[clue-tech] CentOS

[mike havlicek]

--- Ed Hill <ed at eh3.com> wrote:

> 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
> 

Good points. And as I was speaking before I think it
only the kernel that RedHat changes. So in retrospect
if CentOS takes or models without using the RedHat
kernel one would suspect that all is fine. 

But they being RedHat do require "PAID" licensing to
even access the source rpms that have the GPL unless
for a 30 day trial.

So I again wonder how CentOS redistributes freely.

-Mike

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
CLUE-tech mailing list
CLUE-tech at cluedenver.org
http://cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-tech