Conversion to Linux

[Hal Duston]

On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 10:45:19AM -0600, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> CentOS isn't providing any value-add.  They simply strip branding and call
> it their own.  That's not adhering to the spirit of the GPL, the idea that

Where can I read the guidelines for adhering to "the spirit of the GPL." 
I've been unable to locate that document.  All I have to go on is the actual
words of the written GPL.

> you take someone else's software, add value, and release that value into the
> wild.  The only "value" they add is providing a way to circumvent Red Hat's
> distribution model for their binaries.
> 
> To use a car analogy (albiet a weak one), if I take a Toyota and rip off all
> the Toyota branding and glue on Honda branding, that's immoral.  If I take a
> Toyota and soup up the engine, put in a different interior, and upgrade the
> stereo, then glue on my Honda branding, that's moral.

Let me strengthen it for you.  What about if I take all the parts for a Toyota
(legally obtained), and assemble them myself, except I don't put the Toyota
branding on it, but rather put my own branding on it.  I think that's a better
analogy for what CentOS is doing.

> The GPL is intended to ensure that if you enhance software (bug fixes,
> security fixes, feature enhancements, etc) you must provide the source for
> those when you give your program to the community.  It's not intended to
> allow you to re-brand software and call it your own.

I don't see where I'm not allowed to do exactly that, but I've never seen a
copy of "the spirit of the GPL," only the actual words of the written GPL.
What you describe are additional restrictions on what the community can do
with the software, which again only exist in "the spirit of the GPL", which I
still haven't studied to see what it permits me to do.

> Personally, I'm up in the air about CentOS.  But I certainly see Jeffrey's
> points.
> 
> -- 
> Chris

Thanks,
--
Hal