[CS-FSLUG] NI: I know Ed and maybe a few others will want to read this.

[David Aikema]

I think that to a certain extents what RedHat (publically) "thinks"
isn't quite what they do.  I do NOT like the licensing scheme that
they use for RHEL and wonder how it would actually stand up to a court
challenge.

Basically, from what I can recall (which may not be 100% accurate ...
and IANAL), the only way to get a copy of RHEL is to sign a support
contract, and, as part of the support contract, you agree not to make
any additional copies beyond the number of machines specified in your
support contract.  (ie. you can't have a few supported machines and
then also have some running (unsupported by RH) rebuilds.

David

On 6/7/05, Fred A. Miller <fmiller at lightlink.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 June 2005 10:10 pm, Ed Hurst wrote:
> > Fred A. Miller wrote:
> > > RED HAT SUMMIT: GETTING A GRIP ON LICENSING LAWS
> >
> > Oh, yeah. Fascinating. ;-)
> >
> > I'm the original "whatever works best for you" about GPL, BSD, LGPL, and
> > whatever else is out there. I use FOSS because it works better.
> 
> 'Just thought some of you may find it of interest what RH "thinks" about this
> subject.