[lug] Fedora *MEETS* KRUD comments wanted
ed at eh3.com
Fri Sep 26 19:57:36 MDT 2003
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 19:25, John Hernandez wrote:
> Jeffrey Siegal wrote:
> > Ed Hill wrote:
> >>> 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.
> > Because it isn't a question of restrictions, it is a question of
> > pricing. The RHN service is priced on the basis of how many systems
> > it is used *for* (and not, as you suggested, on the basis of "direct
> > connections"). Read the agreement.
Would you please post a URL or an excerpt from their license(s) that
supports the above statement? I've spent about 45min reading through
the documentation at https://rhn.redhat.com/ and can't find anything to
support your view.
On the other hand, I've re-read the GPL and can find plenty of evidence
there [eg. http://www.redhat.com/licenses/gpl.html] to support my
claims. For many of the packages within RHEL, Red Hat must obey the GPL
terms and therefore cannot add any further restrictions.
> I'm pretty sure Ed is correct in his basic argument. To a large extent,
> Red Hat is bound by the terms of the GPL. He's essentially saying that
> once Red Hat delivers a binary RPM update for a GPL (or other "Free")
> package as promised by a RHN subscription (albeit for a SINGLE system),
> they cannot prohibit you (or anyone) from applying copies of this same
> update to other systems. They're basically banking on the fact that
> it's more conveient/efficient for you to pay for and use RHN on all your
> systems. There's sure to be a price-point for which that assumption
> becomes true in most cases.
> I can't blame Red Hat for changing their business model. In their quest
> for profits, however, it would greatly convenience them if we all forgot
> about Red Hat and the GPL's community roots and simply forked over the
> cash. I'm not saying RHEL is not worth the price of admission. I'm
> just reminding people that RHEL (or at least the overwhelming bulk of
> it) is not off-limits to those that cannot afford it.
We must never loose sight of license terms (whether we "like" them or
not) since they are a contract and legal use and/or distribution of the
software depends upon our compliance.
And while I've described practical means for running RHEL "on the
cheap", let me say that I have no ill will towards or lack of trust in
Red Hat. In fact, I applaud what they're doing. As soon as my current
RHN subscriptions expire, I _will_ renew them. I'm just not going to
loose sight of the license terms.
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