Quote:
|
Originally Posted by chrism01
3. A can now issue a new version v1.1 under a new license. This has NO effect on v1 or v2. Licenses cannot(!) be changed retroactively.
|
Actually, I think A can issue v1 under a new license, it is just that they can't do anything about the copies of v1 that have already been distributed under the old license. Those can continue to circulate under the old license.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cien
RHEL end up being able to charge monies for a product that is in essence the contribution of many souls and, by adding some more work and a few tricks they get shielded from people using it freely.
|
Absolutely false. CentOS is an exact code duplicate of RHEL, the ONLY thing missing is the Red Hat logos and trademarks. The programs are exactly the same. CentOS is freely using what Red Hat is producing. No tricks involved unless you consider having a CentOS logo where there used to be a Red Hat logo to be a trick. Allow me to quote from the interview you linked to:
Quote:
|
if you republish a RHEL CD in either form, you could get sued for illegal use of the embedded trademarks. I think I just found the user license in question.
|
See, TRADEMARKS, not code. As long as you don't distribute RedHat's trademarks, Red Hat can't sue you. In fact a couple of questions down from the above quote is this:
Quote:
|
That's the beauty of it. The possibility of sharing the code is unaffected--what you can't "share" is Red Hat's integration work and branding.
|
