[Sussex] Access to RHEL updates without subscription

[Geoffrey J. Teale]

Paul Tansom <paul at aptanet.com> writes:
>
> Not so simple in practise though. I can't remember the last time I
> actually had to agree to any licensing conditions in the act of
> installing and RPM or DEB package, just used a command line to install
> it and it was done.

That agreement is implicit in your usage of them.  

Contracts can be formed by implication.

> Most of my customers expect a system to be provided to them ready to use
> as well. This could cause all sorts of complications when it comes to
> agreeing to licensing terms during the install process. I spoke to a
> system building outfit some time ago that provided their Windows
> machines installed to the point of CD key / licensing agreement. At the
> time they were still doing a few Windows 98 installs, and the number of
> fixes and updates that weren't installed as result is pretty large. It
> is no wonder so many Windows machines are insecure when they are
> provided with so many security updates not installed!

This is why when you buy a box from Dell (or the like) the first thing
you have to do is the last stage of the install (including agreeing to
the terms of the software license).  Dell even do this with Linux (I
have a Dell workstation that shipped with Red Hat 8).

> With the systems I install, which is more of a sideline to support for
> existing customers, the machine is required to be installed onto the
> desktop and configured for their network. This generally includes
> installing office suites, utilities (acrobat, zip genius, sometimes vnc)
> and antivirus as well as configuring the email, web and network setting
> where necessary. The track back of license agreements in this case is a
> nightmare and the actual proof issue would be very difficult to show on
> either side of any court case!


Either way if the software comes via you (someone who is not the legal
agent of the company) then you _are_ distributing software to them.

If that license entitles them to download RPMS then it is still
they who are licensing the software in those RPMS.  If all you are doing is
invoking the process of downloading the RPMS (at the request of your
customer) and this is happening over their network connection,
directly onto their machine, then you are _not_ distributing those
RPMs (unless Red Hat specifically defines "distribution" in a different
way in their license).

> Of course this particular instance is confused further by the fact that
> the machine was fully entitled to have the software installed, it just
> didn't during the period of the RHN subscription. 

It was, but the terms of the offer have expired.  Downloading them now
is still outside the terms of the contract your customer hat with Red
Hat.  That is no confusion at all.

>Secondly, the software
> in question is actually the source code to a binary already installed
> through the RHN. Of course both binary and source are in RPM format, so
> this adds to the complexity of the situation!!

Red Hat cannot refuse to give you the source for the GPL packages they
distributed to you (the GPL did not expire with Red Hat's offer).
However, they don't _have_ to provide that source within their package
management system. 

-- 
Geoff Teale
Cmed Technology            -   gteale at cmedresearch.com
Free Software Foundation   -   tealeg at member.fsf.org