[ILUG] The old CD thread again {RHEL this time}

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Conor Daly (conor.daly_ilug at cod.homelinux.org):

> Referring to the original box-set RHEL 3 binary CDs:
>  
> there are 364 rpms which do not contain "GPL" in their 'License' field
> [1].  The sorted list of these produces 5 'License' entries [2] that I
> cannot immediately identify as redistributable along with 3 packages
> which are "Copyright © 2003 Red Hat, Inc.  All rights reserved." [3].
> The results of my search are below.

My goodness!  My sincere thanks for undertaking this effort.

> > 2.  Does the RPM build process mix trademark-encumbered contents
> > from redhat-logos and anaconda-images into various other packages'
> > installations, during compilation?  The answer to this is almost
> > certainly "Yes".  If so, then many more of RHEL's _binary_ RPMs are
> > trademark-encumbered (and thus proprietary) than just redhat-logos
> > and anaconda-images.
> 
> But the right to copy cited above allows non-commercial copying of the
> trademarks (there is further commercial copying and redistribution
> terms in the same file). 

Yes, indeed.  This is a very generous grant, which does credit to the
company, given its product strategy -- and, of course, is what gives
RHEL-rebuild projects like CentOS, Scientific Linux, etc. room to
maneouver without impairing RH's branding -- as they build different
image files, etc. into their binary RPMs.  Just in case anyone thought
I was being critical, I'm not:  It strikes me as an ingenious and
generally very benevolent arrangement.

I've politely argued that point with, e.g., the Progeny founders, who
were going around trying to claim (loosely paraphrasing) that it was an
evil proprietary-software regime, etc.  I very much disagree.

> It does encumber a GPL licensed program with proprietary data.  Is
> that reasonable under the GPL?

I'm not sure what you mean by "reasonable under":  Do you mean
"compatible with"?  If so, the answer is yes.  Please see below for my
reasoning.

> Given that the rpm is a packaging method rather than the software
> itself, it may be reasonable but appears contrary to the GPL since it
> encumbers the recipient from redistributing the binaries.

That is not true.  Please see GPLv2 section 2, section starting "If
identifiable sections of that work".  As long as the included non-GPL
component in one's variant of a third-party GPLed work is separable from
the GPLed upstream code, and isn't derivative of that code, GPL terms do
not need to comply, to avoid violating upstream's copyright.


Snipping (in a forlorn attempt at brevity) most of your grep:

>  3DFX GLIDE Source Code General Public License
>  Apacheish
>  BSDish
>  BSD-like
>  BSD-style
>  Copyright © 1999-2002 Red Hat, Inc.  All rights reserved.
>  Copyright © 2003 Red Hat, Inc.  All rights reserved.
>  Copyright 2003 Red Hat, Inc.  All rights reserved.
>  distributable
>  Distributable
>  Distributable (BSD-like)
>  Distributable under Licenses
>  eGenix.com Public License (Python)
>  Free
>  freely distributable
>  Freely distributable
>  Freely Distributable
>  freeware
>  Freeware
>  LaTeX Project Public License (http://www.latex-project.org/lppl.txt)
> License for detail.
> License for details.
>  MIT, freely distributable.
>  OMRON Corporation, OMRON Software Co., Ltd.
>  Open Group Public License
>  OpenLDAP
>  PSF - see LICENSE
>  public domain
>  Public Domain
>  Redistributable
>  Sendmail
>  Special (see Copyright Notice)
>  The PHP License
> under the GNU General Public License and is a core component of the
>  University of Washington Free-Fork License
>  Various
>  W3C IPR
>  W3C (see: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/copyright-software.html)
>  X-like

I would ideally want to examine the particulars of all of the above, 
since each of them leaves me in some doubt as to their terms.  (Yes, I
even mean "public domain", since that is very often a hapless euphemism
for "I found this somewhere and have no clue what its -- sometimes
unknown -- author requires, and so am assuming the author contributed it
to the public domain" -- and also because, since adoption of the Berne
Convention, it's no longer clear that one _can_ voluntarily contribute
something to the public domain prior to expiration of its copyright
term, or what the exact effect is if you do so.)

Moreover, your grep catches only packages that contain the string
"licence", and doesn't preclude packages containing components with 
proprietary terms  -- and in general is only a quick-and-dirty and
inherently uncertain substitute for a real licence audit.

Not that I'm complaining.  I'm just pointing out that it's nothing like
actually auditing the licence terms within each package.

If I had to guess, I'd say it's very _likely_ that your results are 
absolutely correct, though.  Thank you again.