On 23/06/2014 21:47, Yasha Karant wrote:
> Please correct me if the comment below is in error.
> 
> My understanding is that Red Hat has changed the rules for use of the
> official RHEL SRPMs, but still using
> the finest JDs and laws that money can be buy (as have many other
> for-profit corporations) and thus stay in compliance with letter of the
> the GPL, linux, etc., licenses, if not the spirit.
> 
> Those SRPMs may no longer be used to build any installable/executable
> image other than for a machine that has a RHEL paid
> license,, even if all RH logos, etc., are removed.

As per my other messages in this thread, I don't see how Red Hat could
not themselves be in breach of the GPL licence if they seek to limit
their customers' freedom via contract in this way.

In other words, Red Hat can create a contract which does this but by
doing so it seems to me that they would be breaching the GPL by doing so.

Or is there a way round it for them?

> If SL ends up being just a CentOS SIG branch, then why continue with
> SL?

Indeed, it would be very sad.