On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Patrick Lists <centos-list at 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 at gmail.com