Where UnitedLinux Got It Wrong

An Anonymous Coward writes "A story on NewsForge [ed. note: part of the keiretsu] suggests that the lack of binaries for UnitedLinux shows disrespect to the community which created most of the software. The author suggests a better way for handling the business problems that a lack of binaries is supposed to solve. Some particularly clueless reader comments say that UnitedLinux has no responsibility to cooperate with the community. The thought that UnitedLinux won't even offer a development distribution to the community does not sit well with me."

Comments

keiretsu... for the english speakers

[whydna]

In case you didn't know what keiretsu meant either:

A network of businesses that own stakes in one another as a means of mutual security, especially in Japan, and usually including large manufacturers and their suppliers of raw materials and components.

Re:well

[foonf]

Only if you distribute the binaries do you have to distribute the source _to the people that got the binaries_. Since you didn't pay for it, and hence didn't get the binaries, you have no legal right to the source code either.

Not exactly. They can restrict distribution of the source to paying customers only, but all of those customers also are allowed to distribute under the terms of the GPL. And all it would take is one person to throw it up on an ftp to render the whole the restriction quite moot. Which is probably why they are making it publicly available anyway.