[WBEL-users] Question about RHEL Licensing

[joliver@joliver.net]

My thoughts exactly.  The software is covered by the GPL.  The redhat
trademarked images are not.  Redhat cannot put redistribution restrictions
on software that is GPL.  Once they release it to the public, they are
required to provide the source, which they do.  You should be able to
redistribute the binaries as well as stipulated by the GPL.  And in
regards to this not being the correct forum to discuss this matter, I
respectfully disagree.  Since WBEL is basically RHEL with the serial
numbers (trademarked logos and artwork) filed off, it is relevant since
technically under the GPL, you can create drop in packages to replace the
ones that reference items covered by RedHat's trademarks, and redistribute
the Redhat Binaries "as is".  This brings up another question as to
weather an entire RHEL Rebuild from source is even necessary.  Just my 2
cents.  BTW, I think that the work done by John is outstanding.  There is
an enormous vacuum now that Redhat has abandoned the base RedHat product.

-Jimmy


> The way I understand the RHEL licensing is that you can install the
> purchased software on as many machines as you want.  The license only
> applies to the updates from RHN in binary form and support for the
> registered software.
>
>
> The following text from the RedHat site leads me to believe the above
> statement is true:
>
> <<BEGIN>>
>
> Appendix 1
> LICENSE AGREEMENT AND LIMITED PRODUCT WARRANTY RED HAT® ENTERPRISE LINUX®
> AND
> RED HAT® APPLICATIONS
>
> 1. The Software. Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Red Hat Applications (the
> "Software") are either a modular operating system or application
> consisting of
> hundreds of software components. The end user license agreement for each
> component is located in the component's source code.
>
> **************
> With the exception of certain image files identified in Section 2 below,
> the
> license terms for the components permit Customer to copy, modify, and
> redistribute the component, in both source code and binary code forms.
> This
> agreement does not limit Customer's rights under, or grant Customer rights
> that
> supersede, the license terms of any particular component.
> **************
> <<END>>
>
>
> We have been maintaining a version of RHEL AS 2.1 for some time now for
> use in a product.  We found a Red Hat rep at a trade show and asked them
> about this very thing.  The rep basically regurgitated the details
> they have on their web site regarding modifcations to the trademarked
> usage of Red Hat and Red Hat shadowman logos.
>
> The rep even encouraged us to continue maintaining and using RHEL from
> the source RPMs.
>
> What this all boils down to is that every piece of software they provide
> in source rpm form is freely available, and as such, Red Hat must provide
> the source rpms as they do.  Red Hat does not have a legal right to stop
> someone from installing 'the software' on as many machines as they want,
> or redistributing 'the software', as long as no claims that infringe on
> Red Hat trademarks are made regarding the origination of 'the software'.
>
> rodney
>
>
>
>
> donavan nelson wrote:
>> The same applies to the binaries on the RHEL distro iso's, no matter the
>> format of them.
>>
>> I have two RHEL (WS & ES) licenses and neither is regsiter with RHN, but
>> I
>> still can't install it on 700 machines.
>>
>> .dn
>>
>> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:34:20 -0500 (EST), Jim Wildman wrote
>>
>>>I believe if you reread that EULA and license that Donovan mentions
>>>you will see that you can only use the binary updates obtained from
>>>RHN on the server that is registered with RHN.
>>>
>>>On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 joliver@joliver.net wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>All,
>>>>    I have read Redhat's EULA as I have purchased a copy of RHEL WS 3.0
>>>>and can find no prohibition on installing WS on more than one machine.
>>>> Legally speaking, am I in bounds by purchasing one copy and then
>>>>installing it on, say 10 workstations?  All of the RPMS on the CD are
>>>>GPL'ed and should be freely distributeable.  The EULA makes note of 2
>>>>package exceptions.  Redhat artwork, and anaconda artwork are covered
>>>>by trademark laws.  I can easily build my own updates with the freely
>>>>available SRPMS.  Also, after the 1 year subscription  is up, can I
>>>>legally cancel it while still having WS installed?  I  think that $179
>>>>per year is very steep.  That price includes access to RHN only, with
>>>>no support.
>>>>    The next question is about providing built RPM updates to the
>>>>community, say with apt or yum?  The SRPMS are simply source GPL'ed
>>>>products, so redistribution can't be limited right?  What about
>>>>creating an apt repository with the entire distribution minus
>>>>redhat-artwork and anaconda-artwork.  Any help with these questions
>>>>would be appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>-Jimmy
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Whitebox-users mailing list
>>>>Whitebox-users@beau.org
>>>>http://beau.org/mailman/listinfo/whitebox-users
>>>>
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Jim Wildman, CISSP, RHCE
>>> jim@rossberry.com
>>>http://www.rossberry.com
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Whitebox-users mailing list
>>>Whitebox-users@beau.org
>>>http://beau.org/mailman/listinfo/whitebox-users
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Donavan Nelson
>> donavan@whiteboxlinux.net
>> http://whiteboxlinux.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Whitebox-users mailing list
>> Whitebox-users@beau.org
>> http://beau.org/mailman/listinfo/whitebox-users
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Whitebox-users mailing list
> Whitebox-users@beau.org
> http://beau.org/mailman/listinfo/whitebox-users
>