On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 22:02, Magnus wrote: > On Tuesday, August 26, 2003, at 04:40 PM, Steve Bergman wrote: > > > This tells me two things: > > > > 1. RedHat is one hell of a great Open Source company and truly believes > > in Open Source. > > I believe this is true as well. With the caveat that the licensing of > RHEL is ambiguous (I mean, is it GPL, or isn't it? Will I get sued for > putting RHEL 2.1 ISO's on my web site? Handing them out to people?) If by RHEL you mean RHAS (which I believe you do): RHEL contains NON-REDHAT-SOFTWARE that you must have a license for. RH makes the SRPMS for RHAS w/o that software. Not all things in RH are GPL, but are still OSS. The other part of RHEL is the support contract. So from what I see, yes what you are proposing above would get you in trouble. If you pull out the above mentioned software you are essentially left with a different version of RHL. Follow the noted trademark rules, and you should be just fine. However, making an ISO of a binary RHAS distribution and then distributing to others is wrong, due to the trademark[1] and additional software included. IMO, but I do believe it is quite correct. Bill [1] Yes, I know that non-profit and LUGs have greater permissions here, but that wasn't exactly specified -- Bill Anderson RHCE #807302597505773 bill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
