On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 15:33, Ben Russo wrote: > I've been told by a few people that if I pay $799 for a set of > RHAS CD's that I am not allowed to install it on more than one > machine. > > Last time I checked anaconda and RPM are GPL'd, > as are the overwhelming majority of the software packages > on the RHAS CD's.... > > So my question is, how might it be illegal to copy > everything **EXCEPT** the commercial software RPM's from > the RHAS CD's and then make copies of the resulting subset? > >
I am also interested in this question. > ---- > > Also, I've been told that Redhat is making Source RPM's available > for patches and updates for their Advanced Server. So if you wanted > to download the SRPM's and compile them yourself you are free to do > so. And then of course (being GPL'd material) they would be > free to redistribute. That makes sense. I'd even understand if > RedHat put the FTP site on a 56Kb/s modem. ( ha ha ) > Have you tried Redhat's ftp servers lately? I think they are on a 56k modem. It was better back in the Mother's Day release days on the 28.8k than it is now. > But, if I had one licensed server and were downloading binary packages > legitimately... How could it possibly be illegal to copy and > redistribute those binary RPM's if they are OpenSourced software based > packages? > > ---- > > I have asked several RedHat employees (sales and tech support) > and either they just don't seem to "get" the question, or they are > purposefully dancing around the subject. I decided after asking the > question 3 or 4 times and not getting anywhere that I was beating a > dead horse. RedHat won't tell me that it is illegal or forbidden, > but they also won't say tell me that I *AM* allowed to do so. > > Isn't one of the concepts of the GPL, that when the software is > distributed the user has to be made aware that it is Free to be > copied and modified so long as the GPL is maintained? > > If RedHat is just selling FTP access to pre-compiled binaries for > $799 per year per server, I understand that. But they don't seem > to be able to tell me exactly what the $799 price tag is for. > > What I don't understand is how they can restrict further redistribution > of bundled open source applications? I thought that this was > **PATENTLY** against the GPL? And even insinuating that it is > forbidden would be **PATENTLY** against the GPL, right? > > I'm not pointing fingers or making accusations, I'm just trying > to understand what is going on here and want to see what others > thoughts are? > > I am not surprised at this at all. There seems to be alot of companies dancing around or flat out violating GPL these days. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
