Hello,
I've been talking with some friends about the Redhat's SRPMs release issue. I've been reading the trademarks and some points of GPL. But get some confusion around the questions:
Is redhat forced to release the sources of its product?
Is redhat forced, due GPL licence, to make the sources of its product available to others (including those who don't buy the distro), and permit changes whenever the trademark guidelines were respected?
There is some legal arguments that force the redhat's sources to be released.
Is redhat's sources released by its kindness or because there is some legal document that enforced that.
In a past post, I read that even if redhat close the distro, it has to release the sources to the client how buy the distro, so he/she would rebuild it and release a new one based on it as totally free. So, will CentOS have to buy the redhat distro to rebuild it and release it for free to the community in a close case ?
Have we some guarantee that redhat will not close the srpms and the rebuilding will be safe ?.
What does CentOS mean with: CentOS has no relationship with Red Hat(r), Inc. or RHEL.
What happen with those countries that are not allowed to use redhat, can they use CentOS ? does redhat want this ? is this permitted by some legal argument.
I'll really appreciate your comments about this, feel like I am in a neuronal crusade with this topic.
my Regards to you and your Time Al.
On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 15:38 -0400, Alain Reguera wrote:
Hello,
I've been talking with some friends about the Redhat's SRPMs release issue. I've been reading the trademarks and some points of GPL. But get some confusion around the questions:
Is redhat forced to release the sources of its product?
RedHat choose to use and release GPL code and a requirement of that is the making available of the source code. RedHat are good in this regard and do this willingly with no great fuss.
Is redhat forced, due GPL licence, to make the sources of its product available to others (including those who don't buy the distro), and permit changes whenever the trademark guidelines were respected?
There is some legal arguments that force the redhat's sources to be released.
Is redhat's sources released by its kindness or because there is some legal document that enforced that.
See answer above.
In a past post, I read that even if redhat close the distro, it has to release the sources to the client how buy the distro, so he/she would rebuild it and release a new one based on it as totally free. So, will CentOS have to buy the redhat distro to rebuild it and release it for free to the community in a close case ?
A requirement of the GPL is to provide the source upon request - no matter who requests it. As I stated previously, RedHat are good in this regard and do this willingly with no great fuss placing it on their ftp making requests unnecessary.
Have we some guarantee that redhat will not close the srpms and the rebuilding will be safe ?.
RedHat have always publicly stated its support for Open Source and the freedom it provides. Hopefully no future events make them evaluate their position.
What does CentOS mean with: CentOS has no relationship with Red Hat(r), Inc. or RHEL.
Johnny would be best to answer this one.
However, I think you want to know if CentOS has any form of relationship with RedHat Inc. - That would be a no.
What happen with those countries that are not allowed to use redhat, can they use CentOS ? does redhat want this ? is this permitted by some legal argument.
This one is for a person in a specific country to check out for themselves. RHEL and CentOS and separate entities and must be regarded as this when checking against any individual countries laws for download and usage.
I'll really appreciate your comments about this, feel like I am in a neuronal crusade with this topic.
my Regards to you and your Time Al.
Regards
Phil
Philip Wyett wrote:
On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 15:38 -0400, Alain Reguera wrote:
Hello,
I've been talking with some friends about the Redhat's SRPMs release issue. I've been reading the trademarks and some points of GPL. But get some confusion around the questions:
Is redhat forced to release the sources of its product?
RedHat choose to use and release GPL code and a requirement of that is the making available of the source code.
Two things:
1) Point me to the clause in the GPL that says you have to give the source away to someone you didn't give binaries to.
2) There is a bunch of software in RHEL that isn't GPL.
On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 16:32 -0400, William Hooper wrote:
Philip Wyett wrote:
On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 15:38 -0400, Alain Reguera wrote:
Hello,
I've been talking with some friends about the Redhat's SRPMs release issue. I've been reading the trademarks and some points of GPL. But get some confusion around the questions:
Is redhat forced to release the sources of its product?
RedHat choose to use and release GPL code and a requirement of that is the making available of the source code.
Two things:
- Point me to the clause in the GPL that says you have to give the source
away to someone you didn't give binaries to.
Saying the "releasing GPL code" implied customers. Maybe I should have been a little more specific.
- There is a bunch of software in RHEL that isn't GPL.
I never brought non GPL into this.
Regards
Phil
On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 16:32 -0400, William Hooper wrote:
<snip>
- Point me to the clause in the GPL that says you have to give the source
away to someone you didn't give binaries to.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid
- There is a bunch of software in RHEL that isn't GPL.
Some of the products are not GPL ... however, almost all require redistribution. Some do not.
Johnny Hughes wrote:
On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 16:32 -0400, William Hooper wrote:
<snip>
- Point me to the clause in the GPL that says you have to give the
source away to someone you didn't give binaries to.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid
"If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code..."
All someone has to do is distribute binaries and source code together to their customers and they don't need to provide the source code to everyone. RHN already provides RPMs and SRPMS. A publicly accessible FTP site is not required.
will....
our understanding of the gpl is that if use gpl code in binaries we ship, we have to provide the customer with a way to get access to the source. it's not just sufficient to say 'go get it from site x'
what happens if site x goes away...
if the customer wants to get the source from you, given you're the one selling the binaries.. you're on the hook to deliver...
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org]On Behalf Of William Hooper Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 2:17 PM To: centos@centos.org Subject: Re: [CentOS] [OT] RedHat's licence, CentOS rebuild
Johnny Hughes wrote:
On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 16:32 -0400, William Hooper wrote:
<snip>
- Point me to the clause in the GPL that says you have to give the
source away to someone you didn't give binaries to.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid
"If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code..."
All someone has to do is distribute binaries and source code together to their customers and they don't need to provide the source code to everyone. RHN already provides RPMs and SRPMS. A publicly accessible FTP site is not required.
-- William Hooper
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
bruce wrote:
will....
our understanding of the gpl is that if use gpl code in binaries we ship, we have to provide the customer with a way to get access to the source. it's not just sufficient to say 'go get it from site x'
This has nothing to do with the current discussion of how Red Hat distributes binaries and sources.
