🚀 go-pugleaf

"Alex" <alex@totallynerd.com> wrote in message
news:2ba4b4eb.0311050926.1b97d0f6@posting.google.com...
> 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.

You guessed right ! yer wrong !

-- 
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum,
minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
?