Re: Plea for a reasonable RHASv3 license option

What you say is fine for me. If [email protected] answers in that way, i
am happy.
I am ready to pay for support or just to get RHEL from RedHat. But i
think RedHat can't impose something like this (RHEL is build with free
software (except IBM JRM)) :

Le dim 31/08/2003 à 06:19, Tom "spot" Callaway a écrit : 
> On Sat, 2003-08-30 at 22:45, [email protected] 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.

Notice my replay :
Le dim 31/08/2003 à 22:37, Féliciano Matias a écrit :
> 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.


-- 
Féliciano Matias <[email protected]>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA/VMHiAlHlXNHHbFMRAh3oAKDSTVJd1X5zxxgvITEccRe/+I+z4wCdEkPU
J8UAtUiaW4eJ3SvLrASwJoc=
=weXc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----