> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Post, Mark K wrote: > > > In this case, staying current=maintenance=support=$ > > > > They can make their money selling code also, it's just harder because it is > > freely redistributable. > > Is it freely-redistributable? > > Let's look at the updates to the current distro in both RH and SuSE: > > Can I download the updates from the internet? Sources as well (srpms, for > both RH and suse). This would make my life a lot easier.
My experience is Red Hat, IA32. I have no support contract, and I've not tried tracking Rh AS. When RH releases updated packages, it also releases source. I get both, automatically, a a matter of course. The GPL obliges it to do so for those packages covered by it, but RH does for all packages. RH AS 2.1 source is available for download by anyone. This is more than the GPL obliges RH to do, it need do no more than supply source to its clients. > > And suppose I have aquired the right to download updates packages in a > support contract from RH/suse: do I get the source? (so I can rebuild the > package later and adapt build options) For GPL code the vendor is obliged to supply source, but only on request. > And am I allowed to redistribute those packages? GPL- yes. Others, read the licence > > And am I allowed to make my own modified distro based on any of those > distros and sell it? You can do that with RHL, but watch the trademark issue which I've already mentioned in the past few hours. Also, watch the licence for redhat-logos. I think YAST prevents you from doing so with SuSE, but I'm only going on hearsay. SuSE users are better-placed to suggest, but read the licence. IANAL -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my disposition. ============================== If you don't like being told you're wrong, be right!
