Re: Q: RH enterprise products license

Gerald Henriksen wrote:

> The RHEL license is different than RHN.

My mistake, s/RHN/RHEL/.  Nothing about my statement really changes 
except that I used the wrong acronym.  The RHEL license requires the 
system to have a RHEN (just to clarify: red hat enterprise network) 
subscription and various other hardware requirements in order for Red 
Hat to support that system.

> If RHEL was entirely GPL then the RHEL would be unenforceable because
> because the conditions of using any of the RHEL products would
> conflict with the conditions of the GPL (ie. you can do what you want
> with the software).
> 
> The reason the RHEL licenses work is likely that some of the non-GPL
> licenses (XFree, Python, etc.) don't forbid what Red Hat is doing and
> so make the RHEL license binding even though any GPL software would be
> exempt.

I don't think those licenses are the reason.  The RHEL seems to enforce 
the trademark, support and service portions of RHEL, not the GPL 
software.  Here is a relevant quotes from Appendix A of the license, 
which state that all GPL code is distributed as required and that no 
licenses have been added to prevent the GPL from doing its job:
--
http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_2-1.html

"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."
--

The image files the except refers to are an IBM JDK.  As for the errata 
software to those SRPMS already on the ftp site, the GPL does not 
require Red Hat to make errata releases freely downloadable to users who 
haven't paid for it.  A quote for that from the FSF FAQ answers that 
question:
--
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

Q: If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make 
it available to the public without a charge?

A: No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives 
them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For 
example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site 
for the general public.
--
Like I said in my earlier post, it seems that those who can build & 
patch the software from source haven't seen a need to post binaries of 
the software, and those who are paying for the offical Red Hat errata 
don't seem to be willing to post those updates.

In my reading of the licenses, it appears that Red Hat is not on any 
shaky legal ground with RHEL.  However, I'm a system administrator, not 
a lawyer.  I might be wrong.

Tom



-- 
Phoebe-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list