On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'd suspect everyone to agree that you must meet the redistribution > requirements of all copyright licenses for a given work to have permission > to redistribute. Thus, license compatibility *exists* as a concept because > if you make a new work that combines two existing works under different > licenses, you have to make sure you've complied with the terms of both > licenses. Again, I'd be surprised if anyone disputes that as a necessary > task and requirement. Well, http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/RH-3573_284204_TM_Gd.pdf "Copyright law protects the expression of an idea. When Red Hat develops new software, it owns the copyright in the software. Red Hat® Enterprise Linux® consists of hundreds of software modules, some developed by Red Hat and many developed by other members of the open source community. Those authors hold the copyrights in the modules or code they developed. At the same time, the combined body of work that constitutes Red Hat® Enterprise Linux® is a collective work which has been organized by Red Hat, and Red Hat holds the copyright in that collective work. Red Hat then permits others to copy, modify and redistribute the collective work. To grant this permission Red Hat usually uses the GNU General Public License (“GPL”) version 2 and Red Hat’s own End User License Agreement." I doubt that "Red Hat’s own End User License Agreement" is 'compatible' (according to you) with the GPL'd components in that combined work as whole. Anyway, that combined work as a whole must be full of proclaimed 'incompatibly' licensed components (once again according to you). How come that this is possible? _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
