Hi all,

I have a question! If I downloaded redhat enterprise source code =>
made small changes to it => and then call it WhiteHat => make iso
images out of it => then, can I sell it after that without any legal
issues? Is that what you call GNU? Is this the Open Source licensing?

Thanx...

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 12:35:52 -0700, moon wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have a question! If I downloaded redhat enterprise source code => made
> small changes to it => and then call it WhiteHat => make iso images out of
> it => then, can I sell it after that without any legal issues? Is that
> what you call GNU? Is this the Open Source licensing?


In short, nobody will answer this legal question, ask your attorney.

However, please review;

http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html


--
Hi!  I'm a .sig virus!  Please copy me to your .sig! so I can spread
This E-mail is safe, no Microsoft products were used in creating me!

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 2004-10-08, moon <tobe_better@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I have a question! If I downloaded redhat enterprise source code =>
> made small changes to it => and then call it WhiteHat => make iso
> images out of it => then, can I sell it after that without any legal
> issues? Is that what you call GNU? Is this the Open Source licensing?

See http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/

This product is derived from the Free/Open Source Software made
available by Red Hat, Inc but IS NOT produced, maintained or supported
by Red Hat. Specifically, this product is forked from the source code
for Red Hat's _Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3_ product under the terms and
conditions of it's EULA.

--

-John (john@os2.dhs.org)

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 12:35:52 -0700, moon wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I have a question! If I downloaded redhat enterprise source code =>
> made small changes to it => and then call it WhiteHat => make iso
> images out of it => then, can I sell it after that without any legal
> issues? Is that what you call GNU? Is this the Open Source licensing?
>
> Thanx...

As long as you only include the GPLed pieces. You also have to make your
source code changes available. The place where you could have trouble is
calling it WhiteHat, that violates RedHat's trademark. The Lindows people
lost their battle with Microsoft over this issue and were force to change
their name to Linspire.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Ok thank you for your replyings.... I think taht i need to think about
what i've been informed by you !!! It dose really change my thinking
of GNU! and i see BSD is the real Open Source (at least till now)!!

 thanx again

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 2004-10-11, moon <tobe_better@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Ok thank you for your replyings.... I think taht i need to think about
> what i've been informed by you !!! It dose really change my thinking
> of GNU! and i see BSD is the real Open Source (at least till now)!!

No, they're both open source, just different licenses.  The BSD license
allows you to take their source code and do whatever you want with it,
with no obligation to share it back with the community. This has allowed
companies such as Microsoft and IBM to take BSD-licensed code for e.g.
tcp/ip and use it in their proprietary products such as Windows and OS/2.

The GPL allows you to take GPL source code and do whatever you like with
it, but if you intend to redistribute a product based on your changes to
the GPL sources, that product must also be licensed under the GPL and the
source code shared with the GPL community.  If you don't redistribute it,
there is no obligation to share your changes at all.

--

-John (john@os2.dhs.org)

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]