[Fwd: Wikipidia - Goodbye Red Hat and Fedora]

[James Hubbard]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>>>> There is no distinction between binaries and source in regard to the
>>>> rights
>>>> recipients have to redistribute them, except for the point that if you
>>>> distribute binaries at all you must also make the corresponding source
>>>> available to the recipeints.
>>>>
>>> Do you have a lawyers advice on that? A courts decision on that?
>>
>> Yes, there have been cases in front of courts, where enterprises using
>> "binaries having been built from GPL'ed sources" without offering their
>> sources had been sued.
>
> I think the question was aimed at my implication that the redistribution  of
> GPL'd binaries could not have additional restrictions applied (beyond the
> GPL itself).  Have there been any actual cases where this requirement was
> challenged one way or another?  I think it is pretty clear from any reading
> of the license but most people focus on the source.

Sveasoft required compliance with its policies if you wished to
continue to receive updates. The FSF looked into it.  See link and
quote below.

Sveasoft and the GPL: http://lwn.net/Articles/178550/
...
To some, it looks very much like Sveasoft is attempting to add
restrictions to the GPL-licensed software it uses for its products. It
is, in essence, imposing a penalty on anyone who redistributes its
products. In the end, however, challenges to this model have not
gotten far, and the Free Software Foundation has stated that Sveasoft
is in compliance with the GPL - at least, with regard to its support
agreements.
...