On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, David McNett wrote: > On 14-Oct-2004, Kevin Walsh wrote: > > Red Hat have embedded their trademark all over their Enterprise > > editions so that they can restrict sales in that way. Red Hat still > > have an obligation to release the various GPLed components as usual but > > don't have to package the components nor create a downloadable CD ISO > > image. > > While this is correct, it is only half the story. The EULA on RHEL goes > much further than relying on mere trademark protections. RedHat > successfully uses their Trademark rights to prevent others from > distributing "RHEL" but that has no sway over an existing user of RHEL. > > The EULA is where the real teeth are -- prohibiting even people who > have purchased RHEL from using it in ways that RedHat prohibits. For > example, it is not possible to purchase one copy of RHEL and install it > on two machines. Nor are you allowed to run RHEL on a machine without > having purchased support. I am unclear on how this is not a further > restriction on the code (and therefore prohibited by the GPL) but the > FSF appears unwilling to pursue the point.
You cannot install a standard RHEL on a computer without copying non-gpl components. You could strip out all the non-gpl components and replace them. Then it would be legal to create a cpoy by installing on several computers. Which is what distributions such as WhiteBox and Tao have already done for you. Peter _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
