[CentOS] A minor beef

Bryan J. Smith thebs413 at earthlink.net
Mon Nov 28 13:03:21 UTC 2005

On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 04:59 -0500, ryan wrote:
> Not all closed-source software is illegal for public distribution.

I never said they were.  In fact, some distros do distribute software
that is not fully open source, but is still 100% redistributable.
That's not a legal issue for projects.

Remember, the whole reason I even mentioned this was because some
distros have a unified set of repositories, and that includes
redistribution of items it did _not_ properly license for

> For example, NVIDIA specifically allows their closed source drivers to be 
> redistributed (for Linux / BSD only): 
> http://www.nvidia.com/object/nv_swlicense.html
> It is not legal distribute GPL software everywhere. Not all countries permit 
> their people to run OS's that can tunnel encrypted traffic (squid and SSH), 
> or sniff traffic out of the air (wireless acrd and ethereal). 

And those laws varying in locale.  Whole different issue.

But when you redistribute software without a license, that is a pretty
universal issue.

> OpenSUSE is 100% GPL until modified (like Fedora). The fact that 99.9% of its 
> users make it non-GPL compliant so they can play their MP3s and DVDs doesn't 
> change the fact that when you download its all GPL.

Actually, Novell/SuSE have _not_ removed all the software from OpenSuSE
they have licensed.  But they are getting close with 10.0.

> Keep in mind where their home base is. Frankly, any move made against them by 
> a US software company would only generate sympathy, and could be potentially 
> unsuccessful given MS's rather poor track record n EU court's lately.

Illegal redistribution is illegal redistribution.  It's not debatable.

Bryan J. Smith   mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org
Some things (or athletes) money can't buy.
For everything else there's "ManningCard."

More information about the CentOS mailing list