Re: Open Source Licensed RHAS, licenses?

[Dmitry Melekhov <dm belkam com>]

Ben Russo wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 13:56, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> .....
>
> > Unless, of course, you rolled your own updates or applied the binary
> > software updates also in the second firm, which would be illegal
> > with regard to the licence agreement.
>
> ...
>
>
> OK, (I originally started this thread with a question).

> RedHat states (in writing) that as far as copying and redistribution of 
> each software package (whether in binary form or source code),
>  that is dependent on the EULA included in each package by itself.
> > From what it sounds like, only a select few of the packages will not
> be redistributable.

Yes!

> So, although I will only have the privelage of downloading errata and
> security/bug patch RPM's through 1 machine, there is nothing stopping me
> from reading the EULA of each RPM downloaded and deciding if it is 
> redistributable to my other "unlicensed" servers or not.
>
> It may damage RedHat's business model, but that is not my problem.

Shure :-)
Again, I'm ready and pay for  _service_.
I don't see any difference in service between binary  updates for one 
server or for ten.
Fortunately, I can legally pay only for one and use it on 10 ;-)