[CentOS] RHEL on The Pirate Bay, Mininova, etc

Sun Mar 23 01:25:41 UTC 2008
Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org>

Les Mikesell wrote:
> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> And in this case, the precedents of hundreds years of contractual law
>> would have to be overturned. The GPL license covers source code
>> access. The RHEL license covers binary access without restricting your
>> rights towards source code.
> I don't recall any distinction between what you can do with binaries and 
> source mentioned in the GPL beyond the requirement that sources must be 
> made available too.  And section 6 (of GPLv2) states explictly that "You 
> may not impose any further restrictions...".  Of course not all of RHEL 
> is covered by the GPL.

They are not imposing any restrictions on the software ... you have 
signed an agreement that as long as you are entitled to get updates from 
RHN that you will not do those things (it is an if/then statement). It 
is a contract, no one is forcing you to sign it.  If you do sign it, 
then you are obligated to to meet the requirements in it.

If you don't like the conditions, then cancel the subscription and you 
can use their software without updates.

Red Hat is a great open source company, it is because of the way they 
distribute their source code that CentOS can exist.

Where is the SUSE Enterprise or Mandrive Enterprise clones ... there are 
none.  Where are the SUSE SRPMS ... not easy to get for the general 
public.  Mandriva ... same thing.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20080322/c324400c/attachment-0005.sig>