[PlanetCCRMA] Re: PlanetCCRMA on RHEL?

Axel Thimm planetccrma@ccrma.Stanford.EDU
Thu Apr 7 17:20:03 2005

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 06:13:22PM -0400, William M. Quarles wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> >On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:54:09PM -0400, William M. Quarles wrote:
> >
> >>Just wondering, why are there these repackaged "redistributions" of
> >>Red Hat Enterprise Linux?  Technically since it is all Gnu-licensed
> >>can't people freely redistribute it unaltered, too?
> >
> >No, the GPL ensures free propagation of the sources, not the binaries.
> Well technically RHEL as a whole is a derivative work, so
> 2. b)  You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in=20
> whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part=20
> thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties=20
> under the terms of this License.
> ***More importantly for us:
> 3.  You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,=20
> under Section 2) in **object code or executable form** under the terms=20
> of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

Hm, INAL, but it looks like you are right. I even checked RHEL's EULA
and it starts with

1.  The Software.  Red Hat Enterprise Linux (the =E2=80=9CSoftware=E2=80=9D=
) is a
    modular operating system consisting of hundreds of software
    components.  The end user license agreement for each component is
    located in the component's source code.  With the exception of
    certain image files identified in Section 2 below, the license
    terms for the components permit Customer to copy, modify, and
    redistribute the component, in both source code and binary code
    forms.  This agreement does not limit Customer's rights under, or
    grant Customer rights that supersede, the license terms of any
    particular component.

So perhaps the issue is that 99% are binary redistributable. But still
every clone project out there needs to rebuild all from
src.rpm. Perhaps someone there know the whole story.

> >You do need a license for RHEL, anything else is non-legal. Or you can
> >rebuild RHEL from sources, which is why there are 1001 clones of RHEL.
> Then RHEL cannot be GPL, because
> 6.  Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the=20
> Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the=20
> original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to=20
> these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions=
> on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not=20
> responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

Well RHEL is not GPL as a whole, the components of RHEL are GPL, BSD,
perl Artistic library etc.

But I better stop wandering in legal issues (which everytime only
confuses me more ;), IMHO planetccrma should either get an RHEL
license donation, or use a good clone (like CentOS or Scientific

> >I'm currently setting up RHEL support at ATrpms, when I get through
> >it I'd like to help CCRMA getting to RHEL, too. :)
> Cool.
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)