On 28/10/11 18:31, Les Mikesell wrote: > 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? > As I understand, Red Hat's AUP is more about protecting content other than sources and binaries that resides on RHN (yes, RHN is far more than just a distribution channel for SRPMs/RPMs). Such content and material is vital in supporting it's customers, and I believe the likes of Oracle and Suse were leveraging such content to try to sell support to existing RHEL customers. This is what Red Hat presumably seeks to stop.