Re: Plea for a reasonable RHASv3 license option

On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 22:23, Féliciano Matias wrote:
> Le mar 02/09/2003 à 04:24, Stephen Smoogen a écrit :
> > On 1 Sep 2003, Féliciano Matias wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > >Also he tells us to ignore GPL/BSD license for binary packages.
> > 
> > I think I was the person here,
> 
> No :-)
> 
> It's about a previous post from Tom "spot" Callaway :
> - "And to pre-empt the flamewars, no, this is not a violation of the
> GPL. The source is still yours to do whatever you want with."
> 
> I interpret this like : For GPL program, the source is driven by the GPL
> license and for the binary RedHat apply its own license (that is what
> they want).

OK. I'm not a lawyer. I don't speak as the voice of Red Hat in these
matters. Please refrain from drawing your own interpretations and
claiming they came from me. If you have legal questions about RHEL's
licensing, please send them to [email protected] No, I don't think it is
reasonable to expect a Red Hat lawyer to post on this thread. Red Hat's
lawyers are quite busy these days, and even if they weren't, they don't
usually lurk on technical beta lists.

If something in Red Hat's licensing bothers you, send [email protected]
an email with your concerns. Neither I, or this mailing list, are
appropriate outlets for such matters, and accordingly, neither are able
to resolve any concerns one way or another.

~spot


--
Taroon-beta-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/taroon-beta-list