Johnny Hughes 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).
But those things involve restrictions on the software.
> 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.
It's not a matter of liking it or not, I just don't understand how
someone can distribute software with a license that says as a condition
of redistribution you can't impose further restrictions along with a
required contract that imposes further restrictions - regardless of a
tie-in with a subscription.
Red Hat is a great open source company, it is because of the way they
distribute their source code that CentOS can exist.
No argument there, but restrictions are restrictions.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
