[clue-tech] CentOS

[Ed Hill]

On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 09:47 -0700, mike havlicek wrote:
> 
> Regardless I think the spec file in the source rpm had
> conflicting information regarding Intel x86
> architecture. 
> 
> I stll do wonder where CentOS got their code and if it
> is legal.  


Hi Mike,

To get a truly meaningful legal opinion, you will need to contact a
lawyer who specializes in the above sort of licensing.

HOWEVER, in layman terms, software that is *distributed* under the terms
of the GPL *is* GPL.  Period.  This means that folks really do have the
right to get the source, re-distribute it, modify it, compile it, etc.
So for all of the GPL-ed software, folks like CentOS are on a firm legal
footing.  They're well within their rights.

And note that the GPL is used for a lot of the packages distributed by
Red Hat *including* the kernel.

The only parts of RHEL that CentOS and others *cannot* distribute are
the bits covered by some of the other (non-GPL) licenses.  For instance,
some (?) of the Red Hat artwork and some (?) of the docs are copyrighted
by Red Hat under different terms.  I have no idea what the terms are or
what fraction they cover since I've never really looked.

But, it is completely legal to buy a copy of RHEL and then recompile
and/or re-distribute all of the bits that are covered under appropriate
licenses.

Ed

-- 
Edward H. Hill III, PhD
office:  MIT Dept. of EAPS;  Rm 54-1424;  77 Massachusetts Ave.
             Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
emails:  eh3 at mit.edu                ed at eh3.com
URLs:    http://web.mit.edu/eh3/    http://eh3.com/
phone:   617-253-0098
fax:     617-253-4464

_______________________________________________
CLUE-tech mailing list
CLUE-tech at cluedenver.org
http://cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-tech