Re: RHEL on The Pirate Bay, Mininova, etc

["Stephen John Smoogen" <smooge@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
>  >
>  >>>  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.
>  >>
>  >> By why is adding a restriction to enforce that OK, unless it only
>  >> applies to the non-GPL'd portions?
>  >>
>  > It is not a restriction, it is a agreement ... if you want to download
>  > the file from them, you agree to pay for it every place you use it.
>
>  Agreeing to a restriction doesn't make it any less of a restriction, and
>  it isn't the end user's agreement that matters, it is the one doing the
>  software redistribution that can't add restrictions.
>

Agreements and restrictions have separate legal definitions. You
really need to get a lawyer to explain this clearly to you, as it is
one of those items where it looks like they are saying 1+1=0 and
1-1=2, but they aren't.

Beyond  that, we will just have to disagree.


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos