[Centos] Diff files to be made publicly available.
silentbob at gmail.com
Thu Jul 15 10:53:46 UTC 2004
Looks more to me like the logos are copyright and trademarked (
including the name centos ).
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:48:48 +0200, kevin <kwood at free.fr> wrote:
> >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
> 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)
> >uselinux.co.uk - The ISP of choice for the discerning Linux user.
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at caosity.org
JustManaged.com - Affordable Linux and FreeBSD administration services.
More information about the CentOS