[Fwd: Wikipidia - Goodbye Red Hat and Fedora]

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 10:50 -0400, Alan Cox wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 01:38:44PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I know the FSF-definition very well. They are defining free in the sense
>>>> of "open source"
>>>
>>> I don't think they agree with you there, in fact Richard would probably
>>> be most
>>> upset at such a claim...
>>
>> May-be, may-be not.
>>
>> Fact is: The GPL's notion of freedom is essentially covering freedom on
>> "source code". It's "viral" nature has has some implications on binaries
>> ("make source code available to customers"), but it nowhere states that
>> binaries having been built from GPL'ed sources must be "free-beer".
>
> There is no distinction between binaries and source in regard to the rights
> recipients have to redistribute them, except for the point that if you
> distribute binaries at all you must also make the corresponding source
> available to the recipeints.
>

Do you have a lawyers advice on that? A courts decision on that? I ask
because I have yet to see legal advice that says that versus common
"well if I were the law, this is what I would interpret it to be."






-- 
Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"