On Tuesday 07 June 2005 16:49, condition terminal wrote: > "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. The GPL only applies to one layer above the source files: Makefiles, configure, rpmbuild, etc. If it had an infinite ceiling above that, it'd be asinine. If you believe it does, I believe you should start at the very top of the software stack: the BIOS. Once you've convinced Acer Labs, AMI, Microid Research, Phoenix and Winbond that they're all in violation of the GPL because their BIOS allowed for builds of GPL software, come back here to talk about other links in the "infinite ceiling of GPL coverage". (Which doesn't exist). In other words, it stops one layer above. -- -jeff -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
