It's definately a grey area that needs sorting out with RH Legal....
However I think you have the crux of the issue Maciej.
Cheer,s
Matt.
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 23:37:35 +0100 (CET), Maciej ?enczykowski
<maze@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think the main question is - whether changing Red Hat to CentOS
> everywhere except in the copyright and noting the change would be
> considered a substantial modification...
>
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Lance Davis wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Michael Best wrote:
> >
> > > Maciej ?>>enczykowski wrote:
> > > >>Here read this:
> > > >>http://beta.centos.org/centos-4/4.0/docs/html/rhel-ig-x8664-multi-en-4/legalnotice.html
> > > >>
> > > >>-Mike
> > >
> > > The Open Content license does permit derived works, modified versions
> > > must say they are modified, and have bibliographic attribution to the
> > > original work.
> >
> > That is not my understanding having read it.
> > >
> >
> > as in :-
> >
> > 'Distribution of substantively modified versions of this document is
> > prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright holder.'
> >
> > That being an optional overrider on the opencontent license.
> >
> > as in :-
> >
> > The author(s) and/or publisher of an Open Publication-licensed document
> > may elect certain options by appending language to the reference to or
> > copy of the license. ...
> >
> >
> > A. To prohibit distribution of substantively modified versions without the
> > explicit permission of the author(s). "Substantive modification" is
> > defined as a change to the semantic content of the document, and excludes
> > mere changes in format or typographical corrections.
> >
> > Lance
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
