28 Oct
2011
28 Oct
'11
7:31 p.m.
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Patrick Lists centos-list@puzzled.xs4all.nl wrote:
How is, say, being required to pay a license fee as a consequence different from losing something you have already contracted and paid for?
It would surprise me if Red Hat would not refund the customer or let them ride out the term of what they have already paid for. And didn't the customer agree to Red Hat's terms (AUP) when they signed the contract?
The question is, how can a contract containing restrictions on what you can do with GPL covered content not invalidate your own right to redistribute, given that the GPL prohibits additional restrictions?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com