On 23/06/2014 14:54, Steven Timm wrote:
I was at the HEPiX meeting at which those slides were presented
and there was further discussion during the course of the week
as to what would happen. RedHat/CentOS was also represented at that
meeting in the person of Karanbir Singh. You should not
Thanks to everyone who commented and I apologise for the delay in replying.
So it seems that complete clarity is not yet available. Ok.
A couple more questions in the search for clarity:-
1) Can anyone confirm or deny that Red Hat places contractual
limitations on what a subscriber (who has
On 06/27/2014 03:28 PM, Mark Rousell wrote:
1) Can anyone confirm or deny that Red Hat places contractual
limitations on what a subscriber (who has access to the RHEL7 SRPMs) can
do with the source code so obtained?
Please read http://lwn.net/Articles/432012/ and
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 08:17:19PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote:
However, based upon the balance of probabilities, it looks likely that
SL7 will not be based directly on RHEL7 but on CentOS.
If so, ... why continued with SL at all.
The 800lbs gorilla in the room is CERN (and other large
On 06/27/2014 01:14 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On 06/27/2014 03:44 PM, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:
The 800lbs gorilla in the room is CERN (and other large physics
labs), who require a linux (some linux) to run the large compute
farms for analysis of LHC data. For historical reasons, this linux
has
On 27/06/2014 20:43, Lamar Owen wrote:
On 06/27/2014 03:28 PM, Mark Rousell wrote:
1) Can anyone confirm or deny that Red Hat places contractual
limitations on what a subscriber (who has access to the RHEL7 SRPMs) can
do with the source code so obtained?
Please read
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Yasha Karant ykar...@csusb.edu wrote:
1. Is CERN linux the same as SL?
http://linux.web.cern.ch/linux/scientific.shtml
On 27/06/2014 22:16, Mark Rousell wrote:
On 27/06/2014 20:43, John Lauro wrote:
One reason to remove public sources is to keep the load off of their
servers.
Yes, that's one reasons. There are other reasons too, of course. My
might will infer that other reasons are the overridingly
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 08:28:49PM +0100, Mark Rousell wrote:
1) Can anyone confirm or deny that ...
For you, I can confirm or deny anything and everything. The moon is made out of
Swiss cheese. 100% confirmed. Yes. (but is it helpful?)
2) This is a legal question but ...
For this you
Apologies for starting a new thread but this seems to warrant one.
On another mail list where the issue of Scientific Linux versus RHEL7
has been mentioned in passing, an employee of Red Hat has offered to
seek clarification about the RHEL/CentOS source code
identification/verification/tracing
On 06/27/2014 05:07 PM, Mark Rousell wrote:
Clearly, however, Red Hat's lawyers (and the FSF it
seems) think such a limitation is not a violation of GPL.
For what it's worth, such limiting contractual terms (even if freely
entered into) do seem on the face of it to be a violation of clause 6 of
On 06/27/2014 04:49 PM, Yasha Karant wrote:
...
1. Is CERN linux the same as SL?
Scientific Linux CERN is what is being talked about here.
1.1 Are any of the Fermilab team doing the same as in the posting from
Singh?
...
You should read the archives of the centos-devel list and note
On 06/27/2014 05:26 PM, Mark Rousell wrote:
The cessation of SRPM distribution in general to non-customers, which
is the specific issue at hand here, is a new issue that has new
considerations to take into account. Whilst it has similarities to the
kernel issue in 2011 it also goes further.
On 27/06/2014 23:00, Lamar Owen wrote:
On 06/27/2014 05:07 PM, Mark Rousell wrote:
Clearly, however, Red Hat's lawyers (and the FSF it
seems) think such a limitation is not a violation of GPL.
For what it's worth, such limiting contractual terms (even if freely
entered into) do seem on the
On 06/27/2014 06:16 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
... I'd love to find it so I could add another supportable OS for my
SGI Altix IA64 boxen.
After writing that, I thought that perhaps someone has missed the note
of sarcasm there. I know full well where the sources are, and I also
know that you
On 06/27/2014 06:29 PM, Mark Rousell wrote:
And yet it most certainly *has* taken on a new form. That changes
things. The threads about it on this mail list would not exist if
there had not been such a substantive, real world, change.
On February 29, 2012, CentOS and SL both stopped support for
On 27/06/2014 23:45, Lamar Owen wrote:
On 06/27/2014 06:29 PM, Mark Rousell wrote:
And yet it most certainly *has* taken on a new form. That changes
things. The threads about it on this mail list would not exist if
there had not been such a substantive, real world, change.
On February 29,
On 27/06/2014 23:41, Mark Rousell wrote:
And then, finally, the
banking industry lost a court case and the government regular got round
to doing something about it. What had been totally accepted, barely
questioned, common practice was outlawed and improperly taken fees had
to be paid back.
18 matches
Mail list logo
