On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 14:44, Miloslav Trmac wrote: > So, are these conclusions correct? > * Customer is allowed to install RHEL on any number of machines > he wants, but this constitutes a breach of Service agreement and > results in paying a penalty if the customer is audited. > * Customer is allowed to redistribute RHEL without any "consequences". > * Customer is allowed to install and use RHEL without ever accepting > the Subscription Agreement, assuming he can get a copy.
I don't think these conclusions are quite accurate. The accurate conclusions are more like: * Customer is allowed to install RHEL on as many machines as he has subscriptions * Customer is allowed to receive support from Red Hat for RHEL software on as many machines as he has subscriptions * Customer is allowed to get Red Hat certified erratas for RHEL software on as many machines as he has subscriptions OR * Customer is allowed to install RHEL on any number of machines he wants (sans Java) * Because this is in breach of the service agreement, Customer is not allowed to receive support from Red Hat * Because this is in breach of the service agreement, Customer cannot get Red Hat certified erratas The focus in the license agreement appear to be focused on support and Red Hat certified erratas, not on the CD itself. This makes sense from an Open Source/Free Software standpoint, and is not in contradiction of the GPL. If you have 100 cars, is it really fair to only buy insurance on one of them and expect that the insurance company will pay you if any of them get into an accident? No. Now change cars to servers, and insurance to support, and you see why this isn't an unreasonable license on support and updates. Thanks. Peter -- Phoebe-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list
