On 03/05/2019 18:42, Tom H wrote:
But, as i said earlier, I doubt that RH'll go down that route because it gains from having a free version. I suspect that it's more likely that IBM decides that it's wasteful to have a team re-brand RHEL and rebuild it, and chooses to follow the Ubuntu model whereby RHEL would be free, with support licenses available. Yes, I think you're right. If you violate the RH EULA, it can and will prevent you from accessing RPMs and SRPMs to upgrade your installation. True, but redistributing and/or modifying their GPL'd source code cannot be a violation of their EULA. As I said, what *might* be a violation of their EULA could be redistributing their trademarked intellectual properties (if these are in fact included within the source code). I'd love to see clarification of this point from anyone who knows how possible comingling of non-open source trademarks/intellectual property into GPL'd source code affects a licensee's right to easily redistribute the source under GPL. But, either way, the GPL'd source itself can be freely redistributed without risk. I recognise that potentially having to strip Red Hat's non-open source intellectual properties/trademarks out of the source code where it could have been comingled could be a big hassle but that is nevertheless what the CentOS project did for years.
