On 08/16/2013 01:12 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > 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? You're free to grep through the license fields in the RPM database to find out, for those packages which contain trademarks. I'm not going to do it for you. If you only wanted a single shot at redistribution, and you didn't care about RHN, then you still can only redistribute binaries that have licenses that specifically permit binary redistribution, and only individual packages at that, since the ISO, as a collection, is a separate work (it's an 'aggregation of works' (an anthology, if you will)) for copyright purposes and could be under a completely different distribution-not-allowed license. There are some licenses out there that could be argued to only cover the source and not the binary translation (GPL does specifically cover the object code and executable forms, IIRC).