Hello, I've been talking with some friends about the Redhat's SRPMs release issue. I've been reading the trademarks and some points of GPL. But get some confusion around the questions: Is redhat forced to release the sources of its product? Is redhat forced, due GPL licence, to make the sources of its product available to others (including those who don't buy the distro), and permit changes whenever the trademark guidelines were respected? There is some legal arguments that force the redhat's sources to be released. Is redhat's sources released by its kindness or because there is some legal document that enforced that. In a past post, I read that even if redhat close the distro, it has to release the sources to the client how buy the distro, so he/she would rebuild it and release a new one based on it as totally free. So, will CentOS have to buy the redhat distro to rebuild it and release it for free to the community in a close case ? Have we some guarantee that redhat will not close the srpms and the rebuilding will be safe ?. What does CentOS mean with: CentOS has no relationship with Red Hat(r), Inc. or RHEL. What happen with those countries that are not allowed to use redhat, can they use CentOS ? does redhat want this ? is this permitted by some legal argument. I'll really appreciate your comments about this, feel like I am in a neuronal crusade with this topic. my Regards to you and your Time Al.
On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 15:38 -0400, Alain Reguera wrote:> Hello, > > I've been talking with some friends about the Redhat's SRPMs release > issue. I've been reading the trademarks and some points of GPL. But > get some confusion around the questions: > > Is redhat forced to release the sources of its product?RedHat choose to use and release GPL code and a requirement of that is the making available of the source code. RedHat are good in this regard and do this willingly with no great fuss.> Is redhat forced, due GPL licence, to make the sources of its product > available to others (including those who don't buy the distro), and > permit changes whenever the trademark guidelines were respected? > > There is some legal arguments that force the redhat's sources to be released. > > Is redhat's sources released by its kindness or because there is some > legal document that enforced that. >See answer above.> In a past post, I read that even if redhat close the distro, it has to > release the sources to the client how buy the distro, so he/she would > rebuild it and release a new one based on it as totally free. So, will > CentOS have to buy the redhat distro to rebuild it and release it for > free to the community in a close case ? >A requirement of the GPL is to provide the source upon request - no matter who requests it. As I stated previously, RedHat are good in this regard and do this willingly with no great fuss placing it on their ftp making requests unnecessary.> Have we some guarantee that redhat will not close the srpms and the > rebuilding will be safe ?. >RedHat have always publicly stated its support for Open Source and the freedom it provides. Hopefully no future events make them evaluate their position.> What does CentOS mean with: CentOS has no relationship with Red > Hat(r), Inc. or RHEL. >Johnny would be best to answer this one. However, I think you want to know if CentOS has any form of relationship with RedHat Inc. - That would be a no.> What happen with those countries that are not allowed to use redhat, > can they use CentOS ? does redhat want this ? is this permitted by > some legal argument. >This one is for a person in a specific country to check out for themselves. RHEL and CentOS and separate entities and must be regarded as this when checking against any individual countries laws for download and usage.> I'll really appreciate your comments about this, feel like I am in a > neuronal crusade with this topic. > > my Regards to you and your Time > Al.Regards Phil
On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 15:38 -0400, Alain Reguera wrote:> Hello, > > I've been talking with some friends about the Redhat's SRPMs release > issue. I've been reading the trademarks and some points of GPL. But > get some confusion around the questions: > > Is redhat forced to release the sources of its product?RedHat's product is really a whole bunch of other peoples products that RedHat has gathered to use, just like SUSE, Debian, Gentoo, etc. Red Hat does pay many developers and they do create lots of content for many GPL programs. They add much value to the products that they use. They should be commended for their work by the open source community. The CentOS project is very appreciative of Red Hat's open source policies. RedHat is required to release it's source files to it's customers ... that is anyone who has obtained their product legally and asks for a copy of the source files.> > Is redhat forced, due GPL licence, to make the sources of its product > available to others (including those who don't buy the distro), and > permit changes whenever the trademark guidelines were respected?RedHat is only required to give their sources to their customers ... but so long as all trademark guidelines are followed, others who have any obtained any GPL products can modify them as allowed by the GPL.> > There is some legal arguments that force the redhat's sources to be released. >Yes, the GPL, to their customers.> Is redhat's sources released by its kindness or because there is some > legal document that enforced that. >Their standing up a totally free SRPMS server released to the general public is not required. The fact that Red Hat does this when other enterprise vendors (like Novell/SUSE, Mandriva, etc.) do not should also be appreciated by the open source community. It is certainly appreciated by the CentOS Project.