[CentOS] RHEL on The Pirate Bay, Mininova, etc

Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
Sun Mar 23 20:36:25 UTC 2008


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 at gmail.com



More information about the CentOS mailing list