Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 1st Nov 2010 17:10 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 448056
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
That's because of copyright on the trademarks and such, which is something else entirely.
So does it make it ok to not allow redistribution of the binary (and remain GPL compliant) when you use a trademark in the package name? If the submitter used his own company name, he was no longer obliged to ensure that binary can be freely distributed, right?
I'm inclined to think "Program" in the license means mostly the source code.





Member since:
2008-12-26
It's not entirely clear to everybody. E.g. red hat provides srpms for rhel but doesn't allow you to distribute the binary rpms. It's a common view that as long as you provide source code and don't limit how the recipient uses that, you are compliant with the GPL.
So even if someone doesn't "get it", he's not completely clueless. Personally, I'm not sure I understand this nuance of GPL yet either.