On Sat, 2005-06-04 at 08:44 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote: > This is a good point. But this would not apply to the non-GPL covered works. > So, they would have to make the SRPMS available to the recipients of the > binary code for the GPL covered packages. Thanks for the correction, Johnny. I think people forget that RPM is basically just a 5KB block USTAR (cpio System-V) archive. Debs in DPKG are also similar. The meta-data built around them is not required for the package to be built and function. So Red Hat _could_ package it in a tarball for building too. Or they could even just reference Fedora Core for the packages that do not differ (which is the overwhelming majority). The GPL guarantees you can built and use the software as it was intented for its purpose. But if it further guarantees that it will work with other, non-required packages for it to function, that would open up a can of worms. In other words, I don't see the terms of the GPL "extended" to the point where it must be released in a form guaranteed to work as part of a distribution with other packages that are not required for its to function. That would, again, open up a whole can of worms. -- Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith at ieee.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- It is mathematically impossible for someone who makes more than you to be anything but richer than you. Any tax rate that penalizes them will also penalize you similarly (to those below you, and then below them). Linear algebra, let alone differential calculus or even ele- mentary concepts of limits, is mutually exclusive with US journalism. So forget even attempting to explain how tax cuts work. ;->