On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote: > >> Exactly my point. Everything is about derived works. So binaries >> cannot be exempt from the requirement that the work as a whole can >> only be distributed under a license that permits free redistribution >> and that additional restrictions cannot be added > > *which restrictions from your fantasy are you talking about?* I'm talking about the consequences Red Hat applies if you were to exercise the right that the GPL says you have to redistribute copies. If the threat of such consequences aren't a restriction, what would be? I realize that Red Hat does, in fact do more than required in other areas so this is just a philosophical point, but I don't see how their treatment of binaries meshes with the letter of the GPL. I also realize that since CentOS and other derivative distros rely on the 'more than required' parts (non-GPL'd parts, source in easily reusable form, etc.), it could all go away on a whim, just like the freely redistributable binaries did, so even if you are happy with today's scenario, there's no reason to expect it to last. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com