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

[Paul Jakma]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Conor Daly wrote:

> What I understood was that, while a purchaser of RHEL was required 
> to have an RHN subscription for each machine on which they ran 
> RHEL,

Hmm, that's not quite correct AIUI:

- You never really purchase RHEL, you buy the support contract

- You do not need a RH support contract to run RHEL (RHEL is GPL
   apparently, according to RH[1])

> they could install it on a machine outside of their company without 
> a subscription being required for that machine.  Can anyone confirm 
> if that is correct or where I might have heard of it?

Who is obligated to report their "Installed Systems" to RedHat and 
pay accordingly? That person or entity is obligated regardless of 
where they install RHEL, I suspect.

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.

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.

Can RedHat not answer these questions? ;)

1. The one issue is that some RPMs on RHEL contain copyrighted images 
which you may not distribute. RedHat are kind enough to list those 
and they are (apparently) "REDHAT-LOGOS" and "anaconda-images". You 
must replace these RPMs with your own RPMs. Other than those two RPMs 
RedHat licence RHEL under the GPL as a collective work (iirc).

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	paul at clubi.ie	paul at jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you place the blame.