Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat License Challenged
An anonymous reader writes: "David McNett has noticed an apparent discrepancy between the Red Hat Linux EULA and the GPL. He has written an open letter to the FSF asking for their opinion on the matter. Does Red Hat have the right to "audit your facilities and records" to ensure compliance with their license?" McNett misreads the Red Hat documents. Their contract is for the various services, not the software, and for the services they are entitled to demand whatever concessions they think the market will bear.
...commenting on this story, since the editors have already done it for us? Must be a slow day ;-)
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
... they are entitled to demand whatever concessions they think the market will bear.
Gee, when Microsoft (and other "bad" companies) does that kind of thing, everyone here gets upset. I wonder why that is.
Think before you reply defending RedHat, lest you sound like a hypocrite.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
So, Michael. If David is incorrect, why did this even get posted. It's not news. It's not anything. It's just someone misreading a document and getting all up in arms about what he misread.
Once again, Slashdot shows us it has no filters. "News to Noone. Stuff that falters."
-Todd
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
You immediately got modded down (was "1, Offtopic" when I looked at it, now "-1, Offtopic" when I clicked "Reply"). I probably will be too, but I wanted to say I agree with you.
What is it with the editors? They posted an article like "here's some news, but don't bother reading it because the guy is wrong". Come on, guys!
The problem with Services contracts for Linux boxes is that you're allowed to install as many machines as you want (obviously - its GPL software). When clients only take out a service contract for some of their machines, then they have to have a certain amount of cover in their contracts to deal with the fact that you can pretty much guarantee that, out of the 5 servers you have, its always the one with the Service Contract that has the problem.
Creative server registering of this type has been catching them out for a while, so they are trying to minimise it with that change.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
At first when I read this headline, it scared me, especially with all the SCO stuff going on, its getting harder for me to explain to my bosses how the Linux licensing works and what is going on.
- tom -
McNett misreads the Red Hat documents. Their contract is for the various services, not the software, and for the services they are entitled to demand whatever concessions they think the market will bear.
Then why is it news?
End why is it that all the legal stuf seems to have become so important in the Open-Source/Unix® world. Can't we just go on and write interesting programs and good code?
Move along people, there's nothing to see here...
His relevant quandry seems to be:
And like the editor says, that's for the support services. If you want support, you pay for each server. If you're signed up for support for 3 boxes, RedHat has the right to come in and make sure you're running 3 boxes, not 6. Otherwise, they're going to charge you a support fee for 6.
RedHat doesnt have anywhere close to a monopoly on any market that it produces products for.
Microsoft has monopolies (ones that have been found guilt of illegally maintaining, even) in several markets.
The news is somebody worrying about the redhat EULA and taking their interpretation to FSF for an opinion. The comment by michael is just that - a comment, not a retraction or whatever.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
What's wrong with saying-
/. is your can post your own reply AND other people actually READ them! Try that at your favorite newspaper site
"Okay, here's a story that you will prob see all over your favorite Free Software Slanted News Sites today. Here's what's wrong with it..."
The title says it all really: They are EDITORS. Not gatekeepers that post stories only, they have a staggering ability to actually add there own text. *yawn*
I see them taken to task often (and rightfully so) for posting dupes, unchecked links, etc...and they deserve the hassles on that stuff
Don't agree with his editorializing? Cool thing about
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
Um, no. It's all about the service contract, not the software. If you aren't compliant, then your service sontract with redhat is invalid. You can happily continue to use the software all you want, but you're not entitled to their corporate support anymore.
As GPL does not say anything about service and support, there is no conflict whatsoever.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
The problem isn't with "5 other RH servers", it's with 5 other server running RH Advanced Server that aren't covered by the service contract.
You can have as many machines as you want running other Redhat versions, but you aren't allowed to install RHAS on more machines than you have service contracts for.
http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhlas_us.html
"If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed Servers, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed Server."
Earlier they defined "installed server" as "the number of servers on which Customer installs Red Hat Linux Advanced Server"
The news is somebody worrying about the redhat EULA and taking their interpretation to FSF for an opinion.
Agreed. Plus for folks like me -- someone who uses Debian and not Red Hat -- I was shocked to learn that Red Hat would be doing audits on anyone. I mean, isn't that a huge reason people want to use Linux in the first place?
This is more like buying 2 pickup trucks, one with an extended warrenty, and one with out, and trying to use the *single* warrenty on both vehicles.
