On 6/8/05, seth vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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 ;) > > Then if that's the case it's an issue best taken up with fedora-legal or > redhat-legal. No one on this list can do anything about it, I assure > you. :) > Actualy, you are wrong. If it is correct that beehive should be released, then a list, such as this, can be used to obtain an agreed concenus that it should be taken further. Shooting first ask later is not clever and this is excatly why I asked here. I knew I would see the "its no use to you, so why ask", "its old" and good old Warren with his "stop asking" blindside manner, but the crux of of this issue is that its not up to YOU (anyone aside from me) as to its (beehives) usefullness. People are asked to lobby against voilations all the time, even when it doesn't affect them. Its the princible, so, if people do agree that it is a something worth taking to the RH legal team, then I will do so. I think Mr Harrold shows a "real" world example as to the fact that beehive does indeed play a large role in the control of building GPL sources at RH. ta -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
