[SC.LUG] So, are RedHat ditching the home user market?

[Ewan Leith]

The licensing is definitely not friendly, but it is a lot better than 
the standard American software licences you normally click through. The 
BSA turn up unannounced at your premises and demand entry and audit your 
systems there and then.

Redhat linux enterprise is available in source form, as the GPL requires 
- 
ftp://ftp.mirror.ac.uk/sites/ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/2.1AS/en/os/i386/SRPMS/

The GPL does not require you to distribute a binary version, but you can 
take all the SRPMS above,  build an installable Linux using it, and 
market it, as long as you do not claim it is "Redhat Advance Server 2.1" 
which is covered by various trademark issues.

I know what you mean about the commercialisation, it definitely hasn't 
been all wonderful, but each line of GPL'd code that Redhat, SuSE and 
the others pay for, is a line that can be used to improve every other 
GPL'd program out there, and that has to be good.

Ewan

Mike Stuart wrote:

> On Monday 03 November 2003 22:00, Ian Molton wrote:
> 
>>No it isnt.
> 
> 
> OK, It was never my intention to start any sort of flame war!
> 
> The kind of thing I'm on about is this:
> 
> RedHat have been and probably will continue to be a quality source of 
> innovation for Linux. However the same company has sections like this in its 
> service agreement for RHEL:
> 
> 4. REPORTING AND AUDIT. If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed 
> System, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each 
> additional Installed System. During the term of this Agreement and for one 
> (1) year thereafter, Customer expressly grants to Red Hat the right to audit 
> Customer's facilities and records from time to time in order to verify 
> Customer's compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Any 
> such audit shall only take place during Customer's normal business hours and 
> upon no less than ten (10) days prior written notice from Red Hat. Red Hat 
> shall conduct no more than one such audit in any twelve-month period except 
> for the express purpose of assuring compliance by Customer where 
> non-compliance has been established in a prior audit. Red Hat shall give 
> Customer written notice of any non-compliance, and if a payment deficiency 
> exists, then Customer shall have fifteen (15) days from the date of such 
> notice to make payment to Red Hat for any payment deficiency. The amount of 
> the payment deficiency will be determined by multiplying the number of 
> underreported Installed Systems or Services by the annual fee for such item. 
> If Customer is found to have underreported the number of Installed Systems or 
> amount of Services by more than five percent (5%), Customer shall, in 
> addition to the annual fee for such item, pay liquidated damages equal to 
> twenty percent (20%) of the underreported fees for loss of income and 
> administration costs suffered by Red Hat as a result.
> 
> In other words, you must buy an RHN subscription for each system installed 
> with RHEL3 or else!  How does that work with getting the GPL source for each 
> component that comprises RHEL and building a clone yourself? I think these 
> are murky waters.
> 
> The full text is available at
> http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html
> 
> If that is not a reasonable example of what I was meaning by "double edged 
> sword" then I am unclear as to what is!
>