On 10/28/2011 12:47 PM, Ned Slider wrote: > 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. I can tell you that we have been contacted by upstream to make sure we **UNDERSTAND** the new AUP restrictions on distribution. I can also tell you that we (CentOS) are doing everything in our power to meet the restrictions as they were explained to us. The restrictions do include the distribution of items downloaded directly from RHN.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
