[Ilugc] Linux powers the Sub-Rs10, 000 PC | OSS Development Centre in Chennai

[Ramanraj K]

On 8/3/05, Binand Sethumadhavan <binand at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/08/05, Ramanraj K <ramanraj.k at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Simple redistributions without forcing modifications should be
> > allowed: destroying that basic freedom is unpardonable.
> 
> But that is allowed, isn't it? You can download the whole thing as
> SRPMs and redistribute them. That basic freedom is not "destroyed".
> 
> If what you are saying is that "I downloaded the ISOs, so I should be
> able to distribute the ISOs", then I do not agree with you. Looking
> into the GPL once again, I find:

We are only concerned if we can freely redistribute free software
without modifications, and not concerned with iso's or other packaging
material.  The RHEL license clearly imposes onerous conditions
requiring the licensee to make modifications to the software before
redistribution, and the following clause does not save the violation.

> 
> <quote>
> In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
> with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
> a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
> the scope of this License.
> </quote>


> Thus, what Redhat is doing seems to me is very well within the letter
> and spirit of the GPL.

It only seems to give handles to people to call others "pirates",
"criminals" etc. and that hurts the spirit.