Let's not forget one fundamental fact - can you easily download RHEL from
Redhat's site? If yes, then it was meant to be publicly distributed. If
no, it was not, and such copies should not be trusted.
My philosophy - if you cannot obtain a copy of what you want from the
original vendor/provi
On Sunday 23 March 2008 20:36:25 Les Mikesell wrote:
> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> >> >>> copyright law?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that
> >> >>> the SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the
> >> >>> source code unless
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>> copyright law?
>>>
>>> Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the
>>> SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source
>>> code unless it is specifically licensed differently.
>>>
>>> So, distributing the RPM
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
> >
> >>> copyright law?
> >>>
> >>> Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the
> >>> SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source
> >>> code unl
Johnny Hughes wrote:
copyright law?
Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the
SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source
code unless it is specifically licensed differently.
So, distributing the RPMS (the GPL ones) would probably be OK
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 6:09 AM, Daniel de Kok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Daniel de Kok wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Stephen John Smoogen <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> RMS and the FSF
Les Mikesell wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
copyright law?
Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the
SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source
code unless it is specifically licensed differently.
So, distributing the RPMS (the GPL ones) w
Johnny Hughes wrote:
copyright law?
Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the
SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source
code unless it is specifically licensed differently.
So, distributing the RPMS (the GPL ones) would probably be OK.
yOn Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But they are not taking away any rights, you may distribute (the GPL
portions) however you want. You may use it however you want. They are
just charging for each copy.
Yes
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 09:36 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> But adding a signature to an
> already-created package does not make the signature a derivative of the
> contents of the package.
Argh, no, it could.
--
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 14:25 +0100, Daniel de Kok wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 13:46 +0100, Daniel de Kok wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But they are not taking away any rights, you may distribute (the GPL
> portions) however you want. You may use it however you want. They are
> just charging for each copy.
Yes. But we never disagreed on that. But if y
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 08:57 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 13:46 +0100, Daniel de Kok wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm not talking about the spec file metadata, I'm talking about the
> > > sig
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 13:46 +0100, Daniel de Kok wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm not talking about the spec file metadata, I'm talki
Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel de Kok wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Stephen John Smoogen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> RMS and the FSF has said this is not a restriction on the software..
>> it is a restric
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 13:46 +0100, Daniel de Kok wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm not talking about the spec file metadata, I'm talking about the
> > signature that's applied to the package itself.
>
> A signature is just a spe
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not talking about the spec file metadata, I'm talking about the
> signature that's applied to the package itself.
A signature is just a special digest of the contents. I don't see how
that could be licensed
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 07:02 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> > I think you guys are going about it the wrong way. You're so focused on
> > the *contents* of the packages that you're missing the packages
> > *themselves*. Could the signing of the packages be considered a
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Daniel de Kok wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Stephen John Smoogen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> RMS and the FSF has said this is not a restriction on the software..
> >> it is a restriction upon yo
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 02:17 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
> They are not imposing any restrictions on the software ... you have
> signed an agreement that as long a
Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Stephen John Smoogen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
RMS and the FSF has said this is not a restriction on the software..
it is a restriction upon you for getting a compilation and update
service from Red Hat.
But once you have retrieved the
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 02:17 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Johnny Hughes wrote:
> > > They are not imposing any restrictions on the software ... you have
> > > signed an agreement that as long as you are entitled
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Stephen John Smoogen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RMS and the FSF has said this is not a restriction on the software..
> it is a restriction upon you for getting a compilation and update
> service from Red Hat.
But once you have retrieved the compiled package th
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:15 AM, Matt Shields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > The usual idea is that because its "Free" Software you can't restrict
> > it in anyway... and that the 'Freedom' trumps any other li
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:31 AM, Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you enter into a legally binding contract, then you waive your rights
> as specified in the contract.
IANAL I don't think that is possible. According to the GPLv2:
"4. You may not copy, modify, *sublicense*, or distr
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
> >
> >>> And in this case, the precedents of hundreds years of contractual law
> >>> would have to be overturned. The GPL license covers source code
> >>> access. The RHEL license covers binary acce
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> =
> >>
> >> The rest is available for
Johnny Hughes wrote:
And in this case, the precedents of hundreds years of contractual law
would have to be overturned. The GPL license covers source code
access. The RHEL license covers binary access without restricting your
rights towards source code.
