On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 07:56:43PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 19:45:03 +0400, Dmitry Melekhov wrote: > > As I see it, the EULA alone applies to every copy of the software, > whether purchased or not. The "Red Hat Linux Advanced Server Service > Agreement" (which includes the EULA) is the licence that applies to > customers of RHAS. > > > If I didn't buy RH AS from RH I have no obligitaions from Service > > Agreement, right?
Agreed. You can get the GPL'd software from anywhere you'd like, including downloading from Red Hat's own ftp site or any of its mirrors. In the future, Red Hat could charge a reasonable fee for you to download the sources, and could charge their mirrors, most likely making it impossible for many of the mirrors to continue carrying the sources. Red Hat could stop distributing Advanced Server if it doesn't become or remain profitable (I don't know if they are profitable now). How the community supports Red Hat's efforts to make money influences how likely Red Hat is to continue working on Linux. > This is getting confusing. You cannot buy RHAS from anyone else than > Red Hat or authorized resellers. When you buy RHAS you pay for > service and support, not for the software itself, with the exception > of prebuilt binaries and handbooks. When you buy RHAS from someone > unauthorized, e.g. someone selling copies of RHAS, that would be > violating Red Hat's trademarks. I'm thinking you're confused. There is no trademark violation involved if the GPL'd software is redistributed - the GPL explicitely allows that. The seller can't advertise "Red Hat Advanced Server" - that would violate the use of the trademark - but if they gave/sold you a copy of the CD with a different label, that would be legal. Refer to the Red Hat page at http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/page6.html. > > Again, I can buy RH AS for one firm and use it in another having > > service for first firm. I even can not to install RH AS if first firm, > > but I'll have installation ;-) > > Well, ;) this (and the rest of the thread) boils down to the > question whether it would be clever to do something like that? It > would be possible. The first firm would get service, the second not. > Unless, of course, you rolled your own updates or applied the binary > software updates also in the second firm, which would be illegal This is not illegal. All the software updates for GPL'd software are also GPL'd and therefore it's fair game to give or sell them to the second firm as long as the source is also made available (since you're now effectively a distributor of that software). > with regard to the licence agreement. The first firm would pay, the > second not. You could divide the costs between the two, but the > second firm would not be entitled for service/support. One could > argue whether all that would be fair use of GPL'ed material or just > criminal energy, effectively working-around Red Hat's licence > agreement for their product and damaging their business model? Frankly, Red Hat's business model is their problem, not ours. If the software is GPL'd, you can do whatever you want with it as long as you abide by the license. Red Hat does not have the legal right to restrict your rights in any way - that's what the GPL is all about. The GPL does not have a concept of "fair use" and there's no working around the Red Hat license agreement. Everything the poster is suggesting he do is perfectly legal. Whether it's the smart thing to do or not is part of the discussion - it is, however, legal. You may not want to take this approach, and it's highly unlikely I'd take this approach, but then we don't run the other person's business. I personally would not like to see the community pursue the approach the original poster is suggesting. I think it stinks and it will hurt the community in the long run. Just because it's legal to do it doesn't mean it's the morally right thing to do. Obvious disclaimer: I am *not* a lawyer, and the above is not legal advice. It's my interpretation of the licenses. -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
