Les Mikesell wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:And in this case, the precedents of hundreds years of contractual law would have to be overturned. The GPL license covers source code access. The RHEL license covers binary access without restricting your rights towards source code.I don't recall any distinction between what you can do with binaries and source mentioned in the GPL beyond the requirement that sources must be made available too. And section 6 (of GPLv2) states explictly that "You may not impose any further restrictions...". Of course not all of RHEL is covered by the GPL.
They are not imposing any restrictions on the software ... you have signed an agreement that as long as you are entitled to get updates from RHN that you will not do those things (it is an if/then statement). It is a contract, no one is forcing you to sign it. If you do sign it, then you are obligated to to meet the requirements in it.
If you don't like the conditions, then cancel the subscription and you can use their software without updates.
Red Hat is a great open source company, it is because of the way they distribute their source code that CentOS can exist.
Where is the SUSE Enterprise or Mandrive Enterprise clones ... there are none. Where are the SUSE SRPMS ... not easy to get for the general public. Mandriva ... same thing.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
