[ILUG] The old CD thread again {RHEL this time}

[Conor Daly]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 11:16:51AM +0100 or so it is rumoured hereabouts, 
Paul Jakma thought:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Conor Daly wrote:
> 
> >You buy a redhat network (RHN) subscription
> 
> It is *not* a licence to run the code, you have that the moment you 
> have the CD by virtue of the GPL, as well as ability to freely 
> distribute the CD (presuming of course, those two RPMs were removed 
> from the CD before copying).

Agreed.
 
> >But you are supposed to have an RHN subscription for each host 
> >running RHEL.
> 
> No...

When you purchase RHEL, you get an RHN subscription.  The terms of that
subscription require you to have one subscription for each system.
Perhaps you can decline to activate the subscription and, therefore, not
require subscriptions for other installed systems but, if you do activate
the subscription, you agree to its terms...
 
> If you have a RHN subscription, you *must* keep RH informed of the 
> number of installed systems - as part of your contractual 
> obligations.
> 
> Nowhere does it say you must have a RHN subscription to run RHEL. If 
> it did, RH would be in trouble.

http://www.redhat.com/licenses/uk_service_agreement.pdf says:

	"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."
 
There is no explicit ie_service_agreement.pdf to look at so I must assume
that the uk version applies.

> >>Eg, if Joe, a sole trader, installs RHEL in his shop, then takes a
> >>copy home and installs it, it seems plausible to me he's obligated to
> >>report both copies to RedHat under his support agreement.
> >
> >This is what I'm not sure about.
> 
> If Joe is contractually obliged to declare all his installed systems 
> (which is what you agree to as part of the support 
> contract^W^Wsubscription then yes Joe must).
> 
> >	"6. If I don't renew, can I continue to use the software?
> >
> >	Yes, under the General Public License (GPL), you may use the
>         ^^^
> 
> It's impossible for the answer to be anything else ;).
> 
> >	software and maintain your own custom version of Linux. However,
> >	you will not have access to:
> 
> 	[snip the list of things which are part of the RHEL 'support'
>          offerings]
> 
> >And, AIUI, the RHN subscription is valid only if you have a 
> >subscription for each host running RHEL in your organisation.
> 
> Correct.
> 
> >This appears to allow Joe to install a copy at home without an RHN 
> >subscription without violating his business's RHN subscription 
> >terms.
> 
> If Joe, in his own name (eg cause he's a sole trader), is 
> contractually obliged to report and pay for all RHEL installs (the 
> specified margin of error in the RHEL support contract 
> notwithstanding), then how do manage to reach this conclusion?

by not being familiar enough with the distinction between Joe's business
machines and a private home PC.  If, as a sole-trader, no distinction is
drawn between the two, then yes, if he activates his RHN subscription on
one business machine, he must buy subscriptions for his other installed
systems.  However, if he does not activate the subscription, he can
install as many as he pleases.
 
> >>OTOH if Joe, CEO of ACME Corp, finally gets sick of SeattleCorps'
> >>software and decides to sign a deal (in the name of ACME Corp) with
> >>RH for RHEL, then he can take copies[1] home and install them.
> >
> >Why is this different?
> 
> In the case of Joe the sole trader the contract is between:
> 
> 	Joe and RedHat
> 
> In the latter case, the contract is between:
> 
> 	ACME Corp and RedHat
> 
> Joe, is not personally contractually obliged to RedHat in the latter 
> case, ACME Corp is (of which Joe is a corporate officer).
> 
> RedHat's basis for disallowing copying clearly is copyright. That 
> RedHat are also keen to point out that these copyrighted images 
> further are/may be trademarked is besides the point.
> 
> >However, 'rpm -qi redhat-logos' on an RHEL3 system returns:
> >
> >	"License: Copyright ? 1999-2002 Red Hat, Inc.  All rights
> >	 reserved."
> 
> Tada.
> 
> >Which, presumably, ties redistribution of these logos to a software EULA
> >or common copyright law.


So, loaning CDs to somebody to do an install appears to be OK but making
copies of the ISOs to give to somebody is not.

OTOH, Rick's http://linuxmafia.com/faq/RedHat/rhel-isos.html#summary says:

	"Non-commercial redistribution appears not to violate copyright,
	trademark, or contract law."

I'm not sure how he squares that with the "License:" entry in the
redhat-logos and anaconda-images rpms.  Rick?? 

Conor
-- 
Conor Daly <conor.daly at oceanfree.net>

Domestic Sysadmin :-)
---------------------
Hobbiton.cod.ie
 12:05:39  up 17 days, 20:27,  1 user,  load average: 0.10, 0.11, 0.09