[License-discuss] License incompatibility (was Re: Open source license chooser choosealicense.com) launched.

[Al Foxone]

On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn at ebb.org> 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?