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.
So now the /. editors are posting stories that they are going to immediately refute and say isn't a story at all? I love this place :).
More amazing is that this story will generate hundreds of comments.
Nosce te Ipsum
...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.
At least things are getting more efficient around here. The editors are posting bogus news stories, then retracting them themselves before someone points it out. I call that progress!
... 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..."
sounds resonable?
What more is there to say?
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
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...
Why should the FSF be able to interpret Red Hat's inconsistent licensing terms? Wouldn't it be more natural to natural to ask Red Hat for a clarification first?
So, by charging for their services they're able to use a license that relates to their clients' use of the software? How is that different from licensing the actual software?
From the EULA: .. I didn't think you could add elements to the GPL and still call it a GPL license .. ?
"If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed Servers, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed Server."
Clearly, they are talking about the services, but I agree with the above posters, why post this as news if the letter itself is bogus ?
He also says:
Along these lines, simply installing GNU/Linux binds me to the following "extensions" to the GPL
But
Actually, I see his point.
RH is saying that if you signup one of your servers to participate in their support services, that they have a right to audit your site (which may be ok), but they seem to imply that if you have 5 other RH servers (that arent participating in their services), they have a right to backbill you (with penalty) as if those servers were participating.
Now, maybe its legally ok for them to ask you to agree to this - but it does seem at quesition wether its 'ethical', and how they can reconcile that with the GPL.
I would definately be interested to read the FSF's response when they publish it.
I remember a Red Hat that forced TrollTech to GPL QT. I remember a RedHat that preferred PostgreSQL over MySQL, voicing a preference for standards compliance. I remember a RedHat that never buckled to the pressue to include a proprietary YAST, and who made Anaconda open source.
What has happened to Red Hat? Where did my favorite UNIX distribution go? I want it back!
I think I start to filter out topics with "License" in it. At least until there is a REAL license problem not involing 80 lines of copied code or some messed up wording in an EULA.
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.
Way to go Michael, for publicly spanking that boy.
/. where we all can ridicule him for his mistake.
This could have easily been relegated to "not news" since it's apparent that McNett simply misunderstood. But I'm all for public humiliation, especially here on
Well, assuming I read his letter correctly, Red Hat states that the set up of their system, which is based on Linux, is copywrited. Sort of like the difference between a Ford pickup truck and a Dodge pickup truck. We all know what a pickup truck is, so the styling between the two is apparently what is covered. Perhaps this is the concept Red Hat is drawing on.
But I guess the question is, when adding a second server to the system, does this count as violation of the license? When I buy a pickup truck, I can modify it in any way I feel like -- but I will void the warranty on the truck. This means that I can't get free work done should something fail, because that failure could be caused by one of the modifications I made.
The GPL pretty well allows users to modify whatever they want, so long as they share what they did with the public. But if you created an application that can be run in a GPLed environment, but is not actually part of it, I would assume that this application is to be considered your intellectual property and therefore you can place your own licensing on it.
So- Does Red Hat have any proprietary code in there? I guess in such an event, they could demand that you purchase more licenses for the extra servers you want to add. But if not, then I guess all they could do is claim you voided the warranty, and declare you inelligable for any tech support or warrantied upgrades.
But, that's just my opinion. I think I'll leave this for the legally-experienced to hack out.
Whew! This water sure is cold!
There are some reasonable limtiations for the audits. If you buy a product including services, the burdon on RH would increase with every deployement, so it seems reasonable to charge per server. But how can you free the software and not the service ?
The point remains to be checked, is there a conflict with the GPL ?
What is it with all the recent spate of legal troubles involve Linux, Unix, SCO, Red Hat, Linus, etc? There are a lot of Slashdot items about this in the past couple of weeks.
Was this going on all the time before, but I did not know about it?
Is Microsoft no longer the biggest threat to the Linux community, having been usurped by infighting with rabid attorneys?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Didn't SCO do the same thing?
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
I always found it strange. Basically an audit would be the equivalence of searching ones house/person/car/other property. The only ones usually allowed to do so is the police and they need a warrent and/or at least a suspicion of some sort of crime (this may depend on country of course). This is something ONLY the police are allowed to do, that is, no one else can demand to do it for any reason, so that means you can't put into a contract that someone should be allowed to search you, your house, whatever as a condition in the contract. So what makes people and software companies thing it is OK to do it for computers? And is this something that vary a lot between different countries? I happen to live in Sweden by the way.
