On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 01:48, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/30/11 4:31 PM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Les, I don't understand you, sorry. You talk about something that I didn't
ask for. You seem to make something of this thread that it isn't.
You asked for something 'centos-y'. And
Paul Johnson wrote on Fri, 29 Apr 2011 11:17:23 -0500:
After that, what am I legally required to do?
This is not the place to ask.
I've just read that document and it seems to say that you could take
all of the RPMs exactly as they are built by RedHat and include them
on a disk, and you can
On 4/30/11 6:31 AM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
This list once was a valuable peer-to-peer support list but has been
turning into a meta-centos/rhel discussion list lately. There was already
a lot of off-topic linux-only stuff on it in the past that didn't
qualify for centosy things, but that at
Les Mikesell wrote on Sat, 30 Apr 2011 10:33:21 -0500:
But the difference from upstream is really the only thing specifically
centosy, and since it's binary compatible, that would leave us discussing
the
artwork Besides, we are just twiddling our thumbs here.
Are we? I don't see this
On 4/30/11 1:09 PM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
But the difference from upstream is really the only thing specifically
centosy, and since it's binary compatible, that would leave us discussing
the
artwork Besides, we are just twiddling our thumbs here.
Are we? I don't see this and I don't
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 21:56, NOYK service.acco...@insightbb.com wrote:
Given the difficulty of getting Centos 6 released - maybe this is not the
correct group to ask. Just saying. ;)
It seems to me that is exactly why he was asking. The OP doesn't
really want to create Paul Linux, he wants
Les, I don't understand you, sorry. You talk about something that I didn't
ask for. You seem to make something of this thread that it isn't.
it's hard
to complain about the topic of how RHEL differs from Centos
Are you referring to this thread? It's not about differences. It's about
how to
On 4/30/11 4:31 PM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Les, I don't understand you, sorry. You talk about something that I didn't
ask for. You seem to make something of this thread that it isn't.
You asked for something 'centos-y'. And there really is nothing specific to
centos other than it's differences
The bickering here about Centos 6 has made me wonder what is actually
legally necessary to re-distribute the RPM files that come with RHel6.
I am not starting a flame ware, I hope. I'm just curious about what
is minimally necessary go from RHel6 to another distribution. I
suppose we could
call redhat legal and/or please take this up with your own paul legal
counsel
this is not the place
- rh
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 04/29/2011 11:17 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
The bickering here about Centos 6 has made me wonder what is actually
legally necessary to re-distribute the RPM files that come with RHel6.
I am not starting a flame ware, I hope. I'm just curious about what
is minimally necessary go from RHel6
On Apr 29, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 04/29/2011 11:17 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
The bickering here about Centos 6 has made me wonder what is actually
legally necessary to re-distribute the RPM files that come with RHel6.
I am not starting a flame ware, I hope. I'm just
On 04/29/2011 01:26 PM, Todd Rinaldo wrote:
I've always been surprised that CentOS ships /etc/redhat-release given
the above paragraph.
Probably a programmatic requirement, if I was the betting type.
--
Digimer
E-Mail: digi...@alteeve.com
AN!Whitepapers: http://alteeve.com
Node Assassin:
On 04/29/11 10:26 AM, Todd Rinaldo wrote:
I've always been surprised that CentOS ships /etc/redhat-release given
the above paragraph.
I've always been annoyed that file isn't /etc/release like many other
unix systems. or at least symlinked as such.
On 4/29/2011 11:17 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
Which of the RPM files in RH6 have proprietary software in them?
Those cannot be re-distributed as is? I figure there must be
something, because I installed the test version of SL6 back in January
and it locked up in disk recognition, whereas RH6 did
On 4/29/2011 1:46 PM, Digimer wrote:
On 04/29/2011 01:26 PM, Todd Rinaldo wrote:
I've always been surprised that CentOS ships /etc/redhat-release given
the above paragraph.
Probably a programmatic requirement, if I was the betting type.
I could easily be confused as it has been so long now...
Subject: [CentOS] I have RHel6. How does that turn into Centos 6?
The bickering here about Centos 6 has made me wonder what is actually
legally necessary to re-distribute the RPM files that come with RHel6.
I am not starting a flame ware, I hope. I'm just curious about what is
minimally necessary go
On top of that, it just seems logical granted the RHEL binary compatibility
thing. It's used by many apps to detect the distro you're using, so...
2011/4/29 John Hinton webmas...@ew3d.com
On 4/29/2011 1:46 PM, Digimer wrote:
On 04/29/2011 01:26 PM, Todd Rinaldo wrote:
I've always been
John Hinton wrote:
On 4/29/2011 1:46 PM, Digimer wrote:
On 04/29/2011 01:26 PM, Todd Rinaldo wrote:
I've always been surprised that CentOS ships /etc/redhat-release given
the above paragraph.
Probably a programmatic requirement, if I was the betting type.
I could easily be confused as it
On 4/29/2011 2:01 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Am I required to remember everything I did from that long back? LOL
There might be some stuff in the archives though... back in the early
ver. 3 days.
Actually, it annoys me - it *should* be LSB release, not redhat, I always
thought.
Well, if
centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
Given the difficulty of getting Centos 6 released - maybe
this is not the
correct group to ask. Just saying. ;)
Actually, telling us just how hard and complex and detail-burdened it
would be to kick off BlueSox, a homolog to CentOS rebuilding of
RedHat, might
On 4/29/2011 2:16 PM, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
3: Being so careful with the fine details that businesses world-wide
trust your statement It's Done.
Part of the must-be-perfect requirement for release seems to be
imposed by the package name/version compatibility with upstream.
There's no way
[This reply isn't directed at John; his message just makes a good place to
reply]
On Friday, April 29, 2011 02:50:27 PM John Hinton wrote:
Am I required to remember everything I did from that long back? LOL
There might be some stuff in the archives though... back in the early
ver. 3
On 04/29/2011 12:26 PM, Todd Rinaldo wrote:
On Apr 29, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 04/29/2011 11:17 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
The bickering here about Centos 6 has made me wonder what is actually
legally necessary to re-distribute the RPM files that come with RHel6.
I am not
That good faith effort is required for all packages (GPL or not).
And yes, it is legally necessary make that good faith effort not to
infringe upon someone else's trademarks.
This is specifically called out here:
http://www.redhat.com/about/companyprofile/trademark/
I've just read that
On Friday, April 29, 2011 03:49:47 PM Paul Johnson wrote:
I've just read that document and it seems to say that you could take
all of the RPMs exactly as they are built by RedHat and include them
on a disk, and you can label the disk Centos 6, and you are
completely within the guidelines.
On 04/29/2011 02:49 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
That good faith effort is required for all packages (GPL or not).
And yes, it is legally necessary make that good faith effort not to
infringe upon someone else's trademarks.
This is specifically called out here:
On 4/29/2011 3:08 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
But, legally, yes, someone COULD distribute some of the RH files.
I thought these days you couldn't get the binaries in the first place
without also getting a support contract where the terms you agree to say
you can only install on the licensed
On 04/29/2011 03:16 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 4/29/2011 3:08 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
But, legally, yes, someone COULD distribute some of the RH files.
I thought these days you couldn't get the binaries in the first place
without also getting a support contract where the terms you agree
29 matches
Mail list logo
