> Fair call. Bad burns, dud media can be replaced > relatively quickly, 99% of the time its the drive > optics that needs a clean. > > The problem i have is 95% of the code on these are not > developed by redhat staff. But a army of developers > working on there own time. > > Does this action not violate the GPL, by not letting > the software be redistrobuted? They are not saying you can't redistribute software. They are saying you can't distribute software using the name RedHat. I will use the analogy I gave earlier. Imagine if you will that I wanted to sell hamburgers. I put together a meal package consisting of a McDonalds big mac and some thing else. Forget about the finances of it and whether I can do it profitably or not, that is not relevant. I buy up bulk McDonalds Big Macs, and take them to my shop and sell them as McDonalds Burgers. McDonalds would be quite within their rights to stop me doing so as it would infringe their trade mark. It matters not a fig that the burger I am selling is a McDonalds Burger. Now, if I wanted to sell the burgers, but I didn't call them McDonalds Burgers, I could do so without infringing their trademark, provided I removed all reference to them being McDonalds Burgers, ie the wrapping etc. There is nothing in the contract between a customer and McDonalds made when a customer buys a burger that prevents the customer from reselling the burger. They are just not allowed to resell it as a McDonalds Burger. McDonalds may not like them doing it, but the only remedy they have is to not sell the person the burger in the first place.
Guy Steven.
