Distros and GPL

I have created a Virtual Machine of a new distribution of Linux which
was built upon Slax. At the VMware site, I need to mention the license
URL for the appliance. I went to the new distribution's site and to the
Slax site (and even to Slackware site) but did not find any page linking
to the GPL license.

The GNU website has the detailed GPL 3 license on a page. Now, if I use
this link will it cover all versions of GPL and leave the VM free?

Thank you in advance.

NJ

Neil Jones wrote:
> I have created a Virtual Machine of a new distribution of Linux which
> was built upon Slax. At the VMware site, I need to mention the license
> URL for the appliance. I went to the new distribution's site and to the
> Slax site (and even to Slackware site) but did not find any page linking
> to the GPL license.
>
> The GNU website has the detailed GPL 3 license on a page. Now, if I use
> this link will it cover all versions of GPL and leave the VM free?
>


Yes.

Neil Jones <castellan2004-(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>I have created a Virtual Machine of a new distribution of Linux which
>was built upon Slax. At the VMware site, I need to mention the license
>URL for the appliance. I went to the new distribution's site and to the
>Slax site (and even to Slackware site) but did not find any page linking
>to the GPL license.

>The GNU website has the detailed GPL 3 license on a page. Now, if I use
>this link will it cover all versions of GPL and leave the VM free?

No. The kernel is under GPL 2 and will never be under GPL3, according to
Torvaldt.
COPYING
"Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
"

Look on the source package of the verious packages to find the license they
are released under. Some are GPL. Some are other licenses.

What does "leave the VM free" mean? That "new distribution"=-- is that
your distribution or someone else's?
What is the "VMWare site"?


>Thank you in advance.

>NJ

Unruh wrote:

> What is the "VMWare site"?

http://www.vmware.com/appliances/

On Dec 7, 8:33*pm, Neil Jones <castellan2004-nsc...@remove-
this.yahoo.com> wrote:

> I have created a Virtual Machine of a new distribution of Linux which
> was built upon Slax. *At the VMware site, I need to mention the license
> URL for the appliance. *I went to the new distribution's site and to the
> Slax site (and even to Slackware site) but did not find any page linking
> to the GPL license.
>
> The GNU website has the detailed GPL 3 license on a page. *Now, if I use
> this link will it cover all versions of GPL and leave the VM free?
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> NJ

I would suggest creating your own license page that explains that
various components of the distribution are subject to various
individual licenses. None of them require any special agreements
(there are no EULAs) and none of them place any restrictions on
ordinary use.

All you need to say is:

"This distribution is an aggregation of various components, most of
which are subject to various versions of the GPL. Any compilation
copyright is [disclaimed, offered under GPLv2, offered under GPLv3,
whatever]. There are no EULAs or agreements of any kind that restrict
your ability to download and use this distribution. Redistribution
requires complying with the licenses for each individual component."

DS

David Schwartz schrieb:

> I would suggest creating your own license page that explains that
> various components of the distribution are subject to various
> individual licenses.

Won't it be necessary to outline the components and, in case of GPL or
similar licenses, the component (source code) sources, which in turn
contain the applicable license?


> Redistribution
> requires complying with the licenses for each individual component."

The licenses are not only required by the user, but also by the
distributor (hoster) of the appliance. The latter (VMware Inc.?) most
probably wants a clear indication of the license(s), before he's willing
to publish the appliance.

DoDi

On Dec 8, 1:02*pm, Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettri...@aol.com> wrote:
> David Schwartz schrieb:
>
> > I would suggest creating your own license page that explains that
> > various components of the distribution are subject to various
> > individual licenses.

> Won't it be necessary to outline the components and, in case of GPL or
> similar licenses, the component (source code) sources, which in turn
> contain the applicable license?

I don't see any requirement in any GPL version that you do so in order
to distribute an aggregate work.

> > Redistribution
> > requires complying with the licenses for each individual component."

> The licenses are not only required by the user, but also by the
> distributor (hoster) of the appliance. The latter (VMware Inc.?) most
> probably wants a clear indication of the license(s), before he's willing
> to publish the appliance.

VMware must comply with the licenses in order to distribute the work.
No amount of notice will comply with the GPL's distribution
requirements for commercial distribution. Anyone distributing the
aggregate work will have to comply with GPL section 3.

I would assume VMware has established some way to meet their GPL
obligations. But, again, notice won't help, unless their distribution
is non-commercial and the OP is offering to distribute the source code
for them. Then notice will work under section 3c.

Note: Section numbers are referring to GPLv2. The requirements are
substantially the same in other versions, but the numbering may be
difference.

DS

On Dec 8, 5:58*pm, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I would suggest creating your own license page that explains that
> > various components of the distribution are subject to various
> > individual licenses. None of them require any special agreements
> > (there are no EULAs) and none of them place any restrictions on
> > ordinary use.

> As long as you avoid creating your own, unique license, *please*. If I see one
> more "I'm smarter than Richard Stallman so I'll write a better license" that
> winds up blocking the software from being kept available, well, I dunno.
> I'llsend them to go talk to Dan Bernstein about the futility of insistingon
> your own way.

I'm not suggesting he create his own license. In fact, he basically
can't. I'm simply suggesting he create his own license *page*. That
should explain what license(s) apply to the individual works and the
compilation as a whole.

He can either disclaim any compilation copyright he might have or
place it under a GPL-compatible license. I'm not sure if he can
legally place a compilation copyright for a collection of GPL'd works
under a non-GPL-compatible license. If you were saying he shouldn't do
that, I definitely agree with you!

DS