On 14-Oct-2004, Kevin Walsh wrote: > Red Hat have embedded their trademark all over their Enterprise > editions so that they can restrict sales in that way. Red Hat still > have an obligation to release the various GPLed components as usual but > don't have to package the components nor create a downloadable CD ISO > image.
While this is correct, it is only half the story. The EULA on RHEL goes much further than relying on mere trademark protections. RedHat successfully uses their Trademark rights to prevent others from distributing "RHEL" but that has no sway over an existing user of RHEL. The EULA is where the real teeth are -- prohibiting even people who have purchased RHEL from using it in ways that RedHat prohibits. For example, it is not possible to purchase one copy of RHEL and install it on two machines. Nor are you allowed to run RHEL on a machine without having purchased support. I am unclear on how this is not a further restriction on the code (and therefore prohibited by the GPL) but the FSF appears unwilling to pursue the point. While grey-market "clone" facsimiles of RHEL do exist (like whitebox linux) often using them comes at the cost of losing vendor support from other companies like Dell or Oracle. -- David McNett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://slacker.com/~nugget/ _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users