> > However, we now now that there are GPL police out > there and > > enforcing the GPL on people who modify the freely > available code out > > there, but do not share their modifications :( > > This is not a very accurate picture. > > There's no GPL enforcement whatsoever involved in the > actions you > describe above. > > It's not a GPL violation or copyright infringement to > modify software > under the GPL. It's not a GPL violatino or copyright > infringement to > keep your modifications private to yourself. Try telling Zenwalk and Mepis that http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS4218186268.html http://www.mepis.org/source http://beranger.org/index.php?page=diary&2008/01/18/22/49/54-zenwalk-5-0-is-not-an-option-mep > > What is a violation that may amount to copyright > infringement is to > distribute the software, modified or not, under conditions > other than > those established in the GPL, such that recipients are > unable to enjoy > the same freedoms that the distributor could enjoy as to > the software. > This is clearly a question of what are the requirements as established by the GPL. That is why they were accused of GPL violations. They made their modifications of freely available code, but they did not release their modifications :( This is why they were caught and the GPL police got after them and that is why the Mepis website offers the source at their page. This is where Fedora is at its best. Even though many things are restricted :(, they have the sources readily available and can get the sources for most packages. There are src rpms and available on many mirrors :) Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
