The FSF's being stupid again, it seems...

[Paul Fox]

 > > probably whoever natanael's giving his distro to doesn't really care,
 > > but what if it were montavista saying, "our source comes straight
 > > from redhat -- go to them" -- would that be okay?  i don't think so.
 > 
 > If they have a contractual relationship with Red Hat and a
 > contract that says Red Hat will keep the old source online for
 > three years, then I don't see how that's any different than
 > them hiring an ISP to host it for them.

i confess i wasn't really aware of clause 3(c) before this
evening.  i only knew about 3(a) and 3(b).  my hypothetical above
regarding MV and RH would violate 3(c) because they're commercial
(unless, i suppose, and as you say, they have some sort of contract
in place to make their source repositories equivalent from the
customer's standpoint).  i don't know whether Mepis and Ubuntu
are considered "commercial" or not, so i don't know whether 3(c)
applies in that case.

i'm still not sure where the notion that the FSF is trying to
do away with 3(b) came from.  if that's true, then i agree with you --
it's going too far.

paul
=---------------------
 paul fox, pgf at brightstareng.com