In article <m3144oINN3v4@cash.cs.utexas.edu> mcguire@cs.utexas.edu (Tommy Marcus McGuire) writes:
quoted text
>
>Read the General Public License!  From section 6.:  "Each time you 
>redistribute the Program (or any work based on the program), the
>recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor
>to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms
>and conditions [i.e. the GPL].  You may not impose any further 
>restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."

I think that what Peter is looking into is a "distribution" copyright:
the programs included in the SLS distribution will naturally have the
GPL apply to them *singly*, but the SLS distribution as a *package*
would be copyrighted by SLS to some degree, so that some random person
couldn't just take the SLS setup and sell it as-is.  I don't know how
well this works under copyright law, but I think it's possible (and it
wouldn't be against the GPL).  There are probably net.lawers out there
that know better about compilation copyrights or whatever their legal
status is (similar to anthologies when it comes to books - the stories
in a anthology are under different copyrights, but the "package" also
has a copyright to protect it). 

As to whether it's a good idea or not is another matter: I personally
think Peter (and others like Yggdrasil) have good reason to do something
like this.  The GPL was meant to make the sources free, but one aspect
of the GPL is also that people like Peter and Adam should be able to
make money off them by making value-added packages with support and
other services.  Putting the SLS under some kind of copyright would not
hinder others from using the programs therein, it would just mean that
Peter could try to have some kind of "quality-assurance" of the
different packages that go under the name SLS - something that should be
good for everybody. 

                Linus