I just read Ioldanach's comment which posted ahead of my own posting, and I think my own comment is incorrect. I hadn't thought of the one-license-per-machine licensing. I was thinking along the lines of changing what was in my system. So I think I'm a bit off the mark here.
Whew! This water sure is cold!
perhaps.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
I don't know about you, but to me that sounds awfully like a corporate Windows lisence, where the customer is expected to pay for each server the software is installed on. I know it's not EXACTLY the same, but there will be plenty of people who will go to bat for RedHat when Microsoft (via the BSA) does pretty much the same thing.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
I think you mean: "Mummy! Daddy! Stop fighting!"
Hmmm.
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.
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?'"---
Pardon? I can't install the product without purchasing additional services from RedHat...?
OK - so Red Hat can come in and check I'm not claiming their services for more installations than they authorised their services for. Entirely reasonable. However, "terms and conditions of this Agreement" include the contentious point above, which is certainly not agreeable to.
Not being a RedHat Enterprise customer, I don't have a copy of the license to hand. To any that do: is the term 'Installed Server' defined anywhere? If so, what is the definition please? If it's just a server with an installation of the code on it, then there would appear to be a problem. If the definition is along the lines of 'a server with an installation for which services are also being claimed', then there would appear to be no problem.
Anyone able to clarify that?
Cheers,
Ian
It's more a focus on how to make money without making any effort. Essentially, people patenting concepts and ideas without any intention of actually trying to develop these things. Instead, they are waiting for someone else to put the money, resources and hard work into developing something, and then they come out of nowhere with a massive lawsuit to steal the profit from the company that truly developed the technology.
To me, this is a lot like cyber-squatting: buy up a whole bunch of likely-sounding domain names, and just wait until someone wants to register it and then charge them an arm and a leg for the name. In the meantime, the domain name sits totally useless and unused. (Of course, we all know what happened to that business model!)
There are other companies who try to figure out what their competition is doing, and then file frivolous patents to block their competitor's development projects from seeing the light of day. Of course, we all lose when this happens. And then there are the true leaches, those who have no knowledge or resources to develop a given technology, but purchase the IP and then sue the s**t out of everyone for using it, even though the original patent holders allowed that use. Yet they still have no intention of putting those resources into furthering the technology for the future.
All this anti-patent work does nothing more than stifle innovation and development. And we all know the wonderful things that environment does for the economy and jobs. Putting these legal battles into the press essentially allows the leach to put the "fear of God" into the little people so it makes it easier to cause them to cave in when presented with an "infringement" lawsuit.
Of course, there could be a benefit to all this. If SCO should lose this case, it could create a devastatingly powerful legal precedent showing that just buying IP doesn't necessarily give you free license to bully others with it. But in case the opposite should happen, the only way we're going to change things back to the way they should be is to band together and get our respective legislatures to change the laws.
Whew! This water sure is cold!
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.
There's one thing about any legal document: if it's impossible to enforce, it shouldn't exist. A services contract like the one Red Hat uses is guaranteed to create more trouble than it's worth. Why not make a contract valid for a certain amount of services, such as solving a number of problems? A good Linux contract, IMHO, would contain a list of the types of problems they would solve, and a number of calls allowed, one call per problem solved.
If I actually buy RedHat I pay $40--or more. Then they want me to pay $60 per year to take advantage of their service to keep it updated. On the open market M$ expects me to pay $200 for XP Home or $300 for XP Pro but they don't expect me to pay to keep either updated. RedHat sells us an embarrassment of riches in open source software but that embarrassment of riches is beginning to look embarrassing.
I thought they gave away for free the bulk of their stuff. You can go download it. You can also get updates and errata fixes and whatnot merely by registering, or, again, go to their ftp site and just get what you need, I know I for sure have done it a lot. How is that not giving anything back? And the stuff they developed in house, package manager, anaconda, all the goodies? All free. Their core product, the server offering that they are commited to for five years support, and the services that go with it don't come free,but certainly come reasonable compared to brand X,and if you don't want it, you still get the regular give away version of the distro that has apache, all the modules, etc right on the install disks/ISOs, use that. Seems like free equals free. All this looks like is the extra services they charge for they have an exact framework they work under and offer, that's about it for trying to run a business off of open source and free software. If they didn't do that, well, how would they stay in business then, a paper route, or what? If you like and use debian, swell, just don't spread FUD over the distro that got millions started, and is one of the few places that is making a global impact with other big corporations and getting linux being taken seriously.
