On 07/01/2014 11:54 AM, Yasha Karant wrote:
> From:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL#Copyleft
>
> Conversely, if one distributes copies of the work without abiding by 
> the terms of the GPL (for instance, by keeping the source code 
> secret), he or she can be sued <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuit> 
> by the original author under copyright law.
>
> End quote.

 From the gnu.org GPL FAQ:

"Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to 
the public?

    The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or
    any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them
    privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to
    organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a
    modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it
    outside the organization.

    But /if/ you release the modified version to the public in some way,
    the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to
    the program's users, under the GPL.

    Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in
    certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to
    release it is up to you.

...

If I know someone has a copy of a GPL-covered program, can I demand he 
give me a copy?

    No. The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of
    the program /if he chooses to do so/. He also has the right not to
    redistribute the program, if that is what he chooses.

...

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?

    Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is
    part of the definition of free software. Except in one special
    situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one
    exception is the required written offer to provide source code that
    must accompany binary-only release.)

Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from 
my site?

    Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the
    program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide
    “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to
    download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.

...

If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it 
available to the public without a charge?

    No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives
    them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee.
    For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a
    web site for the general public.

...
End of quotes.

This last point is the real meat, and is the issue which is so 
controversial. And that issue of 'does a vendor have to right to draw up 
a terms of use for a means of access to software that makes not 
redistributing materials obtained via that means a condition for 
continued use of that means of access?' There's an old posting that 
somewhat addresses this, but not for this current exact situation: 
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/RedHat/rhel-isos.html
>
> I am not a JD (or equivalent in any nation-state), but I do teach the 
> professional computer science ethics course my School ("Department") 
> uses to meet ABET accreditation. This includes an article by Stallman 
> on the concepts of "free" software. 

This is laudable, and I'm glad someone is doing this. I am a member of a 
committee developing certification standards for accreditation of some 
computer-related educational fields, and having the ethics of various 
IT/IS/CS/CE/SE situations dealt with in depth is critical, and something 
I've lobbied for. I'm a very 'free' leaning person, actually, as it 
would be my preference for all software to be free in the freedoms 0-3 
sense of the word free. I'm also a realist and I know that there are 
tradeoffs made in real life that idealists forget to their detriment.

> My understanding is that under the GPL the full source code must be 
> made available -- full, including whatever is required to "build" the 
> software application. 

Of course then you also know that that does not include certain pieces 
of the operating system, like the compiler and kernel used, although the 
exact versions of those must be noted (RPMs 'note' those versions 
through build and install dependencies).

> Thus, the statement that the actual binaries for non-Red Hat RHEL that 
> are built (before the actual "clone" distribution that no longer uses 
> the Red Hat logos, etc.):
>
> RH sometimes uses an unreleased version
> of bar in order to build foo. Rebuilders like CentOS and SL have to
> make do with the released version of the bar srpm in order to build
> foo. (From:
>
> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 05:05:56 -0400
> Message-ID: 
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Clarity on current status of Scientific Linux build
> From: Tom H <[log in to unmask]> )
>
> End quote
>
> seems to violate the GPL as there is a (very important) bit of source 
> code that is not released.
Again, from the gnu.org GPL FAQ:
"

Does the GPL require me to provide source code that can be built to 
match the exact hash of the binary I am distributing?

    Complete corresponding source means the source that the binaries
    were made from, but that does not imply your tools must be able to
    make a binary that is an exact hash of the binary you are
    distributing. In some cases it could be (nearly) impossible to build
    a binary from source with an exact hash of the binary being
    distributed — consider the following examples: a system might put
    timestamps in binaries; or the program might have been built against
    a different (even unreleased) compiler version.

    "


>
> It is true that Oracle, as a for-profit USA corporation model, wants 
> to sell service/support for the Oracle EL clone, and thus has 
> motivated Red Hat, another for-profit USA corporation model, to 
> retaliate, including the acquisition of CentOS. I too strongly fear 
> that under the for-profit model, the CentOS source to be made 
> available to "cloners" will not be faithful to the original RHEL 
> sources as actually used to construct RHEL licensed for fee executable 
> "binaries".

I understand your concerns; while time will tell, I tend to think that 
Red Hat will do the right thing here. But I always reserve the right to 
be wrong.

>
> No one at CERN has commented why CERN and the rest of the CERN 
> research community not paid for nor housed at an official CERN 
> facility simple does not license RHEL for fee, and add -- given the 
> full RHEL SRPMs that could thereby be made available -- what is needed 
> to produce RHEL-C, containing the extra drivers, applications, etc., 
> required for the CERN research community, running the LHC and LHC 
> consortia experiments. ...

CERN already licenses RHEL; it's posted on their website. ( 
http://linux.web.cern.ch/linux/news.shtml#rhel70 ). CERN is in a 
position to check for themselves and for their own internal use the 
correspondence of the source code. They may or may not be in a position 
to be able to comment publicly on this or tell anyone else 'yes, the 
sources match.' And they may or may not feel like it's appropriate or 
advisable to do a 'RHEL-C'; my guess would be that if they find that the 
sources match they will silently continue using SLC and contributing to 
CentOS without comment.

> Unfortunately, given our fiscal resources, we cannot license RHEL for 
> all of our nodes.
>
Same here. But if you can license one node then you can check the 
sources for yourself.

I do understand and sympathize with your position, but I cannot afford 
to not be a realist; and I don't have the fiscal resources to be a test 
case.

And until a copyright holder decides to sue, the status quo is what it 
is, regardless of what I may or may not want.