[tlug] GPL non-sense

[Shawn Brown <big.coffee.lover@example.com>]

HI,

I wish the GPL were better written because if it were I wouldn't be in
fight with corporate legal.

I want to comply with GPL requirement that:

TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Source Code.
The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all
the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
control those activities.

and

4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.

You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you
receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice;
keep intact all notices stating that this License and any
non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code;
keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all
recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.

and

6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of
sections 4 and 5 ...


The GPL however also states:

7. Additional Terms.
...you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material)
supplement the terms of this License with terms:
Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade
names, trademarks, or service marks


So what happens is that corporate legal wants a EULA stating:
"grants you the non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited right and
license to install and use this Application solely and exclusively for
your personal use."

This is supposedly under their '7. Additional Terms.' right to protect
their copyright.
OK so we'll offer the source.  This is what Red Hat does.  But even
this conflicts with 1.  Taking out the trademarked material means the
app won't run.  Red Hat's work is the same.  They state that except in
certain cases their logos must be removed before redistribution and
that mere deletion of the copyrights will corrupt the software.


I don't see how having to reengineer Red Hat in order to release it is
in compliance with section 1 [The “Corresponding Source” for a work in
object code form means all the source code needed to generate,
install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to
modify the work, including scripts to control those activities.] but
they feel it is their right under via section 7 [..you may (if
authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the
terms of this License with terms:
Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade
names, trademarks, or service marks]

So anyway, the application I wrote under gpl3 may never see the light
of day because the legal dept. of the company I wrote it in conduction
with is clamoring about the EULA.  I guess I could re-write the app
without the copyrights to be in compliance with condition 1 or I can
not re-write the app and distribute it in a form that is
not-redistributable and likely not modifiable (unless you want to take
the time to reengineer it which 1 is trying to avoid I think).  I will
likely reengineer for users since I am nicer that Red Hat.

Anyway, this is a conflict I think a well written legal document could
have avoided.

Shawn