On Sun, 2006-01-01 at 00:08 +0800, John Summerfied wrote: > Craig White wrote: > > > > Things like flash player, though free are not open source and are > > available in binary format only which creates an issue if distributed in > > conjunction with software that is GPL license. > > Please, research this point and show is what the problem is. > > I believe there is not problem distributing GPL and non-free software as > part of the same collation. ---- http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OrigBSD ---- > > The problem Red Hat has is that it cannot support flash, java and such. > Red Hat got burned with CDE some years ago; I imagine this is a factor > in its current attitude. Other vendors do distribute varying amounts of > closed-source software. ---- http://www.macromedia.com/licensing/distribution/faq/#item-1-9 ---- > > > > > Then there are patent issues as Rahul suggested with things like audio > > and video codecs/formats which could present a sticky wicket for a > > distribution. > > I wonder how many Americans know what a sticky wicket is? ---- heck - we don't even understand cricket. ;-) http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-sti2.htm Craig
