On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 08:20, Miguel Angel Diaz > <miguelangel.d...@ciemat.es> 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.
GPLv2 cannot override the licensing of GPLv3 or Apache or BSD licensed components included in the distribution, and the "original Red Hat" distributions of RHEL include licenses for oddball components like Sun's Java. (They're oftion in the "optional" software channels".) For examples of *components* under different licensing. Don't *get* me started on the licensing weirdness that used to surround Dan Bernstein's tools, such as daemontools and djbdns, or the email client pine. There are reasons those don't make it into default distribution with our favorite upstream vendor.