On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 09:26:54PM -0500, Ben Russo wrote: > I'm not trying to steal anything from RedHat. And I will use another > distribution if I have to. But if the packages are GPL'd then RedHat > has no right to stop me from redistributing the packages that are on > my office server, right? Even if they are binary, and even if they > were distributed in a "mixed" way with other non-source packages. > (So long as I explicitly do *NOT* copy or redistribute proprietary > software.)
Exactly. The sources are available, and even on some fast mirrors (try redhat.newaol.com and look in the redhat/linux/enterprise directory). Now you can't install a system from just sources, and you can't use the Red Hat Network on these systems, but nothing can prevent you from using GPL'd programs anywhere you chose as long as *you* abide by the license. > However, I just think that there seems to be something wrong with RedHat > saying that they are distributing an binary OpenSource package that is > not free to redistribute? I thought this was explicitly BREAKING the > GPL? Where are they saying that you can not redistribute a GPL'd package? > > Rather than lock you in based on needing a closed piece of software mixed > > in, I believe RHAS licensing mostly goes toward *support*. That's true. If you decide to work with the RHAS SRPMS, you'll be on your own for trying to keep your systems up to date. You could set up 1 server with a full RHAS license and then roll your own for others, but I don't think I'd want to try it without having one fully supported box. I don't know how any other vendor is going to tell you the difference between a system you build from sources vs a boxed RHAS set. > > > > 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. I'd get that in writing... Red Hat should have no issues with providing a copy of the license for RHAS prior to your purchase. > > > > > 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? It isn't. As long as the program is GPL'd, it can be distributed. You can create your own subset. If you want, you can then sell that subset as long as you also provide sources. Nothing can prevent you from creating your own RHAS-clone (sans non-redistributable code). Of course, you can't infringe on Red Hat's trademarks when you pick your name. > > > > Have you tried Redhat's ftp servers lately? I think they are on a 56k > > > > modem. I rarely use Red Hat's servers - that's what the mirrors are for. Try redhat.newaol.com and see if you still have anything to complain about. I just grabbed the enterprise kernel at prime time (9pm CST) and it came down at 210kB/s according to ncftp. I even grabbed the ncftp sources, did an rpm --rebuild on it, and did a test install and it passed. This was on a 7.1 system. > > > > > 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. As I mentioned, request a copy of the RHAS license. Surely they must be able to provide that! > > > > > 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? Yup. > > > > > 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. You also get free priority RHN access and a commitment of 3 years of support. Compare this to 8.0 which won't even have Red Hat-provided security patches after Dec. 31 of this year. > > > > > 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? There's no patent here. They can not restrict redistribution of GPL'd applications. Since there are many licenses involved, you should check to make sure how all the licenses apply to you. I don't recall the GPL saying anything about insinuations :-) > > > > I am not surprised at this at all. There seems to be alot of companies > > > > dancing around or flat out violating GPL these days. Other than the Dell deal which is being discussed elsewhere, I'm not aware of any cases where Red Hat is violating the GPL. You can't dance around it - you're either compliant or you're not. Red Hat is with RHAS as far as I can tell. -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
