🚀 go-pugleaf

Gregory Toomey <nospam@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:<1461459.XJWvGJHOOx@gregs-web-hosting-and-pickle-farming>...
> It was a dark and stormy night, and Jacob Heider managed to scribble:
> > I what sense are they "breaking the GPL"? The GPL was designed to product
> > their right to make money by selling software licensed under it (in
> > addition to other things).
> > 
> 
> The new Redhat licensing forces to pay for support if you use the product. If you use the software & dont pay, you are in breach of the Redhat Licence.
> This is in breach of the GPL, which always allows derivative works to be distributed for free.
> (You can pay of course, but there must always be a free version).
> 
> In addition, it allows Redhat to conduct audits.
> 

Red Hat has stated that you can copy their Enterprise version to other
computers, but since they bundle non-OSS products, which require a
license, with the purchased Enterprise software, you must remove this
along with the Red Hat name from those computers as at this point it's
not Red Hat's approved product.  This is very much under the GPL.  If
Red Hat said under no circumstances that their Enterprise level OS,
built on Linux, could be copied.. this would be against the GPL, but
that's not it.

Of course, you can see why Red Hat isn't advertising this.  Anyone
could buy Enterprise, strip out all non-OSS, and re-release it under
another name.  Nothing wrong with this as long as you didn't try to
get updates from Red Hat, which is part of their paid support... and
protected under GPL.

I might be wrong in this, but it's my understanding that this is how
it works.

HTH,

Alex.