On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 10:45:19AM -0600, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> CentOS isn't providing any value-add. They simply strip branding and call
> it their own. That's not adhering to the spirit of the GPL, the idea that
Where can I read the guidelines for adhering to "the spirit of the GPL."
I've been unable to locate that document. All I have to go on is the actual
words of the written GPL.
First off, I'm not an armchair lawyer and I don't look for loopholes in "The Law" to exploit for my benefit so this argument of yours is lost on me. I believe the GPL is intended, based on Richard Stallman's exhaustive explications of his ideas, to be intended to encourage (albeit forcefully) developers to share their contributions with the rest of the community. Re-branding isn't a contribution in my view, it is a theft of ideas. It is taking someone else's labor and "making it yours" without providing value-add.
> you take someone else's software, add value, and release that value into the
> wild. The only "value" they add is providing a way to circumvent Red Hat's
> distribution model for their binaries.
>
> To use a car analogy (albiet a weak one), if I take a Toyota and rip off all
> the Toyota branding and glue on Honda branding, that's immoral. If I take a
> Toyota and soup up the engine, put in a different interior, and upgrade the
> stereo, then glue on my Honda branding, that's moral.
Let me strengthen it for you. What about if I take all the parts for a Toyota
(legally obtained), and assemble them myself, except I don't put the Toyota
branding on it, but rather put my own branding on it. I think that's a better
analogy for what CentOS is doing.
Perhaps that's closer to what they're doing, I still don't think it's right.
> The GPL is intended to ensure that if you enhance software (bug fixes,
> security fixes, feature enhancements, etc) you must provide the source for
> those when you give your program to the community. It's not intended to
> allow you to re-brand software and call it your own.
I don't see where I'm not allowed to do exactly that, but I've never seen a
copy of "the spirit of the GPL," only the actual words of the written GPL.
What you describe are additional restrictions on what the community can do
with the software, which again only exist in "the spirit of the GPL", which I
still haven't studied to see what it permits me to do.
Again, I don't nitpick the GPL and look for loopholes. I go by what I feel Richard Stallman intended. Your contention that there is no single "spirit of the GPL" document notwithstanding.
> Personally, I'm up in the air about CentOS. But I certainly see Jeffrey's
> points.
My own reason for being "up in the air" about CentOS is that I don't care for Red Hat's distribution model. While it's perfectly "legal" for them to refuse to provide their distribution freely to users who have not purchased a support contract, and certainly fits in the "letter" of the GPL, I think it's wrong. In order to receive Red Hat's enhancements to GPL software directly from Red Hat, I'm *required* to pay for a support contract.
The "letter" of the GPL is only that I'm allowed source code to binaries I receive. The spirit of the GPL, in my view, is that they distribute binaries they have enhanced (in whatever form that distribution takes place), and they are free to ask for money for access to them -- I feel those binaries should also be provided freely (ie; if distribution of binaries takes place, it should also take place in a form that is free). Obviously they already provide free source code.
I'm honestly surprised I don't see more people bellyaching about Red Hat Enterprise Linux's distribution model than I see about CentOS.