<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Apr 29, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 04/29/2011 11:17 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">The bickering here about Centos 6 has made me wonder what is actually<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">legally necessary to re-distribute the RPM files that come with RHel6.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I am not starting a flame ware, I hope. I'm just curious about what<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">is minimally necessary go from RHel6 to another distribution. I<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">suppose we could discuss "Paul Linux 6" instead of Centos, if that<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">makes you feel more comfortable. (and not too OT)<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Suppose I dump out all of the SRPM packages and do a global find and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">search to change the characters "RedHat" to "Paul". What else would I<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">have to do?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Which of the RPM files in RH6 have "proprietary" software in them?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Those cannot be re-distributed as is? I figure there must be<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">something, because I installed the test version of SL6 back in January<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">and it locked up in disk recognition, whereas RH6 did not. So the Rhel<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">6 folks know some secrets stuff.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">So, obviously, to create Centos 6, oops, Paul Linux 6, I have to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">isolate the non-GPL software and then replace it with something<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">workable.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">After that, what am I legally required to do? As far as all of the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">other RPM packages are concerned, couldn't they be redistributed<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">exactly as they are, without any modification at all? In Centos-devel,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">it appears to me most of the discussion is about "re-branding", going<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">through the packages and changing "RedHat" to "Centos" and swapping<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">out icons.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Is that legally necessary? In my memory, there was a Linux distro<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">called Mandrake and it was exactly the same as RH for i386, except<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">they re-compiled with gcc options for i686. I recall that in many of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the RPM packages in Mandrake, they did not bother to replace "RedHat"<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">with some other name.<br></blockquote><br>This is not the PAUL Linux mailing list. It is the CentOS mailing list.<br><br>The CentOS project will not redistribute files signed by Red Hat, and we<br>will not sign files that we do not create. Simple as that.<br><br>You also must make a "good faith effort" to not distribute any branding<br>that makes your version of Linux tell people that it is Red Hat Linux or<br>Red Hat Enterprise Linux.<font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#144FAE"><br></font></font></div></blockquote><br></div><div>I've always been surprised that CentOS ships /etc/redhat-release given the above paragraph.</div><br></body></html>