On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 16:10:13 -0600, you wrote: >Gerald Henriksen wrote: > >> The conditions of the GPL apply to binary (object code or executable) >> distribution as well as the source code. So you cannot restrict the >> copying of the binary version of the GPL'd parts of RHEL. > > So you would only have to build the parts of RHEL whose licenses > > permit the RHEL restrictions. > >I'm not aware that RHEL is restricting *any* GPL code, source or object, >from distribution. My understanding is that the RHN subscription >license agreement is the restriction and that Red Hat will not provide
The RHEL license is different than RHN. >any support, either through patches, service calls, etc. to any system >that does not have a RHN subscription. This whole discussion is about whether the RHEL license is enforceable. In other words, if you buy 1 copy of RHELES and then install it on 5 machines, can Red Hat then deny you access to the errata they periodically provide because you have violated the RHEL license agreement. Ie. can you simply license one machine, and then copy any updates from that machine to your other 4 machines. If RHEL was entirely GPL then the RHEL would be unenforceable because because the conditions of using any of the RHEL products would conflict with the conditions of the GPL (ie. you can do what you want with the software). The reason the RHEL licenses work is likely that some of the non-GPL licenses (XFree, Python, etc.) don't forbid what Red Hat is doing and so make the RHEL license binding even though any GPL software would be exempt. Note that the RHEL license isn't only about support but also enforces the hardware restrictions on each product (the ES edition is 2 processor). -- Phoebe-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list
