John Cowan wrote at 14:56 (EDT) on Monday:
I don't see where the oddity comes in. If we grant that the
compilation which is RHEL required a creative spark in the selection
(for the arrangement is mechanical), then it is a fit object of
copyright.
It's odd in that Red Hat is the only entity
Al Foxone wrote at 07:57 (EDT):
Red Hat customers receive RHEL compilation as a whole in ready for use
binary form but Red Hat claims that it can not be redistributed in
that original form due to trademarks (without additional trademark
license, says Red Hat) and under pay-per-use-unit
Done -- thanks Josh. I used a slightly different wording, to give some
examples of what that file is usually called, but basically it's the
change you suggest above.
Thanks!
--Josh
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
Quoting Bradley M. Kuhn (bk...@ebb.org):
Rick,
I've tried to reply at length below on the issue of license (in)compatibility.
The below is probably the most I've ever written on the subject, but it's in
some ways a summary of items that discussed regularly among various Free
Software
Quoting Al Foxone (akvariu...@gmail.com):
Red Hat customers receive RHEL compilation as a whole in ready for use
binary form but Red Hat claims that it can not be redistributed in
that original form due to trademarks (without additional trademark
license, says Red Hat) and under
5 matches
Mail list logo
