Conversion to Linux

[Arthur Pemberton]

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Monty J. Harder <mjharder at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
>>
>> Not quite. The copyright holder can do whatever they want. The GPL only
>> obligates licensees. RedHat could in theory license RPM under the GPL and
>> then
>> refuse to give you source. At this point, you would be unable to legally
>> redistribute RPM yourself because YOU are bound to the GPL.
>
> If it's GPLed, then YOU have the right to make copies of the source code,
> and the right to modify the source code. While it does not specify where you
> are allowed to receive that source code, if the licensor fails to make that
> source code available to you, then from a practical standpoint, they haven't
> GPLed the code at all.


I think what he is saying is that RedHat doesn't have to release RPM
as GPL as they are the copyright holders.


-- 
Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin
( www.pembo13.com )