On 04/05/2016 11:55 AM, Always Learning wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-04-05 at 08:16 -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Always Learning <centos@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> What matters for the 'free' Red Hat software is ***ONLY*** Red Hat's
>>> stated terms and conditions - definitely not what someone else has
>>> put on a web site.
>> Here is the link:
>>
>> https://developers.redhat.com/terms-and-conditions/
>
> Thanks Akemi.
>
> I remind everyone, who is interested, that the absence of clearly
> expressed definitions in
>
> https://developers.redhat.com/terms-and-conditions/
Actually, they are clearly defined here:
http://www.redhat.com/licenses/GLOBAL_Appendix_one_English_20160111.pdf
There are several (legal) documents at redhat.com that defines the
details and conditions of any subscription. All of which has to be
accepted as part of any subscription purchase.
> (a) 'development purposes only'
Which is defined as "“Development Purposes” means using the Software for
the specific purpose of (a) individual
developers writing software code, (b) single-user prototyping, quality
assurance or testing and/or (c) demonstrating software or hardware that
runs with or on the Software".
> (b) 'a production installation'
Which is defined as "“Production Purposes” means using the Software (a)
in a production environment, (b) generally using live data and/or
applications for a purpose other than Development Purposes, (c) for
multi-user prototyping, quality assurance and testing and/or (d) for
backup instances". (as per the appendix linked above).
> and the lack of specific detail on
> http://www.redhat.com/en/about/licenses (English version)
Note the two links at the bottom of that page? You'll find the first
appendix I linked above there.
> means Red Hat would experience difficulties proving commercial loss,
> other than a subscription fee loss.
Now, do you think Red Hat has been selling subscriptions for 15+ years
now without having to enforce their subscription agreements legally?
> Even a subscription fee loss might be difficult for Red Hat to prove
> taking into consideration Red Hat knew, or had good cause to know or was
> recklessly indifferent to users comprehensively knowing precisely what
> Red Hat meant by (a) and (b) above.
Since you have to sign up to the subscription agreements before you
subscribe, that's going to be a hard argument to win. As with everything
in the US, every commercial contract is complex and full of "legalese"
needed to defend against this type of argumentation ;)
> A defendant could argue that Red Hat deliberately withheld that vital
> knowledge from the unsuspecting users because Red Hat sought to exploit
> users lack of full and detailed knowledge of the restrictions by
> extorting money from users for commercial gain - a gain that would not
> have been available to Red Hat if Red Hat had been a lot more specific
> about the full extent of its limitations.
>
> One could legally argue that a criminal fraud was committed by obtaining
> a free copy when the intention was to use it for conspicuous commercial
> purposes. That argument is unlikely to apply to a person running their
> own private system for non-commercial gain.
>
> Don't be frightened by Red Hat's statement "are required to pay the
> applicable subscription fees, in addition to any and all other remedies
> available to Red Hat under applicable law"
>
> "Other remedies" is fantasy. No one can possible legally commit
> themselves to unknown and undefined "other remedies" as Red Hat's
> lawyers should know. Seems like US of A style "bullying tactics"
> intended to frighten people without access to affordable competent legal
> advice.
Not sure there's anything to be afraid of unless you're planning to use
the developer subscription to maintain anything other than a developer
system. The whole point of doing this by Red Hat (full disclosure - I'm
a Red Hat employee) is to remove the barrier for the tons of FOSS
developers out there who wants to develop on the platform they
eventually deploy on. It's not meant to do anything other than that. As
a whole, it shouldn't be hard for anyone to find and use RHEL for
development purposes.
> Me ? Well I am staying on C6 :-)
That's why we have choice. This is not the Microsoft "everyone has to
upgrade to Windows 10 like it or not" mentality. CentOS still has a lot
of things to offer that you don't get from the free developer subscription.
--
Regards
Peter Larsen
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