On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 17:16 -0400, William Hooper wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 16:32 -0400, William Hooper wrote:
<snip>
- Point me to the clause in the GPL that says you have to give the
source away to someone you didn't give binaries to.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid
"If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code..."
All someone has to do is distribute binaries and source code together to their customers and they don't need to provide the source code to everyone. RHN already provides RPMs and SRPMS. A publicly accessible FTP site is not required.
I didn't say that they had to provide a publicly available FTP site (actually, I did say just the opposite in my original reply ... they indeed do not have to provide that) ... however, since they distribute Binary ISOs and Source ISOs separately (ie, as separate ISOs) they would need to provide customers Source ISOs (in the future) if they legally obtained Binary packages.
A customer is anyone who legally obtains the Binary ISO .. and it is any legally obtained version.
RedHat does now, and always has meet all these requirements.
On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 15:38 -0400, Alain Reguera wrote:
Hello,
I've been talking with some friends about the Redhat's SRPMs release issue. I've been reading the trademarks and some points of GPL. But get some confusion around the questions:
Is redhat forced to release the sources of its product?
RedHat's product is really a whole bunch of other peoples products that RedHat has gathered to use, just like SUSE, Debian, Gentoo, etc. Red Hat does pay many developers and they do create lots of content for many GPL programs. They add much value to the products that they use. They should be commended for their work by the open source community. The CentOS project is very appreciative of Red Hat's open source policies.
RedHat is required to release it's source files to it's customers ... that is anyone who has obtained their product legally and asks for a copy of the source files.
Is redhat forced, due GPL licence, to make the sources of its product available to others (including those who don't buy the distro), and permit changes whenever the trademark guidelines were respected?
RedHat is only required to give their sources to their customers ... but so long as all trademark guidelines are followed, others who have any obtained any GPL products can modify them as allowed by the GPL.
There is some legal arguments that force the redhat's sources to be released.
Yes, the GPL, to their customers.
Is redhat's sources released by its kindness or because there is some legal document that enforced that.
Their standing up a totally free SRPMS server released to the general public is not required. The fact that Red Hat does this when other enterprise vendors (like Novell/SUSE, Mandriva, etc.) do not should also be appreciated by the open source community. It is certainly appreciated by the CentOS Project.
In a past post, I read that even if redhat close the distro, it has to release the sources to the client how buy the distro, so he/she would rebuild it and release a new one based on it as totally free. So, will CentOS have to buy the redhat distro to rebuild it and release it for free to the community in a close case ?
I do not think that RH is going to close their sources. If they were to do so, they would still have to give them to customers. CentOS developers do have paid access to the source code.
Have we some guarantee that redhat will not close the srpms and the rebuilding will be safe ?.
There are never any guarantees in life ... ask the former Enron employees.
So long as RedHat uses GPL products they will be required to give the SRPMS to customers and they can not restrict what the customers do with GPL source code ... except as it relates to their trademarks.
What does CentOS mean with: CentOS has no relationship with Red Hat(r), Inc. or RHEL.
It means that the CentOS project is not in any way affiliated with RedHat. RedHat does not give us advise, they don't tell us anything that they don't tell the general public, they don't give us money, they don't give us equipment, they don't help us build or distribute CentOS.
They provide SRPMS via the GPL to the public ... we take those publicly available sources, follow their rules concerning trademarks, and make CentOS.
Fedora Core is affiliated with Red Hat (as an example). Red Hat provides Fedora with servers, allows Fedora to host things at redhat.com, etc.
I think our FAQ on this issue is quite clear:
http://www.centos.org/modules/smartfaq/faq.php?faqid=13
What happen with those countries that are not allowed to use redhat, can they use CentOS ? does redhat want this ? is this permitted by some legal argument.
CentOS does not distribute our product in any places where the United States export laws prohibit distribution.
I'll really appreciate your comments about this, feel like I am in a neuronal crusade with this topic.
my Regards to you and your Time Al.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
Thanks for the replays guys, ... some details to share:
On 8/18/06, Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com wrote:
On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 15:38 -0400, Alain Reguera wrote:
...
In a past post, I read that even if redhat close the distro, it has to release the sources to the client how buy the distro, so he/she would rebuild it and release a new one based on it as totally free. So, will CentOS have to buy the redhat distro to rebuild it and release it for free to the community in a close case ?
I do not think that RH is going to close their sources. If they were to do so, they would still have to give them to customers. CentOS developers do have paid access to the source code.
if I understand, the CentOS project is not just supported technically by the CentOS Developers Team but financially too ?, in case of close.
Have we some guarantee that redhat will not close the srpms and the rebuilding will be safe ?.
There are never any guarantees in life ... ask the former Enron employees.
you're right :(
So long as RedHat uses GPL products they will be required to give the SRPMS to customers and they can not restrict what the customers do with GPL source code ... except as it relates to their trademarks.
What does CentOS mean with: CentOS has no relationship with Red Hat(r), Inc. or RHEL.
It means that the CentOS project is not in any way affiliated with RedHat. RedHat does not give us advise, they don't tell us anything that they don't tell the general public, they don't give us money, they don't give us equipment, they don't help us build or distribute CentOS.
They provide SRPMS via the GPL to the public ... we take those publicly available sources, follow their rules concerning trademarks, and make CentOS.
Fedora Core is affiliated with Red Hat (as an example). Red Hat provides Fedora with servers, allows Fedora to host things at redhat.com, etc.
I think our FAQ on this issue is quite clear:
Could be the issue of the CentOS Developers be redhat's customers a relationship with redhat ? ( supposing that if they pay for something they becomes customers of that).
What happen with those countries that are not allowed to use redhat, can they use CentOS ? does redhat want this ? is this permitted by some legal argument.
CentOS does not distribute our product in any places where the United States export laws prohibit distribution.
what means distribute? if those countries download the isos and install them in order to use it, are they doing that illegally ?
my Regards to you and your Time Al.
Alain Reguera wrote:
if I understand, the CentOS project is not just supported technically by the CentOS Developers Team but financially too ?, in case of close.
correct.
