🚀 go-pugleaf

"Ed Murphy" <emurphy42@socal.rr.com> writes:

]On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 13:50:11 +0000, Bill Unruh wrote:

]> The binaries are clearly under law a derivative work of the source.

]So far, so good.

]> Thus the binaries MUST be released under the GPL

]So far, so good.  But "released" != "distributed".

Uh, as far as I know the use of the term released it means distribute.
To release a distribution is to make it available to others. When the
others make copies or obtain copies, you are distributing it.
What is the distinction you wanted to make.
"released" in the form I have heard it used does not mean "Redhat has a
private copy of it somewhere in their vaults".

]> which allows arbitrary
]> copying and distribution. The source MUST also be made available.

]Only if you distribute the binaries in the first place.  If you
]don't give Joe *any* form of Product X, then you're not obligated
]to give Joe the source code of Product X.

Agreed.

]You may restrict *your own* distribution however you like, including
]"only if you pay me $<amount>".  However, *if* you distribute something
]to Joe, then you cannot restrict *his* re-distribution of it.

Actually no, you cannot restrict your own distribution. For example you
must include the source code if you give Joe a copy. You can certainly
charge for it.

So yes, I agree with almost all of this. The question was whether I could take the
Redhat Enterprise edition and redistribute it for free and by
redistribute, I mean redistribute to others.