Replies

Anybody who would now try to sit here and say they were agreeing with me on that thread that Concurrent is distributing Linux is completely consumed with sin.

I'll take a shot at this. I never saw the thread, and I have no idea what it's about other than a couple comments I've seen on this thread. So, in context from a fresh set of eyes:

You first chimed in with the stupid comment #15 "Red Hawk, what is that, another free copy of Red Hat?" We're talking about real-time Linux, which would have little to do with Red Hat, which distributes Linux for desktop and server.

The second stupid part of the comment #15, "So the Chinese can rip a free copy over the internet, and rename it "Red Flag" too then huh." first forgets that Red Flag is also a desktop/server Linux, and also assumes that Concurrent would actually give it to the Chinese. Nothing in the GPL states that the program must be available to all, only that you must release your modifications under the GPL to those people you give it to. IOW, Concurrent must license its modifications under the GPL to Lockheed, no more.

You were then challenged by others and replied in #21 with a bunch of statements phrased as questions to the effect that a person must give a copy to anyone who wants it.

The truth was then explained to you by FD in #27.

You then replied in #30 with a novel reading of the GPL, saying you must give when asked. The GPL states your responsibilities should you decide to redistribute. There is no clause requiring redistribution, and I challenge you to post one here. Here are the applicable clauses:

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

The plain reading with the conditional "may" tied to the phrase "and distribute" says you have an option to distribute. Should you decide to distribute, you must comply with this term you referred to that applies to the argument:

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish [notice it is restricted to what you decide to distribute], that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

So, Concurrent gives to Lockheed, it must put its code under the GPL to make the transfer to Lockheed not a copyright violation. Now there's nothing saying Lockheed has to distribute it further. As simply a user having received the program, Lockheed doesn't even need to accept the GPL:

0. ... Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted

So the buck stops there. Concurrent to Lockheed and no further, unless Lockheed decides to give it to the Chinese (providing there's nothing in the Concurrent/Lockheed contract to the contrary).

So, on to the conversation: FD basically told you what I just told you in #31, only I provided the specific parts of the license to back me up.

You responded with some non-argument and insults in #32, not actually backing up your assertion.

He challenged you in #33 to provide a specific term in the license to prove your point rather than just linking to the whole document.

You reply in #34 with more insults, no proof.

FD replied in #35 taunting you about not being able to provide proof.

You got hammered by some other people for a while, then FD said in #60 "You said if you redistribute it, you have to release the source code." but I don't know where he got that from.

I was obviously drawing parallels to Red Hat, which the Chicomms either bought a single copy or got a copy from somewhere else, and now make infinite copies they resell under a different name. What's to stop them from doing the exact samething here? HINT: flamer's lie that Concurrent isn't distributing it at all is an obvious loser.

"You got hammered by some other people for a while, then FD said in #60 "You said if you redistribute it, you have to release the source code." but I don't know where he got that from."

Yep, once again, I gave him more credit than he deserved. I have a bad habit of assuming that he understands things.