On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 11:19 -0700, Peter Gordon wrote: > > You apparently haven't actually read the GPL. Please note the > > parts that say you can't restrict further redistribution and > > that you can't redistribute at all unless the work as a whole > > meets the terms of the GPL. > That depends on many things as well. Redistribution as a whole if the parts > are distinct is permitted (the "mere aggregation" clause). It depends only on copyright law and what might be considered a derived work. The usual interpretation is that anything that ends up linked into the same program is covered although optional dynamically loaded modules make an odd case. > > And in fact it doesn't say > > anything specific about the cost of the source, so I'm not > > sure what you did read... > It says that "equivalent access" must be of the source code to whomever > receives the binaries in question. This means that the maximum price for the > copy of source code, if it was not given with the binaries, may at most be that > price of the copy of the binaries. Please see the FSF's "Selling Software" page > for more information: > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html#HighOrLowFeesAndGPL It doesn't matter what anything but the license itself says. Equivalent access is acceptable, but not the only way to meet the requirement. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