Could be the issue of the CentOS Developers be redhat's customers a relationship with redhat ? ( supposing that if they pay for something they becomes customers of that).
none of the CentOS devlopers are directly customers of Redhat for the distro products ( that i am aware of ) , some of them might be via commerical / work place routes )
What happen with those countries that are not allowed to use redhat, can they use CentOS ? does redhat want this ? is this permitted by some legal argument.
Allowed by whom ? Most of the CentOS developers are not based in the US, and neither are US laws applicable to anything that we do!
And anyway, where can I find such a list where RH products are not permitted ?
CentOS does not distribute our product in any places where the United States export laws prohibit distribution.
CentOS isnt a US product, if anything is a UK based entity, and there are no restrictions on anyone using it - whatever part of the world they might be from, unless the GPL thinks otherwise.
I didnt think the GPL was influenced by internal US politics :) - and I hope that I am not wrong.
On 8/18/06, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
Alain Reguera wrote:
if I understand, the CentOS project is not just supported technically by the CentOS Developers Team but financially too ?, in case of close.
correct.
Could be the issue of the CentOS Developers be redhat's customers a relationship with redhat ? ( supposing that if they pay for something they becomes customers of that).
none of the CentOS devlopers are directly customers of Redhat for the distro products ( that i am aware of ) , some of them might be via commerical / work place routes )
But if there is a close, they have to. right? I think, in order to keep CentOS alive.
What happen with those countries that are not allowed to use redhat, can they use CentOS ? does redhat want this ? is this permitted by some legal argument.
Allowed by whom ? Most of the CentOS developers are not based in the US, and neither are US laws applicable to anything that we do!
And anyway, where can I find such a list where RH products are not permitted ?
the list was shown to me from fedora core 5 no redhat, I have no redhat cds to look for it. In fedora the list can be found in the first CD in the file eula.txt in the Export Control section in the 67 line. Or in the url: http://olpc.download.redhat.com/olpc/rawhide-snapshots/2006-05-27-0237/eula....
CentOS does not distribute our product in any places where the United States export laws prohibit distribution.
CentOS isnt a US product, if anything is a UK based entity, and there are no restrictions on anyone using it - whatever part of the world they might be from, unless the GPL thinks otherwise.
Even when redhat would have a list similar to what fedora has?.
-- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq
my Regards to you and your Time Al.
Alain Reguera wrote:
none of the CentOS devlopers are directly customers of Redhat for the distro products ( that i am aware of ) , some of them might be via commerical / work place routes )
But if there is a close, they have to. right? I think, in order to keep CentOS alive.
we'll see if and when there is a 'close'. You should keep in mind that we are neither competing nor fighting Redhat, and we are certainly not stealing anything from them. We provide an alternative to RH's offering to people who can support themselves ( or are happy with the support options provided by the open source community and the centos users community ) and we do this meeting all RH requirements for doing so.
And anyway, where can I find such a list where RH products are not permitted ?
the list was shown to me from fedora core 5 no redhat, I have no redhat cds to look for it. In fedora the list can be found in the first CD in the file eula.txt in the Export Control section in the 67 line. Or in the url: http://olpc.download.redhat.com/olpc/rawhide-snapshots/2006-05-27-0237/eula....
were not Fedora. we dont really care about the regulations that rh-legal might place on Fedora's policy.
CentOS does not distribute our product in any places where the United States export laws prohibit distribution.
CentOS isnt a US product, if anything is a UK based entity, and there are no restrictions on anyone using it - whatever part of the world they might be from, unless the GPL thinks otherwise.
Even when redhat would have a list similar to what fedora has?.
that is your assumption :) And besides Redhat is a US based commercial entity, and might be subject to legal or commercial regulations. Who knows, I dont. The software is open source. And while a very large portion of 'upstream' is sitting inside Redhat - this 'upstream' does release under open source licenses.
you should seek legal council for details on this issue and how it might affect you in your country, if you are so concerned about it.
On 8/18/06, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
Alain Reguera wrote:
CentOS does not distribute our product in any places where the United States export laws prohibit distribution.
CentOS isnt a US product, if anything is a UK based entity, and there are no restrictions on anyone using it - whatever part of the world they might be from, unless the GPL thinks otherwise.
Even when redhat would have a list similar to what fedora has?.
that is your assumption :) And besides Redhat is a US based commercial entity, and might be subject to legal or commercial regulations. Who knows, I dont. The software is open source. And while a very large portion of 'upstream' is sitting inside Redhat - this 'upstream' does release under open source licenses.
you should seek legal council for details on this issue and how it might affect you in your country, if you are so concerned about it.
Thanks, Karan. Feel your kindness here. I really would like to know someone who can clear this to me, I am just a user that have been using redhat based products since few years (maybe 2), and reached to love its way. But that list put us upset that afternoon, feeling depreciated by them.
Our question was, why continue using something that they don't want we use, even in a rebuild from them?, but even worst when we reached to love them?. (please, no offence here)
For that reason, get into my neuronal war and ask you pals. That was the reason of asking what was exactly the difference between centos and redhat. Because if CentOS is completely different to redhat, and though don't have this discriminatory list on it, Cause we believe in open source, no matter that one bad guy set us apart because you consider us. open source permit that in a honestly way (I think).
I am a guy that don't want that my infront sidewalk neighbors use my software, but only the same sidewalk houses that are around me. So one modest guy in the houses around rebuild the software I do. They believe in open source and share to all and release them to the worldwide (including the infront sidewalk pals too). The infront sidewalk pals appreciate the modest guy that release a rebuild, even for their comrades in the same sidewalk around whom haven't the money to pay the software. If it is possible that, even people who build a software by any reason don't want to others to use them but release their sources (by now, or in a future close, the modest guy would have to buy in order to rebuild and continue with its noble cause ahead) and permit rebuild of one way or another.
So, does the open source permit to those that are no permitted by the main builder to use one software, use the rebuilt software from them, if a rebuilder (that can do it) release it without cost and without that discriminatory list? Thinking so because the modest rebuild is not a work that apply the commercial laws of the sidewalk around of that, that do. Is that right Karan?