I'll add a -1, troll, to the story.
I spent all of my mod points this morning, I wish a) I'd saved one and b) you could mod down, or at least meta-moderate, stories.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
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
Of course you have to take the comment of the editor with a grain of salt. he should have written, "in my opinion David...."
If you did read the link(a lot of posters never do this) you notice that you are required to buy services for installing red hat AS. That is not something the GPL prohibits.
However because you need to buy additional services for each additional server this licencse starts to conflict with the GPL. effectivaly they are saying "This software is free... but you have to pay for our blessing."
It would be allowed story if this services really meant regular updates FOR EACH SERVER. then you would pay for the network connection and support.
But there is no reason why you wouldnÂt install 10 servers never update them and never require support for this.
--Yes, but
--is the same as
--No, unless.
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
People complain about Slashdot staff being stilly for posting an article which they immediately retract. Those people don't get it.
Not to say that Slashdot is necessarily good journalism, but a good journalist cares about presenting the truth to the reader. (I guess there aren't many good journalists in the world.) In this case, we have someone with an open letter who is passing misinformation. Slashdot editors take this opportunity to publically point out the error in the article in an equally (if not moreso) open manner. This helps everyone.
Slashdot did a good thing.
THANK YOU for the most succinct and easy-to-understand analogy describing what this is about.
I wish I had mod points right now.
"America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
1. This is not how budgets in large companyÂs work. Manager like to know in advance how expensive a certain servcie will be.
2. This is how microsoft works (eek), If you have a problem you call the service desk. Unless you have pre-bough support, you are required to pay them before they look at your problem. Even as i am quite sure they can help me, and i am willing to pay, the burden to get approval for this payment, and the time to get this approval makes it simpler to just spend some of my expensive time on the problem.
They don't have to offer anything for download. All they have to do is provide the source, in whatever way they see fit. They can chage you $50 mil for the full source inscribed on gold bricks if they want. The GPL does not say you must provide a no charge download. And they don't have to provide the source to anyone who didn't buy the binaries (and the GPL clearly states they can charge whatever arbitrary ammount they want for the binaries). They don't even have to provide the source with the binaries. They only have to provide it if you ask.
It seems to me that RH is acting fully within the bounds of the GPL. Why is everyone getting their panties in a bunch over a non-issue?
That's wrong! The GPL only applies when you redistribute the software, but you're not forced to do that.
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
How can you take the guy seriously when on his resume his email address is nugget@slacker.com?
What's a problem for me is the fact that as described in the license, it's a mandatory support contract.
That makes it effectively the same as the per-seat licensing people slammed Caldera for, doesn't it?
Why are Linux/Free Software advocates satisfied with that?
Matt
David McNett has noticed an apparent discrepancy between the Red Hat Linux EULA and the GPL. I would edit this to read: David McNett has to much time and his hands.
Onward to the Aether Sphere!
First, unlike the slashdot editors, ;) IANAL. That said, I'm fairly sure a lot of people aren't reading this, and haven't looked at the RHEL license. As if they ever do. ;) (The letter mentioned in the article is only concerned with RH Enterprise Linux versions by the way, and the clauses do not appear in the other versions as far as I could see.) Really though there are some serious points here. I'd suggest that everyone who is really interested in this should go look at the license agreements online on Red Hat's site. Some other people have already quoted some of it, but I'll give a brief summary here of the questionable parts.
Read that carefully. (just like it says! heh) It says that if you do not agree to the Subscription Agreement then you must not use RHEL. It doesn't say you can't use RHEN or Red Hat Support Services, it says you can not use Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Here it says clearly, if you want to install RHEL on additional systems, you must purchase support for each system from Red Hat. Notice that it uses the term "Installed System" which it has already defined as "the hardware on which the Software is installed" and the Software was defined in the first part to mean RHEL in general. It does not mention RHEN or support services. It is strictly defined as hardware that has RHEL installed on it.
