similar to: Vote For CentOS :)

From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> > Can you get the product without being bound by the restrictions? > That is, can one user purchase one and resell copies without the SLA > or with their own? Not with the trademark, that is mis-appropriation. If you want to complain about Red Hat doing this, then you'll want to complain about a number of distributors well before

From: Simon Perreault <nomis80 at lqt.ca> > Sure, theoretically it would be possible, but how would you restart this one? > [nomis80 at poste10-153 ~]$ sudo lsof | grep libc | grep init > init 1 root mem REG 253,0 1521500 999437 /lib/tls/libc-2.3.5.so I need to verify the post-install script for the glibc RPM, but I believe it SIGHUPs the process -- and

http://www.businessinsider.com/red-hat-ceo-go-ahead-copy-our-software-2013-8 Title says is all. Nice to know RH understands and accepts the relationship between CentOS and RHEL. Although it is complex. After all, if too many choose CentOS, there may no longer be a CentOS. However, I don't think I would refer to CentOS as a "parasite" as the author Matt Asay does. More appropriate

The bickering here about Centos 6 has made me wonder what is actually legally necessary to re-distribute the RPM files that come with RHel6. I am not starting a flame ware, I hope. I'm just curious about what is minimally necessary go from RHel6 to another distribution. I suppose we could discuss "Paul Linux 6" instead of Centos, if that makes you feel more comfortable. (and not

From: Lamar Owen <lowen at pari.edu> > Referencing SL3 and CentOS 3 (as I haven't run SL4 as yet) there were some > scientific applications and some Java stuff, eclipse for one, You do understand the redistribution issues with Java, correct? It's a Sun problem (a typical thorn for Red Hat in general), not a Red Hat one. > part of cluster suite for another, included. >

On 10/13/2015 01:40 PM, Brian Reichert wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 12:51:07PM -0400, Brian Reichert wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:42:08AM -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote: >>> The info you are looking at there is for CentOS-7 .. the syslinux for >>> CentOS-6 is here: >>> >>>

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

From: Christopher Snow <cs at m0n0.co.uk> > If that's the case, shouldn't the credit vote go to Fedora? Disclaimer: This is 100% my _opinion_ (don't take it otherwise) 1. Credit At some point a lot of credit can go to a lot of projects. Yes, many are thanx to Red Hat -- by far the largest of any commercial entity. But then many are thanx to many maintainers in general.

From: Simon Perreault <nomis80 at lqt.ca> > Isn't it acceptable for Red Hat to sell SLAs on a per-computer basis? > I really don't get where you're going. The main problem people have in understanding RHEL is that they don't understand it is a subscription with guarantees and, optionally, service level agreements (SLAs). It's _not_ a product at all. Red Hat has

Hello https://www.centos.org/legal/trademarks/ According to above, I found following message. ---------------------- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary provided in these Guidelines, the following are examples of unacceptable uses: 1.Use of the CentOS Marks in connection with commercial redistribution of CentOS software ---------------------- I have a question. What means "Use of the

CentOS is a really great product, and the package supporters do a bang up job, but the one deficiency I've found is the fact that one can never rely on being able to get updates at any particular time. Whether it's CentOS proper or the Dag additions, something is broke most every time I want to apply updates. I know this is whin[ge]ing, and I certainly don't have a solution to offer.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25529 what's everyone's thoughts on this one? -- My "Foundation" verse: Isa 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD. -- carpe ductum --

From: me at prestoncrawford.com > They could not do the latter as far as I understand it. Because > Fedora Core is not the source code (letter for letter) of RHEL. From: "Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith at ieee.org>" > Every RHEL package as a 1:1 version to Fedora, typically Fedora > Core, possibly Fedora Development (as it seems MySQL 4 was). > This is fact. Nothing

Hi all, Somebody has tested directory server (http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/Main_Page) under CentOS 4.1?? Is it ready for production environments?? Somebody has ported to centos?? Thank you very much. __________________________________________________ Correo Yahoo! Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ?gratis! Reg?strate ya - http://correo.espanol.yahoo.com/

On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 09:36, Simon Perreault wrote: > i'm not sure you've considered your position thoroughly. > I am, and I will say it again just for the shock value: > Red Hat is the main developer of CentOS. On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Les Mikesell wrote: > I'd put it this way instead: Red Hat is responsible for any > difficulty in creating the CentOS distribution, while

I'd like to address several issues raised by people in relation to my notice of the ssh(R) trademark to the OpenSSH group. Also, I would like to make a proposal to the community for resolving this issue (included at the end). First, I'll answer a number of questions and arguments presented in the discussion. > "the SSH Corp trademark registration in the US is for a logo

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com> > This is not really true. We will probably never have everything that FC > has as added features ... but CentOS-4 has several added features and we > have been out for only a 3 months (so, not required to wait a year). Oh, sorry, I should have clarified. What I meant by "wait a year" was the time from the first .0 or

Hi, Is there a CentOS yum repository for mplayer&dependencies? Thanks, Adrian

To squelch the questions (related to the changing content on www.centos.org), I decided this needs to be published. The CentOS Team has been contacted by representatives of Red Hat's hired legal team regarding the use of Red Hat Trademarks on www.centos.org. (Full Email follows.) While the CentOS team feels we are using Red Hat's marks in a fair and legal manner, we have no choice

Hi All!I am builiding a firewall appliance based on CentOS. I am using CentOS as it is with some packages removed and some configuration done to security harden the appliance. Over and above this I will be installing Apache Web Server and Tomcat to run my web application which will give a web interface to configure the iptables in the appliance. There is no development done in iptables. It is used