On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 16:33, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> No, it's not clear. First you complain about them removing
> the tradmarks, then continue with a complaint about when
> they tried to give some credit. Which is it you'd prefer?
> They were never pretending to 'be' RedHat but they did
> try to describe the origin and legal status of the product.
I would prefer they leave the distribution of Red Hat Enterpise Linux
to Red Hat Software, Incorporated. What you seem to be missing here
is this, Les (and others): "I do not care what they do to be in the
clear legally, I think they're in the moral wrong."
That would be easier to understand if you'd explain how it
is different for Red Hat to redistribute the underlying
packages which they didn't write than it is for someone
else to redistribute them again in something that approximates
the same bundled group.
The other thing to consider if you are looking for 'added value'
to claim that is Red Hat's difference, is that Centos is not
the end point of the redistribution process. Look for example
at openfiler and SMEserver (the V7 beta) as added-value
distributions that start with Centos as their base.
I feel that
essentially ripping off Red Hat is morally wrong. You're free to
disagree with me.
I do disagree, and in fact have never been able to reconcile the
way that Red Hat restricts the use of a supported copy of
their software to one machine with the GPL clause that states
that there can be no additional restrictions applied to covered
software. Without a distribution like Centos available, I
don't see how that could be done.