[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):
> 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
> 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