Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
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?
Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source code unless it is specifically licensed differently.
So, distributing the RPMS (the GPL ones) would probably be OK.Using them is also OK, so long as you PAY Red Hat on every machine where you use things that cam from RHN.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
