Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Red Hat License Challenged

Posted by michael on from the challenge-is-good dept.

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.

3 of 391 comments (clear)

  1. Come again? by xNullx · · Score: 0, Redundant

    So the editors post a story, then they decide to say the author is wrong? Is this just a bogus story or are the editors' opinions getting mixed into stories now? Not that it never happens here on /., just wondering.

  2. no posts needed.. by plnrtrvlr · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It would seem that the editors are doing their best to lighten our workloads, they've already posted all the commentary needed! And now, with thought not being required, I can skip out on reading the rest of slashdot and head straight off to surfing porn... good day all!

  3. ugh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Whatever happened to just buying goods and services?
    No strings attached, aside from paying for it? Licenses? Bah. Agreements? Bah. This game is about money, not for what you can bend the other person to do. Stipulations are for Microsoft. Redhat, or any other company of that nature, is supposed to see the beast for what it is, and improve on that. Be a better company. When I call a vendor, I dont want to jump through hoops, I just want the job done. We don't tolerate it from Microsoft, and we shouldnt tolerate it from Redhat. Redhat shouldn't try to emulate Microsoft, they should be BETTER.