On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 11:07, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Thursday 02 June 2005 10:48, Les Mikesell wrote:
> > If your favorite choice is accepting a contract that imposes limits on
> > where you can install free software that itself has a license that says
> > additional restrictions cannot be imposed, then by all means pick RHEL.
>
> RHEL's SLA does not in any way impose restrictions on where you can install
> anything. It does, however, place restrictions on where and how you can or
> cannot use RHN and its entitlements; that is, if you want to buy RHEL and
> then install it on more machines than for which you have RHN entitlements,
> you agree to forfeit your right to use the RHN entitlements; but in no case
> do you lose the right to continue to use the RHEL installations you currently
> have installed; you just are blocked from using the RHN service. And you are
> out the amount of money you paid for the entitlements; not a good bargain.
So a contract doesn't 'impose restrictions' because you could accept the
penalty of breaking the contract if you wanted? If you look at it that
way, what could possibly impose a restriction?
> This is in contrast to say the Microsoft EULA where a license breach causes
> you to not be able to use the Microsoft software at all from any machine.
That's a rather different case. The MS software doesn't start with a
license that ensures your right to copy it except in the case where
you impose additional restrictions.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
