Re: Open Source Licensed RHAS, licenses?

["Nathan G. Grennan" <ngrennan okcforum org>]

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.