Quoting Al Foxone ([email protected]): > Red Hat customers receive RHEL compilation as a whole in ready for use > binary form but Red Hat claims that it can not be redistributed in > that original form due to trademarks (without additional trademark > license, says Red Hat) and under pay-per-use-unit restrictive > contract. I would not call that GPL.
You're entitled to be mistaken. Last I checked, all source-access obligations under GPLv3, GPLv2, and other applicable copyleft licences were being fully complied with here: ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/ The choice of licence for the asserted compilation copyright is indeed a little weird, but it's rather unlikely to be adjudicated. Contract and trademark are a different matter. My recollection is that Red Hat, Inc. assert trademark encumbrances concerning two non-software SRPMs containing artwork, etc. Those two are not asserted to be GPL, so it doesn't matter what you 'call it', I think. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