But if there is some type of dependency from redhat that propagates its rules and politics to the rebuilds, feel like all the battle swords of my neuronal war passing through my chest :(
For that, want to know exactly the difference between redhat and centos. Jut to be in the place I would with what is permitted to me, in order to live my live honestly.
I really appreciate you guys, feel you are brilliant minds and I learn a lot with your comments. Know this maybe is a little out of topic, and that your patience has a limit too(hope don't be very near yet :).
-- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq
my Regards to you and your Time Al.
Hi Alain,
Alain Reguera wrote:
Thanks, Karan. Feel your kindness here. I really would like to know someone who can clear this to me,
your lawyer should be able to help surely ?
Our question was, why continue using something that they don't want we use, even in a rebuild from them?, but even worst when we reached to love them?. (please, no offence here)
I dont understand your question. Who is the 'they' and who is the 'we', and who do you love ?
Or, are you asking this list why you should use CentOS even if you dont want to use it ? If that is indeed the question then the answer is simple - dont. Its a free world, you have the liberty to make a choice and use whatever you want.
For that reason, get into my neuronal war and ask you pals. That was the reason of asking what was exactly the difference between centos and redhat. Because if CentOS is completely different to redhat, and though don't have this discriminatory list on it, Cause we believe in open source, no matter that one bad guy set us apart because you consider us. open source permit that in a honestly way (I think).
I am a guy that don't want that my infront sidewalk neighbors use my software, but only the same sidewalk houses that are around me. So one modest guy in the houses around rebuild the software I do. They believe in open source and share to all and release them to the worldwide (including the infront sidewalk pals too). The infront sidewalk pals appreciate the modest guy that release a rebuild, even for their comrades in the same sidewalk around whom haven't the money to pay the software. If it is possible that, even people who build a software by any reason don't want to others to use them but release their sources (by now, or in a future close, the modest guy would have to buy in order to rebuild and continue with its noble cause ahead) and permit rebuild of one way or another.
So, does the open source permit to those that are no permitted by the main builder to use one software, use the rebuilt software from them, if a rebuilder (that can do it) release it without cost and without that discriminatory list? Thinking so because the modest rebuild is not a work that apply the commercial laws of the sidewalk around of that, that do. Is that right Karan?
Like I said before, you lawyer should have the answers you seek. CentOS is released, as a distro, under the GPL - with packages that have their own individual licenses.
But if there is some type of dependency from redhat that propagates its rules and politics to the rebuilds, feel like all the battle swords of my neuronal war passing through my chest :(
Hi Karan... confessed I was a little afraid of bother ... thank for reply and take the time
On 8/19/06, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
Hi Alain,
Alain Reguera wrote:
Thanks, Karan. Feel your kindness here. I really would like to know someone who can clear this to me,
your lawyer should be able to help surely ?
well, if I would have one maybe should help, but I don't :(. About this kind of topic in my city I don't know any legal person with authority in these licence topics. If there is someone on internet who I could ask for...I'll be very interested in do so.
Our question was, why continue using something that they don't want we use, even in a rebuild from them?, but even worst when we reached to love them?. (please, no offence here)
I dont understand your question. Who is the 'they' and who is the 'we', and who do you love ?
with "they" I refer to redhat (the main builder, who give the sources)
with "we" I refer to my friends and I, and maybe the others that could be in the same situation of us.
and with "love" I mean that have been some years using and trying to understand how something works make me feel a part of it, In this moment part of CentOS that was who give me the direct possibility of use. I refer to the organization and how the things work, and the idea that I've been making of things. Those things that make the differences with other distros.
Or, are you asking this list why you should use CentOS even if you dont want to use it ? If that is indeed the question then the answer is simple - dont. Its a free world, you have the liberty to make a choice and use whatever you want.
no, no, no ... I definitely do want to use CentOS, and the way all is organize on it. Just worried about that file I saw in fedora, and my country discrimination. Because fedora is from redhat ..., and CentOS is rebuild from redhat ... just to know the legal influences of that restriction with what I am using now. Trying to see if from a legal point of view the use of CentOS is legally permitted to me.
Think GPL goes beyond the countries' laws, or maybe don't ... again as you suggest me think I need a lawyer.
For that reason, get into my neuronal war and ask you pals. That was the reason of asking what was exactly the difference between centos and redhat. Because if CentOS is completely different to redhat, and though don't have this discriminatory list on it, Cause we believe in open source, no matter that one bad guy set us apart because you consider us. open source permit that in a honestly way (I think).
I am a guy that don't want that my infront sidewalk neighbors use my software, but only the same sidewalk houses that are around me. So one modest guy in the houses around rebuild the software I do. They believe in open source and share to all and release them to the worldwide (including the infront sidewalk pals too). The infront sidewalk pals appreciate the modest guy that release a rebuild, even for their comrades in the same sidewalk around whom haven't the money to pay the software. If it is possible that, even people who build a software by any reason don't want to others to use them but release their sources (by now, or in a future close, the modest guy would have to buy in order to rebuild and continue with its noble cause ahead) and permit rebuild of one way or another.
So, does the open source permit to those that are no permitted by the main builder to use one software, use the rebuilt software from them, if a rebuilder (that can do it) release it without cost and without that discriminatory list? Thinking so because the modest rebuild is not a work that apply the commercial laws of the sidewalk around of that, that do. Is that right Karan?
Like I said before, you lawyer should have the answers you seek. CentOS is released, as a distro, under the GPL - with packages that have their own individual licenses.
ok, will try to find a lawyer.
But if there is some type of dependency from redhat that propagates its rules and politics to the rebuilds, feel like all the battle swords of my neuronal war passing through my chest :(
lawyer where are you?
-- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq
Again, thanks for take the time, you must be very busy.
my Regards to you and your Time Al.
Let me reply to something that gave a bad taste in my mouth.
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006, Alain Reguera wrote:
On 8/19/06, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006, Alain Reguera wrote:
Our question was, why continue using something that they don't want we use, even in a rebuild from them?, but even worst when we reached to love them?. (please, no offence here)
I dont understand your question. Who is the 'they' and who is the 'we', and who do you love ?
with "they" I refer to redhat (the main builder, who give the sources)
with "we" I refer to my friends and I, and maybe the others that could be in the same situation of us.
