Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: JBoss aquired by Red Hat]
From: simo <>
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 09:22:16 -0400

On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 15:14 +0200, Bernard Lang wrote:

> my point is that the clicking may be unrelated to what the GPL enforces.
> the GPL is enforceable anyway.

I agree, as otherwise downstream there can't be any distribution because
no permission to do so is given.

> > 
> > I agree that Corel's term(s) of distribution were likely a GPL  
> > violation.
> Not at all ...  it would be if it attempted to prevent downloaders to
> give it away to people under 18.  But to put restrictions on whom you
> give it to, or how, could breach some laws, but not the GPL. The GPL
> does not force anyone to give back his modified code (unlike some
> other copyleft licences). It only forces you to sell/give it away
> under the GPL, if you do.

Bernard, read my previous answer to which Jim agreed, it explain a
specific way of distribution that may be a breach of the GPL.

Of course you are free to distribute the code to who you want, but only
if you always give away the source code with the binaries so that your
obligations with the GPL are satisfied in one single transaction.