The Agreement also goes on to talk about various auditing and fines for not buying support for all your systems, but it looks like we've pretty much already gotten to the primary problems I think. If you use RHEL (which is licensed under the Gnu GPL) and you haven't purchased support, you are in violation of the Agreement. Then again, I don't see how the Agreement can be valid, since it places additional restrictions on the use of the software, which is prohibited by the Gnu GPL.
This is SO educational! -- Kintaro Oe
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
Bullshit. This is not the case. You obviously haven't tried to obtain a copy of advanced server without purchasing their "support".
Even trying to obtain a copy for evaluation is a total bitch, and has to be done through the underground by RH's own sales guys! What does that tell you?
In truth, RedHat wants to charge a license fee for AS, but feels compelled to go the service model route instead. Which is fine, but they restrict redistribution ("If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed Servers, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed Server") of the software, which I believe is a violation of the GPL.
RedHat, with this license, is saying that if you buy one "copy" with support of their product, then you cannot install it on any other machine. Furthermore, they will come onto your premisis to enforce this agreement. They are checking for installations (their own wording there), not "unauthorized use of service contracts". Big difference.
Fuck that.
Disclaimer: I'm an RHCE.
Software (quote): 'This Subscription Agreement (the "Agreement") is between Red Hat, Inc. ("Red Hat") and any purchaser or user ("Customer") of Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS (or Red Hat Linux Advanced Server), Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES or Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS (collectively, "Red Hat Enterprise Linux" or "the Software").'
Installed Services (quote): 'The term "Installed Systems" means the number of Systems on which Customer installs the Software.'
So Installed Systems applies only to the systems that have "the Software" which they explicitly define as specific ENTERPRISE packages. These packages include "services". If a person does not want "services" they can get a non entreprise version and install it whereever to their heart's content.
Hmmm... I don't think that's what RedHat wants, but it seems to be the end result. I would think that they would come up with some scheme to label "THIS" box as the one that's suppored rather than sending their customers elsewhere.
Sleep is just a poor substitute for caffeine, anyway. -Bob Lehmann
Let's see, we don't have enough press about issues such as SCO suing IBM, Open Something or other suing Apple, SCO is going to revoke a piece of paper from IBM that isn't supposed to be revokable.
Now some self taught someone in the middle of the US has decided to point out something that is apparently not worth pointing out to make a name for himself or something?
Anyone ready to bring SUSE into the limelight of 'something is wrong with the license' type of issue?
Come one, we need to get Linux and the words 'bad licensing' in the press a bit more. Let's really kick it back to four years ago where no one would touch it in the enterprise. I mean it was almost successful at displacing another OS. So we need to make sure we kick it down a few notches.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
If I remember correctly, RHEL has a 5 year lifetime. RedHat will be support it for 5 years. I think the wording must be changed. I do not think the wording they use is legal. I think it should be noted that RedHat will not support RHEL if you do not get support. (bug fixes, and the other services that make RHEL critical app ready. (an enterprise size oracle database etc) I believe you should be able to install it as many times as you like, but you just won't get the license agreement that RedHat stamps on that version of RH Linux. (the whole 5 year deal) Why should RedHat guaranteed an enterprise level OS if no one wants to pay for it.
My point is, they need to reword their EULA and then everyone can move on.
and to other BSD operating systems. The major players in the Linux community (RH and SuSE) seem to be moving away from the free software model (where they only get paid for the "bundle" of utilities and applications plus the installation sequence). RH has moved to a model in which they've bundled "services" but then have created a pricing structure in which the services cannot be separated from the software.
I don't see how they can justify this pricing under the GPL but the next question is, "who is going to sue Red Hat?" The most likely outcome if RH doesn't change their licensing is that they will try to sue a customer and the court will then decide if they have the grounds under the GPL to do that.
Maybe the EFF should buy one license and then install it on a dozen machines and let RH know what they've done. That should be interesting.
It also seems to me that both RH and SuSE have been making their inexpensive distros less and less suitable for use in a server environment (focusing on the desktop). We do a lot of server installs and with the advent of the workstation focus in Linux last year I began changing to FreeBSD where I'll stay until the SCO thing is over and/or I need to do something that only Linux will do.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
The problem is they force you to purchase an aditional service contract whenever you install a new "instance", presumably, whatever the source of your RH server installation. So effectively, they restricted the GPL, which they are not allowed to do:
Simple solution: install aditional servers from a different distributor (SuSE, Gentoo, ...), but that defeats the benefit of having a more or less uniform install base...
