On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Johnny Hughes <joh...@centos.org> wrote:
>>> OK you are really that stupid
>>>
>>> the GPL doe snot talk about binaries at all
>> Exactly my point. Everything is about derived works. So binaries
>> cannot be exempt from the requirement that the work as a whole can
>> only be distributed under a license that permits free redistribution
>> and that additional restrictions cannot be added. If you want to
>> refute that, please quote the section stating what you think permits
>> it.
>>
>
> You CAN distribute both the Source and the Binaries under the GPL. You
> CAN'T do that and be in accordance with the Terms of Service for RHN.
Really? Are none of the trademark-restricted additions packaged into
GPLed items? Or is redistributing the trademark OK as long as nothing
is changed? If you could obtain a copy and didn't care about RNH,
could you ship straight RH binaries instead of rebuilding?
> So, you get to decide what you want to do. RHN is the customer portal
> that gives you access to help, updates, support, etc.
It is all sort of a technicality anyway without an update source.
Given the vulnerabilities that are always shipped, it would be
somewhat insane to run the code at all without a reliable source of
updates. Which I thank CentOS for providing...
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
