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? I ask
because I have yet to see legal advice that says that versus common
"well if I were the law, this is what I would interpret it to be."
I'm sure you could pay a lawyer to argue either side for you if you
wanted, but I don't see any possible way to avoid the conclusion that a
binary is a derivative of the original source and the license explicitly
states that it applies to all derivative works.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
