| To: | Daniel van Eeden <daniel@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: old xfsprogs tarbals |
| From: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:17:23 +0100 |
| Cc: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <1080723666.8003.12.camel@daniel>; from daniel@xxxxxxx on Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 11:01:07AM +0200 |
| References: | <1080723666.8003.12.camel@daniel> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5.1i |
On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 11:01:07AM +0200, Daniel van Eeden wrote: > The old tarbals seem to disapear, which is against the (L)GPL as far as > I know. That's bullshit. The GPL requires you to keep around the source _if_ you hand out binaries only with a written offer to get source later. SGI never used that GPL clause but always distributed both source adn binaries from the same place (oss.sgi.com and the SGI ProPack CDROMs). Even if SGI didn't they just have to give you the source for the old binaries but not keep them in the same place forever. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: old xfsprogs tarbals, Chris Wedgwood |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | file corruption, Dmitry Nikiforov |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: old xfsprogs tarbals, Chris Wedgwood |
| Next by Thread: | file corruption, Dmitry Nikiforov |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |