On 06/15/2018 01:33 PM, Keith Keller wrote: > On 2018-06-14, Valeri Galtsev <galtsev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> It turns out you are absolutely right. You only have provide modified >> source to users to whom you distribute derived work. Found it here: >> >> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic > > Not totally relevant to this thread, but relevant to repeating: since > the code is still GPLv2, if RedHat shares its code with me, I can still > redistribute freely, even though RedHat is not necessarily > redistributing to the general public. RedHat can not prevent me from > redistribution even though I obtained the code under a paid support > contract. (At that point RH has zero obligation to anybody who > downloads from me, of course.) > > --keith > Yes they can // well, yes and no. You agreed to an EULA that says you will not distribute things that you get from that paid subscription. You can do it, and be in violation of the terms of your subscription. Then, you could lose said subscription privileges. You could modify it for your own use though. The CentOS team would never distribute anything in that manner. Or allow it to be distributed on CentOS.org machines/services.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
