[Asterisk-Users] Re: Advice on OS Choice

[Chris Travers]

Joe Greco wrote:

>>On 14-Oct-2004, Joe Greco wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>The GPL strips some of these freedoms by forcing the distribution of
>>>source code.  It does not, however, prevent the code from being sold.
>>>      
>>>
>>This is not what is concerning about RedHat's behavior. 
>>    
>>
>
>Then I apologize, I thought the point was that they were selling it,
>but perhaps you've got a finer point here that I missed.  Sorry.  :-)
>
>  
>
>>They require 
>>you to purchase RHEL if you intend to use it.  I don't misunderstand
>>the GPL in that it allows them to sell RHEL.  I am confused how they 
>>can disallow people from using it without payment.
>>
>>RedHat further encumbers RHEL with a EULA which extends the GPL and
>>further restricts your rights to use the product.
>>    
>>
>
>That, then, sounds like it might be a violation of the GPL.  The GPL 
>is, sadly, a maze of twisty little untested legal strategies, and even
>the IP lawyers don't know for sure.
>
>  
>
When I worked at Microsoft, our legal department allowed us to 
redistribute RHEL in house for competitive work.  This was about 2 years 
ago, and I read the EULA at that time.

At the time, it did NOT say that you could not use the software in any 
way you want.  Rather it said that if you used the services, you had to 
agree to play by certain rules.  These included the obligation to either 
buy support for all systems or none (to prevent a support shell game) etc.

>Bearing in mind that it is highly unlikely (but nonetheless possible)
>that RedHat is able to distribute the code under a non-GPL'd license,
>of course.  I would imagine that this would require the permission of
>thousands of contributors.  They almost certainly haven't done that.
>Let's see what they did.... (read, read, read)
>
>I haven't read all of this extensively, nor have I had our IPL look
>at it, but it kind of looks like they're using some bizarre combination
>of trademark protection and transferrence of responsibility to make what
>you're talking about sort-of happen.
>
>Section 1 of the EULA says, essentially, "go ahead, it's GPL".
>
>Section 2 of the EULA says, essentially, "But we own our trademark and
>you cannot distribute that and we've stamped it all over the place.  So
>if you distribute it you better damn well remove them all and woe to you
>if you fsck up."
>
>  
>
This would be a change from what I read....

Perhaps things have changed....  Wonder what their reasoning is.

Is their EULA posted online?

Best Wishes,
Chris travers
Metatron Technology Consulting
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chris.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 127 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20041014/27a8673f/chris.vcf