Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
  Original Message  
From: Tom H
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 09:08
To: SL Users
Subject: Re: Docker

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.


How so? Red Hat wants people to buy the support exact duplicate distros give people an excuse not to buy the support. So how is that in Red Hats best interest?
 

‎
> 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.