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.
>
> For example this is why UserLinux is starting.  They basically want to
> have a more updated version of Debian (but will put all their stuff 
> back
> into Debian) and not have licensing issue.

I think what UserLinux is trying to do is very similar to what Red Hat 
already does. They are trying to establish a brand with 'authorized 
service.' In the case of UserLinux the service is provided by 
independent contractors but  they are still authorized by the UserLinux 
distributor and use their brand. In short, it's simply a franchise 
version of the Red Hat model. Bruce Parens said as much on /..