Yes, but then how could they update CentOS without repaying Red Hat? They would have to fork it -- and then you run into the issue of it not being like Red Hat anymore.

How often does RHEL update and how much does it cost? Maybe it's feasible for them to pay every time.

When you can download the source for free, I am sure you can download the patched source packages also.

AFAIK, Centos follow the RHEL patch tree and updates so that any security fixes are on a par with RHEL.

You missed a point- Red Hat DOES make their source available for free, without the requirement of purchasing their product, which, if I am not mistaken, they don't have to. Nice of them, don't you think?

Yes, it is. However, the GPL should also state that if it's free software at least the source code should be free no matter what.

However, here was my point with that post: If Red Hat actually did require you to purchase their product to receive the source, CentOS wouldn't be able to exist without paying Red Hat. And even if they pay, they wouldn't be able to update to Red Hat's latest source version without again paying Red Hat. So as a result CentOS couldn't be free if RHEL did that.

I do not understand you Kenny what you want to say?

Mr. Code mentioned that Red Hat actually is allowed according to the GPL to be able to charge for RHEL's source code. If they did charge for the code, my point was that CentOS either couldn't exist or couldn't be updated.

Yes. GPL does allow you to charge for the software you make. It is not mandatory to have some price but you could. Only necessary thing is that you distribute your code. RHEL could charge for the code if they want to. And they are not opening up the complete OS code in itself but the SRPMs individually. SO you need to compile each of them as separate package.

Actually, I don't remember saying this outright...I believe what I mentioned was that Red Hat can (and does) make money by selling tech support services and such. But yeah, I suppose that they could charge for the source code as well (but the purchaser can then modify and/or redistribute it for free if they so choose).

The impression I get from what people have been discussing is that CentOS is basically just a branding-stripped, free-of-charge version of RHEL, right? It would be the same as obtaining the sources for RHEL from Red Hat for free and compiling it yourself, but the CentOS project has taken the liberty of providing gratis binaries.

Any use of license fees or royalties to harm users' rights to distribute the OS -- this includes crippling the user to a Live CD if they don't pay a license fee -- is a GPL violation in its own right.

Just because the installer is theirs to cripple doesn't mean the OS it installs is theirs to cripple.

I think you didn't get the point. I am sure you can install Elive manually, you just have to do by hand what the installer does. They don't cripple the OS, they sell the service of an automatic install with their installer. So no GPL violation. Otherwise you have to call each live-medium without an installer crippled.

can't be bothered reading the whole post. just wanna say that windows is superior to linux because windows doesn't assume that everyone in the world is a programmer.

Can't be bothered reading any of your other injections,
just want to say that Linux is superior because it doesn't
assume everyone is a jackass.



Cheers,
Tink

I'm not a programmer, unless you count editing "Hello World!" programs to read "Hello, Brian!".