On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 00:22 -0700, David Rees wrote:
On 8/27/06, Gene Heskett <[email protected]> wrote:
However, the lack of a freely downloadable version with no
support certainly seems to be a GPL violation to me. It should be checked
out IMO.
Gene, this is not quite the right list for this discussion (have a
look at http://gpl-violations.org/) and your understanding of the GPL
is incorrect.
Just because a company doesn't have source freely downloadable on
their website does not mean they are violating the GPL even if they
are selling GPL licensed software. Only people who buy the GPL
licensed software are entitled to a copy of the source of the binaries
they receive.
as far as i understand, anyone who receieves a copy of the binary, is
entitled to the source
Yes, but they have to ask their source of the binary for it, not the
original creator if he gave the source to his customers together with the
binaries.
c'ya
sven
--
The Internet treats censorship as a routing problem, and routes around it.
(John Gilmore on http://www.cygnus.com/~gnu/)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
