Le dim 31/08/2003 à 06:19, Tom "spot" Callaway a écrit : > On Sat, 2003-08-30 at 22:45, shane stixrud org wrote: > > > It is my understanding that > > you can install it on as many servers as you like and run it for as long > > as you like. What you can't do is call up redhat and ask for support or > > sign up for a RHN account. > > Legally, this is not accurate. Quoting from section 4 of the RHEL 2.1 US > License: > http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_2-1.html?country=United+States&; > > "If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed System, then > Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each > additional Installed System." > > English Summary: You need to pay for a RHEL Subscription for every > installed instance of RHEL 2.1. > > And to pre-empt the flamewars, no, this is not a violation of the GPL. > The source is still yours to do whatever you want with. > For me, this is clearly violating GPL. A GPL/BSD program, in binary or source form, can be freely (as in beer and speech) used. I can copy it to another machine and use it. I hope RedHat is only talking about rhn/support. That is I can't use one rhn subscription to update several machines with the rhn server. If i get a binary package with "up2date --get" from a machine with a subscription I can copy, install and use it in any machine I want. A GPL program get with "up2date --get" still a GPL program and not a program with a redhat licence. GPL licence : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html -------------------------------------------------- Preamble The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. [...] Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all. -------------------------------------------------- I am not an expert in GPL licence. But if redhat say me I am wrong, i push this issue to the fsf. > To get back onto $TOPIC, I (not speaking for Red Hat), think having an > additional RHEL option with RHN+product (no support) is a reasonable > idea. However, I don't think 20 people "me too"ing on a mailing list is > going to elicit that sort of change. I would suggest doing the > following: > > Fill out a product suggestion form on the redhat.com website: > http://www.redhat.com/apps/response/product_contact.html > > Make sure you mention explicitly what you want, RHEL+maintenance, > without support at a slightly lower price (not free, we do have to eat). > It also carries more weight if you can say something like "I would > purchase XXX copies of this if it were available". > > I know that web petitions seem somewhat trite, but if Red Hat Sales sees > a petition with a significant amount of names on it, of > people/companies/businesses/etc who would be RHEL customers that are not > today, they start to see missed revenue. Someone might want to start > such a petition. I'd be happy to hand it over to the powers-that-be if > it had a lot of names and companies/businesses on it. > > Red Hat, like any business, acts on revenue. Show Red Hat that it is > missing tangible revenue, and it will respond. > > ~spot > > > -- > Taroon-beta-list mailing list > Taroon-beta-list redhat com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/taroon-beta-list -- Féliciano Matias <feliciano matias free fr>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=