[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: doughnuts on a fish hook



On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 22:02, Magnus wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 26, 2003, at 04:40  PM, Steve Bergman wrote:
> 
> > This tells me two things:
> >
> > 1. RedHat is one hell of a great Open Source company and truly believes
> > in Open Source.
> 
> I believe this is true as well.  With the caveat that the licensing of 
> RHEL is ambiguous (I mean, is it GPL, or isn't it?  Will I get sued for 
> putting RHEL 2.1 ISO's on my web site?  Handing them out to people?) 

If by RHEL you mean RHAS (which I believe you do):
RHEL contains NON-REDHAT-SOFTWARE that you must have a license for. RH
makes the SRPMS for RHAS w/o that software. Not all things in RH are
GPL, but are still OSS.

The other part of RHEL is the support contract. So from what I see, yes
what you are proposing above would get you in trouble. If you pull out
the above mentioned software you are essentially left with a different
version of RHL. Follow the noted trademark rules, and you should be just
fine. However, making an ISO of a binary RHAS distribution and then
distributing to others is wrong, due to the trademark[1] and additional
software included.

IMO, but I do believe it is quite correct.

Bill

[1] Yes, I know that non-profit and LUGs have greater permissions here,
but that wasn't exactly specified

-- 
Bill Anderson
RHCE #807302597505773
bill noreboots com






[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]