On 27/06/2014 20:43, John Lauro wrote:
> Looking at the license it sounds like there is not any such
> restrictions, but you would have to look at the individual software
> to verify, but exceptions should be mainly 3rd party binary only
> code...

Interesting. I can only presume that there are newer or other licences
with other restrictions (e.g. the "some cases" in this clause: "subject
to certain obligations in some cases").

> One reason to remove public sources is to keep the load off of their
> servers.

Yes, that's one reasons. There are other reasons too, of course. My
might will infer that other reasons are the overridingly significant
ones in this case. ;-)