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