Re: Redhat licensing

[Erik Espinoza <erik espinoza gmail com>]

These days everything has a license, of course a lawyer is the safest
thing to do legally.  My point is that open discussion about the
licenses put forth, and hopefully insightful commentary from RH itself
is always useful. One shouldn't have to get a lawyer before installing
RHEL, and if that's the suggested attitude when people are asking
questions well then forget that. I don't feel the need to get a lawyer
when I install any other operating system, and most of the others have
much more complicated EULA's.

This is a community, and discussing issues (even legal ones) shouldn't
be barred, looked down upon. People get Red Hat for the support, but
they are free to get TaoLinux/Whitebox. I don't see the lawyer vs.
asking the community who uses it as different.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 19:29:28 -0400, Joshua Jensen <joshua iwsp com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 02:18:04PM -0400, Anthony J Placilla wrote:
> 
> > How about Eric realizes that Smooge actually Has A Clue, presents a
> > *perfectly* valid response to possibly the single most FAQ on this list
> > and give the single definitive answer to said question
> 
> No kidding.  His opinion is VERY valid.  If you want to be safe legally,
> you need a lawyer.  Smooge has been working with Linux since before most
> of us have, I guarantee.  And to the other guy (Eric?)... "your momma" :-)
> 
> Seriously though, let's stop this trend (that admittedly I started on
> this thread) and just work with the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Joshua Jensen
> joshua iwsp com
> "If God didn't want us to eat animals, why did he make them out of meat?"
> 
> --
> Taroon-list mailing list
> Taroon-list redhat com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/taroon-list
>