GPL compliance

[Scott Kitterman]

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 08:15:40 +0200 Alexander Skwar 
<listen at alexander.skwar.name> wrote:
>Daniel Carrera wrote:
>
>> That's why I use a distribution that includes only free software. And
>> these are not "magic" statements. This is section 3 of the GPL.
>
>I think you miss an important point here - Ubuntu does not *only*
>contain software which is licensed under GPL, but also under other
>free licenses. But it is conceivable, that those licenses are only
>free to Canonical but that they might prohibit a further distribution.
>

There are many things that are conceivable that are not likely enough to 
worry about.

It is also conceivable that Canonical is making hard to find changes to 
programs in the distribution that gives them back door access to my 
servers.  That doesn't mean it makes sense to do a personal walkthrough of 
all the source code and recompile it myself to be sure (note for the irony 
impaired - I am NOT claiming they do this).

Sublicensing is a critical point in free software licensing.  If it doesn't 
permit sublicensing, it isn't a free software license.  For the free as in 
freedom type of free, the notion that a program could be free to 
Cannonical, but then couldn't be re-distributed is a non-sequitor.

Scott K