Or don't buy these services, and use RH for free (the beer variety).
Obviously the moderator didn't even read the article this post was attached to.
NOW THIS IS A REAL TROLL!!!
SPAM solution made easy: 1 spammer, 5 cords of rope, 5 hourses, and fireworks. Be creative.
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?
Exactly. Thanks for this post.
Matt
One you called the editors on their modding they had to fix it and overcompensate. Enjoy the karma!
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
And everybody's foaming at the mouth about this. Now when RH has a right to fuck a business in the ass, it turns to be OK. Hypocrites.
Take a look here, and scroll down to the two paragraphs that begin with "carefully read the following terms and conditions" in upper-case. (The lameness filter won't let me quote it here, even in a blockquote.) It seems to contradict what you say, and seems to conflict with the GPL. I'm not a lawyer, but I do read English.
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.
You are probaly right, and I realy hope so. IANAL and such, it still seems a little confusing...
"They are also cutting support for 7.x series (and 8) in December (oddly sounds familiar)"
MS is cutting support for NT4, after only 6 years. How long has RH8 been out?
The truth doesn't care what I think.
You cannot impose any restrictions on the redistribution of GPL software. "Redistribution" can be defined as to another entity, or to yourself. Just as you cannot force royalties on top of GPL software, you cannot force contract agreements on it either. If you try to do this, the GPL still holds effect, basically invalidating any use of the software altogether.
It really seems that RHAT is violating the GPL here. This is a serious issue, one that RHAT should clarify and correct immediately.
The GPL doesn't give you lots of rights you may think you have. It does give you lots of rights to be able to recreate the program and fix bugs in it and then distribute thouse changes but thats where it ends.
For example, DMCA may restrict your ability to reverse engineer a GPLed program. Its an odd situation since you have source but if the license says you can't reverse engineer it, then you can't and you can get fined (via being sued DMCA style) if you do.
There are other rights as well that may or may not exist. For example, if you send in a patch to a common program. Do you own the copyright on that or does someone else? If you find your code got used illegally, can you do anything about it or must you go back to the main copyright holder to file an action?
GPL gives you additional rights but only in the context of copyright law as it was a decade ago. The license does have conflicts with the DMCA and other newer laws that have not been tested in a court.
GNU is working on a new version of the license but the work will take a long time and be quite expensive.
"The act of running the Program is not restricted,"
You can run any program you want... you just cannot install it, as the installation for Red Hat Enterprise Linux is copyrighted and licensed.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
This only applies if you have purchased support services from Red Hat. If you download the software and install it, without any support services from Red Hat, then none of this applies. So it is not a general restriction on the software itself, but on the service. If you purchase support services from Red Hat, then you must purchase support services for every server you have (to avoid people purchasing it for one server and then always claiming the problem is on that 1 server, not the 30 others they have installed). If you do not purchase support services from Red Hat, then the EULA doesn't apply at all (and I believe you never even encounter it in the downloaded version). The GPL still applies, but if you want support services, you have to agree to purchase support services for ever installation.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
Agreed, it is a little confusing.
It's like auto insurance in the USA. If you license a car, you have to buy auto insurance to cover any damage or injury the car might cause. Is this stupid or what? Wouldn't it make more sense to require drivers to carry the insurance? When was the last time you heard about an empty car being the cause of an accident? It doesn't happen very often.
Nevertheless, apparently there are good business or legal reasons why it is the car that is insured, and not the driver. Similarly, there are probably good business or legal reasons why RH bases its billing on the number of machines a client has, rather than some estimate of the probable workload the client will generate.
Another case where business or legal realities are not logical...
Maybe because Microsoft is an illegal monopoly who has broken law after law and found guilty in the court for it? Maybe because Red Hat has proven time and time again that they are a standup company and have actually earned some respect because of that, something Microsoft can never do.
First off there is no evidence Red Hat has done anything wrong here yet. Second even if they have why is it some idiot always inocorrectly brings in Microsoft?
