Subject: Re: JBoss aquired by Red Hat
From: Russ Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 10:49:11 -0400

Thomas Lord writes:
 > Distribution of a derived work (even as patches) of a GPLed
 > program is only permitted on GPL terms.   If Consultant
 > distributes a derived work to Customer without satisfying those
 > terms, she has violated the conditions imposed on her by the GPL.

If I understand the case under discussion, it is the *Consultant* who
is agreeing not to distribute, not the Customer.

If you sell a GPL'ed product to people for $1,000 to non-ideologues,
which one of them would be willing to give it away?  You could very
reasonably expect them to say "Hey, I paid for it, why should I expend
my own resources to give it away for free?  Go get your own copy!"

The GPL is nowhere near as communistic as some people think.  It just
says that you can't stop *recipients* from giving it away.  It doesn't
require any contributor to give away their intellectual property.  It
also says that *recipients* have to have access to the source.

-- 
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com   | A computer without Python is
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | like a CPU without memory:
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241       | it runs, but you can't do
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          | anything useful with it.