Free vs. pay versions

[Jarod Wilson]

On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Richard Pieri <richard.pieri-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Aug 22, 2010, at 4:44 PM, Jarod Wilson wrote:
>>
>> Um. What exactly was incorrect there?
>
> Trademarks and ISV certification are not "released to the public".  At all.  Without those you don't have a genuine RHEL.  You may have something close but you don't have the certification and you don't have the right to use the Red Hat trademarks.

Sure. But I never said that was the case. I said 'No, everything used
to build RHEL is released to the public. And its "Red Hat", not Redhat
or RedHat. :)'. To which I got a reply of "Incorrect". Has absolutely
nothing to do with ISV certifications, and the only way my statement
has anything to do with trademarks, is that I was correcting the Red
Hat name.

The argument was made that RHEL ships binary stuff on its distribution
discs that isn't open-source (or binary firmware), and that's flat-out
not true. Show me a package on the Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.5
installer discs that there isn't a corresponding also publicly shipped
source rpm for, and I'll eat my words.

But yes, you are correct that the trademarks and ISV certs aren't
released to the public. That would be incredibly stupid, if Red Hat
wanted to stay in business, which I'm pretty sure it does.

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod-ajLrJawYSntWk0Htik3J/w at public.gmane.org