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