It would seem to me that Red Hat, in the time it's been offering its Advanced Server product, hasn't audited anyone who's been sufficiently upset by it to complain publicly.
Contrast with the BSA/Microsoft--their "audits" are more akin to "raids", with all the hostility implied.
I'm with Michael on this one. Red Hat offers support per-server-installation. If you want the support, you have to buy it for all servers, because otherwise you can buy one contract and just sorta fudge which server it's actually attached to at any given time.
Coupled with reasonable restrictions on these audits, I see no reason to be worried about this. As has been said, if you don't want Red Hat's service contract, you can copy the GPLed bits of RHAS to your heart's content.
"America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
That is exactly what it is. If you want support for ten servers then you have to buy support for ten servers. If they didn't license there support that way companies would buy one support contract and use it for all there servers. Don't want the support contract? Don't buy it. You can still install Red Hat on all your servers for free.
Disclaimer. I own Red Hat stock
Redhat seems to be saying that if I buy a copy of Redhat AS with a support contract, I lose my right to install AS on a second server (without paying Redhat more). How can that not be a GPL violation?
Not the people who buy Advanced Server (to which that service agreement is attached.)
They are the very same people who slurp up MS products year after year, crappy revision after crappy revision. The folks like you and me who don't like the MS eula might switch to Linux to avoid it, but we wouldn't be choosing Red Hat Advanced Server. In any case, RH is interested in making sure you aren't trying to get them to support more machines than you have paid for since this is only a support agreement. They are not trying to prevent you from using the software which is the intent of the MS eula so I don't think the two are terribly comparable.
This space intentionally left blank
Well, notwithstanding the differences between Red Hat and their licenses versus Microsoft and their licenses, there is a point hidden in that comment.
:)
Frankly I think the concept of "whatever concessions they think the market will bear" is one that ultimately damages consumers and capitalism. Within that concept is the implication that the concessions are a -burden- that the consumer must carry if they want to use the product. "What the market will bear" implies finding that point at which the burden is just shy of actually driving your customers away. In other words, "they are entitled to abuse the customer as much as they want until the customer can't take anymore". While they are entitled to do that, it doesn't sound like a healthy philosophy to me. For one thing, by believing that companies are entitled to abuse them, consumers naturally expand the amount of abuse they are willing to take.
Take Microsoft for instance. They kept taking more and more concessions until the point where they were basically saying you are now only renting your software and it could be disabled at any time and in order to have the privilege of renting software you have to let them examine and change the contents of your own computer at will. Only then did large amounts of people start to say "hey, I was okay with how much you screwed us before, but now this is too much!"
The upside is that in a healthier market with more competition and choices, companies are unable to demand quite so much. The downside is that since everyone expects to have to bear as much as they can bear, all the companies in the market still end up putting some kind of burden on the customers.
Perhaps I'm just keying off the word "entitled", which sounds too much like something owed them instead of something that is merely legal to do. Maybe if the next phrase was "and the market is entitled to tell them to fuck off".
The enemies of Democracy are
I am not a laywer. Nor am I embarassed by having been confused by these documents. They *are* confusing, as is evidenced by the spectrum of commentary we're now seeing here on slashdot.
Neither is michael a lawyer, which is why I sent my email requesting clarification to the FSF and not Slashdot, but that's neither here nor there. I welcome the additional exposure of my confusion to other people who may be able to provide a meaningful analysis.
I do not agree that the EULA and additional license cover only the services side of Red Hat's offering. In fact, to my eye the read exactly the opposite -- expressly disallowing the installation of the Red Hat product in the absence of a matching service agreement. These documents would appear to me to be specifically denying me the ability to install the software without buying services. I do not believe that the GPL permits such subversion and I am unconvinced that Red Hat has found a loophole that allows this sort of restriction on usage.
Even if they have found a loophole in the GPL, I think that most would agree that such restrictions on usage are not in keeping with the spirit of the GPL and I am very interested in hearing the FSF's opinion on the matter.
Thanks for all the feedback, those who provided reasoned commentary.
The restriction isn't on the distribution of the software (which is what the GPL is concerned with). The restriction is on the service contract. Your service contract is valid untill you install N+1 copies. At that time the service contract is invalid. That does not restrict you from legaly installing the software. It does restrict you from seeking support services. They added zero terms that restrict the legality of the installation or distribution.
In fact, from the agreement itself:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux itself is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. Subject to the trademark use limitations set forth below, Red Hat grants Customer a license in this collective work pursuant to the GNU General Public License.
This space intentionally left blank