On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 00:00:51 -0800 (PST), Chuck Wolber wrote: > > We stay legal. > > Legal shmegal!! I think you've been brainwashed by the proprietary > software storm troopers. The software is GPL'd, Redhat cannot take your > rights to redistribute away from you. Once you have *1* copy of the code, > you can do whatever you want with it and there's not a darn thing RedHat > can do to you. > > *REMEMBER* The GPL was created *SPECIFICALLY* to prevent anyone from > taking someone's rights away. If the original developer wrote the code > under the GPL, then you get the same rights RedHat got. > > > > Because we don't violate licenses or contracts, subscribing one of our > > boxes at $349 for ES2.1 and distributing to the remainder isn't an > > option. > > Huh? How's that. Did RedHat suddenly find a way to get around the GPL? If > so, please enlighten me... Because it would hurt Red Hat's business model, and it would be short sighted to do so. Why would anyone pay for the subscription and then redistribute the software or errata to others freely? Also, the GPL does not override trademark laws. You may need to modify the software appropriately before you could redistribute it. > The fact of the matter is that you have the same rights to the code that > RedHat has. That's the beauty of the GPL. The GPL does not override service licence agreements either. Meaning, that while you could copy the software freely, you are not permitted to install and run the product on more than the purchased number of licenced machines. Doing so would be in violation of your SLA. > You have to remember that in buying RHEL 2.1/3.0/etc you are paying for a > service, *not the code*. You are paying for the update service which then > supports all of the stability work that RedHat puts into the code. You also pay for R&D, QA and them assembling all the stuff and maintaining it for a long period of time. --
Attachment:
pgp00003.pgp
Description: PGP signature
