Does GPL require RedHat to provide it's OS for free, and hence why CentOS exists? [closed]

StackOverflow https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11040378

Question

I have a few GPL related questions:

  1. Yes or No: If you sell GPL software commercially, you must make the source code free available?

  2. Yes or No: Since RedHat uses GPL software to make it's commcercial sold RedHat Linux operating system, it must release the RedHat Linux OS freely as required by the GPL.

  3. Yes or No: CentOS exists to satisfy the GPL requirements of providing a free version of it's commercially sold RedHat Linux OS?

Update: I've reworded my original question to make it more clear.

Update 2: Note no one has directly answered the questions yet, even though there are 4 responses.

Was it helpful?

Solution

I'm sorry. I'm home from work now so I'll also update my answer to be more clear in line with your updated question.

  1. Yes. Now, I'm not an expert in the GPL or law, so there may be a way around this that I'm not aware of, but this is generally what the GPL was designed to do. Richard Stallman (founder of the Free Software Foundation and designer of the GPL) basically would like for all software to be "free as in speech" (whether or not it is "free as in beer"), where the user has the ability to adjust the software if need be (to edit code, fix, extend, etc.). To this end, the GPL is designed to keep companies from locking away their source code, hiding it from the users.

  2. No. In fact, RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux) is not free. It is probably the most successful commercially available Linux distribution.

  3. No. CentOS is not a product of Red Hat at all. Rather, it is built by a dedicated community using RHEL's source code as a base because they think it is really good and should be available to a wider audience. The whole reason it's called something different and isn't "Red Hat Lite" or something is precisely because they are not affiliated with Red Hat, and Red Hat does not permit them to use their branding.

HTH :)

OTHER TIPS

The GPL does not dis-allow the sell of the software in question; It simply states that - simplified! - when they do so they must include the source or otherwise make it available.

You can sell GPL code for millions of $$$ if you can make the sale; it's perfectly ok. But you need to hand over the sources or otherwise make them available as well.

In this case the source was available per the GPL so a third party used it to create a distro that is then released for free.

Even if GPL requires RedHat to allow you to use the code, it doesn't forbid them to restrict usage of other things. For example, some games have been open-sourced by GPLing the code, but not graphic data. In this case the issue is with branding, and that's pretty understandable - only RedHat should be able to sell RedHat (TM) Linux.

From the wiki:

    Red Hat Enterprise Linux is available only through a paid subscription service
that provides access to software updates and varying levels of technical support.
The product is largely composed of software packages distributed under either an open
source or a free software license and the source code for these packages is made
public by Red Hat.
    CentOS developers use Red Hat's source code to create a final product very
similar to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Red Hat's branding and logos are changed because
Red Hat does not allow them to be redistributed.[5]
    CentOS is available free of charge. Technical support is primarily provided by
the community via official mailing lists, web forums, and chat rooms. The project
is not affiliated with Red Hat thus receives no financial or logistical support
from the company; instead, the CentOS Project relies on donations from users and
organizational sponsors.
Licensed under: CC-BY-SA with attribution
Not affiliated with StackOverflow
scroll top