[Centos] Diff files to be made publicly available.

kevin kwood at free.fr
Thu Jul 15 07:48:48 UTC 2004


>Content-Type=message/rfc822
>Content-Description=embedded message
>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:04:52 +0100 (BST)
From: Lance Davis <lance at uklinux.net>
>To: kevin <kwood at free.fr>
>Cc: centos at caosity.org
>Subject: Re: [Centos] Diff files to be made publicly available.

>On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, kevin wrote:

>> If the diff files were made available with each update,
>> the community would understand more,
>> less questions and confusion would occur.
>> More scrutiny would result in a better product for us all.

>This really is a strange post.

When one can not see from another persons perspective,
things often looks strange.


>The patch files are all contained separately within the source rpms.

>The exceptions are redhat-artwork and anaconda-images where the graphic
>files are contained with the source rpm, and anaconda itself where there
>are wholesale changes.

>I dont know what 'questions and confusion' you are referring to.

>> RHEL takes open source software and closes it.
>> CentOS takes this closed software and reopens it.
>> By making the changes open to public inspection,
>> CentOS would become 100% open source.

>But they already are and it already is.

I interpret this comment to mean CentOS 3.1 is 100% open source.

Red Hat are very clear in RHEL 3ES about what they claim to be
"Copyright" with "All rights reserved".

However, can someone please explain the following line
from redhat-logos.spec in CentOS 3.1 SRPMS:

License: GPL - CentOS logos Copyright 2003 and Trademark Definitive Software 
Ltd

I presume the following equation is true:

Lance === Definitive Software Ltd

I hope very much to be wrong.
I hope CentOS is 100% GPL, open source software,
free for all men (and women) to copy and distribute at a small cost
(even if their enemies can do the same four times cheaper).

So please feel free to regard this posting as strange,
tell me I've found a typo, or tell the world that parts of
CentOS 3.1  have Copyright restrictions and
is NOT therefore 100% GPL, open source software.
Not just yet anyway......



Kevin Wood
In a world where GPL sometimes stands for (Greedy People Lying)




>Lance

>--
>uselinux.co.uk - The ISP of choice for the discerning Linux user. 




More information about the CentOS mailing list