[CentOS-devel] CentOS 7 and release numbering

Mon Jun 23 18:56:10 UTC 2014
R P Herrold <herrold at owlriver.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014, Les Mikesell wrote:

> The GPL requires that anyone who receives sources has the 
> right to redistribute them freely, although Red Hat seems to 
> think they can restrict this right if they do it by tying 
> the restriction to the support contract.

I am aware of no such formal statement to specific that effect 
by Red Hat -- URL please?  

About all I know are that there have been lots of speculation 
and inference by non-lawyers, which rarely ends well or with a 
result a lawyer might consider 'accurate' [1]

Trademark law is equally full of traps for geeks (and others) 
thinking that 'the law' is a well-formed logic engine, or 
state machine.  At Michigan Law, I met and had a course with 
professor [Layman Allen] with 'game': 'WFF and Proof' [2] ... 
as noted a trainer in formal symbolic logic.  Now Emeritus, it 
seems [3]

I find that 'the law' is not like that at all. It is more like 
a twisty cow-path, stomped out through lots of individual 
cases, which make up its life history [4] [5].  There was an 
interstical stained glass window with that quote at U Mich's 
Law School, but I cannot lay hands on an on-line photo of it

If you want legal advice, go buy legal advice.  If you want 
Red Hat's view of binaries and Source matter, go buy access to 
it. You may wish to have your lawyer review the EULA first

M Go Blue

- -- Russ herrold

- ---------------start disclaimer-------------------

I_A_AL, but not your lawyer.  I offer legal advice and formal
opinion only within the confines of a previously  established 
and explicit attorney-client relationship where privilege may 
be had;  and NEVER on a public list server.

- ----------------end disclaimers ------------------

[1] http://orcorc.blogspot.com/2009/03/promoting-ignorance.html
[2] https://www.oercommons.org/authoring/1364-basic-wff-n-proof-a-teaching-guide/view
[3] http://www.law.umich.edu/FacultyBio/Pages/FacultyBio.aspx?FacID=laymanal
[4] http://www.michiganstainedglass.org/month/month.php?month=12&year=2007
[5] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1753389

Abstract: 
Lawyers from Justice Holmes’s day until today rally around the 
banner of his most famous quote, “The life of the law has not 
been logic: it has been experience.” Supposedly, this phrase 
reminds judges and other lawmakers never to let the law lose 
touch with the needs of ordinary people. In historical 
context, however, “the life of the law” says nothing about how 
judges should decide cases. Rather, it expresses Holmes’s view 
about how common law judges actually decide cases. More 
specifically, Holmes’s “experience” refers to judges’ mostly 
subconscious intuition, while “logic” refers to a vain attempt 
to systematize intuitively developed law. Proper understanding 
of Holmes’s famous quote, revealed through this Article’s 
historical analysis, helps to avoid an unfortunately common 
analytical distortion, and one which tends to stultify the law 
- - what Holmes called “the danger of inventing reasons offhand 
for whatever we find established in the law.”

Pull quote to pay attention to is:
	“logic” refers to a vain attempt to systematize 
	intuitively developed law

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlOoeFAACgkQMRh1QZtklkSgtwCgjk/84VZvp82tecNIDZRX3Lwx
oB8AoKeetxueMGcItB5O1VCQcjKM8ENO
=Hl7a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----