question about RedHat/Fedora and the GPL

[condition terminal]

On 6/8/05, seth vidal <skvidal at phy.duke.edu> wrote:
> 
> > True enough, so far as it goes; 'release of beehive' code
> > itself.  But if the argument is that one may conceal from a
> > covered recipient under the GPL, the state of the build
> > environment which controls rpmbuild, autogen, ./configure,
> > etc, I certainly know of at least two lawyers who differ. We
> > presented in a panel discussion a couple years ago on the GPL,
> > and hit this topic at the Ohio Linuxfest 2003 ;)
> 
> Then if that's the case it's an issue best taken up with fedora-legal or
> redhat-legal. No one on this list can do anything about it, I assure
> you. :)
> 

Actualy, you are wrong. 

If it is correct that beehive should be released, then a list, such as
this, can be used to obtain an agreed concenus that it should be taken
further.

Shooting first ask later is not clever and this is excatly why I asked
here. I knew I would see the "its no use to you, so why ask", "its
old" and good old Warren with his "stop asking" blindside manner, but
the crux of of this issue is that its not up to YOU (anyone aside from
me) as to its (beehives) usefullness. People are asked to lobby
against voilations all the time, even when it doesn't affect them. Its
the princible, so, if people do agree that it is a something worth
taking to the RH legal team, then I will do so. I think Mr Harrold
shows a "real" world example as to the fact that beehive does indeed
play a large role in the control of building GPL sources at RH.

ta