On 8/18/06, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Alain Reguera wrote:
>> >> CentOS does not distribute our product in any places where the United >> >> States export laws prohibit distribution. >> >> CentOS isnt a US product, if anything is a UK based entity, and there >> are no restrictions on anyone using it - whatever part of the world they >> might be from, unless the GPL thinks otherwise. > > Even when redhat would have a list similar to what fedora has?. that is your assumption :) And besides Redhat is a US based commercial entity, and might be subject to legal or commercial regulations. Who knows, I dont. The software is open source. And while a very large portion of 'upstream' is sitting inside Redhat - this 'upstream' does release under open source licenses. you should seek legal council for details on this issue and how it might affect you in your country, if you are so concerned about it.
Thanks, Karan. Feel your kindness here. I really would like to know someone who can clear this to me, I am just a user that have been using redhat based products since few years (maybe 2), and reached to love its way. But that list put us upset that afternoon, feeling depreciated by them. Our question was, why continue using something that they don't want we use, even in a rebuild from them?, but even worst when we reached to love them?. (please, no offence here) For that reason, get into my neuronal war and ask you pals. That was the reason of asking what was exactly the difference between centos and redhat. Because if CentOS is completely different to redhat, and though don't have this discriminatory list on it, Cause we believe in open source, no matter that one bad guy set us apart because you consider us. open source permit that in a honestly way (I think). I am a guy that don't want that my infront sidewalk neighbors use my software, but only the same sidewalk houses that are around me. So one modest guy in the houses around rebuild the software I do. They believe in open source and share to all and release them to the worldwide (including the infront sidewalk pals too). The infront sidewalk pals appreciate the modest guy that release a rebuild, even for their comrades in the same sidewalk around whom haven't the money to pay the software. If it is possible that, even people who build a software by any reason don't want to others to use them but release their sources (by now, or in a future close, the modest guy would have to buy in order to rebuild and continue with its noble cause ahead) and permit rebuild of one way or another. So, does the open source permit to those that are no permitted by the main builder to use one software, use the rebuilt software from them, if a rebuilder (that can do it) release it without cost and without that discriminatory list? Thinking so because the modest rebuild is not a work that apply the commercial laws of the sidewalk around of that, that do. Is that right Karan? But if there is some type of dependency from redhat that propagates its rules and politics to the rebuilds, feel like all the battle swords of my neuronal war passing through my chest :( For that, want to know exactly the difference between redhat and centos. Jut to be in the place I would with what is permitted to me, in order to live my live honestly. I really appreciate you guys, feel you are brilliant minds and I learn a lot with your comments. Know this maybe is a little out of topic, and that your patience has a limit too(hope don't be very near yet :).
-- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq
my Regards to you and your Time Al. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
