On 11/01/2011 03:50 PM, Brian Mathis wrote: > On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Rob Kampen <rkampen at kampensonline.com> wrote: >> Tony Mountifield wrote: >>> In article >>> <CALKwpEyuPRU5Az9xU_d_BrJc0m_E9XDLH1T5iuB2U8rvRZevTg at mail.gmail.com>, >>> Brian Mathis <brian.mathis+centos at betteradmin.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> When Redhat announced the changes they made it very clear they were >>>> trying to prevent other companies (like Oracle and Novell) who were >>>> providing support to RHEL customers at reduced rates. They have never >>>> said they were concerned with the free clones and in fact have helped >>>> CentOS many times in the past (according to statements from the core >>>> developers). >>>> >>>> Redhat knows that the free distros help them maintain market share, >>>> and gain customers who need full support eventually. The issues >>>> CentOS are seeing are simply collateral damage to the larger war >>>> against the other big companies who are trying to provide services by >>>> cheating. >>> >>> Except that the other day, Johnny posted this: >>> >>>> I can tell you that we have been contacted by upstream to make sure we >>>> **UNDERSTAND** the new AUP restrictions on distribution. I can also >>>> tell you that we (CentOS) are doing everything in our power to meet the >>>> restrictions as they were explained to us. >>> >>> which sounds like RH making it clear that their changes are aimed at >>> CentOS too. >> >> This sounds more like a butt covering exercise by lawyers, remember this all >> comes from the USA where there are FAR TOO MANY lawyers. >> To be able to enforce a possible claim under this AUP restriction, they will >> need to show that those involved with use of the code, under this new >> clause, understand and have been communicated with.......etc. >> As I said, a butt covering exercise - rather than any expressed attempt at >> intimidation or enforcement - just my $0.01 worth. > > > I know it's more fun to blame the evil lawyers for everything, but it > sounds more like they respect the project and took special effort to > reach out and make sure they were aware and fully understood the > changes. That is far more likely given the history and widespread > usage of CentOS. > ================================ I said they made sure we were aware of the AUP and explained what the new AUP meant. I never said anything about anyone being threatening or being threatened. The CentOS Project is very appreciative for the openness of the upstream provider. It has always been our policy to stay within the upstream provider's guidelines and AUP's. We will continue to do so when the guidelines and AUP's change. ================================= We have created the CR repo ... it has not REPLACED updates, it is just an additional repo. Its purpose is to allow us to release the packages that will eventually be in the NEXT point release in stages as we get them done. You can get these changes if you chose ... or you can wait until we get everything done and released as 6.1. We will eventually get a 6.1 release out ... in the meantime, the CR repo will have MOST of the updates (the ones that are done now) while we fix the problem updates. ================================= We provide CentOS as is, to the best of our ability, for your use. If CentOS meets you needs, well then we certainly want you to use it. If you need it faster, or more like RHEL, then we HIGHLY recommend that you just buy RHEL. If Red Hat does not make money from RHEL then they will stop releasing it all together. CentOS can not exist without those sources. I would like to stress that we want you to use RHEL and buy RHN subscriptions for projects that require that kind of support. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 262 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20111101/0d6835be/attachment-0005.sig>