On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > Agreements and restrictions have separate legal definitions. You really need to get a lawyer to explain this clearly to you, as it is one of those items where it looks like they are saying 1+1=0 and 1-1=2, but they aren't. Beyond that, we will just have to disagree. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"