UnitedLinux "certified binaries" will not to be freely available

[pri.blu at iadonisi.to (Paul Iadonisi)]

On Mon, 2002-06-24 at 21:54, Frank Ramsay wrote:
> Actually I think he's safe in either case:  The key word in that section is
> "distribute", the GPL doesn't say you have to distribute to everyone who
> asks for it.  It says you have to provide the source to anyone you
> distribute to.  This is a very important, if hard to understand, difference.
> To put it another way: I make a great CD burning program of Linux that uses
> a GPL'ed library.  Also, I descide to sell the pre-compiled binaries of the
> program.  As long as I provide the source along with the binary I am in
> complete GPL compliance.
fo/discuss

  This would be true if it weren't for section three.  It says you can
distribute the Program in executable form *under the terms of sections 1
and 2* and section 2b guarantees that the recipient has the same rights
under the license (for example, to distribute).  But it appears that is
only the case if the source has been modified and you distribute those
binaries.  I consider that moot, since many, many GPLed packages I've
seen in Red Hat, for example, are modified by patches in some form or
another.
  Under the scenario you describe above, your CD program is probably
considered a derived work.  If you had used an LGPLed library, that
wouldn't be the case.  But since you are (presumably) not the copyright
owner of the GPLed library in question, you cannot distribute your
'derived work' without also allowing others to distribute it.  If you
had linked to an LGPLed library, I don't think it would be considered a
derived work and could therefore be distributed as you wish.  If,
however, you disallowed distribution of your precompiled binaries, I
don't think you could say that your program was truly covered by the GPL
without specifying an exception: "GPL except that you can't redistribute
my precompiled binaries."  Otherwise, the GPL explicitly *gives* the
recipient the rights to redistribute.  (Of course, if you are the
copyright owner and it's not obvious, you don't even have to tell anyone
that some binary is the product of some source code you've otherwise
GPLed. ;-)).

Disclaimer: Of course, IANAL

-- 
-Paul Iadonisi
 Senior System Administrator
 Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
 Ever see a penguin fly?  --  Try Linux.
 GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets