On 08/16/2013 01:12 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Really? Are none of the trademark-restricted additions packaged into
> GPLed items? Or is redistributing the trademark OK as long as nothing
> is changed? If you could obtain a copy and didn't care about RNH,
> could you ship straight RH binaries instead of rebuilding?
You're free to grep through the license fields in the RPM database to
find out, for those packages which contain trademarks. I'm not going to
do it for you.
If you only wanted a single shot at redistribution, and you didn't care
about RHN, then you still can only redistribute binaries that have
licenses that specifically permit binary redistribution, and only
individual packages at that, since the ISO, as a collection, is a
separate work (it's an 'aggregation of works' (an anthology, if you
will)) for copyright purposes and could be under a completely different
distribution-not-allowed license. There are some licenses out there
that could be argued to only cover the source and not the binary
translation (GPL does specifically cover the object code and executable
forms, IIRC).
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
