[CentOS] A minor beef

[Tim Edwards]

Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> Tim Edwards <tim at registriesltd.com.au> wrote:
> 
>>Both Suse and Ubuntu have only Open Source packages on
>>their downloadable CD/DVD images, just like Redhat.
> 
> 
> The downloadable SuSE Linux DVD .iso image as of version 9.3
> most certainly did _not_!  And 10.0 seems to have similar
> issues, ones that Novell legal is still trying to classify
> and remove.
> 
> OpenSuSE seems to be a good effort in that regard so far. 
> But Novell is still identifying some components that are not
> 100% redistributable.

What packages in the downloadable Suse or OpenSuse is not redistributable?

> This is a common mis-nomer by most Linux users.  The
> indemnification issue is real with a _lot_ of distros.  I
> spent a good part of several weeks in late 2003 at a Fortune
> 20 company doing a brief for their legal.

I don't think you've actually tried many other distros have you? When 
you do you'll find that almost all, at least among the main distros, 
consist of entirely open source software on their downloadable CDs/DVDs.


> And that's where the "repository hell" comes in.  ;->
> That was the _original_context_ of my _entire_ point.
> 
> Those distros where you have 1 repository for everything are
> the problem.  ;->

What distros are there where you have 1 repo for everything? Ubuntu, 
Suse, Mandriva don't.

> Fedora and the resulting CentOS from RHEL, yes.  But there
> are things not included in CentOS that RHEL does, because it
> is not 100% freely redistributable.

Yes and most other distros are just as redistributable as Centos or Fedora.

-- 
Tim Edwards