So your question implies that they (Red Hat) do not want us (you and your friends) to use CentOS ? I don't agree with your implication.
What if you otherwise would use Windows, Ubuntu, SuSE, MacOS X ? I'm pretty sure that Red Hat prefers you use CentOS instead of something non Red Hat.
Also it helps people to learn to know the product, or run it at home at no cost while using it at work with Red Hat's support. Again, something I'm sure Red Hat prefers than most other options.
But then I wonder why you would care what Red Hat thinks about something they support (indirectly). CentOS offers them more people to test-run their distribution. It provides RHEL users with more documentation and a much bigger community they can take advantage of.
In an interview with Fedora's Project Leader Max Spevack this was said:
Spevack is especially interested in encouraging distributions like CentOS that are based upon Fedora or RHEL. "I would hope that these people would think of Fedora Project as their upstream, and that they would want to help us," he says. "Because that ends up being a direct benefit to them."
Fedora Board chair looks ahead http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/05/15/1729249&from=rss
CentOS has lots of advantages for Red Hat and its customers. They may not admit it explicitly in public, but it's hard to deny.
Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
On 8/19/06, Dag Wieers dag@wieers.com wrote:
Let me reply to something that gave a bad taste in my mouth.
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006, Alain Reguera wrote:
On 8/19/06, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006, Alain Reguera wrote:
Our question was, why continue using something that they don't want we use, even in a rebuild from them?, but even worst when we reached to love them?. (please, no offence here)
I dont understand your question. Who is the 'they' and who is the 'we', and who do you love ?
with "they" I refer to redhat (the main builder, who give the sources)
with "we" I refer to my friends and I, and maybe the others that could be in the same situation of us.
So your question implies that they (Red Hat) do not want us (you and your friends) to use CentOS ? I don't agree with your implication.
maybe you are not in the list I refer as "we". would like to know how you'll feel if you see your country in the line 67-68 of this file: http://olpc.download.redhat.com/olpc/rawhide-snapshots/2006-05-27-0237/eula....
for a minute, feel like one of "we" and maybe you have the answer that is needed. (please, I appreciate your comment, don't confuse mine)
maybe there is or there is no legal implication at using CentOS (and don't care, what the (fedora|redhat )'s eula.txt file says) ... and that is what I ("we") need to know. Since a legal point of view.
What if you otherwise would use Windows, Ubuntu, SuSE, MacOS X ? I'm pretty sure that Red Hat prefers you use CentOS instead of something non Red Hat.
Also it helps people to learn to know the product, or run it at home at no cost while using it at work with Red Hat's support. Again, something I'm sure Red Hat prefers than most other options.
But then I wonder why you would care what Red Hat thinks about something they support (indirectly).
not what redhat thinks about an indirect support, but the propagation of its laws to what is indirectly supported by them and its implication to those countries which appear in the fedora (and think redhat) 's eula.txt file.
supported? think no, but dependent yes. That's what I understand after read johnny explanation about the relation between redhat and centos (if don't misunderstood the idea).
but again ... think I need a lawyer.
CentOS offers them more people to test-run
their distribution. It provides RHEL users with more documentation and a much bigger community they can take advantage of.
In an interview with Fedora's Project Leader Max Spevack this was said:
Spevack is especially interested in encouraging distributions like CentOS that are based upon Fedora or RHEL. "I would hope that these people would think of Fedora Project as their upstream, and that they would want to help us," he says. "Because that ends up being a direct benefit to them."
Fedora Board chair looks ahead http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/05/15/1729249&from=rssCentOS has lots of advantages for Red Hat and its customers. They may not admit it explicitly in public, but it's hard to deny.
I don't question those things Dag, indeed think of those things as "love", what I question is the name of my country in a discriminatory way on one fedora's official file (and then redhat).
Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
my Regards to you and your Time Al.
On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 08:33 -0400, Alain Reguera wrote:
maybe you are not in the list I refer as "we". would like to know how you'll feel if you see your country in the line 67-68 of this file: http://olpc.download.redhat.com/olpc/rawhide-snapshots/2006-05-27-0237/eula....
That has nothing to do with Red Hat, but US export regulations. Exporting Fedora/RHEL (or any other US-located Linux distribution that integrates strong encryption) violates US export laws. Many countries have comparable regulations. Refer to the following survey for more information:
http://rechten.uvt.nl/koops/cryptolaw/
for a minute, feel like one of "we" and maybe you have the answer that is needed. (please, I appreciate your comment, don't confuse mine)
I think that many opensource/free software developers would prefer to have no export restrictions on cryptography. But we are all bound by these laws, so there is not much that can be done about this issue (besides convincing people that cryptography actually helps protecting citizens).
-- Daniel
On 8/20/06, Daniel de Kok danieldk@pobox.com wrote:
On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 08:33 -0400, Alain Reguera wrote:
maybe you are not in the list I refer as "we". would like to know how you'll feel if you see your country in the line 67-68 of this file: http://olpc.download.redhat.com/olpc/rawhide-snapshots/2006-05-27-0237/eula....
That has nothing to do with Red Hat, but US export regulations. Exporting Fedora/RHEL (or any other US-located Linux distribution that integrates strong encryption) violates US export laws. Many countries have comparable regulations. Refer to the following survey for more information:
then, is not rh/fc laws, but US export regulations. rh/fc respect that, so the eula file in fc. right?. and because rh/fc and then centos integrate strong encryption (like GPG), US export regulation deny access to these distros to those countries listed in the eula.txt file. right ?
if so, it would happen not just to rh/fc or centos, but with all distros built in US that integrate strong encryption. right ? even the distros don't integrate an eula.txt file on it (the respect to US export regulations, this is enforced by US laws, either way ... right?).
Now a question: Is free download consider as exportation ?
for a minute, feel like one of "we" and maybe you have the answer that is needed. (please, I appreciate your comment, don't confuse mine)
I think that many opensource/free software developers would prefer to have no export restrictions on cryptography. But we are all bound by these laws, so there is not much that can be done about this issue (besides convincing people that cryptography actually helps protecting citizens).
agree with you.
