On 6/7/05, Jeff Pitman <symbiont@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tuesday 07 June 2005 13:23, condition terminal wrote: > > hehe.. no no.. beehive isnt a factor in providing rpms... but we will > > just patch in beehive support and intergrate beehive into the build > > process, but then claim it has nothing to do with GPL and is free > > from the T&C of the GPL... > > Now you are reaching troll status. > > "The" build process is rpmbuild. Redhat so happens to hack together a > meta-builder on top. So what. Beehive is old and you would make more > progress and contribution to the community by helping with tools like > mach/mock. > > Even if they did release beehive, which they have no obligation to do, > it would be useless. > "So what" thats a good arguement. However, regardless of the fact that there *could* be better solutions, it doesn't change the fact that RH deny access to beehive when it clearly is used to produce the binaries that go into FC and RHEL. Old, meta, could be better options, these arguments do not deviate the point that beehive is used to *control* the build of GPL source code. Again, the GPL clearly states that files used to control this process must be provided under the same terms and conditions. ta -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
