> The GPL, v.2, in each numbered clause requires certain
> behaviours as to the combined act of 'copy and distribute'.
>
> One may privately use GPL derived content without any general
> obligation to released forked code path sources to the world.
> The forked source provision duties, and such only arise when
> there is a 'distribution'
>
> Playing devil's advocate for a moment, how it is their duty to
> distribute (or facilitate others in distributing) their
> compiled distribution to a random third party, when it appears
> to be their intention and practice to prevent clause 3 copying
> by the disabling steps you outline?
>
> They have a clear right to proceed under section 3b, if, for
> example, they were doing a 'copy and distribute' delivery of
> some product to a customer or intended recipient.  If there is
> no delivery, the GPL source availability, and binary
> re-distribution requirements simply do not kick in.
>
> They of course cannot restrict that recipient from publishing
> an archive of the GPL parts.  But from what you say, the
> internet based distribution mechanisms seem to be consciously
> disabled.
>
> As to non-GPL parts (and there are many such packages in a
> modern distribution), different rules probably apply.  The
> complete product may (and probably does) contain trademark
> restricted items, and possibly items which they may be
> prohibited from re-distributing (patent/license encumbered mp3
> codec audio encoder packages, pine, flash players, java, etc.)
>
> What do you see as wrong?
>
> <include disclaimer IA_AL>
>
> - Russ Herrold
> ---------------------------------------------------

And we think Microsoft's EULA is a nightmare? LMAO! 


-- 
Sincerely,

Jason Spatafore
http://www.spatafore.net
A+ Certified Service Professional
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change  you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss