On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
OK you are really that stupid
the GPL doe snot talk about binaries at all
Exactly my point. Everything is about derived works. So binaries cannot be exempt from the requirement that the work as a whole can only be distributed under a license that permits free redistribution and that additional restrictions cannot be added. If you want to refute that, please quote the section stating what you think permits it.
You CAN distribute both the Source and the Binaries under the GPL. You CAN'T do that and be in accordance with the Terms of Service for RHN.
Really? Are none of the trademark-restricted additions packaged into GPLed items? Or is redistributing the trademark OK as long as nothing is changed? If you could obtain a copy and didn't care about RNH, could you ship straight RH binaries instead of rebuilding?
So, you get to decide what you want to do. RHN is the customer portal that gives you access to help, updates, support, etc.
It is all sort of a technicality anyway without an update source. Given the vulnerabilities that are always shipped, it would be somewhat insane to run the code at all without a reliable source of updates. Which I thank CentOS for providing...