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 obliged to release
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 code
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 obligations to
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
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
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.
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 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
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 do with it...
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 shipped as ?
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 company in
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
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 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
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
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 trying to
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 since
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've
Ok, so
John Hinton wrote:
snip
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
-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 SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
+1 can't wait
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Timo Schoeler
timo.schoe...@riscworks.netwrote:
-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
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,
22 matches
Mail list logo
