On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: >>> OK you are really that stupid >>> >>> the GPL doe snot talk about binaries at all >> Exactly my point. Everything is about derived works. So binaries >> cannot be exempt from the requirement that the work as a whole can >> only be distributed under a license that permits free redistribution >> and that additional restrictions cannot be added. If you want to >> refute that, please quote the section stating what you think permits >> it. >> > > You CAN distribute both the Source and the Binaries under the GPL. You > CAN'T do that and be in accordance with the Terms of Service for RHN. Really? Are none of the trademark-restricted additions packaged into GPLed items? Or is redistributing the trademark OK as long as nothing is changed? If you could obtain a copy and didn't care about RNH, could you ship straight RH binaries instead of rebuilding? > So, you get to decide what you want to do. RHN is the customer portal > that gives you access to help, updates, support, etc. It is all sort of a technicality anyway without an update source. Given the vulnerabilities that are always shipped, it would be somewhat insane to run the code at all without a reliable source of updates. Which I thank CentOS for providing... -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com