[License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

Rick Moen 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 
McQ! (4x80)

More information about the License-discuss mailing list