On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:30 AM, Rick Moen <[email protected]> wrote: > Quoting Al Foxone ([email protected]): > >> Red Hat customers receive RHEL compilation as a whole in ready for use >> binary form but Red Hat claims that it can not be redistributed in >> that original form due to trademarks (without additional trademark >> license, says Red Hat) and under pay-per-use-unit restrictive >> contract. I would not call that GPL. > > You're entitled to be mistaken. > Last I checked, all source-access obligations under GPLv3, GPLv2, and
My understanding is that the GPL applies to object code aside from source-access obligations. Suppose I bought let's say 'install package' from Red Hat and want to help my neighbour by simply giving him a copy of that stuff or say a copy of a VM image with RHEL installed and running so to speak. Note there is absolutely no confusion that this is really really original Red Hat stuff (not something made by some other entity) so I don't quite understand why should I need a trademark license... hope this clarifies what I mean (suppose also that no Red Hat services will be used by neighbour). _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