I don't recall any distinction between
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
=
The rest is available for review at the linked address ... but it is
very clear that if you have any RHEL subscriptions, th
Les Mikesell wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
And in this case, the precedents of hundreds years of contractual law
would have to be overturned. The GPL license covers source code
access. The RHEL license covers binary access without restricting your
rights towards source code.
I don't reca
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The usual idea is that because its "Free" Software you can't restrict
> it in anyway... and that the 'Freedom' trumps any other license or
> agreement. And I will bet that if you have enough money, there will be
>
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
And in this case, the precedents of hundreds years of contractual law
would have to be overturned. The GPL license covers source code
access. The RHEL license covers binary access without restricting your
rights towards source code.
I don't recall any distinction be
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> =
>
> The rest is available for review at the linked address ... but it is
> very clear that if you have any RHEL subscriptions, then you must pay
> for
Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:29:54PM -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
You can not redistribute the redhat-logos or redhat-artwork binary
packages to others unless you are selling your media. You also can not
distribute those 2 source or binary RPMS without
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Ray Van Dolson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 04:01:13PM -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
> > On Sat, 22 Mar 2008, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> >
> >> What we need is a case that's been taken to court and a verdict given.
> >> :)
> >
> > umm -- Istro
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Ray Van Dolson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:29:54PM -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
> > Johnny Hughes wrote:
> >> You can not redistribute the redhat-logos or redhat-artwork binary
> >> packages to others unless you are selling your media
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 04:01:13PM -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
>
>> What we need is a case that's been taken to court and a verdict given.
>> :)
>
> umm -- Istrongly disagree.
>
> There are services sold by people called 'lawyers' whom sell authoritative
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
What we need is a case that's been taken to court and a verdict given.
:)
umm -- Istrongly disagree.
There are services sold by people called 'lawyers' whom sell
authoritative analysis, guidance, and answers they'll stand
behind as a professional t
Ray Van Dolson wrote:
You can not redistribute the redhat-logos or redhat-artwork binary
packages to others unless you are selling your media. You also can not
distribute those 2 source or binary RPMS without editing and removing the
logos / trademark related things in them. Since the ISOs i
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:29:54PM -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> You can not redistribute the redhat-logos or redhat-artwork binary
>> packages to others unless you are selling your media. You also can not
>> distribute those 2 source or binary RPMS without editing and re
Johnny Hughes wrote:
You can not redistribute the redhat-logos or redhat-artwork binary
packages to others unless you are selling your media. You also can
not distribute those 2 source or binary RPMS without editing and
removing the logos / trademark related things in them. Since the ISOs
in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 07:50:26 +0100
Niki Kovacs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mag Gam a écrit :
Why would you download an illegal version of RHEL? I see no
There is no illegal version of RHEL. When you buy from RH, you
are not buying RHEL, but support and updates for the
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 07:50:26 +0100
Niki Kovacs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mag Gam a écrit :
Why would you download an illegal version of RHEL? I see no
There is no illegal version of RHEL. When you buy from RH, you
are not buying RHEL, but suppo
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 07:50:26 +0100
Niki Kovacs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mag Gam a écrit :
> > Why would you download an illegal version of RHEL? I see no
There is no illegal version of RHEL. When you buy from RH, you
are not buying RHEL, but support and updates for the particular
version of R
Mag Gam a écrit :
Why would you download an illegal version of RHEL? I see no point in that...
Maybe there's also illegal customer support on these filesharing
networks :oD
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/lis
Why would you download an illegal version of RHEL? I see no point in that...
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Michael Semcheski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Simon Jolle sjolle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Centos Users
> >
> > Its _really_ nonsense to rel
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Simon Jolle sjolle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi Centos Users
>
> Its _really_ nonsense to release RHEL version on file sharing networks.
> The only reason why RHEL is so popular on torrent trackers is the lack
> of knowledge about Centos :-)
>
> Conclusion: we s
Hi Centos Users
Its _really_ nonsense to release RHEL version on file sharing networks.
The only reason why RHEL is so popular on torrent trackers is the lack
of knowledge about Centos :-)
Conclusion: we should do more marketing :-)
cheers
Simon
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital sign
48 matches
Mail list logo
