Scott Sharkey wrote: > They would really prefer that you cease operations, discontinue your > product, and force everyone to purchase their (overpriced) products. > Unfortunately, for them, the GPL prevents them from actually trying to > make that happen, so they resort to vague threats, and threats they know > are unenforceable (like restricting linking - which I seriously doubt > would hold up in any court anywhere, since they have "published" this > info into a public forum (the internet)). They are hoping you will > think it's more trouble to comply, and fold your shop. Actually, I just thought of one more thing. Red Hat is constrained not only by the GPL, but by the US Legal system too. We're bashing them for attempting to enforce their trademark when in actuality, they are required to do so by the legal system. IANAL (thankfully) but IIRC, for one to maintain a copyright or trademark you must actively pursue anyone who infringes on it. You lose your trademark protection if you go after someone who uses the trademark (say, Microsoft decides to release Red Hat Windows) and they can prove that you had not gone after others who had done the same. So, like it or not, Red Hat has little choice. On top of that, they are being good GPL citizens by releasing their SRC rpms -- which they are not required to do. From what I understand of the GPL, they are required to release the source code of anything they build on top of GPL software. But they are not required to make it relatively painless to generate a virtual clone of their product -- e.g. source RPMs. If the only thing that CentOS has to do to satisfy RH legal is to remove the offending trademark infringements, then that's fine. My only concern is their request to remove links. There's a grey area that would require some discussion. BK