rick at linuxmafia.com
Wed Jan 9 17:14:22 UTC 2008
Quoting Ph.D. (hawkins at cephira.com):
[gcc binary RPM in RHEL5 Update 1 Server Edition:]
> The original question is whether you can make money selling it, and
> having an independently compiled version available freely makes that
> difficult if not impossible.
I cannot help noticing that you've just ducked the question that
challenged your assertion. The relevance is that Red Hat, Inc. chooses
to make its binary package of gcc available only in particular ways,
that nobody else in general happens to choose to make that binary
available (though they are legally entitled to), and that the covering
licence's copyleft forcing clause cannot avail you to force provision of
a copy (because it gives you only access to the preferred form _if_ you
have a lawful copy of a binary or other non-preferred form).
So, it turns out to be incorrect to assert, as you did, that you can
inevitably acquire copylefted product for free -- or even for less than
its producer charges.
> At that point you are relying on the kindness of people willing to pay you
> anyways or the stupidity of people who can't find a free version.
You know, your continuing to repeat this _isn't_ making it true. Neither
of us is stupid, but I doubt either of us is likely to find that gcc
binary RPM for free. Get the point?
Cheers, If C gives you enough rope to hang yourself, then C++ gives you enough
Rick Moen to bind and gag your neighbourhood, rig the sails on a small ship,
rick at linuxmafia.com and still have enough to hang yourself from the yardarm.
More information about the License-discuss