Subject: Re: Apache License v2.0
From: Chuck Swiger <>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:38:39 -0700

On Sep 26, 2008, at 3:53 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>> I grant that these two modes of providing access to the source
>> are permitted, but I don't see that they are the exclusive modes.
>> In particular, Licensor's obligation to provide source code may  
>> require
>> Licensee to do something not mentioned in the License (such as pay  
>> extra
>> for it).
> Really? Do you know of anyone who does that?


>> The only thing Licensor can't do is to provide no terms at
>> all for access to the Source Code.
>> (The GPL adds "at no more than the cost of distribution" language to
>> prevent such source-code ransoming: as I recall, I urged you to do
>> the same.)
> And I rejected your urging as unnecessary, adding extra words to  
> solve a
> non-problem. Can you show me any real example of source-code  
> ransoming?


"The Linux standard. For businesses, governments, or other users  
looking for stable, supported, and certified Linux.  Available for  
immediate download starting at $80."

Of course, Fedora is also available, but it seems to be quite  
difficult to get the actual Redhat sources, even ones under the GPL,  
without placing an order to get a subscription #/login account.  Even  
the 30-day free evaluation requires you to register and agree to pay  
for the software if you use it longer than the trial period.