Rahul Dhesi wrote: [...] > source is free. RedHat charges for its RedHat Network, through which it
Yeah. Red Hat. http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/partners/subscription_center/RedHat_Subscription_Center_Guide_na.pdf ----- Red Hat Subscription Agreement Subscription agreements are the cornerstone of our business and are required to: Provide access to our software offerings Set forth the appropriate service level agreements over time Recognize revenue, collect cash, and maintain our business model Ensure the appropriate open source license (General Public License (GPL) based End User License Agreement (EULA)) is transferred to the client Minimize legal risks to Red Hat Red Hat Subscription Terms Installed System Customer agrees to pay Red Hat the applicable subscription fees for each Installed System. An "Installed System" means a system on which the Customer installs or executes all or a portion of Red Hat software (may be a server ----- http://ccbn.10kwizard.com/xml/download.php?repo=tenk&ipage=5210480&format=PDF ----- Our subscription-based contract model may encounter customer resistance or we may experience a decline in the demand for our products. The subscription agreement used for many of our products, including Red Hat Enterprise Linux, requires customers to agree to a subscription for our services for each installed system on which they deploy our subscription based products. ... While we believe this practice complies with the requirements of the GNU General Public License, and while we have reviewed this practice with the Free Software Foundation, the organization that maintains and provides interpretations of the GNU General Public License, we may still encounter customer resistance to this distribution model. To the extent we are unsuccessful in promoting or defending this distribution model, our business and operating results could be materially and adversely affected. ----- Does Red Hat impose "further restrictions" on GPL'd code, or not? Q: The GPL allows charging fees for binaries, only source code must be available under the GPL at no charge. So what's the problem? A: You need to contact IBM's legal counsel and set them straight before they further embarrass themselves: "65. Among the "further restrictions" that the GPL and LGPL do not permit are royalties or licensing fees (Ex. 27 §§ 2, 3; Ex. 26 §§ 2, 4) (although fees can be collected for "the physical act of transferring a copy" of the code or for warranty protection). (Ex. 27 § 1; Ex. 26 § 1.) If modified works or machine- readable versions of GPL- or LGPL-licensed software are distributed, they must be licensed "at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." (Ex. 27 § 2 (emphasis added); Ex. 26 § 2; see also Ex. 27 § 3; Ex. 26 § 4.)" --- REDACTED MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF IBM'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT in SCO v. IBM (see Groklaw). What say you now, Rahul? regards, alexander. -- http://gng.z505.com/index.htm (GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards too, whereas GNU cannot.) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
