Re: What happened to 6.1

[Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:04 PM, R P Herrold <herrold@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> I've never quite understood how anything containing any
>>> GPL-covered code could have any redistribution/use
>>> restrictions added.
>
> The GPL, v2, only requires access to sources where one is
> providing binaries

Where do you see an exception that says binaries are different from
sources?  They are pretty clearly a covered derived work.

>... As Johnny noted, this subset of the
> binary content are not freely to 'all comers' from the
> upstream

Yes, you don't have to give access to binaries.  But you also can't
restrict subsequent redistribution by anyone who gets them.  Unless
I've missed something and the GPLv2 isn't that big.

> What part of 'not providing access to binary content' is
> unclear?

You'd need the help of someone with a paid subscription.

>> Trust me ... the Linux Foundation thinks it is OK, so we are SOL.
>
> And indeed, I sat in Eben Moglin's office and discussed this
> very topic, some years ago ... straight from the horse's
> mouth, so to speak

I suppose that would have to be considered an expert interpretation,
but it's not what the thing says.

-- 
  Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos