[lug] Fedora *MEETS* KRUD comments wanted
ed at eh3.com
Fri Sep 26 14:39:01 MDT 2003
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 16:23, Jeffrey Siegal wrote:
> Ed Hill wrote:
> > OK, theres still one area where I think a lot of people are perhaps
> > (severely?) overestimating the cost of RHEL when used for multiple
> > machines.
> > Whats to stop you from buying a small number of copies of RHEL (WS, ES,
> > or AS) and a small number of RHN subscriptions and then using your own
> > INTERNAL (to your company) mechanisms to distribute the updates to
> > multiple internal machines?
> > Remember, Red Hat is very careful to include only Open Source packages
> > in their distributions
> I'm not sure that's true for RHEL, but see below anyway.
> > so I don't see where you'd be violating any
> > copyright laws.
> You're not violating copyright laws, but you would be violating the
> contract you have with Red Hat for the RHN *service*.
And how could that be? How can Red Hat (or anyone for that matter)
place further restrictions on licenses such as the GPL? The answer is
simple: they can't.
What they *can* do is place restrictions on the number of systems that
you *DIRECTLY* connect to their RHN service. And thats not at all what
I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that you scrupulously follow all of the
terms of all the licenses. I'm also pointing out that the RPM packages
on your system (that is, once they are loaded onto one of your machines)
can then be distributed internally.
And if you think I'm wrong, I'd like you (or anyone for that matter) to
point out the specific part(s) of the license(s) that would be violated.
Edward H. Hill III, PhD
office: MIT Dept. of EAPS; Room 54-1424; 77 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
email: eh3 at mit.edu, ed at eh3.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the LUG