Patrick Kaell <sparc(a)kayoon.net> wrote:
Patrick Useldinger wrote:
Thanks for the link. But I have already read this article. The problem
is that there also exist articles which claim the opposite. And the
"White Box Enterprise Linux" effort would not make much sense if there
were not any restrictions on the binaries.
Greetings, Patrick Kaell
Indeed, the problem is that RedHat imposes restrictive conditions on copying or
running copies of its "softwares" (you can understand it as their binaries). But
if RedHat publish the exact sources of all the software and patches on their ftp
server, how could they disctinct a host running a copy of RedHat binaries with a
host running the compiled sources found on their web site and published under
the GPL ??? Or RedHat DOES NOT publish the exact sources matching their
binaries, and then they ALSO violate the GPL !!!
So, trying to understand those conditions as applying on the binaries only does
not lead to a solution. The problem remains here that RedHat has the right to
put conditions on the use of their SERVICES (such as RedHat Network) but in NO
CASE on the GPLed software !
(Just as reminder, my point here is not to find a way to run RedHat software for
0, but to make sure if I advice the use of RH Linux, I advice legal software. I
also wish to know if the Sun's statement "RedHat Linux is proprietary OS"
is
right or not).
--
--
Brent Frère
Private e-mail: Brent(a)BFrere.net
Postal address: 5, rue de Mamer
L-8280 Kehlen
Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
European Union
Mobile: +352-021/29.05.98
Fax: +352-26.30.05.96
Home: +352-307.341
URL:
http://BFrere.net