gawd, I hate to jump in as the initial thread has wandered so
far, and seems OT, but there are a couple clear items needing
correction, under the GPL para 3 stanza.
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Michael A. Peters wrote:
beehive does not effect the build of the package.
an rpm built by my typing
rpmbuild --rebuild foobar.src.rpm
is NOT going to be different than if something else builds it.
The spec file is included in the src.rpm
Clearly false. My (documented) research, the experience at
cAos, and in some of the RHEL rebuilds, and that of others,
clearly show that it certainly matters a lot as to the build
environment, and pre-arguments, defines, and arguments passed
in to the builder. These settings are argueably covered under
GPL 3, para following c), which is pretty explicit:
"For an executable work, complete source code means all the
source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated
interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control
compilation and installation of the executable."
------------
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, seth vidal wrote:
b/c everyone who has had a lawyer review it say the same
thing that beehive doesn't have to be released under the gpl
True enough, so far as it goes; 'release of beehive' code
itself. But if the argument is that one may conceal from a
covered recipient under the GPL, the state of the build
environment which controls rpmbuild, autogen, ./configure,
etc, I certainly know of at least two lawyers who differ. We
presented in a panel discussion a couple years ago on the GPL,
and hit this topic at the Ohio Linuxfest 2003 ;)
<include IA_AL disclaimer>
-- Russ Herrold
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
