Andrea Borgia wrote: > Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows, or by mutual > agreement: > (a) In free-of-charge or at-cost distributions by non-profit concerns; > (b) In free-of-charge distributions by for-profit concerns; > (c) Inclusion in a CD-ROM collection of free-of-charge, shareware, or > non-proprietary software for which a fee may be charged for the packaged > distribution.
"this release" refers to the unmodified source tarball. We already distribute that (in non-free, since it's not free). > IANAL, but it would appear to me that point A applies to Debian, point B to > RedHat's freely downloadable distribution and C to RedHat's boxed set, for > example. > > My take on this is that RedHat, just to use an example of commercial > distribution I know well, is even more constrained than Debian is when > redistributing free software, since, well, they do make money out of it and > Debian does not. > > So, from a legal standpoint, where is the problem? License does not explicitly allow to distribute "modified binaries", i.e. binaries produced from modified source. [ This has been discussed many times, please read the archives ].
