-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 14:31:51 -0600, Ed Wilts wrote:
> > This is getting confusing. You cannot buy RHAS from anyone else than > > Red Hat or authorized resellers. When you buy RHAS you pay for > > service and support, not for the software itself, with the exception > > of prebuilt binaries and handbooks. When you buy RHAS from someone > > unauthorized, e.g. someone selling copies of RHAS, that would be > > violating Red Hat's trademarks. > > I'm thinking you're confused. There is no trademark violation > involved if the GPL'd software is redistributed - the GPL explicitely > allows that. The seller can't advertise "Red Hat Advanced Server" - > that would violate the use of the trademark - but if they gave/sold > you a copy of the CD with a different label, that would be legal. > Refer to the Red Hat page at > http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/page6.html. No confusion here, I think. Above is my section which explicitly refers to "buying RHAS from someone unauthorized". No piece of that section refers to re-distributing GPL'ed packages or freely redistributable pieces. I've seen the Trademark Guidelines some time ago. Page 9 is the one that applies, and the page that refers to redistribution of an unmodified product. Red Hat Linux Advanced Server is the full package, i.e. the software including the most basic RHN and software services. I was confused by the modified scenario of "giving a 2nd firm access to install CDs and update binaries". The original scenario was "purchasing a single licence, installing the freely distributable parts on more than once server" as well as "duplicating the updates to other servers". Much has changed in this thread, from copying the install CDs to copying GPL'ed update src.rpms and EULA-freely-redistributable binary rpms. > > > Again, I can buy RH AS for one firm and use it in another having > > > service for first firm. I even can not to install RH AS if first > > > firm, but I'll have installation ;-) > > > > Well, ;) this (and the rest of the thread) boils down to the > > question whether it would be clever to do something like that? It > > would be possible. The first firm would get service, the second not. > > Unless, of course, you rolled your own updates or applied the binary > > software updates also in the second firm, which would be illegal > > This is not illegal. All the software updates for GPL'd software are > also GPL'd and therefore it's fair game to give or sell them to the > second firm as long as the source is also made available (since you're > now effectively a distributor of that software). Unless you're authorized, the product and updates sold are not Red Hat Linux Advanced Server. Also, while you could install the single purchased AS on more than server, when you do that in one firm, it is a violation of the licence agreement (probably only if you actually used the Software Services). > Frankly, Red Hat's business model is their problem, not ours. I agree. Though, with regard to GNU GPL I see the risc of parasitical use of "free" software as in "free beer". It starts with small [commercial] applications and ends with entire distributions. The bigger a project, the less easy it can be continued by others if its original vendor stops developing it [due to economical reasons]. So, a customer should think twice before giving away the software to others for free. The customer himself, of course, may try to get the most out of the product/services he purchased (as long as the licence allows it). - -- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+FgyO0iMVcrivHFQRAiLMAJ4jliC+JLocw6zsaXLshdzTNNIQUACdGanX qUYLlldC3+Ec82ptdW9Q9ug= =TkMX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
