On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 14:54, Christofer C. Bell wrote: > > The whole idea of the GPL is that if you receive something you > > must be allowed to redistribute it without any additional > > restrictions and any modifications must also be covered by > > the GPL. And if you do redistribute you must make the source > > available. > > That's right, and the underlying justification, the reason, is "being > a good neighbor." Ummm, no. It is a very strict requirement. The underlying justification is that Richard Stallman thought that is the way things should be. If you don't like it, you shouldn't be redistributing GPL'd works. > I don't think taking Red Hat's work, stripping it > of trademarks, and then sending it back out the door (regardless of > how *legal* it is) is morally justifiable. The trademarks are removed at Red Hat's insistence. How is the additional redistribution morally different than Red Hat's redistribution of other people's work in the first place? > It's not "being a good > neighbor." It is doing what the GPL intends for people to do - and essentially the same as all Linux distributions including Red Hat do with the underlying packages. What Red Hat sells is the support contract, not the software. Centos can't copy that. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
