The GPL should keep it (at least the majority if not all packages) from being significantly encumbered. The more significant issue would be getting timely security updates... It would be fine as a "starting point", but not really usable long term... that is why the git stuff has to be bothered with...
----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jamie Duncan" <jamie.e.dun...@gmail.com> > To: "Patrick J. LoPresti" <lopre...@gmail.com> > Cc: "Akemi Yagi" <amy...@gmail.com>, "Nico Kadel-Garcia" > <nka...@gmail.com>, "Yasha Karant" <ykar...@csusb.edu>, > "<owner-scientific-linux-us...@listserv.fnal.gov>" > <owner-scientific-linux-us...@listserv.fnal.gov>, > SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@listserv.fnal.gov > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 10:46:24 PM > Subject: Re: RHEL 7 just hit the market place, I'm looking forward to > when we can start testing SL 7 > """ In that case, why should Scientific Linux bother with any of this > git > stuff? All the SL maintainers need is one (1) Red Hat customer, > anywhere on the planet, to obtain the source DVDs and give them a > copy. Then they can build just like they always have... > """ > If they're not released to the public, they are almost guaranteed to > be encumbered in a manner similar to the binary RPMs, which would > make that illegal. > I haven't looked for changes to the EULA with RHEL7 yet, but I would > imagine they took care of it. > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Patrick J. LoPresti < > lopre...@gmail.com > wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Akemi Yagi < amy...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Just wanted to make a short note to say that source DVDs are > > > available > > > > to RH customers. > > > > > > > In that case, why should Scientific Linux bother with any of this > > git > > > stuff? All the SL maintainers need is one (1) Red Hat customer, > > > anywhere on the planet, to obtain the source DVDs and give them a > > > copy. Then they can build just like they always have... > > -- > Thanks, > Jamie Duncan > @jamieeduncan