-- Daniel
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Alain Reguera Delgado wrote:
On 8/20/06, Daniel de Kok danieldk@pobox.com wrote:
On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 08:33 -0400, Alain Reguera wrote:
maybe you are not in the list I refer as "we". would like to know how you'll feel if you see your country in the line 67-68 of this file: http://olpc.download.redhat.com/olpc/rawhide-snapshots/2006-05-27-0237/eula....
That has nothing to do with Red Hat, but US export regulations. Exporting Fedora/RHEL (or any other US-located Linux distribution that integrates strong encryption) violates US export laws. Many countries have comparable regulations. Refer to the following survey for more information:
then, is not rh/fc laws, but US export regulations. rh/fc respect that, so the eula file in fc. right?. and because rh/fc and then centos integrate strong encryption (like GPG), US export regulation deny access to these distros to those countries listed in the eula.txt file. right ?
Incorrect. CentOS does not necessarily get the sources from Red Hat and therefor are not bound by the EULA of Red Hat. So if CentOS would download the SRPM from Red Hat, extracts the SPEC file, downloads the sources from upstream, compares them with Red Hat's and then rebuilds the packages.
The export control section of the EULA does not apply as none of the cryptographic stuff comes from Red Hat (or from within the US).
I'm not saying CentOS works that way, but I guess it would be better if they did.
if so, it would happen not just to rh/fc or centos, but with all distros built in US that integrate strong encryption. right ? even the distros don't integrate an eula.txt file on it (the respect to US export regulations, this is enforced by US laws, either way ... right?).
If a CentOS developer from the US rebuilds a package on a UK server and releases it, does he export something ? I don't think so.
So imagine the CentOS build servers are in the UK, the US export laws do not apply.
Now a question: Is free download consider as exportation ?
Is a free download from Heanet Ireland to a buildserver in the UK bound to US export regulations ? I seriously doubt that. IANAL
Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 23:30 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Alain Reguera Delgado wrote:
On 8/20/06, Daniel de Kok danieldk@pobox.com wrote:
On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 08:33 -0400, Alain Reguera wrote:
<snip>
If a CentOS developer from the US rebuilds a package on a UK server and releases it, does he export something ? I don't think so.
Gotta be more nimble Dag! The good old "land of the free..." has now decided to persecute (prosecute if you believe they are doing the right thing) their U.S. Citizens who went off-shore many years ago and have never returned. They wanted to run an on-line gambling biz in accordance with the laws of the host country. Now our gov't is going to extradite (or kidnap?) them and charge them with racketeering and violation of U.S. gambling laws even though *none* of their activities actually took place in any physical location of the U.S.
I hate what we have become.
So imagine the CentOS build servers are in the UK, the US export laws do not apply.
Give the good old U.S. time. We'll find a way to make *our* laws apply. Maybe another invasion?
<snip>
Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
<snip sig stuff>
Alain Reguera Delgado wrote:
Now a question: Is free download consider as exportation ?
Yes, if the server resides in the country in question.
On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 14:54 +0200, Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 08:33 -0400, Alain Reguera wrote:
maybe you are not in the list I refer as "we". would like to know how you'll feel if you see your country in the line 67-68 of this file: http://olpc.download.redhat.com/olpc/rawhide-snapshots/2006-05-27-0237/eula....
That has nothing to do with Red Hat, but US export regulations. Exporting Fedora/RHEL (or any other US-located Linux distribution that integrates strong encryption) violates US export laws. Many countries have comparable regulations. Refer to the following survey for more information:
http://rechten.uvt.nl/koops/cryptolaw/
for a minute, feel like one of "we" and maybe you have the answer that is needed. (please, I appreciate your comment, don't confuse mine)
I think that many opensource/free software developers would prefer to have no export restrictions on cryptography. But we are all bound by these laws, so there is not much that can be done about this issue (besides convincing people that cryptography actually helps protecting citizens).
I wish that the law did not exist either ... however it does. As Daniel said, it is not a RedHat thing at all. It is a government thing. The law is the law, and one must comply.
As Karanbir said, CentOS is a UK entity ... therefore must comply with UK export restrictions. Look at Daniel's link to see what those are.
On 8/20/06, Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com wrote:
On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 14:54 +0200, Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Sun, 2006-08-20 at 08:33 -0400, Alain Reguera wrote:
maybe you are not in the list I refer as "we". would like to know how you'll feel if you see your country in the line 67-68 of this file: http://olpc.download.redhat.com/olpc/rawhide-snapshots/2006-05-27-0237/eula....
That has nothing to do with Red Hat, but US export regulations. Exporting Fedora/RHEL (or any other US-located Linux distribution that integrates strong encryption) violates US export laws. Many countries have comparable regulations. Refer to the following survey for more information:
Thanks Daniel for take the time in searching and posting this valuable link.
for a minute, feel like one of "we" and maybe you have the answer that is needed. (please, I appreciate your comment, don't confuse mine)
I think that many opensource/free software developers would prefer to have no export restrictions on cryptography. But we are all bound by these laws, so there is not much that can be done about this issue (besides convincing people that cryptography actually helps protecting citizens).
I wish that the law did not exist either ... however it does. As Daniel said, it is not a RedHat thing at all. It is a government thing. The law is the law, and one must comply.
As Karanbir said, CentOS is a UK entity ... therefore must comply with UK export restrictions. Look at Daniel's link to see what those are.
clean and exact suggestion here, thanks Johnny.
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Alain Reguera wrote:
On 8/19/06, Dag Wieers dag@wieers.com wrote:
Let me reply to something that gave a bad taste in my mouth.
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006, Alain Reguera wrote:
On 8/19/06, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006, Alain Reguera wrote:
Our question was, why continue using something that they don't want we use, even in a rebuild from them?, but even worst when we reached to love them?. (please, no offence here)
I dont understand your question. Who is the 'they' and who is the 'we', and who do you love ?
with "they" I refer to redhat (the main builder, who give the sources)
with "we" I refer to my friends and I, and maybe the others that could be in the same situation of us.
