On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 13:19, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > > RHEL's SLA does not in any way impose restrictions on where you can
> > > install anything.
>
> > 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?
>
> If you break the Red Hat contract, Red Hat cannot remove your right to
> continue to run the RHEL servers you have already installed; they just
> simply would refuse your login to RHN to fetch updates. So you lose updates;
Let me ask again... What could possibly impose a restriction if you
don't the consider the penalties of contract breakage to be a
restriction? Since RH does permit source redistribution regardless
and hence the existence of projects like Centos, they are not
strictly breaking the GPL here, but if that contract isn't a
restriction I'd like someone to explain what would be in the
sense excluded by the GPL.
> But remember, there are other licenses present in RHEL: apache, X,
I'm not a particular fan of the GPL. I just don't see how it works
to distribute GPL'd stuff along with a contract that imposes additional
restrictions and penalties for breaking them.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
