Fwd: Possible GPL violation by Red Hat/Dell alliance

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

On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 14:22, rek2 wrote:

[snip]

> To be positive here. I am not saying that I hate redhat ,I rather Redhat
> 100 times that other non-gnu/linux/BSD OS, just that I rather use other
> distro for different rearons, RedHat have done good things also for the
> community, I am just saying that they may not be like that forever they
> are a company :-) and like you say they don't have to give back to the
> community if they don't want to as long they don't break the GPL. 

  Oh, but they do.  And in a large way.  See below.

> They already have software that is only available under their
> profesional edition(like the clustering monitors I saw at the

  Have you ever purchased or been somewhere that has purchased the
professional edition?  If so, you would see that the three install CDs +
two source CDs are identical to the personal edition.  Bit for bit.
  If you are talking about the additional CDs in the professional
edition, note that these are mostly third party applications usually in
demo versions only.  Red Hat has been moving toward an even more
free-software based distribution than they have in the past.  Netscape
4.x was the last non-free piece that was eliminated in 8.0.  Now,
probably the worse license that remains is the one for pine (which
really isn't that bad, just not as free as most of the rest of the
distribution.)

> conference). what about us the guys that are not corporate, and want to
> run it at home? I guess we need to use other distro then :-)

  Specifics, please.  I've posted a number of rebuttals of Red Hat's
supposed bad behavior on other lists in the past, so I'm going to try to
keep this short.  (Not that you said they have behaved badly, though.)
  I do find this thread, and even the original post, completely
speculative.  There are also some assumptions made in the original post
that I find quite bothersome.  (I am aware that it was forwarded from
another list.)
  Let me say, to start, that I am a FANATICAL supporter of the GPL and
am the first to criticize anyone willfully violating the license.  But I
have found most accusations against Red Hat to be unfounded.  Even in
this case.  I find it particularly specious that the Red Hat KDE/Gnome
Bluecurve issue has been brought up when the KDE project itself has a
spotty history with their linking of GPLed code QPL and pre-QPL QT
toolkits, which was arguably a violation of the GPL and the reason Red
Hat did not include KDE initially.  Note that I find the KDE project
quite laudable today, just that those developers screaming foul is a bit
out of place considering KDE's history.
  If the original post is accurate, then I'd say that Mark Webbink is
correct in saying that Dell is responsible to provide the GPLed source. 
If it is unmodified (unlikely), they only need to provide links to the
original (which, if I read correctly, they do not, anyhow).
  The bottom line is that unless you are making out a check to Red Hat,
Inc for the server you buy from Dell, you probably have no legal grounds
to bring Red Hat to task for violating the GPL.  Dell is the vendor. 
Even when it comes to the shadowman logo.  It is not Red Hat's
responsibility to police all violations of the GPL and see that the are
brought into line except when it comes to their own code.  And if Dell
is not subsequently modifying code that Red Hat has a copyright on, then
there probably isn't a lot they can do, anyhow.  All unmodified Red Hat
copyrighted code is available at Red Hat's site and I highly doubt that
it isn't painfully obvious in many places in the actual OS install.
  And intent is nine tenths of the law, so to speak.  Red Hat's history
of providing source (and even GPLing!) previously unreleased code is
exemplary and I challenge anyone to provide specific intent on the part
of Red Hat to violate the GPL.  And except for cases where they *could
not legally* GPL code (such as CCVS) since there were IP rights that
they did not own or prior contracts that prohibited it, all of software
released that is Red Hat authored code has been GPLed (witness Source
Navigator for but one example).
  I am not trying to convince you that you should use Red Hat.  But I
will say that I agree with Robert Krawitz that your statements about
them are unfair, to say the least.  I will keep an open mind and
probably watch the web site mentioned in the original post, but I can
almost guess how this is going to turn out.  Another 'Red Hat is the
Microsoft of Linux' BS site.  I'll bet it just turns out to be a problem
of logistics -- not a blatant violation in need of 'community action.' 
A simple meeting with Eben Moglen or Brad Kuhn will take place and the
issue will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
  Oh, and if you think you can't continue the development of Red Hat
Linux (albeit, under a different name -- big freakin' deal), take a look
at Aurora Linux at http://www.auroralinux.org/ for info on a Sparc Linux
distribution based on Red Hat 7.3.  Also witness Mandrake and probably
at least a few other distros that began with a snapshot (or released
version) of Red Hat in the beginning.  I hardly think that if Red Hat
were to go bankrupt tomorrow or was purchased by Microsoft that the
distribution would die.  There are plenty of developers out there who
will ensure it's continuance (like, yours truly...well, sort of...I
haven't coded in a while, but I know there are other ways I can -- and
would -- contribute).  And those developers include some of Red Hat's
*own* employees.

Non-disclaimer:
  I AM a Red Hat stockholder, but only *because* I believe in the
company and its principles.  I would defend the company (at least today)
even if I wasn't a stockholder.
-- 
-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