The more I read the confuser I get.

[Ben Russo]

David Jericho wrote:

> I have no objection to paying for software, and I believe Red Hat is 
> worth decent money. Having said that, a yearly subscription is 
> hostile, not to mention a licensing agreement that is hostile and 
> untrusting, followed by a pricing structure that appears to be the sum 
> process of taking the USD value and applying an exchange rate. I know 
> of admins who are requesting things like site licenses, money in hand, 
> and are getting brushed off by sales reps.
>
I don't think RedHat's license is "hostile" in any way.  It is just 
legaleeze.  Sure it is confusing and complex, but the GPL is too, that 
doesn't mean it is hostile.
This excerpt is straight from the RHAS 2.1 license:


------BEGIN EXCERPT from 
http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_2-1.html?country=United+States&
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. Red Hat may provide 
Red Hat Enterprise Linux or other software or content by means of Red 
Hat Network or Red Hat Enterprise Network. Each software component has 
its own applicable EULA and all content is provided subject to its own 
licensing terms.

...

Red Hat Enterprise Linux itself is a collective work under U.S. 
Copyright Law. Subject to the trademark use limitations set forth below, 
Red Hat grants Customer a license in this collective work pursuant to 
the GNU General Public License.
------ END   EXCERPT from 
http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_2-1.html?country=United+States&

> Attitudes like "If you can't afford it, it mustn't be a real task" 
> only shows lack of understanding what business in the real world is 
> like. I cannot rationally burn up the annual salary for a junior 
> programmer on recurring subscription licenses for 10 development boxes 
> that may sit unused for a month at a time.
>
> The sad thing I have to admit, is as a sane, professional, and 
> rational admin who has my, my users, and my employers interests at 
> heart, 64-bit Sun hardware and Solaris looks to be an attractive 
> proposition. At least it's not a bottomless money pit for services I 
> won't use.


Do your research.... 
------BEGIN EXCERPT FROM  
http://www.redhat.com/advice/ask_shadowman_apr02.html
*Shadowman says:*
Like the Red Hat Linux products before it, Advanced Server contains 
software from a variety of sources. The majority of it is open source 
(using a variety of licenses, including the GPL), with a few packages 
consisting of "redistributable" content.

This means that, like the Red Hat Linux products before it, the sources 
for the software comprising Advanced Server will be available to anyone 
wanting a copy. And -- as always -- any code written by Red Hat is 
GPL'ed, with the sources being freely available.

However, unlike the Red Hat Linux products before it, we will not be 
making ISO images freely available for Advanced server. However, if you 
are a "1337 haxx0r d00d" with "m4d ski11z" (or even a mildly interested 
sysadmin with a year or two of Linux experience), and you want to roll 
your own, go for it. Shadowman recommends that you might consider 
reviewing our trademark policies 
(http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/) before doing 
something like going into business selling it on eBay, however. Since 
Java technology is part of Advanced Server, if you "roll your own", 
you'll have to acquire a JRE/JDK yourself.
------END EXCERPT FROM  
http://www.redhat.com/advice/ask_shadowman_apr02.html