On Mon, 2004-01-19 at 14:28, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > At 04:51 1/19/2004, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote: > >On Fri, 2004-01-16 at 16:49, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > > > And finally, have you considered that Red Hat could cease providing public > > > SRPMS or even public source for RHEL at any time [...] > > > >*cof* For most software in RHEL I don't think they could really do that > >legally (GPL and Lesser GPL software) > > Read the GPL, Rui. Red Hat is ONLY required to provide the source to those > people to whom they provide binaries. That means they would be acting > legally by only offering source to RHEL subscriptors. And if they did > choose to create publicly-available source code, they could also just > release a whole bunch of tarballs and leave others to struggle with > creating SRPMS and RPMS. Have you read 3. entirely? I don't think they can do that. > Note that Red Hat has repeatedly suggested (as Jason mentioned) that they > will continue to provide SRPMS via anonymous FTP. But you should > acknowledge that they do so out of generosity, not obligation. Thank them > and don't take it for granted... all human beings tend to become grumpy if > unappreciated. And all human beings tend to become grumpy if treated in shady ways too. At the company I work on, we're buying a copy of RHEL, but I'm really not sure whether we're, at all, going to keep using RedHat. Tasks like WhiteBox EL will help us ease the task of building our own RHEL a-like distribution. We will likely have to create a small infrastructure for updates & package management. Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
