On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 04:01:13PM -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
> 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.
It would certainly set a precedent which definitely carries a lot of
weight in subsequent similar cases.
And you assume too much about my or other's motives. I think it's a
fair question even in an academic sense whether or not we should or
should not be allowed to redistribute RHEL. However, probably a
prickly topic so perhaps best not discussed here. :)
I am happy to pay for all copies of RHEL and am fortunate to work at a
company that can afford to. RH does great work for the 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
