Stephen John Smoogen 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.
They may seem like two different things, but they aren't if one is
required as a condition of the other. I'm sure a lawyer could be paid
to take either side on this issue if you felt like paying a lawyer.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
