SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

May 2011

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Frank Lanitz <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Frank Lanitz <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 13 May 2011 10:35:02 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (29 lines)
Am 12.05.2011 19:07, schrieb Stephen John Smoogen:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 08:20, Miguel Angel Diaz
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> I agree with you that packages have their own licenses.
>>
>> But my question follows in other way. Imagine I want to create
>> other .iso based on S.L.iso. I need to read .iso license to know if I am
>> doing well.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>>
> 
> Ok I understand the question, and will try to better explain it to others.
> 
> A package by itself has a license, but so does the distribution as a
> whole. The Fedora distribution and original Red Hat Linux distribution
> were licensed under the GPL v2. Miguel is wondering what license Fermi
> is offering the distribution under as this affects how others can use
> the distribution, derive child distributions etc from it.

Given that andd as its a derivate of RHEL it should be GPLc2 also. Only
my guestimation.

Cheers,
Frank

ATOM RSS1 RSS2