, 
      possibly including fees for damages.]

  Later clauses in the contract elaborate the definition of "Software",
  as promised in section I.A. (see section II. and Appendix 1).  The
  definition includes the GPLed programs distributed by Red Hat.

  So the following appears to be the case:

     1) I subscribe to Red Hat's services for one machine and receive
        a copy of Enterprise.

     2) I install that copy on 500 machines.  I never ask Red Hat to
        respond to any issues that arise on machines 2..500.  Please
        note that all 500 machines are my private machines: I have
        not redistributed Red Hat's trademarks to anyone.  I haven't
        redistributed Red Hat's flavor of GNU/Linux at all: only made
        copies and installed them.

     3) I have breached the contract and now owe Red Hat more money.


* 2nd Violation: Failure to Distribute Source in the Preferred Form
                 and/or Illegally Distributed Derived Work

   GPLv3 will apparently *clarify* but it has always been true that
   the GPL requirements to distribute source mean that source must
   be distributed in the preferred form for modifications and 
   redistribution.   For example, you can not obfuscate the source
   and claim to have obeyed the GPL.

   The website for Centos reports that they must modify packages from
   Red Hat to remove "upstream vendor branding and artwork".

   Reading the Centos developer mailing list, it is apparent that
   for the software to operate correctly, not only must the upstream
   vendor's trademarked artwork be removed -- alternative artwork
   must be supplied (or the programs which display it modified).

   Those programs not original to Red Hat which rely on artwork
   which Red Hat claims as trademarked are derived works which 
   can not be redistributed unless Red Hat permits use of their
   trademark without restriction.

   All programs which rely on trademarked artwork, whether original
   to Red Hat or not, are being distributed in something other than
   preferred source form.  Otherwise, Centos' job would be easier.

   Red Hat should not be able to claim that the inclusion of the 
   artwork is the mere aggregation of independent works because if
   the artwork is removed, the programs no longer function properly
   for their intended purpose.  (Contrast with proprietary drivers
   loaded into a Linux kernel:  removing those does not prevent the
   kernel itself from functioning properly.)

-t