Buck wrote: > The way I see it, Red Hat distributes the GPL with the software, but > they won't sell it unless the buyer signs a contract that contradicts it > saying that they will lose all support if they distribute it or use it > on more than one computer. Ask your lawyer this question: Does the GPL demand or guarantee anything in regards to under what conditions BINARIES (object code or executable) are licensed for redistribution? I see a lot of jibber-jabber in the GPL about how you must provide access to source code if you are distributing object or executable forms of the code. I don't see much discussion on guaranteeing the right to redistribute object code. But as soon as I can afford a legal department (like the one Red Hat has) I'll make it a point to have them scour the GPL to make sure that I have the right to sell and distribute binary code under a license that restricts the redistribution and use of that binary code in exchange for continued support and maintains of the binary code...you know sort of like Red Hat has done. Red Hat provides the source code in the form of SRPMs for all GPL'd RHEL code. Only thing I can possibly see wrong with that is you'd need rpm or some other extraction tool to extract the source code....so providing rpm as a srpm is a sort of catch 22. Then again...isn't offering the source to tar, in a tarball the same sort of problem. I think the best answer to this paradox is found at the bottom of a tequila shot glass, which I will soon be searching. -jef"soon...it will be time to sell my one unopened box of Mr. T cereal on ebay, and buy that Croatian summer home I've always wanted"spaleta
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
