Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
>>> copyright law?
>>>
>>> Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the
>>> SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source
>>> code unless it is specifically licensed differently.
>>>
>>> So, distributing the RPMS (the GPL ones) would probably be OK.
>>>
>>> Using them is also OK, so long as you PAY Red Hat on every machine
>>> where you use things that cam from RHN.
>>
>> By why is adding a restriction to enforce that OK, unless it only
>> applies to the non-GPL'd portions?
>>
> It is not a restriction, it is a agreement ... if you want to download
> the file from them, you agree to pay for it every place you use it.
Agreeing to a restriction doesn't make it any less of a restriction, and
it isn't the end user's agreement that matters, it is the one doing the
software redistribution that can't add restrictions.
> If you don't want to do that, then you need to get your linux from some
> place else.
I thought if you didn't follow the terms of the GPL you couldn't
redistribute at all.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com