On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 15:33, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2004, at 2:11 PM, Craig White wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 11:29, Derek Neighbors wrote:
> >> Chris Gehlker said:
> >>> On Feb 4, 2004, at 9:02 AM, Derek Neighbors wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> To be clear I am not saying the RHEL product is bad.  Therefore, I
> >>>> don't
> >>>> see the need for someone else to repackage it.  I think the binding 
> >>>> of
> >>>> support to the license is less than desirable.
> >>>
> >>> You seem to be missing the point that the mere fact that others have
> >>> the *ability* to repackage RHEL means that the binding of support to
> >>> the license is very weak, simple branding as opposed to lock-in.
> >>
> >> You appear to be missing the fact (as I am lead to believe) that 
> >> there are
> >> part of RHEL that are not available for others to "repackage".
> > ---
> > Huh?
> >
> > I have already posted the links for der.Hans
> >
> > Red Hat Trademark Guidelines - main page
> > <http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/guidelines/index.html>
> >
> > The only parts of RHEL that are not available to repackage are the
> > trademarks themselves - pictures and references to the Red Hat name and
> > other trademarks as listed on this link.
> >
> > I don't know who or what is leading you to believe otherwise.
> 
> Normally I wouldn't presume to answer for someone else but since in his 
> 'signoff' post to this thread Derek felt very free to speculate on my 
> motives I feel a bit entitled to speculate on what he meant. Whitebox 
> is not allowed to link you to Red Hat's servers for automatic upgrades 
> and other services provided by Red Hat from its servers to its 
> customers. Red Hat also asks it's customers not to pass on service 
> bulletins to Whitebox customers. Apparently, for Derek, this 
> constitutes 'lock-in'. Now in fairness to Derek, he seems to be merely 
> echoing some propaganda that Bruce Parens wrote in his role as chief 
> salesman for UserLinux.
---
I am certain that the whitebox system has changed the sources for
yum/up2date without even checking it out. It has to be one of the
easiest modifications of all to do. As for passing on service bulletins
to Whitebox customers, they are meaningless since the whitebox product
will have to obtain the source and compile any errata fixes that come
down the pipe which is certain to lag behind any Red Hat release. Red
Hat errata isn't whitebox errata until whitebox says it is.

In fairness to Derek? I guess I want to see what you write when you
decide not to be fair.

Craig