[ILUG] email sent to politicians about Mary Hannafin's decision not to use open source

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Gavin McCullagh (ilug_gmc at fiachra.ucd.ie):

> So, by that rationale, I should be able to go and get a copy of RHEL,
> politely decline the support and get a copy for free (yes, "as in beer").
> This is not the case.

It's difficult to find RHEL customers willing to duplicate the binary CD
images for you, but I can find nothing under any applicable theory of
law that makes their doing so illegal.  

Here is my non-lawyerly analysis of the legal issues to the best of my
ability.  Several RH employees have written to me to say they agree with 
what I've said in it, and help me firm up some of the wording.  (I won't 
cite their names because addressing issues of company policy and legal
matters tends to be a grey area and potentially touchy.)

See:  "RHEL ISOs" on http://linuxmafia.com/kb/Licensing_and_Law

All of the RHEL rebuild projects (White Box Linux, CentOS, FermiLinux,
Tao Linux) elect to strip trademark-encumbered contents and recompile. 
This eliminates any potential problems with the contents being
_commercially_ redistributed, and ensures that the projects are
self-hosting if the maintainers so choose. 

See:  "RHEL Forks" on http://linuxmafia.com/kb/RedHat

> You PAY FOR LINUX and they include services and support as part of the
> price.

However, having done so by you (generic "you") purchasing Red Hat's
bundle of RHEL + service agreement, as far as I can see, nothing
prevents you from lawfully redistributing the contents to third parties
(who are then not themselves parties to the service agreement).

(Caveat:  The contents of the "Subscription Agreement" may change over
time, or be different for different markets.  I'm basing my comments on 
the version I studied a few months ago, that pertains to my part of the 
world.)

-- 
Cheers,        "Linux means never having to delete your love mail."
Rick Moen                                              -- Don Marti
rick at linuxmafia.com