> In a past post, I read that even if redhat close the distro, it has to > release the sources to the client how buy the distro, so he/she would > rebuild it and release a new one based on it as totally free. So, will > CentOS have to buy the redhat distro to rebuild it and release it for > free to the community in a close case ?I do not think that RH is going to close their sources. If they were to do so, they would still have to give them to customers. CentOS developers do have paid access to the source code.> > Have we some guarantee that redhat will not close the srpms and the > rebuilding will be safe ?.There are never any guarantees in life ... ask the former Enron employees. So long as RedHat uses GPL products they will be required to give the SRPMS to customers and they can not restrict what the customers do with GPL source code ... except as it relates to their trademarks.> > What does CentOS mean with: CentOS has no relationship with Red > Hat(r), Inc. or RHEL.It means that the CentOS project is not in any way affiliated with RedHat. RedHat does not give us advise, they don't tell us anything that they don't tell the general public, they don't give us money, they don't give us equipment, they don't help us build or distribute CentOS. They provide SRPMS via the GPL to the public ... we take those publicly available sources, follow their rules concerning trademarks, and make CentOS. Fedora Core is affiliated with Red Hat (as an example). Red Hat provides Fedora with servers, allows Fedora to host things at redhat.com, etc. I think our FAQ on this issue is quite clear: http://www.centos.org/modules/smartfaq/faq.php?faqid=13> > What happen with those countries that are not allowed to use redhat, > can they use CentOS ? does redhat want this ? is this permitted by > some legal argument. >CentOS does not distribute our product in any places where the United States export laws prohibit distribution.> I'll really appreciate your comments about this, feel like I am in a > neuronal crusade with this topic. > > my Regards to you and your Time > Al.Thanks, Johnny Hughes -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060818/db9d9312/attachment-0002.sig>
danieldk at pobox.com
2006-Aug-18 21:08 UTC
[CentOS] [OT] RedHat's licence, CentOS rebuild
Hi,> Is redhat forced to release the sources of its product?Obviously, that depends on the license. The GPL has specific requirements for providing the source when a user get/purchases a binary. But this does not apply to software that fall under some other licenses (most notably, the MIT and BSD licenses).> Is redhat's sources released by its kindness or because there is some > legal document that enforced that.As for GPL-ed (and probably some other) software, it is enforced by the license. Though Red Hat has been very kind to the GNU/Linux community, in contrast to some other distributors they make it easy to get the source. They also contribute a lot of manpower.> I'll really appreciate your comments about this, feel like I am in a > neuronal crusade with this topic.Some general note: the relationship between the upstream provider and CentOS does not worry me too much. I think that in the very unlikely even that CentOS would not be able to track the upstream provider, it will have enough momentum to continue on its own feet. The CentOS team is very knowledgable and dedicated (thanks guys). -- Daniel
Thanks for the replays guys, ... some details to share: On 8/18/06, Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com> wrote:> On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 15:38 -0400, Alain Reguera wrote:...> > In a past post, I read that even if redhat close the distro, it has to > > release the sources to the client how buy the distro, so he/she would > > rebuild it and release a new one based on it as totally free. So, will > > CentOS have to buy the redhat distro to rebuild it and release it for > > free to the community in a close case ? > > I do not think that RH is going to close their sources. If they were to > do so, they would still have to give them to customers. CentOS > developers do have paid access to the source code.if I understand, the CentOS project is not just supported technically by the CentOS Developers Team but financially too ?, in case of close.> > Have we some guarantee that redhat will not close the srpms and the > > rebuilding will be safe ?. > > There are never any guarantees in life ... ask the former Enron > employees.you're right :(> So long as RedHat uses GPL products they will be required to give the > SRPMS to customers and they can not restrict what the customers do with > GPL source code ... except as it relates to their trademarks. > > > > > What does CentOS mean with: CentOS has no relationship with Red > > Hat(r), Inc. or RHEL. > > It means that the CentOS project is not in any way affiliated with > RedHat. RedHat does not give us advise, they don't tell us anything > that they don't tell the general public, they don't give us money, they > don't give us equipment, they don't help us build or distribute > CentOS. > > They provide SRPMS via the GPL to the public ... we take those publicly > available sources, follow their rules concerning trademarks, and make > CentOS. > > Fedora Core is affiliated with Red Hat (as an example). Red Hat > provides Fedora with servers, allows Fedora to host things at > redhat.com, etc. > > I think our FAQ on this issue is quite clear: > > http://www.centos.org/modules/smartfaq/faq.php?faqid=13Could be the issue of the CentOS Developers be redhat's customers a relationship with redhat ? ( supposing that if they pay for something they becomes customers of that).> > What happen with those countries that are not allowed to use redhat, > > can they use CentOS ? does redhat want this ? is this permitted by > > some legal argument. > > > > CentOS does not distribute our product in any places where the United > States export laws prohibit distribution.what means distribute? if those countries download the isos and install them in order to use it, are they doing that illegally ? my Regards to you and your Time Al.