On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 11:27 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 10:50 -0400, Alan Cox wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 01:38:44PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I know the FSF-definition very well. They are defining free in the sense
> >>>> of "open source"
> >>>
> >>> I don't think they agree with you there, in fact Richard would probably
> >>> be most
> >>> upset at such a claim...
> >>
> >> May-be, may-be not.
> >>
> >> Fact is: The GPL's notion of freedom is essentially covering freedom on
> >> "source code". It's "viral" nature has has some implications on binaries
> >> ("make source code available to customers"), but it nowhere states that
> >> binaries having been built from GPL'ed sources must be "free-beer".
> >
> > There is no distinction between binaries and source in regard to the rights
> > recipients have to redistribute them, except for the point that if you
> > distribute binaries at all you must also make the corresponding source
> > available to the recipeints.
> >
>
> Do you have a lawyers advice on that? A courts decision on that?
Yes, there have been cases in front of courts, where enterprises using
"binaries having been built from GPL'ed sources" without offering their
sources had been sued.
c.f. http://gpl-violations.org/
Check their "news".
Ralf
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
