I would point out that this is something that they are inherently allowed to do. There is nothing that prohibits them or restricting your right to redistribute the compiled binaries. They only must make all the source and their modifications available.

Apparently you don't understand what they are restricting - the copying of CDs made by them or by the user burning the downloaded iso, simply because they've mixed proprietary software among the GPL software. If the proprietary apps were in a separate iso or on a separate CD then no foul and no harm. Removing the GPL apps from the disto cannot be done by the install program, and it is not an easy task to be done manually, as the FAQ on the WhiteBox site demonstrates.


Whether the whole system is as useable if you compile from source isn't guaranteed by the GPL. If you don't like it, get the source and roll your own ISO.

Sorry, you can't copy the contents of the CDs, save for a single copy for personal backup, so how can you 'roll your own'?
Also, the GPL requires that the source(s) supplied DOES generate the binary in question.

Some other "free software" options (FreeBSD) don't even require derivative product to distribute the source and modifications.

This comment is immaterial to the GPL issue at hand. It doesn't matter a whit that some other license is not like the GPL.

The GPL is an amazing license, and I am happy that a company like Novell or Redhat can make a profit by putting together a useable and SUPPORTED distribution, while a group like Debian and Gentoo can use the same source code, and put together a different distribution with different aims.


I agree, the GPL is an amazing license. And in the past Commercial distro makers have been making money under the rules of the GPL, so there is no reason why they can't continue to do so, unless they are getting greedy. Clauses 6 & 7 hold in these circumstances: "For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program." Commercial distro makers are beginning to use proprietary licenses to restrict GPL activities on accompanying GPL code.

Diversity is good.

But it won't last if the GPL is not honored.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/281/29409#29409