On Sat, 22 Mar 2008, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
What we need is a case that's been taken to court and a verdict given.
:)
umm -- Istrongly disagree.
There are services sold by people called 'lawyers' whom sell
authoritative analysis, guidance, and answers they'll stand
behind as a professional to questions like this; all a court
case would do is settle one set of facts as interpreted to
their license document, and open the door to the next one.
It also carries the explicit transaction costs of prosecuting
such a suit, and the 'softer' potential reputational damage in
a skitterish FOSS community.
I've long tried to get an answer from RH as to whether or not I can
reinstall their media on other machines just "without" buying an
entitlement (after all you can continue using RH after the 30 demo
expires).
I've never gotten an answer from RH on this, and I have heard solid
interpretations of their EULA from both sides.
Nor should an answer reasonably be expected in such a
circumstance. RHT has a legal duty to answer and account to
its stockholders; I assume this provides them with plenty of
incentive not to offer free legal advice on how to 'game' that
license, even putting to one side prohibitions on unlicensed
practice of law.
-- Russ herrold
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
