Re: Plea for a reasonable RHASv3 license option

On 2 Sep 2003, Féliciano Matias wrote:

> I interpret this like : For GPL program, the source is driven by the GPL
> license and for the binary RedHat apply its own license (that is what
> they want).

That's your interpretation.  As far as I can see (note that
I'm not a lawyer either, consult your own lawyer if you need
a legal opinion) the license covers a lot more than just the
software.

The license also covers things like support, where it is
reasonable that you pay extra if you want support for more
systems.  Support does get annoyed when people with 1 RHEL
license want that one license supported on 3 different
hardware configurations...

I haven't read the whole agreement and all of the fine
print and am not a lawyer, but I suspect that all the
nasty print is aimed at people who are trying to get a
lot of extra support for free, not at people who copy
around GPL bits legitimately.

If all you do is copy around bits of free software and
you're not asking for support, I wouldn't worry. Then
again, I'm not your lawyer, ask him.  </massive disclaimer>

-- 
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan


--
Taroon-beta-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/taroon-beta-list