yOn Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But they are not taking away any rights, you may distribute (the GPL
portions) however you want. You may use it however you want. They are
just charging for each copy.
Yes. But we never disagreed on that. But if you retrieve a copy of
GPL'ed software from RHN, you are allowed to redistribute it according
the terms of the GPL.
Right, and because of that I think it is perfectly technically possible to
redistribute the existing binaries with the Red Hat trademark removed.
That would be almost the same as what CentOS is doing, except that you
have exactly the same binaries and libraries.
(However, for some packages that is going to be very hard to do)
The GPL allows that, but Red Hat can break your contract to retrieve these
binary updates in the future, so you are kinda stuck.
FWIW if you are in a position that you need RHEL (and CentOS is not a
replacement) then you most likely also need the support (read: fixing
bugs) from Red Hat, or support from your application vendor, or a
guaranteed certified OS. If all that is important, the price is not the
problem.
Some of these points are being made in the business presentation on the
wiki at:
http://wiki.centos.org/Events/Presentations
--
-- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
