I think (legally) you have to pay for the subscription whether you patch or not....... There are RHEL copies like whitebox?, but if your clients are thinking along these lines I would suggest Debian or Fedora. Or better yet don't deal with these clients.....I would walk away if clients asked me that..... Regards Thing -----Original Message----- From: Rik Herrin [mailto:rikherrin@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, 14 July 2005 8:21 a.m. To: redhat-list@xxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Re: RHEL without License? Ugo, I know that one of the RHEL clones might be better in this situation. But I am asking because when I come to propose RHEL to clients, they sometimes ask what their situation would be legally if after a year or two, they wanted to keep their systems running but without paying support. Would they be forced to shut down these systems (I think this is the case with Windows Server which is probably why they are asking since they don't want to be in the same trap)? Or could they continue running them and just not get updates from RHN? Thanks for your input. > Rik Herrin wrote: > > Thanks a lot for your reply Ian. But it there any > > documentation or anything documenting that you can do > > so? Also, in reference to the question of downloading > > the ISOs for free (30 day trial) and then continuing > > to use them after the 30 day trial period without > > paying, is this legal? Thanks for your time. > > Aren't you better off using a clone like CentOS then and give a few > bucks here and there? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
