RE: Redhat licensing

["Molina, Thomas" <thomas molina ngc com>]

> > that the EULA does NOT say that.  You can run 1000's of RHEL3 
> > machine without purchasing even one RHN/RHEL3 entitlement.  
> 
> That's not my take, or legal redhat com's take on it when I asked.
> Specifically this license:
> 
> http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html?country=United+States&;
> 
> States:
> 
> "4. REPORTING AND AUDIT. If Customer wishes to increase the number of
> Installed System, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional
> Services for each additional Installed System."
> 
> And in the definition part:
> 
> "The term "Services" as used in this Agreement means, 
> collectively, the
> Support Services provided under the purchased subscription and defined
> herein, RHN Services as defined herein,"
> 
> Seems pretty cut and dried to me - more systems, more RHN.  If you run
> 1000's of RHEL3, you need to purchase 1000's of RHN.

>From my point of view this has to be one of the most frequently discussed
and aggravating issues involving RedHat.

<RANT>

It ought to be clear to anyone but a blithering idiot what the intent of
RedHat is.  You buy one copy/subscriptions/whatever-you-want-to-call-it
for each installation of the software.   What could be simpler?  Trying
to find weasel words, rewording the question, or some third party 
interpretation of things does a disservice to everyone involved.  RedHat
puts out a good product, and has a long history of supporting the open
source community.  If you don't believe that, don't buy/use their product.
There are quite a number of other sources.  If you do believe that, abide
by their requirement.  RedHat does not have a reputation for suing their
customers or using perceived vagueness against people, in my opinion.  
Why try to get around the plain meaning?  

</RANT>