UnitedLinux "certified binaries" will not to be freely available

[Paul Iadonisi]

On Mon, 2002-06-24 at 22:43, Frank Ramsay wrote:

> re-read section 3, this senario is in full complience of that section also.
> Section three states your obligations for distributing, which is you have to
> provide the source to the people  you distribute to.  I say nothing about
> what can and can't be done with the source code included with the binary.

  I did re-read it before I posted.  But section 3 refers to sections 1
and 2:

     3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on
        it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under
        the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do
        one of the following:

  Yes, sections 1 and 2 refer to source, but this clause *seems* to
broaden those two sections to cover binaries as well.  In other words
you can't add any restrictions to those, either.
  But I'll agree that it's not crystal clear.

> That is also my understanding, but I bet a (oxymoron) good lawyer could make
> a pretty good case in court for the GPL only being applicable to source
> because a binary is easily produced from the source.

  Maybe, but given that Eben Moglen (sp?) has been enforcing the GPL for
over a decade without ever entering a courtroom[1], I think the FSF and
other GPL copyright holders will prevail if the FSF decides to protest
the actions of United Linux (or more specifically, Caldera).

[1] Notwithstanding the MySQL case, but that's not the FSF.  That has
more to do with disallowing Nusphere to distribute MySQL even though
they are now in compliance of the GPL.  MySQL AB is just pissed and is
using the termination clause of the GPL.  The FSF has stated that they
usually encourage 'forgiveness' in cases like this.

-- 
-Paul Iadonisi
 Senior System Administrator
 Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
 Ever see a penguin fly?  --  Try Linux.
 GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets