Subject: Re: up2date
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 21:45:56 +0900
>>>>> "Ralph" == Ralph Corderoy <ralph@inputplus.co.uk> writes:
Ralph> So them withdrawing one means of distribution but leaving
Ralph> others doesn't suggest a GPL violation to me.
Per se, no, see clause 3(b). But as a threat intended to inhibit
redistribution, it's a violation of clause 6. Tom's right, I think.
But I suspect that Ian misspoke himself in the first place, since the
restriction against redistributing _RPMs_ is so gratuitous given the
FTP availability. Furthermore, the contract/statement Ian quoted
didn't mention the RPMs.
What it said is that you may not copy or redistribute your _RHN
credentials_ (not even to yourself!) That is both legal under the GPL
and good business sense.
--
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
My nostalgia for Icon makes me forget about any of the bad things. I don't
have much nostalgia for Perl, so its faults I remember. Scott Gilbert c.l.py