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

Re: What do you think of Centos



On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Christofer C. Bell wrote:

On 2/22/06, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell gmail com> wrote:

No, it's not clear.  First you complain about them removing
the tradmarks, then continue with a complaint about when
they tried to give some credit.  Which is it you'd prefer?
They were never pretending to 'be' RedHat but they did
try to describe the origin and legal status of the product.

I would prefer they leave the distribution of Red Hat Enterpise Linux
to Red Hat Software, Incorporated.   What you seem to be missing here
is this, Les (and others): "I do not care what they do to be in the
clear legally, I think they're in the moral wrong."

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but Red Hat seems to have less of a problem with this issue than you do.

While RH is legally obligated by the (L)GPL to offer source to the (L)GPL components of their Linux distributions to their customers, they are not under any obligation to offer that source to the public. Nor are they obligated to offer source for other components either to their customers or the public. Yet they do.

More to the point, they are under no obligation to offer the source to the public in the form of the exact SRPMs they use to build RHEL. Yet they do that as well. And they distribute their updates the same way. If they felt that the clone distros were detrimental to their business model, I would think they would stop doing that. Note that many of those RPMs are interdependent, so they can't have any expectation that people won't build complete distributions using them.



[Reductio ad absurdum argument deleted]


--
		Matthew Saltzman

Clemson University Math Sciences
mjs AT clemson DOT edu
http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs


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