Is linux free 5005

No.

RHEL 3 and 4 have been encumbered by trademark rights on images, themes, etc. contained in the SRPMs for packages redhat-logos and anaconda-images. RH, Inc.'s licence (under copyright law) for the specific instances (specific files) they supply of those images, etc. requires that you observe the corporation's trademark policy that it corporate policy, in turn, requests a very maximalist interpretation of the scope of RH's trademark rights, including no commercial redistribution (absent specific authorisation).

It's highly likely that various of the trademark-encumbered proprietary image files in those SRPMs get included in quite a number of the other binary packages, when one builds binary RPMs from the source packages. Therefore, those other binary packages become similarly encumbered during the build process.

The effect of all this is that, if you commercially redistribute RHEL 3 or 4 including the two encumbered packages' contents, then you are committing copyright infringement as to those two packages -- a business tort -- because you're making an unlicensed use of them. This is why RHEL rebuilds such as CentOS and Scientific Linux rebuild from source and subsbreastute different contents for the two encumbered SRPMs in doing so. Only by carrying out such a subsbreastution and rebuild process can one avoid the proprietary encumbrance.

The predecessor release, RHAS 2.1, was additionally encumbered by a number of non-redistributable proprietary packages, notably some Java ones.

You can do that -- but it's technically unlawful if you do so as a commercial transaction. (Besides, you're much better off with CentOS

Those two encumbered (and non-software) packages are not GPL: They're proprietary images-themes-etc. under a licence that specifically does not convey the right of commercial redistribution.

And I hope you're not one of those ill-informed people who buttume that everything on a set of Linux CDs is under GNU GPL, just because the kernel and a number of other components are.

So, if you do understand the nature of the trademark-based encumbrance, kindly cease misleading people with grossly inaccurate statements like "While RH may not be freely downloadable it is freely distributable", especially when you're talking to someone who knows the subject a lot better than you od.

You are badly mistaken. Go read the licences to those two packages, which are very clearly proprietary and deny the right of commercial redistribution except if specifically authorised by RH, Inc.

RH's licensing setup as to its copyright properties within RHEL 3 and 4 is subtle, but hardly difficult to understand. I'm sorry if you're having problems with it, but I'll need to move onwards.

Again, for Heaven's sake, take the trouble to actually read some of the licences before mouthing off on Usenet and contradicting those who have.

-- Cheers, Rick Moen Age, baro, fac ut gaudeam.