[License-discuss] Views on React licensing?
rick at linuxmafia.com
Wed Dec 7 10:11:48 UTC 2016
Quoting Ben Tilly (btilly at gmail.com):
> Item 1 of the OSD says, "The license shall not restrict any party from
> selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software
> distribution containing programs from several different sources. The
> license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
> Red Hat's trademark license fails this provision as badly as you could want.
Last I checked, every source code RPM in RHEL is genuinely open source
except for _non-software_ SRPMs redhat-logos and anaconda-images. Those
non-software RRPMs turn out to have mildly restrictive proprietary
licensing, requiring that all commercial redistribution respect a
company-issued trademark-usage policy on the company Web site.
Compiling the OS does not, fortunately, require the specific contents of
those SRPMs (RH-branded image files, IIRC). Substituting different
contents and then compiling gets you an RHEL rebuild from identical
souce -- e.g., CentOS, Scientific Linux, etc.
So, of course you can, irrespective of what Nigel suggested,
redistribute RHEL without a trademark license from Red Hat. _And_ all
of the software is open source.
When this came up in the early 2000s, I FAQed it.
(I found the upthread barrage of rhetorical questions a waste of time
and unproductive, FWIW.)
Cheers, "It's easier to act your way into a new way of thinking
Rick Moen than think your way into a new way of acting."
rick at linuxmafia.com -- Jerry Sternin
More information about the License-discuss