On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 04:01:13PM -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
What we need is a case that's been taken to court and a verdict given. :)
umm -- Istrongly disagree.
There are services sold by people called 'lawyers' whom sell authoritative analysis, guidance, and answers they'll stand behind as a professional to questions like this; all a court case would do is settle one set of facts as interpreted to their license document, and open the door to the next one. It also carries the explicit transaction costs of prosecuting such a suit, and the 'softer' potential reputational damage in a skitterish FOSS community.
It would certainly set a precedent which definitely carries a lot of weight in subsequent similar cases.
And you assume too much about my or other's motives. I think it's a fair question even in an academic sense whether or not we should or should not be allowed to redistribute RHEL. However, probably a prickly topic so perhaps best not discussed here. :)
I am happy to pay for all copies of RHEL and am fortunate to work at a company that can afford to. RH does great work for the community.
I've long tried to get an answer from RH as to whether or not I can reinstall their media on other machines just "without" buying an entitlement (after all you can continue using RH after the 30 demo expires).
I've never gotten an answer from RH on this, and I have heard solid interpretations of their EULA from both sides.
Nor should an answer reasonably be expected in such a circumstance. RHT has a legal duty to answer and account to its stockholders; I assume this provides them with plenty of incentive not to offer free legal advice on how to 'game' that license, even putting to one side prohibitions on unlicensed practice of law.
-- Russ herrold