On Saturday 04 Jul 2009, jtd wrote: > On Saturday 04 July 2009, Pravin Dhayfule wrote: > > I went ahead to cross check Red Hat License Agreement, and saw it > > to be similar to Microsoft's EULA that states, you cannot install > > it on more computers than the licensed purchased for etc. > > This applies ONLY to the SERVICE. You CAN install to hundred > machines if you want to. And no amount of licence weasel words will > change that fact. The reason being that the developers of the > software have given you that right and that right cannot be taken > away by anyone other than the software author.
Read the post by Atanu again. RH cannot prevent you from redistributing or making copies of the software in RHEL; however they can restrict you from copying and/or redistributing their trademarked logos and artwork, and for that reason it is illegal to make copies of or to redistribute RHEL. > > So my question is... Can Red Hat enterprise products be really > > considered as Open Source (as their website claims) > > All software that is under FLOSS licences (GPL, BSD, APL, etc.) are > Opensource. > > However there are likely to be several closed packages included (eg. > nvidia drivers) and these maybe governed by more restricted licences, > including being restricted to installation on one single cpu and or > user. Again, while the software licences are FOSS, the artwork and logos that RHEL includes are not. You can copy the software, but you can't copy the distribution as a while without violating the law (note: trademark law, NOT copyright law). Regards, -- Raju -- Raj Mathur [email protected] http://kandalaya.org/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
