I get your point, and appreciate it.&nbsp; However given the fact that the main product they&#39;re selling are the Free Software packages that have been configured, tested, and certified, it&#39;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&#39;s Free.&nbsp; I don&#39;t believe any of their tools are non-Free now (and RPM isn&#39;t exclusively under the control of Red Hat any more, hasn&#39;t for a while), so it&#39;s not like you couldn&#39;t run a RHEL system devoid of Red Hat&#39;s tools.<br>
<br>Regardless, this is a minor issue.&nbsp; :)<br><br>Jeffrey.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Luke Dashjr <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:luke@dashjr.org">luke@dashjr.org</a>&gt;</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>&quot;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.&quot; -- Thomas Paine<br>