On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, John Summerfield wrote: > > On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Post, Mark K wrote: > > > > > In this case, staying current=maintenance=support=$ > > > > > > They can make their money selling code also, it's just harder because it is > > > freely redistributable. > > > > Is it freely-redistributable? > > > > Let's look at the updates to the current distro in both RH and SuSE: > > > > Can I download the updates from the internet? Sources as well (srpms, for > > both RH and suse). This would make my life a lot easier. > > My experience is Red Hat, IA32. I have no support contract, and I've not tried > tracking Rh AS. > > When RH releases updated packages, it also releases source. I get both, > automatically, a a matter of course. The GPL obliges it to do so for those > packages covered by it, but RH does for all packages. > > RH AS 2.1 source is available for download by anyone. This is more than the GPL > obliges RH to do, it need do no more than supply source to its clients.
I asked about the updates, not about the original distro > > > > > And suppose I have aquired the right to download updates packages in a > > support contract from RH/suse: do I get the source? (so I can rebuild the > > package later and adapt build options) > > For GPL code the vendor is obliged to supply source, but only on request. under the GPL the vender is obliged to give you the source *only* if you got the binaries. That is, if the binaries of some package are avilable to the customers of RH, those customers should have access to the sources of those modifications. Those customers are then free to modify and redistribute those changes. But is everything there under the GPL? -- Tzafrir Cohen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir
