RHEL clones

[Xose Vazquez Perez]

Chuck Wolber wrote:

> darn thing we can do about it. Well, there *IS* one thing we can do. We've
> considered purchasing one copy of RHEL 3.0, stripping all of the non-GPL

You don't need to buy it. Get the sources from redhat ftp server.
But it is easier to rebuild a RHEL clone from itself.

> stuff out of it, purposely never using the support option, and calling it
> Quantum Linux. Is that wrong? Legally, no.  We've been studying the GPL

If you delete *all* Red Hat references, logos, ... from all packages
and rebuild _all_ from sources then it's ok.
cAos[1] and rhel-rebuild[2] are doing the same.

> and the RH licensing agreement closely and they support such an action. Is
> it moral? I believe it is. We're happy to pay RH a chunk of change once a
> year as our "contribution" towards all of the QA you speak of. NPR works
> the same way, with a great deal of success.

You will need to rebuild every update from sources and then release it
to your customers. Otherswise is a license violation.

[1] http://caosity.org/
[2] http://www2.uibk.ac.at/zid/software/unix/linux/
-- 
HTML mails are going to trash automagically