Yup, I caught that... starting to scan the first few lines and decide from there... Doesn't change the fact that I plan on being there tomorrow night to place faces with names. I am very thankful for the information that I have gotten so far - I was worried that the answer would have been something like "windows users shouldn't bother..." or something. I am currently up to my eyeballs in different distro's (thank God for decommissioned desktops and kvm's)...
I am also enjoying the turn in directions to the licensing side because that is what our current licensing vendor mention when she caught wind that we were thinking of using OS for some things - got the terse email regarding 'hidden clauses' in the Linux licensing and that OS software isn't really 'free' because it isn't supported... I love it when vendors go into a panic because a cash cow is thinking of leaving the pasture...
:)
Michael Haworth
-----Original Message----- From: kclug-bounces@kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces@kclug.org] On Behalf Of Billy Crook Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 12:51 PM To: Monty J. Harder Cc: kclug@kclug.org Subject: Re: Conversion to Linux
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:29, Monty J. Harder mjharder@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Luke Dashjr luke@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.
"Where you are allowed to receive" What? I can't say that's wrong because I don't even know what you meant, but it's certainly not clear. What is clear is that ยงยง 6a-6e of the GPL do specify exactly five methods by which source may be provided. Including the source with the original work is recommended, as it is the simplest, and fulfils all your obligations immediately.
Notice to Michael (If he's still breathing after the direction this thread has taken): This thread (like every other discussion related to Linux) has now decomposed into mindless GPL ranting. You should know the whole point of Linux was to give otherwise sad, lonely geeks something they can argue about as if it were important. The fact that it happens to be the most efficient operating system in the history of man kind happens to be icing on the cake. If you were seeking actual relevant advice on converting to Linux, you may disregard the remainder of this thread, as it has been doomed now for a few days. _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug