[ale] Re: Red Hat scare tactics

[Chris Ricker]

yOn Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Bob Toxen wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 10:28:23AM -0400, Chris Ricker wrote:
> > This has nothing to do with the GPL and compliance with it (or lack
> > thereof). Copyright law and trademark law are two different things.
> Actually, it does because the GPL is nothing more than a software license
> that limits what Red Hat can do.

Actually, it doesn't. The GPL is a copyright that says "here's the code,
you're licensed to do what you will, you just must give those same rights to
anyone you give it to" (essentially). Red Hat honors that. They release the
code they get under the GPL to everyone (not just their customers, as the
GPL requires), and the code RH writes in-house they release under the GPL as
well. The fact that you can't take a RH CD, duplicate it, and re-sell it as
RH has nothing to do with any of that. The reason you can't pass your CDs
off as RH is because RH is a trademark. You're licensed to do whatever you
want with it, including make a CD from it and sell it (and it's the
copyright, the GPL, which gives you that right), but when you sell it you
can't call it Red Hat because trademark law (not copyright law) forbids it.

> I solved this problem for one client by having them subscribe to RHN for
> one system.  A program that I wrote then sees what new RPMs, if any, came
> in and then copies them to their other systems and does a RPM install.
> Works great and is legal.

That actually depends on how / where you subscribed to RHN. Some of the RHN
subscriptions' contract terms prevent sharing of subscriptions.... It's
simpler just not to mess with that at all. A mirror of updates.redhat.com +
yum on the client systems is completely automated, completely free, and
completely legal.

later,
chris