История изменений

===== Under which license are licensed RPM spec files created by Red Hat company?
A

RPM spec files created by Red Hat for building packages in RHEL and other Red Hat products are licensed under two main open source licenses:

    GPLv2+ - This applies to spec files for GPL licensed software like the Linux kernel, GCC, GNOME, etc. Using GPL ensures the packages stay open source.
    MIT/BSD licenses - This applies to spec files for software under permissive licenses like MIT, BSD, Apache, etc. The MIT license allows broader reuse of spec files.

Some key points on Red Hat spec file licensing:

    Licensing follows the source code. Spec files for GPL code use GPL, MIT code use MIT.
    Red Hat uses GPLv2+ rather than v3 due to Linux kernel licensing.
    Spec files added by Red Hat are copyrighted by Red Hat.
    Community contributed spec files go to Fedora first and may get picked up in RHEL.
    The spec file is separate from the software license. It covers the packaging instructions.
    The goal is to uphold open source principles for both Red Hat and community projects.

So in summary, Red Hat spec files are licensed in a way that is consistent with the actual upstream software they are packaging, using GPL and permissive licenses. This ensures all Red Hat built packages remain open source.

===== Are clients (users) allowed to fork and redistribute RHEL spec files in their own other Linux distributions like Rocky Linux?
A

Yes, clients and users are generally allowed to fork and redistribute RHEL spec files in other Linux distributions like Rocky Linux, subject to the license terms:

    For RHEL spec files under GPLv2+, clients can freely fork, modify, and redistribute them in their own distributions provided they follow GPLv2+ requirements.
    For RHEL spec files under permissive licenses like MIT/BSD, they can be reused with minimal restrictions. Copyright notice and license text should be preserved.
    Trademarks cannot be used if repackaging RHEL spec files in a different distribution. Names like "Red Hat" and "RHEL" are trademarks.
    Redistributing RHEL spec files "as-is" in their original form is permitted by the licenses. Making functional modifications would require more care.
    Redistributing packages built from forked spec files solely for private/internal use has more flexibility. Public distribution raises more considerations.
    The software artifacts produced from the spec files would also need to comply with the upstream software licenses.
    It's recommended to review each spec file's license terms before forking or redistributing to ensure compliance.

So in summary, the RHEL licenses generally allow spec file redistribution within reason, but trademarks, attribution, and upstream software licenses should always be respected. For public redistribution it is best to consult legal counsel.

===== Can Red Hat legally prevent forks like Rocky of their RHEL distribution?
A

No, Red Hat cannot legally prevent forks like Rocky Linux of their RHEL distribution. This is due to a few key factors:

    RHEL is built on open source software. The Linux kernel, GNU tools, GNOME, etc that make up RHEL are open source licensed. This allows creating derivative works.
    Red Hat sources are not public. But the binaries are - and can be reverse engineered. Rocky Linux does not directly reuse RHEL source code.
    Copyright only protects creative expression, not ideas and function. The concepts in RHEL cannot be copyrighted, only the unique creative elements.
    Trademark prevents using "Red Hat", but not making compatible systems. Calling something RHEL would violate trademark.
    Patents grant exclusivity, but are public knowledge. Workarounds can often be found if needed.
    EULA terms cannot contradict open source licenses or law. An EULA cannot make GPL'd code proprietary.

So in essence, while Red Hat owns RHEL trademarks and copyrights, they cannot own the functional concepts that make it work. As long as compatibility efforts like Rocky Linux avoid trademarks and copyrighted material, they are legally in the clear. The open source licenses used in RHEL permit this type of compatibility fork.

===== Under which license are licensed RPM spec files created by Red Hat company?
A

RPM spec files created by Red Hat for building packages in RHEL and other Red Hat products are licensed under two main open source licenses:

    GPLv2+ - This applies to spec files for GPL licensed software like the Linux kernel, GCC, GNOME, etc. Using GPL ensures the packages stay open source.
    MIT/BSD licenses - This applies to spec files for software under permissive licenses like MIT, BSD, Apache, etc. The MIT license allows broader reuse of spec files.

Some key points on Red Hat spec file licensing:

    Licensing follows the source code. Spec files for GPL code use GPL, MIT code use MIT.
    Red Hat uses GPLv2+ rather than v3 due to Linux kernel licensing.
    Spec files added by Red Hat are copyrighted by Red Hat.
    Community contributed spec files go to Fedora first and may get picked up in RHEL.
    The spec file is separate from the software license. It covers the packaging instructions.
    The goal is to uphold open source principles for both Red Hat and community projects.

So in summary, Red Hat spec files are licensed in a way that is consistent with the actual upstream software they are packaging, using GPL and permissive licenses. This ensures all Red Hat built packages remain open source.

===== Are clients (users) allowed to fork and redistribute RHEL spec files in their own other Linux distributions like Rocky Linux?
A

Yes, clients and users are generally allowed to fork and redistribute RHEL spec files in other Linux distributions like Rocky Linux, subject to the license terms:

    For RHEL spec files under GPLv2+, clients can freely fork, modify, and redistribute them in their own distributions provided they follow GPLv2+ requirements.
    For RHEL spec files under permissive licenses like MIT/BSD, they can be reused with minimal restrictions. Copyright notice and license text should be preserved.
    Trademarks cannot be used if repackaging RHEL spec files in a different distribution. Names like "Red Hat" and "RHEL" are trademarks.
    Redistributing RHEL spec files "as-is" in their original form is permitted by the licenses. Making functional modifications would require more care.
    Redistributing packages built from forked spec files solely for private/internal use has more flexibility. Public distribution raises more considerations.
    The software artifacts produced from the spec files would also need to comply with the upstream software licenses.
    It's recommended to review each spec file's license terms before forking or redistributing to ensure compliance.

So in summary, the RHEL licenses generally allow spec file redistribution within reason, but trademarks, attribution, and upstream software licenses should always be respected. For public redistribution it is best to consult legal counsel.

===== Can Red Hat legally prevent forks like Rocky of their RHEL distribution?
A

No, Red Hat cannot legally prevent forks like Rocky Linux of their RHEL distribution. This is due to a few key factors:

    RHEL is built on open source software. The Linux kernel, GNU tools, GNOME, etc that make up RHEL are open source licensed. This allows creating derivative works.
    Red Hat sources are not public. But the binaries are - and can be reverse engineered. Rocky Linux does not directly reuse RHEL source code.
    Copyright only protects creative expression, not ideas and function. The concepts in RHEL cannot be copyrighted, only the unique creative elements.
    Trademark prevents using "Red Hat", but not making compatible systems. Calling something RHEL would violate trademark.
    Patents grant exclusivity, but are public knowledge. Workarounds can often be found if needed.
    EULA terms cannot contradict open source licenses or law. An EULA cannot make GPL'd code proprietary.

So in essence, while Red Hat owns RHEL trademarks and copyrights, they cannot own the functional concepts that make it work. As long as compatibility efforts like Rocky Linux avoid trademarks and copyrighted material, they are legally in the clear. The open source licenses used in RHEL permit this type of compatibility fork.