On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Tom H <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


>> 1) RH doesn't license RHEL; it provides subscriptions to RHEL. The
>> individual have licenses...
>
> I think you meant "individual components have licenses", It's cool.

Indeed, thanks.


>> 2) What might be the rationale for RH to release SRPMs (as SRPMs
>> previously and as a git tree now) that are different from the SRPMs
>> from which it builds RHEL?!
>
> The most likely real reason would be accidental error. `Some SuSE 9
> SRPM's for example, sometimes included different components form the
> source tree in the SRPM depending on build options. Fedora and RHEL
> have been very good about including *all* compnents, even if only used
> for particular OS version or builds. I applaud them for consistency.

Of course errors can happen. I'd expect RH to fix them quickly because
it's in its interest for RHEL rebuilders to publish a distro as
similar to RHEL as possible.


> The other *potential* source of such a discrepancy would be a
> manipulative weasel hiding hacks or concealing features incompatible
> with patent or copyright law. I'm not saying this is *likely*, our
> favorite upstream vendor has been really good about this, and I've met
> enough of their employees in the Boston area to have some confidence
> in them to not pull this sort of stunt. and if they got caught it
> would be disastrous for public confidence and for their business

Again, this isn't in RH's interest and an RH employee would destroy
his/her career.