[5246] in RedHat Linux List
Re: X license.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Smith)
Tue Nov 19 22:43:14 1996
Date: 20 Nov 1996 04:33:55 -0000
From: Eric Smith <eric@brouhaha.com>
To: redhat-list@redhat.com
In-reply-to: <32926F92.7D2CE9EF@in_my.signature> (message from Borg on Tue, 19
Nov 1996 18:40:18 -0800)
Resent-From: redhat-list@redhat.com
Reply-To: redhat-list@redhat.com
Otto Hammersmith wrote:
> My question is, what prevents a company from modifing X a little bit,
> then selling binary-only X servers?
Vlad Petersen <vladimip@iceonline.com> replied:
> The same thing that prevents Bill Gates III from taking
> Linux kernel and making it proprietary or the same thing
> that prevents, say, Borland from taking gcc/g++ and re-
> distributing as binary.
Actually not. The Linux kernel and GCC are licensed under the Free Software
Foundation's General Public License (GPL). Microsoft or Borland could
distribute binaries of these commercially, but they would be required to make
their source code available as well, including their changes and enhancements.
And they would not be allowed to place additional restrictions on
redistribution. This is obviously counter to their usual business model.
The X window system is not covered by the GPL. Its license is much less
restrictive. There is nothing in it that prevents vendors from distributing
modified binaries, withholding their source code, and prohibiting
redistribution.
Cheers,
Eric
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
________________________________________________________________________
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-Errata
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-Tips http://www.redhat.com/mailing-lists
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe: mail -s unsubscribe redhat-list-request@redhat.com < /dev/null
