John Hinton wrote:
> Either way, this thread is really sounding a lot like we are just
> getting antsy for CentOS 6! ;) I'm chomping at the bit for like 2 years
> now. Fortunately I selected a titanium bit because if I ever manage to
> chew through it, I must migrate to Fedora. :) Patience grassh
On 10/19/2010 11:24 AM, JohnS wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 14:21 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 10/19/2010 02:09 PM, Jerry Franz wrote:
>>> That is what it does. It *licenses* distribution between people. You
>>> can't say "it's under GPL - but you can't redistribute it because I'
On 10/19/2010 04:24 PM, JohnS wrote:
>> Also worth keeping in mind is that the RC to partners does not prevent
>> one of those partners from publishing the sources if they want for code
>> where licensing and their agreement with Red Hat permits them to. I am
>> not in a position to comment on that
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 14:21 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10/19/2010 02:09 PM, Jerry Franz wrote:
> > That is what it does. It *licenses* distribution between people. You
> > can't say "it's under GPL - but you can't redistribute it because I've
>
> Ok, so that is the point I am tryi
Hi,
On 10/19/2010 02:09 PM, Jerry Franz wrote:
> That is what it does. It *licenses* distribution between people. You
> can't say "it's under GPL - but you can't redistribute it because I've
Ok, so that is the point I am trying to make here. RHEL6 isnt released
as a product. They have an in-dev
On 10/19/2010 06:10 AM, mehdi wrote:
> how open yum.conf in mode read write
1. You need to do it as the 'root' user. Log in as 'root' and then you
will be able to edit it.
2. Please don't hijack unrelated threads. To start a new topic, post a
completely new message with a usefully relevant su
how open yum.conf in mode read write
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 10/19/2010 05:37 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>
>> Only on v3 license code. Most code is still under v2.
> and what license is the distro shipped as ?
>
That is a very good question. The *support and subscriptions* are under
RH's own license. The *code* in the packages are under the licenses of
On 10/19/10 7:31 AM, Jerry Franz wrote:
> On 10/19/2010 05:03 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>> On 10/19/2010 12:52 PM, Jerry Franz wrote:
>>> Once you publish/distribute GPL licensed code to *anyone*, your
>>> obligation to provide source kicks in for *everyone*. In practice, few
>>> people hammer at a
On 10/19/2010 01:31 PM, Jerry Franz wrote:
>> I am not a lawyer, but you blurb seems to indicate that the issue is
>> applicable to people with the object code, which would make my last
>> point valid.
>>
>
> Only on v3 license code. Most code is still under v2.
and what license is the distro ship
On 10/19/10 6:52 AM, Jerry Franz wrote:
>On 10/19/2010 04:16 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>> hi Guys,
>>
>> On 10/19/2010 12:00 PM, Benjamin Franz wrote:
>>> I'm pretty sure Deyan is referring to their GPL obligations to make the
>>> source code available for most of it.
>> .. this has nothing to
On 10/19/2010 05:03 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 10/19/2010 12:52 PM, Jerry Franz wrote:
Once you publish/distribute GPL licensed code to *anyone*, your
obligation to provide source kicks in for *everyone*. In practice, few
people hammer at a company "in process" over it. But you *can*.
I am n
On 10/19/2010 12:52 PM, Jerry Franz wrote:
> Once you publish/distribute GPL licensed code to *anyone*, your
> obligation to provide source kicks in for *everyone*. In practice, few
> people hammer at a company "in process" over it. But you *can*.
I am not a lawyer, but you blurb seems to indicate
On 10/19/2010 04:16 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> hi Guys,
>
> On 10/19/2010 12:00 PM, Benjamin Franz wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure Deyan is referring to their GPL obligations to make the
>> source code available for most of it.
> .. this has nothing to do with it...
>
Yes, it does.
http://www.softwa
On 10/19/2010 04:10 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
Benjamin Franz wrote:
Yes, to partners :)
I'm pretty sure Deyan is referring to their GPL obligations to make the
source code available for most of it.
GPL doesn't say you have to distribute source code to the whole world,
only to people y
hi Guys,
On 10/19/2010 12:00 PM, Benjamin Franz wrote:
> I'm pretty sure Deyan is referring to their GPL obligations to make the
> source code available for most of it.
.. this has nothing to do with it...
> Given their heavy historical commitment to GPL, I have no doubt it will
> show up very s
Benjamin Franz wrote:
>On 10/19/2010 12:47 AM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 06:44:34PM +0300, Deyan Stoykov wrote:
>>>
>>> Available to partners? Aren't RH obliged to release the source as usual?
>>>
>> Yes, to partners :)
>
> I'm pretty sure Deyan is referring to their GPL
On 10/19/2010 12:47 AM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 06:44:34PM +0300, Deyan Stoykov wrote:
>>
>> Available to partners? Aren't RH obliged to release the source as usual?
>>
> Yes, to partners :)
I'm pretty sure Deyan is referring to their GPL obligations to make the
source
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 06:44:34PM +0300, Deyan Stoykov wrote:
> Timo Schoeler wrote:
> >
> > There's progress...
> >
> > http://press.redhat.com/2010/10/18/red-hat-enterprise-linux-6-release-candidate-available-to-partners/
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Timo
>
> Available to partners? Aren't RH obl
Timo Schoeler wrote:
>
> There's progress...
>
> http://press.redhat.com/2010/10/18/red-hat-enterprise-linux-6-release-candidate-available-to-partners/
>
> Cheers,
>
> Timo
Available to partners? Aren't RH obliged to release the source as usual?
Cheers,
Deyan
--
Deyan Stoykov, dstoy...@uni
+1 can't wait
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Timo Schoeler
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> There's progress...
>
>
> http://press.redhat.com/2010/10/18/red-hat-enterprise-linux-6-release-candidate-available-to-partners/
>
> Cheers,
>
> Timo
> -BEGIN PGP SIGN
21 matches
Mail list logo
