On 28/10/11 18:31, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Patrick Lists
> <centos-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> How is, say, being
>>> required to pay a license fee as a consequence different from losing
>>> something you have already contracted and paid for?
>>
>> It would surprise me if Red Hat would not refund the customer or let
>> them ride out the term of what they have already paid for. And didn't
>> the customer agree to Red Hat's terms (AUP) when they signed the contract?
>
> The question is, how can a contract containing restrictions on what
> you can do with GPL covered content not invalidate your own right to
> redistribute, given that the GPL prohibits additional restrictions?
>
As I understand, Red Hat's AUP is more about protecting content other
than sources and binaries that resides on RHN (yes, RHN is far more than
just a distribution channel for SRPMs/RPMs). Such content and material
is vital in supporting it's customers, and I believe the likes of Oracle
and Suse were leveraging such content to try to sell support to existing
RHEL customers. This is what Red Hat presumably seeks to stop.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
