Three non-negotiables on the LG U+ RHEL-layering path - drawn before the technical debate, with a lawyer-and-everybody-else escape hatch

Situation

After Howard produced a document mapping what is technically possible for layering CIQ/Rocky packages onto a RHEL host, Peter opened his reply to Bjorn with three flat lines: (1) we are not going to take CIQ packages and present them as RH packages, (2) we are not going to have CIQ repos that point to or include RH key files, (3) we are not going to host any RH files ourselves. He named the Oracle precedent Howard cited - listing RH as its own EFI vendor directory - as something CIQ can do technically but not legally or morally. He then supplied the only conditions under which he would revisit: a room where everyone confirms they understood the question, a lawyer who agrees, and evidence that CIQ would not be the only party doing it. Even then he held that it remains another release chain that is real work.

Reasoning

Peter separated technically possible from business possible before arguing any of the engineering, because the engineering conversation was already drifting on loose language - there are a bunch of ways to make this work technically, and no way to make it work reliably long term while signing as CIQ, not hosting RH binaries, and not masquerading as RH. He also refused to treat open source as a licence to violate trademark: open source means we have access to the code, not that we get to violate trademark law. The escape hatch is deliberately shaped so the legality objection can be retired without the cost objection being retired - if everyone else were doing it, the this is wrong and illegal and stupid part goes away, but it is STILL another release we need to support. And the appetite question is escalated to a joint Peter-and-Bjorn call, not an engineering call: if CIQ were the only party doing this, you and I should have a conversation about our appetite for getting sued.

Additional Context

Follows the 7/27 definitive no to LG U+ cross-distro package support. Bjorn was pressure-testing hypotheticals and had asked earlier whether Oracle and RH might have an agreement. Peter noted he had asked can we point to RH signing authority a month back and got a resounding no from engineering. Also flagged the durable-maintenance cost even if the legal path cleared: Rocky packages next to RH packages in a repo MIGHT work for a while but WILL break eventually, and would require manual CVE porting where CIQ packages diverge from RH.

Observed Evidence

Direct numbered statement in Slack DM to Bjorn at 16:40 PDT 7/28, followed by the conditional revisit criteria at 17:03. Corroborated in the Justin Haynes DM the same evening and in the multi-party group DM later that night.

Matching Patterns

Confidence Breakdown

Reasoning Depth Analysis