I get your point, and appreciate it. However given the fact that the main product they're selling are the Free Software packages that have been configured, tested, and certified, it'd be rather pointless for them to make system-config-printer (for example) non-Free.<br>
<br>And even if they did, CentOS would simply be the 98% of the system that's Free. I don't believe any of their tools are non-Free now (and RPM isn't exclusively under the control of Red Hat any more, hasn't for a while), so it's not like you couldn't run a RHEL system devoid of Red Hat's tools.<br>
<br>Regardless, this is a minor issue. :)<br><br>Jeffrey.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Luke Dashjr <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:luke@dashjr.org">luke@dashjr.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>Not quite. The copyright holder can do whatever they want. The GPL only<br>
obligates licensees. RedHat could in theory license RPM under the GPL and then<br>
refuse to give you source. At this point, you would be unable to legally<br>
redistribute RPM yourself because YOU are bound to the GPL.<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><br>"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine<br>