Does linux use GPL or not??

[SamBC]

Sometimes I overstate I guess...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Johnson [mailto:david at usermode.org]
>
>
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2000, SamBC wrote:
>
<SNIP>
>
> The Redhat boxed set contains proprietary and non-redistributable
> software (and some proprietary but still redistributable software). I
> had overlooked this in my earlier post, as I have never acquired Redhat
> from anywhere other than Cheapbytes :-)

I never bought a boxed distro myself...

>
> But to quibble even more, *every* distribution contains non-GPL
> components, the most prominant of which is XFree86. Dozens or hundreds
> of others exist in all distros.

I guess I was committing the heinous semi-crime of using GPL as a synonym
for redsitributable - sorry!

>
> > > You can however duplicate the downloadable ISO till your
> hearts content,
> > > you would still have to be careful of word usage when selling though
> >
> > You could say "RedHat Linux 6.2 GPL", just don't use the word
> 'Official',
> > which implies they get the technical support.
>
> I seem to recall that Redhat was urging distributors not to use the
> "Redhat GPL" wording. (I can't remember what wording they
> did want) Personally, I never liked the "GPL" suffix, as it implies that
> everything included is under the GPL. "GPL" should not be used as a
> synonym for "redistributable".

'Download Version' perhaps...

>
> > > Also I really wish people did interpret free as "freedom" not
> free as in
> > > "free lunch" or "beer"
> >
> > Yes, people are free to do what they want with it - including
> copy & sell
> > it, as long as it is all GPL'd, as it is in many distributions
> (eg Debian)
>
> [sputter - sputter - choking on my Sierra Nevada Pale Ale - sputter]
>
> You cannot do whatever you want with GPL software... Only public domain
> has that distinction, and even there you can't claim authorship.

I overstated - you can do *most* what you want - most people wouldn't want
to do the things they can't!


SamBC