On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote: > > > >> ================================================================= > >> > >> The rest is available for review at the linked address ... but it is > >> very clear that if you have any RHEL subscriptions, then you must pay > >> for them all. > >> > >> How one could read that any other way is beyond me. > >> > > > > > > The usual idea is that because its "Free" Software you can't restrict > > it in anyway... and that the 'Freedom' trumps any other license or > > agreement. And I will bet that if you have enough money, there will be > > lawyers who will come up with ways to argue that is a valid > > interpretation.. and will argue it over and over again as long as you > > have money. My wording of the above was poor. I in no way think that those people have a valid argument. I have just heard the argument enough times to recite it on the whole, you can't impose additional restrictions blah blah blah, without them understanding the fine 'line' of what that means or where it is enforced. > > > > > > If you enter into a legally binding contract, then you waive your rights > as specified in the contract. I mean, it is not against the law to by > parts from Jim's hardware store ... but if John promises to give you a > 30% discount if you sign an exclusivity deal that he provides all your > parts, and then you still buy parts from Jim, you are violating the > contract. If the contract that you signed specifies a penalty for > violation, then you will incur the penalty. > > If you don't like the contract, use SUSE or Ubuntu or Fedora or CentOS > or any number of other distros ... > -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"