On Sunday 23 March 2008 20:36:25 Les Mikesell wrote:
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.
Putting the legal argument to one side for a minute, I personally would not use a file shared copy of RH or Cent OS as I would not trust it to be secure. Who knows what sort of key loggers or back doors have been inserted into the install routine. Some of the list members would know how to check but the majority of people who use these file sharing sites to down load dubious software, me included, would not. Most of the time, unless I'm in a hurry, I use the bit torrent networks to down load the Linux distro's I use and play around with and I always leave them on my hard drive to share when I have finished down loading them.
My 2 Pence worth!
John