So your question implies that they (Red Hat) do not want us (you and your friends) to use CentOS ? I don't agree with your implication.
maybe you are not in the list I refer as "we". would like to know how you'll feel if you see your country in the line 67-68 of this file: http://olpc.download.redhat.com/olpc/rawhide-snapshots/2006-05-27-0237/eula....
Talk to a lawyer. But if the user (you) lives in one of the countries listed in the EXPORT CONTROL section of the EULA, I don't see why you would even care about the EULA. :)
I don't even understand why they put the responsibility in the hands of the user, especially for countries where the US has no control over (and thus no control over the users). I even doubt that they expect you to understand English and/or obey to there rules.
Especially if you're being embargoed.
But then again, I don't think the export control laws are really enforcable on a medium called Internet. Either it's public, or it is not. Internet does not care about boundaries.
I bet it's just there to formally comply with a checklist. Control export ? Check !
for a minute, feel like one of "we" and maybe you have the answer that is needed. (please, I appreciate your comment, don't confuse mine)
maybe there is or there is no legal implication at using CentOS (and don't care, what the (fedora|redhat )'s eula.txt file says) ... and that is what I ("we") need to know. Since a legal point of view.
Talk to a lawyer if you care. Again, I doubt that it's enforceable. Especially outside the U.S., even more as an 'external' user.
I don't question those things Dag, indeed think of those things as "love", what I question is the name of my country in a discriminatory way on one fedora's official file (and then redhat).
That's politics and administrative actions a US company has to comply with. But again I doubt it is enforceable. Especially is you read the EULA from the CD in one of those countries. The moment you merely read the EULA you already broke the stuff you implicitely warrants.
Common sense says that that's not fair.
Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
On 8/20/06, Dag Wieers dag@wieers.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Alain Reguera wrote:
On 8/19/06, Dag Wieers dag@wieers.com wrote:
Let me reply to something that gave a bad taste in my mouth.
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006, Alain Reguera wrote:
On 8/19/06, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006, Alain Reguera wrote:
Our question was, why continue using something that they don't want we use, even in a rebuild from them?, but even worst when we reached to love them?. (please, no offence here)
I dont understand your question. Who is the 'they' and who is the 'we', and who do you love ?
with "they" I refer to redhat (the main builder, who give the sources)
with "we" I refer to my friends and I, and maybe the others that could be in the same situation of us.
So your question implies that they (Red Hat) do not want us (you and your friends) to use CentOS ? I don't agree with your implication.
maybe you are not in the list I refer as "we". would like to know how you'll feel if you see your country in the line 67-68 of this file: http://olpc.download.redhat.com/olpc/rawhide-snapshots/2006-05-27-0237/eula....
Talk to a lawyer. But if the user (you) lives in one of the countries listed in the EXPORT CONTROL section of the EULA, I don't see why you would even care about the EULA. :)
maybe because never heard about this, and this is the first time I do, and want to know what exactly is, and how much I am legally affected.
I don't even understand why they put the responsibility in the hands of the user, especially for countries where the US has no control over (and thus no control over the users). I even doubt that they expect you to understand English and/or obey to there rules.
Especially if you're being embargoed.
But then again, I don't think the export control laws are really enforcable on a medium called Internet. Either it's public, or it is not. Internet does not care about boundaries.
that's one point a could read in the site: http://www.cyber-rights.org/crypto/wassenaar.htm all this seems to be a misunderstanding with what is told in Wassenaar Arrangement about the cryptography topic, considered as a double purpose mean.
So, confirm what you said Dag, many countries have understood that civil cryptography is necessary to the information develop of nowadays. So they do no apply this, but what I can't found was something like the Wassenaar Arrangement was changed and though this regulations clarified, as a legally form. Just that some countries don't enforce this, even when it is in the agreement (if I understood what I read).
in the url above there is a clear information about the topic.
Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, Alain Reguera Delgado wrote:
On 8/20/06, Dag Wieers dag@wieers.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Alain Reguera wrote:
maybe you are not in the list I refer as "we". would like to know how you'll feel if you see your country in the line 67-68 of this file: http://olpc.download.redhat.com/olpc/rawhide-snapshots/2006-05-27-0237/eula....
Talk to a lawyer. But if the user (you) lives in one of the countries listed in the EXPORT CONTROL section of the EULA, I don't see why you would even care about the EULA. :)
maybe because never heard about this, and this is the first time I do, and want to know what exactly is, and how much I am legally affected.
My point is that imagine you are a user from Cuba and you have downloaded Fedora. Why would *you* care about the EXPORT CONTROL section ? What is the U.S. going to do, embargo the country ? invade it ? :)
I personally find it very strange they put this in the EULA, because putting the responsibility onto the user is very strange if you don't trust that user in the first place.
But then again, the file is there because of U.S. regulations, not Cuban regulations. And hell, maybe they put it there to scare a few Cubans on the way. It worked for you, right ? ;)
Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
On 8/21/06, Dag Wieers dag@wieers.com wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, Alain Reguera Delgado wrote:
On 8/20/06, Dag Wieers dag@wieers.com wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Alain Reguera wrote:
maybe you are not in the list I refer as "we". would like to know how you'll feel if you see your country in the line 67-68 of this file: http://olpc.download.redhat.com/olpc/rawhide-snapshots/2006-05-27-0237/eula....
Talk to a lawyer. But if the user (you) lives in one of the countries listed in the EXPORT CONTROL section of the EULA, I don't see why you would even care about the EULA. :)
maybe because never heard about this, and this is the first time I do, and want to know what exactly is, and how much I am legally affected.
My point is that imagine you are a user from Cuba and you have downloaded Fedora. Why would *you* care about the EXPORT CONTROL section ? What is the U.S. going to do, embargo the country ? invade it ? :)
I personally find it very strange they put this in the EULA, because putting the responsibility onto the user is very strange if you don't trust that user in the first place.
this is a big contradiction, at least for me.
