RE: [Full-Disclosure] Fw: Red Hat Linux end-of-life update andtransition planning

From: Jonathan A. Zdziarski (
Date: 11/04/03

  • Next message: John Sage: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] SRT2003-11-02-0218 - NIPrint LPD-LPR Local Help API SYSTEM exploit"
    To: "Schmehl, Paul L" <>
    Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 13:49:02 -0500

    > Well, yes, you should. If I've released my book as "open source" under
    > the GPL, then by contract I have specifically authorized you to
    > repackage it and sell it in any form you want so long as you don't alter
    > my work. Want you cannot do is claim that the original work is yours.
    > And you can't prevent anyone else from taking that same book and
    > repackaging it and selling it.
    > You just don't understand the GPL.

    I understand it just fine...perhaps you should read my previous threads

    This (redistribution) is the inherent problem with the GPL, that is
    resulting in the community being ripped off, rather than benefiting the
    community. Despite the popular terminology, a GPLd book is not an
    open-source book - ALL books are open source books because you can READ
    their "source code". Do not summarize the GPL as "open source" and do
    not confuse "freely available" or "freely redistributable" with open
    source either. They are three very different philosophies that have
    been compiled into what we know as the GPL. The open-source and freely
    available portions of the GPL are great, but my whole argument has been
    what you stated...the "freely redistributable" section sucks, and needs
    to be reworked to prevent commercialization of otherwise free code. In
    real life, if you wrote a book, you wouldn't want someone to be able to
    take your hard, donated work and sell it to someone as part of a
    collection...but this is essentially what the GPL is allowing companies
    like RH to do.

    If you DO want people to take your hard, donated work and sell it as
    part of a collection (rather than the collection have to be free or
    cost-of-media) - fine...the GPL will suit you well, but you are doing a
    disservice to the community in the long run, just as the GPL+RedHat has
    done here.

    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.

  • Next message: John Sage: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] SRT2003-11-02-0218 - NIPrint LPD-LPR Local Help API SYSTEM exploit"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Attn: Gordon: Your "Electronics for Dummies"
      ... purposes" rather than just "nonprofit purposes". ... intellectual property law running crazy. ... And there are special rules that govern GPL software. ... You are allowed to sell it, but you must give the source ...
    • Re: Sad Tale of Greed and Aspiration.
      ... "Open Source" is not one particular thing. ... There is nothing at all in the GPL that prevents you from selling the ... and sell it. ... of the code as long as they are not profiting. ...
    • Re: Attn: Gordon: Your "Electronics for Dummies"
      ... I think that for many reasons both of these are bad for society. ... Microsoft calls selling the XP software illegal. ... reseller to sell them Windows at a highly discounted rate. ... GPL software is available to anyone who ...
    • Re: Can I sell fedora?
      ... >> Actually I don't want to sell it. ... As I understand the GPL, ... After all you paid him for his $100 costs by buying the software; ... You could, of course, just keep the money from your tax refund. ...
    • Re: Any java lib. to parse .cab file?
      ... charge money for software which *someone else* put time and effort ... If I read a journal article describing an algorithm, it's perfectly moral for me to implement that algorithm and sell the result. ... It's also perfectly moral for me to sell a Java program, which is useless without the JVM and rt.jar that Sun puts time and effort into creating and then gives away for free. ... I agree that the GPL is based on the proposition you've stated, but it reflects a feelings that selling software is itself immoral, and that's crap. ...