On 10/19/2010 05:37 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote: > >> Only on v3 license code. Most code is still under v2. > and what license is the distro shipped as ? > That is a very good question. The *support and subscriptions* are under RH's own license. The *code* in the packages are under the licenses of the people who wrote it (generally not RH) and range over Apache, Perl, BSD, GPL, and a few other licenses. If RH wants to *only* publish the GPL (and similarly licensed) code, they could do that. But they would have to go package-by-package and separate them out. The kernel itself is GPL v2, btw. >>> Also, there are legalise around exactly what is considered a product / >>> code snippet / build script and distribution - which is what makes >>> things like NDA's workable. >> Actually, the GPL forbids using 'add on' agreements like NDAs that > And how does the GPL get involved in relationships and partnerships that > exist between people ? > That is what it does. It *licenses* distribution between people. You can't say "it's under GPL - but you can't redistribute it because I've made you sign an NDA". It violates the license that *you* accepted to use it yourself in the first place. RH can only use code written by other people *if they accept the license it is published under*. Otherwise *RH* itself does not have the right to use it at all. -- Benjamin Franz