The RHEL license is different than RHN.
My mistake, s/RHN/RHEL/. Nothing about my statement really changes except that I used the wrong acronym. The RHEL license requires the system to have a RHEN (just to clarify: red hat enterprise network) subscription and various other hardware requirements in order for Red Hat to support that system.
If RHEL was entirely GPL then the RHEL would be unenforceable because because the conditions of using any of the RHEL products would conflict with the conditions of the GPL (ie. you can do what you want with the software).
The reason the RHEL licenses work is likely that some of the non-GPL licenses (XFree, Python, etc.) don't forbid what Red Hat is doing and so make the RHEL license binding even though any GPL software would be exempt.
I don't think those licenses are the reason. The RHEL seems to enforce the trademark, support and service portions of RHEL, not the GPL software. Here is a relevant quotes from Appendix A of the license, which state that all GPL code is distributed as required and that no licenses have been added to prevent the GPL from doing its job:
--
http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_2-1.html
"Most of the Linux Programs are licensed pursuant to a Linux EULA that permits Customer to copy, modify, and redistribute the software, in both source code and binary code forms. With the exception of certain image files identified below, the remaining Linux Programs are freeware or have been placed in the public domain. Customer must review these Linux EULAs carefully, in order to understand its rights and to realize the maximum benefits available with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Nothing herein limits Customer's rights under, or grants Customer rights that supersede, the terms of any applicable Linux EULA."
--
The image files the except refers to are an IBM JDK. As for the errata software to those SRPMS already on the ftp site, the GPL does not require Red Hat to make errata releases freely downloadable to users who haven't paid for it. A quote for that from the FSF FAQ answers that question:
--
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
Q: If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?
A: No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.
--
Like I said in my earlier post, it seems that those who can build & patch the software from source haven't seen a need to post binaries of the software, and those who are paying for the offical Red Hat errata don't seem to be willing to post those updates.
In my reading of the licenses, it appears that Red Hat is not on any shaky legal ground with RHEL. However, I'm a system administrator, not a lawyer. I might be wrong.
Tom
-- Phoebe-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list
