Is linux free 5029
Because their left hand does not know what their right hand is doing. I would guess that they paid some lawyers to invent a licence agreement for them and that the lawyers didn't know what they were doing and left a mess of rubbish as a licence - or maybe they did and deliberately left a mess of rubbish with the intention of intimidating licensees. But some other part of RH has decided to leave the intimidating nonsense licence in place and add a separate document saying how to go about legally modifying their distro for distribution - thus not offending the people who put together the nonsense licence and not losing the intimidating effect for licensees.
Since you asked!
Well, it certainly has been DERIVED from RHEL, in at least some sense. But if your argument is to hold, you have to tell me what changes I have to make...
Whatever they say ELSEWHERE does not affect the licence you accepted (indeed may not apply) unless they say that it is a clarifcation of that license. In the case of conflicting information, no you don't get free choice - it becomes a matter of legal decision as to what applies where and whenand to whom. So confusion is not bad from their point of view.
Correct but irrelevant to the question of whether the result is RH or not. Correct, and relevant, in that if you keep RHs modifications, then you are definitely...
I stated how so you don't have to think about it! You just have to answer the argument given!
About 10-20, I think. I don't know. Neil Brown is the only one who springs to mind immediately, but I could grep the Maintainers list and the source for clues. Where is Alan Cox?
Same old broken record.) Something that might not have occurred to you: If so, so what? RH's service agreement is, in fact, not obligatory -- if you can find...
I'd buttume that they'd be happy if there were a GPL and "low cost" version freely avaiable. Which is the case. Linus was happy at Transmeta and I didn't notice them open-sourcing their hardware specs!
Peter
Linux groups from Newsgroups