On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 02:17 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > Johnny Hughes wrote: > > > 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. > > I think the problem is that what is thought in these arguments to be a > restriction on the software is not considered a legal restriction on > the software. I think you guys are going about it the wrong way. You're so focused on the *contents* of the packages that you're missing the packages *themselves*. Could the signing of the packages be considered a "work", and therefore distribution of said signed packages be a violation of copyright law? -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet@xxxxxxxxx> PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