But then again, the file is there because of U.S. regulations, not Cuban regulations. And hell, maybe they put it there to scare a few Cubans on
then you mean nothing legal here, just a way of scare people (just for fun?)
the way. It worked for you, right ? ;)
scared ? no. just confused.
Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
Alain Reguera spake the following on 8/19/2006 5:18 PM:
Hi Karan... confessed I was a little afraid of bother ... thank for reply and take the time
On 8/19/06, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
Hi Alain,
Alain Reguera wrote:
Thanks, Karan. Feel your kindness here. I really would like to know someone who can clear this to me,
your lawyer should be able to help surely ?
well, if I would have one maybe should help, but I don't :(. About this kind of topic in my city I don't know any legal person with authority in these licence topics. If there is someone on internet who I could ask for...I'll be very interested in do so.
Our question was, why continue using something that they don't want we use, even in a rebuild from them?, but even worst when we reached to love them?. (please, no offence here)
I dont understand your question. Who is the 'they' and who is the 'we', and who do you love ?
with "they" I refer to redhat (the main builder, who give the sources)
with "we" I refer to my friends and I, and maybe the others that could be in the same situation of us.
and with "love" I mean that have been some years using and trying to understand how something works make me feel a part of it, In this moment part of CentOS that was who give me the direct possibility of use. I refer to the organization and how the things work, and the idea that I've been making of things. Those things that make the differences with other distros.
Or, are you asking this list why you should use CentOS even if you dont want to use it ? If that is indeed the question then the answer is simple - dont. Its a free world, you have the liberty to make a choice and use whatever you want.
no, no, no ... I definitely do want to use CentOS, and the way all is organize on it. Just worried about that file I saw in fedora, and my country discrimination. Because fedora is from redhat ..., and CentOS is rebuild from redhat ... just to know the legal influences of that restriction with what I am using now. Trying to see if from a legal point of view the use of CentOS is legally permitted to me.
Since CentOS does NOT have the text you refer to in Fedora, then why could you not use it? If you are worried about your local laws, then your country should have an agency that controls import and export. Maybe they can answer your question. As to the connection of RedHat to Fedora as opposed to the lack of a connection between RedHat and CentOS, that is easy. RedHat runs and has some control over Fedora as they use Fedora as a test ground for their paid for offerings. CentOS just takes the source that RedHat offers freely with only a restriction over their own copyrighted parts (images, logos and the actual name RedHat). They remove or change all the copyrighted parts and release a freely usable and distributable linux. I can see no reason a country would ban its use other than political or control of the population issues. RedHat's biggest issue with outside countries is the export of cryptology from the United States to the countries in its "list". Since CentOS is not a US entity, it doesn't fall under this restriction
Look at http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/trademark1.pdf and http://www.centos.org/modules/smartfaq/faq.php?faqid=13
On 8/19/06, Alain Reguera alain.reguera@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/18/06, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote: Thanks, Karan. Feel your kindness here. I really would like to know someone who can clear this to me, I am just a user that have been using redhat based products since few years (maybe 2), and reached to love its way. But that list put us upset that afternoon, feeling depreciated by them.
I am very sorry, but I think 90% of what you are saying is being lost in translation. Maybe if you state your native language.. someone on the list may be able to answer this better if they also speak said language.
Quoting Alain Reguera alain.reguera@gmail.com:
Our question was, why continue using something that they don't want we use, even in a rebuild from them?, but even worst when we reached to love them?. (please, no offence here)
Let me guess. You'r from Cuba, right? Or some other similar place that US decided to screw up endlesly just for fun?
If so, note that this doesn't have anything with Red Hat, or CentOS. It's the US government you are dealing with.
On Sat, 2006-19-08 at 01:02 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
You should keep in mind that we are neither competing nor fighting Redhat, and we are certainly not stealing anything from them. We provide an alternative to RH's offering to people who can support themselves ( or are happy with the support options provided by the open source community and the centos users community ) and we do this meeting all RH requirements for doing so.
That's a very important point. I've heard many times people claiming that Red Hat based distros, like CentOS, are leaching off Red Hat and financially harming them. That simply can't be true since RH customers are paying for support, whereas CentOS "customers" must help themselves. Two completely different things.
Again, an excellent point.
Regards,
Ranbir
Karanbir Singh wrote:
I didnt think the GPL was influenced by internal US politics :) - and I hope that I am not wrong.
I *think* that he is referring to crypto export policies. The current US export policies (and that of many other countries through the Wassenaar agreement) allow to export opensource crypto code, except:
"(2) You may not knowingly export or reexport source code or products developed with this source code to Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan or Syria."
Source: http://www.epic.org/crypto/export_controls/regs_1_00.html
Though I would not be suprised that this list has been changed in the meanwhile. Besides that some countries still have very strict crypto export policies, e.g. France. A complete survey of country laws can be found at:
http://rechten.uvt.nl/koops/cryptolaw/
-- Daniel
Hi,
Is redhat forced to release the sources of its product?
Obviously, that depends on the license. The GPL has specific requirements for providing the source when a user get/purchases a binary. But this does not apply to software that fall under some other licenses (most notably, the MIT and BSD licenses).
Is redhat's sources released by its kindness or because there is some legal document that enforced that.
As for GPL-ed (and probably some other) software, it is enforced by the license. Though Red Hat has been very kind to the GNU/Linux community, in contrast to some other distributors they make it easy to get the source. They also contribute a lot of manpower.
I'll really appreciate your comments about this, feel like I am in a neuronal crusade with this topic.
Some general note: the relationship between the upstream provider and CentOS does not worry me too much. I think that in the very unlikely even that CentOS would not be able to track the upstream provider, it will have enough momentum to continue on its own feet. The CentOS team is very knowledgable and dedicated (thanks guys).
-- Daniel
-
Alain Reguera -
Alain Reguera Delgado
-
Aleksandar Milivojevic -
bruce -
Dag Wieers -
Daniel de Kok -
danieldk＠pobox.com
-
Johnny Hughes -
Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu -
Karanbir Singh -
Morten Torstensen -
Philip Wyett -
Scott Silva -
Stephen John Smoogen -
William Hooper -
William L. Maltby