On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 09:12:19PM +0100, Dag Wieers wrote: > On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Paul wrote: > > > On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 06:59 -0600, Benjamin J. Weiss wrote: > > > > > 1) If CentOS is, in fact, a re-compile clone of RHEL with RH's > > > permission (as per the GPL), then how can they legally require that > > > CentOS not disclose that fact? > > > 2) Is it legal to restrict others from linking to your website? <SNIP> Ok, as someone mentioned once, didn't Mandrake "steal" a version of Red Hat to create their distro? Didn't SuSE in the far distant past do the same? Do they have to mention that it's built from redhat source? I think the only issue we need to worry about on the web site is the documentation, which says Red Hat all over it, primarily because it's their documentation. So, maybe that's what they're so peeved about. I was thinking that a rewrite of the support documentation for CentOS might not be a bad idea. I know there's a lot missing from the RHEL docs (things like settings in /etc/sysconfig; not all of us utilize their graphical tools for configuration). Anyone interested in an improved documentation project for CentOS? We might be able to do a better job than they have, using their docs as a reference/bibliographical note and nothing more. > > I think the issue here might be the fact that Red Hat is mentioned > together with links to the Red Hat site in such a way people might be > misled into thinking CentOS is endorsed by Red Hat or CentOS is the same > as RHEL. That's what I had assumed the issue was. > Now, it would not surprise me if that message got lost in translation and > ended up being written as it is in legalese. > > It's hard to discuss this without knowing what happened exactly after the > letter was received, but I would have send out a reply asking for concrete > examples and rationale. It makes common sense that if you receive a > message that (partly) does not make sense to you, you ask for > clarification. Agreed. > It's in everybody's best interest to get rid of any confusion the website > might give. We do not want people to believe that CentOS is something else. What exactly IS CentOS? The folks working on the project have been nice enough to rebuild SRPMS from RHEL and give them some good testing. They provide timely updates for their software, even rolling them into new release images when the update count gets high enough (which is why RH does Updates Releases I think). The CentOS folks also provide additional support for their software, complete with their own bug tracking system (Bugzilla) and support network: IRC, mailing lists, forums, you name it... We do lack a toll free phone number and mailing address. :-) So, again, I mention the fact that the software itself may be based on RHEL, but it's become something more. Maybe we really don't have to mention RHEL anymore. Perhaps it is merely a footnote, and if we've been directed by RH to not state it, then we're free and clear to not do so. > Let's not focus on one mistake and let everybody do their job and clear > out the mess. I don't think there were ill intentions being used here, > except maybe the guy who posted this on Slashdot. Yip. I'm glad to see that Slashdot posters are as reliable as ever to spread sensationalism. So, after we get this resolved, any ideas on making CentOS more "ours"? Just my 2 shillings worth... Sincerely, Shawn M. Jones