> make money. You don't like their decisions, don't use their > products. But that does not make finding or creating a way > around those decisions an ethically correct behavior. I wasn't aware that just stating facts was the same as committing an unethical behaviour, but have it your way. The main problem I stated was that Red Hat says you can fully comply with the EULA by purchasing a product they don't offer - namely the RHN as an ala carte item. You may have missed the sarcasm when I said it was convenient - I'm fully aware it was a business decision. I think it was a poor decision, one that seems to be frustrating many customers other than I. One that has ended up costing them money - and not by breaking the law, but by the likes of me searching out other distributions like whiteboxlinux.org. > Your answer and recommendation are incorrect unless you can > prove otherwise. I'm no lawyer, so I won't pretend to play one on the Internet, but I refer to this passage of the EULA: "If Customer makes a commercial redistribution of the Software, unless a separate agreement with Red Hat is executed or other permission granted, then Customer must modify any files identified as "REDHAT-LOGOS" and "anaconda-images" to remove all images containing the "Red Hat" trademark or the "Shadowman" logo. Merely deleting these files may corrupt the Software." The key phrase in the above statement is "commercial redistribution". There is a difference between selling your own distro, as you used as an example, and giving a copy to your neighbor to install on his home PC. I was, as many people are, confused by the EULA. Instead of preaching about ethics on an email list, I actually contacted Red Hat's legal department (real easy: legal@xxxxxxxxxx) many moons ago. Everything I've stated so far were their words, not mine. If you want even further proof, email them yourself. -matt -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
