[clue-tech] CentOS

[Bamm Visscher]

It's really simple. RedHat provides all the source rpms on its own FTP
server [0]. CentOS takes those RPMs and (legally) builds it's own
binary RPMs. Remember, RedHat redistributes GPL'd software and a key
part of the GPL is the rights (lefts) it gives the user. RedHat can in
no way restrict my right to redistribute works licensed to them/me by
the GPL.

Bammkkkk

[0] ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/4/en/os/i386/SRPMS

On 10/27/05, mike havlicek <mhavlicek1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> --- 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
>


--
sguil - The Analyst Console for NSM
http://sguil.sf.net
_______________________________________________
CLUE-tech mailing list
CLUE-tech at cluedenver.org
http://cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-tech