On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 13:19, Lamar Owen wrote: > > > RHEL's SLA does not in any way impose restrictions on where you can > > > install anything. > > > So a contract doesn't 'impose restrictions' because you could accept the > > penalty of breaking the contract if you wanted? If you look at it that > > way, what could possibly impose a restriction? > > If you break the Red Hat contract, Red Hat cannot remove your right to > continue to run the RHEL servers you have already installed; they just > simply would refuse your login to RHN to fetch updates. So you lose updates; Let me ask again... What could possibly impose a restriction if you don't the consider the penalties of contract breakage to be a restriction? Since RH does permit source redistribution regardless and hence the existence of projects like Centos, they are not strictly breaking the GPL here, but if that contract isn't a restriction I'd like someone to explain what would be in the sense excluded by the GPL. > But remember, there are other licenses present in RHEL: apache, X, I'm not a particular fan of the GPL. I just don't see how it works to distribute GPL'd stuff along with a contract that imposes additional restrictions and penalties for breaking them. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com