On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 19:43 +1300, Martin Langhoff wrote: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> The free > >> availability of binaries is never a requirement for any of the free and > >> open source licenses. > > This is what RedHat propaganda is telling you. > > I've done several papers in Law School specifically on software > licensing and analysis of GPL and related licenses. Rahul's statement > is correct -- no licenses require availability of binaries. > > Might be awkward or less than helpful, but it's comfortably within the > rules of the license. I am not doubting this: It's a different definition of free. It's one case of the usual word-games with "freedom"-related words. To me, a product you can not get without having to pay for, doesn't qualify as free - It's may be free in the sense of "intellectual property", but this doesn't make it free in the "common man's sense". Ask your neighbor, if he would pay USD600 for a barrel of "free beer". Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
