[Novalug] RedHat ELS and GPL

John Holland jbholland@gmail.com
Sun Dec 4 14:05:03 EST 2011


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I find these issues interesting, so I looked up GPLv2
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html)

It contains the following:
===================================
*b)* You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
under the terms of this License.
==================================
and also:
============================================

*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:

    *a)* Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and
2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
    *b)* Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of
physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable
copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms
of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software
interchange; or,
    *c)* Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed
only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program
in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with
Subsection b above.)

==============================================

I think what this means is that Red Hat is obligated to distribute
source with any binaries OR to distribute binaries without source but to
make source available on request. Only people to whom works are
distributed are entitled to this offer. However, the work in question is
licensed as a whole to ALL third parties under the GPL if it has been
distributed at all. So if they made a custom change for one special
customer, they have to give or make available to that customer the
source. And they have to license it to anyone else under the GPL for
free. But it doesn't seem to say they have to make it physically
available to anyone else. So it would be on the other "third parties" to
find out about this code and negotiate to get their hands on it, from
Red Hat or anyone else who had it. Red Hat or whoever is explicitly
allowed to charge a fee for this transfer. Of course, something publicly
known about and in demand would probably drop in cost to 0 I think.

If you can get someone to give you a GPLed program you are entitled to
the source (from who you got the program from).

If your modifications don't leave your organization it is a private matter.

my .02


On 12/4/2011 4:14 PM, Omniplex wrote:
> Red hat is only required to release code to software that is
distributed to someone. The do not release the code publicly but if you
are a customer and obtain a binary update you can request the source
code as well. If you are not a customer you would have the binary and
have no standings under the GPL. Since the GPL only applies when someone
releases code to someone, that someone is the only one entitled to the
source code. That's why if an organization uses open source software
internally they are not required to commit changes back since they are
not distributing it to anyone except themselves.
>
> My $0.02 anyway.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 4, 2011, at 10:52, Ed James <edward.james@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> Maybe I'm reading this a bit differently from you. You ask why
>> ELS updates are not released. However, I'm reading this as
>> there are NO security updates released. Maybe what they
>> mean is, ELS is limited - you get some support, but nobody
>> will implement security updates at all? Note - just a WAG
>> on my part - there isn't any secupd code to BE released?
>>
>> Ed James
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 10:15 AM, John Place <jplace@unixsage.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>> -------------------------8<--------------------------------------------
>>> Be advised that the upstream provider does NOT release their ELS source
>>> code publicly and therefore after February 29, 2012 they will no longer
>>> release security updates for their EL4 product line.
>>> ------------------------------------->8---------------------------------
>>>
>>> My understanding is that the GPL is responsible for "compeling" RedHat
>>> to release source code changes and this is what the "clone" projects
>>> (CentOS, ScientificLinux etc) recompile and and release. So my question
>>> is how do the ELS updates not apply to this same process?
>> ...
>> _______________________________________________
>> Novalug mailing list
>> Novalug@calypso.tux.org
>> http://calypso.tux.org/mailman/listinfo/novalug
> _______________________________________________
> Novalug mailing list
> Novalug@calypso.tux.org
> http://calypso.tux.org/mailman/listinfo/novalug

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJO28RfAAoJEKaH5XjsiQW+nEcH/Rx5FVgq7klivImcgrjcIE5L
i0dc+DQWS2uBA6ojWPs4r1QFydzoDQXBGMYDeF17UwW3YojPeoXHKnWnrFc/dUq8
e5kdOeLWUzNosqMPfLU5LPlpDQ2X9fqU0wYQv+zoUh0sZz+vtw+kXpN76rp4Y8+f
hkkHyqE4ig7RRZfwczhzt0Gqmwga2r3L2IITxvSZD8ExWtDNRtAHj+2p7jcY1FpJ
27fR3Yavk0gMhswVXYK82hq6pq9GjKi+wgl1oVEA6fxIx+PCvMURrFnvvgQsI0Pe
DFexeWN5qWfqxVkesIWAmkwzFRmcW/T8n2tC038B3LQjJPiCIStHbWhlAd4eNLU=
=iZjf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.firemountain.net/pipermail/novalug/attachments/20111204/d06a8cc9/attachment.htm>


More information about the Novalug mailing list