On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 22:02, Magnus wrote:
On Tuesday, August 26, 2003, at 04:40 PM, Steve Bergman wrote:
> This tells me two things:
> 1. RedHat is one hell of a great Open Source company and truly believes
> in Open Source.
I believe this is true as well. With the caveat that the licensing of
RHEL is ambiguous (I mean, is it GPL, or isn't it? Will I get sued for
putting RHEL 2.1 ISO's on my web site? Handing them out to people?)
If by RHEL you mean RHAS (which I believe you do):
RHEL contains NON-REDHAT-SOFTWARE that you must have a license for. RH
makes the SRPMS for RHAS w/o that software. Not all things in RH are
GPL, but are still OSS.
The other part of RHEL is the support contract. So from what I see, yes
what you are proposing above would get you in trouble. If you pull out
the above mentioned software you are essentially left with a different
version of RHL. Follow the noted trademark rules, and you should be just
fine. However, making an ISO of a binary RHAS distribution and then
distributing to others is wrong, due to the trademark and additional
IMO, but I do believe it is quite correct.
 Yes, I know that non-profit and LUGs have greater permissions here,
but that wasn't exactly specified