pmacdona@sanjuan (Peter MacDonald) writes:

quoted text
>People are starting to ask if SLS can be used for various and
>sundry purposes, such as redistribution or selling.   Since I
>didn't state so in the README, let me clear the air here.  Anybody
>can use SLS for anything they want (except  restricting others
>of course).  In short, the same rules that apply to the Linux
>kernel, apply to SLS.  If you wish to sell it for ,000.00
>(support extra) and can find someone to buy it, you are free
>to do so.  If you wish to siphon it through to Bullitin (sp?)
>boards or Fidonet, by all means.  After all, SLS is designed
>to save people the agonizing task of collecting and integrating
>a system themselves.  And it is hoped it will catapult it 
>to greater availability.

quoted text
>Peter

Your are omitting one very important fact here. You are *required*
to make sources available on demand for at least three years for
a distribution fee, *and* state this fact *clearly*.

While make life easier for many is a Good Thing (tm), it's *no* excuse
for taking away peoples basic right. This is not meant as a flame, but
take into account that people who has difficulites get binaries from
FTP sites, has exactly the same problems with source.

The message is: *STOP THESE BINARY-ONLY RELEASES*!! It's ok to make
a complete packages, and to distribute binaries and sources seperate, but
there *must* be a 1-1 corespondence. Who are you to break GPL?

-- 
/Tommy Thorn, another LPF member. Terminate software patents.
Join The League for Programming Freedom, mail league@prep.ai.mit.edu.
XT350 '88 - You either make dust, or you eat it.