The more I read the confuser I get.
Paul Jakma
paul at dishone.st
Sat Nov 29 01:41:35 UTC 2003
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Ben Russo wrote:
> I think your particular RedHat salesman is mistaken. Their license
> speaks for itself.
Note that the agreement you have with RH for RHEL (which despite the
URL on redhat.com), is a /service agreement/ not a licence.
Note also, that it affirms the customers rights to distribute the
software according to each components licence (which tends to be
"free to redistribute", bar the 2 RH trademarked rpms, redhat-logos
and anaconda-images)
So, AFAICT, it ought to be perfectly legal for a RHEL customer to put
up a website of the RPMs and of any update RPMs that come along. Not
that it would be financially beneficial for the RHEL customer
concerned - you are contracted to pay for all your RHEL installations
as per your agreement with RH.
IANAL.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma paul at clubi.ie paul at jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
warning: do not ever send email to spam at dishone.st
Fortune:
Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms.
-- Groucho Marx
More information about the users
mailing list