RMS' note only says it's legitimate in proncople but doesn't answer two technical details:
1. Red Hat want us to not even mention it's based on them. I want a legitimate way to give them credit. If the world agrees on a single name for the "is not Red Hat" distro, and everybody will know it's origin, this problem goes away.
This problem was solved long ago:
We should call it GNR, for "GNR Not RedHat". Just like the reasnoning behind the GNU acronym and the Unix trademark, RedHat can't say anything - we explictly declare that it *isn't* a RedHat... :-)
2. Red Hat files say the distro as a collective work is licensed under the GPL. Is it legal for them to distribute ISO images including logos that you are not allowed to freely redistribute? Do the ISO images fall under GPL's definition of binaries? Are they subject to the excempt for "mere aggregation"?
Of course this is "mere aggregation" - Suse for example distributes ISO images that contain propritery software.
================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
