Howdy, On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 15:25 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > 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. Well put & correct me if I'm wrong. Doesn't Centos sell their own support contract? > -- > Les Mikesell taharka Lexington, Kentucky U.S.A.
