Chuck Wolber wrote: > darn thing we can do about it. Well, there *IS* one thing we can do. We've > considered purchasing one copy of RHEL 3.0, stripping all of the non-GPL You don't need to buy it. Get the sources from redhat ftp server. But it is easier to rebuild a RHEL clone from itself. > stuff out of it, purposely never using the support option, and calling it > Quantum Linux. Is that wrong? Legally, no. We've been studying the GPL If you delete *all* Red Hat references, logos, ... from all packages and rebuild _all_ from sources then it's ok. cAos[1] and rhel-rebuild[2] are doing the same. > and the RH licensing agreement closely and they support such an action. Is > it moral? I believe it is. We're happy to pay RH a chunk of change once a > year as our "contribution" towards all of the QA you speak of. NPR works > the same way, with a great deal of success. You will need to rebuild every update from sources and then release it to your customers. Otherswise is a license violation. [1] http://caosity.org/ [2] http://www2.uibk.ac.at/zid/software/unix/linux/ -- HTML mails are going to trash automagically
