On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 11:23, Guy Steven wrote: > > 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.
Its an interesting example, but mcdonalds burgers don't contain a GPL kernel.... Thats where the analogy no longer holds. How about following the lead of "Formerly the Blackball Hilton" and selling "Not Redhat CDs"
