[Gllug] Discussion: Is Enterprise Linux a lock-in

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 01:54:49PM +0000, Tethys wrote:
> 
> "Daniel P. Berrange" writes:
> 
> >Red Hat CMS and associated components are all distributed under an open
> >source license[1]. The nightly builds are freely available from our
> >FTP site.
> 
> I stand corrected. Do you know where this CCM license came from, and why
> Red Hat haven't just GPLed it? I've been impressed that they've released
> other software (e.g., Source Navigator and IIRC, GFS) under the GPL, when
> there was no real need for them to do so. It's always nice to see a company
> living up to its stated principles.

Yep, its based on the IBM Public License - info can be found on our
FAQ page:

<quote src="http://rhea.redhat.com/faq.html#ccmpl">
The CCM Public License is equivalent to the OSI-certified IBM Public
License, and mandates that any changes made to CCMPL'd code that is
redistributed must be redistributed with source. The reasons why we are
using the IBM PL and not the GPL is because the IBM PL more thoroughly
addresses indemnification and liability issues, and the text of the IBM PL
is written in a more standard legal format, facilitating its acceptance by
corporate legal departments.
</quote>


Dan.
-- 
|=-               http://www.berrange.com/~dan/gpgkey.txt             -=|
|=-   berrange at redhat.com  -  Daniel Berrange  -  dan at berrange.com    -=|
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/gllug/attachments/20040120/85b2e88a/attachment.pgp>
-------------- next part --------------
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug