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? > > For #2 it's been my understanding that linking to a website is always > allow http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,35306,00.html 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. 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. 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. 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. -- dag wieers, dag at wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]