Christofer C. Bell wrote:
I really really nate "me too" posts, but this is something I very
strongly agree with. My sense of ethics prevents me from using or
recommending any rip-off of RHEL.
in that case, why aren't you using Windows? I don't know to what extent
RH actively welcomes the cloning projects, but I do know the Ubuntyu
projects do. There was a recent case where screenshots of a Ubuntu
derivitive that looked a lot like Ubuntu, and the Ubuntu reaction was
"We fouled up. We really should make it easier to rebrand."
There's little moral difference between using Fedora, which takes
upstream source without paying for it, adds value in packaging and
(limited) support and passes it on, and using one of the RHEL clones
where the project takes upstream source without paying for it (in this
case RH SRPMs), adds value in packaging and (limited) support and passes
The process is the same in both cases, and in both cases the upstream
suppliers give the source away for free.
Note that a lot of RHEL is covered by licences that do _not_ require the
release of source: Red Hat gives everyone the source to it all.
Note that RH does not have to give everyone the source to anything, the
GPL only requires the source where binaries are supplied, and RH would
fully meet its obligation by shipping media (CD or DVD) containing both
and by shipping online source updates only to those with a current RHEL
RH protects its product by use of trademarks: I cannot build from source
and claim _my_ product is RHEL. Read RH's trademark guidelines for more
detail and more accuracy.
Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/
do not reply off-list