[lug] Fedora *MEETS* KRUD comments wanted
Gary.Hodges at noaa.gov
Fri Sep 26 14:51:57 MDT 2003
Ed Hill wrote:
>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
>>>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
>>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.
Would it violate any license or agreement if the tummy folks used a RHEL
version for KRUD?
More information about the LUG