I remember when Apple announced they were making a web browser. People like the one above were questioning why its O.K. for Apple to bundle a browser and NOT Microsoft. Insert company X for anything and Insert product,license etc X and some moron trys to equate it with the lies and broken laws that Microsoft has left in its wake.
Nothing is like Microsoft. Nobody else has a 95% market share of the desktop market which is maintained by illegal actions. No other company has even close to the track record of Microsoft. So stop trying to compare companies to Microsoft when no one else can ever live up to the immoral actions of Microsoft.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
I always thought michael was the most disliked slashdot poster.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Is the Redhat license in conflict with the GPL? I don't know and don't have the time, or legal credentials, to tell you.
What I see is a "free software" advocate raising a ruckus because he has found a clause that may require that he buy one copy of RedHat's Advanced Server (now called Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS) Linux for each PC on which he installs it.
Now this isn't a run-of-the-mill version of Linux designed for use on desktop PCs. It's described by RedHat as the "ultimate solution for large departmental and datacenter servers." Heaven forbid that a corporation which operates large departmental and datacenter servers has to pay for a version of Linux tailored to those applications!
A large segment of the Linux community seems hell-bent on using GPL to insure that no Linux vendor ever be able to devise a sustainable, viable business model. It's at times like these that I really appreciate the BSD license.
You can't demand that Red Hat must sell you service and support for one, and only one, Red Hat server. Red Hat basicly says that the offer is to support all or none. Then you may accept or reject those terms. It is no requirement that you must enter that contract, and so there is no GPL violation. Sure, you don't get the support contract you want: "Support this machine and this machine only" but where else do you get to dictate the terms a company must offer you? Nowhere I know of...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Obviously, as soon as Red Hat offered significant volume discounts, the incentive for underlicensing would be much reduced.
The GPL pretty well allows users to modify whatever they want, so long as they share what they did with the public.
Nope. The GPL does not require you to share modifications. If I wanna mod the kernel and replace all copies of Linux with *SCO* I can and can keep it to myself.
What it does do is apply conditions to how (if I so choose) I can redistribute my version. I can not add additional restrictions (ie. I can't sell it to you with a more restrictive license - you will have the same rights I had). And if I do distribute just a binary, then I need to make an offer to make that source available - only to whoever I distributed the binary to, not to the world.
(of course, since the source would still be under the GPL, I can't stop the first person who gets the source from making it available to the world.)
The two most common things said wrong about the gpl on here is 1) you MUST give out your changes if you make any and 2) you MUST make them available to everyone. That is simply not true, however the nature of the GPL means that if you do redistribute any changes, then the two will happen one way or the other and you can't stop it.
Just FYI, there is not a download version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux Advanced Server. But as I've said elsewhere, the issue is that they can't revoke support services while still abiding by the Gnu GPL. The Gnu GPL still applies to whoever got a copy under that license, but Red Hat wouldn't be permitted to continue distributing the software under the license if they are violating it. They'd have to pick a new one, or change the support terms.
If the Agreement said "you can't use Corel PhotoPaint for Linux on the Installed System," that would be OK. They didn't (as far as I know) agree to distribute PhotoPaint at all, much less under the Gnu GPL. But by having distributed RHEL under the Gnu GPL, they are not permited to place any further restrictions on the distribution of RHEL. And that means ANY further restrictions, regardless of what they are, or in what products license agreement the appear.
This is SO educational! -- Kintaro Oe
I don't recall seeing this in the EULA earlier, perhaps it has changed?
They also used to offer a RedHat AS Developer Edition for $60. This didn't offer any support at all, and was only licensed for use test, development and QA environments. This seems to have gone away, and the old AS Developer Edition url now points to their WS (desktop) product.
This whole "Open Letters" thing is overdone and getting old. If you have a problem with RH (or anyone else) the only appropriate thing to do is to first contact THEM, in a "closed letter". Have some courtesy instead of flaming. Life isn't like a Usenet newsgroup
Clearly this post is newsworthy. While the issue may be cut-and-dry to some, it is confusing to others. I'm not saying anything new here, but I have worded things in a way that I think does a decent job of clarifying the situation:
Red Hat realizes that they will never make a profit selling Free Software all by itself, so they don't even bother trying. When they "sell" software, what they are actually selling is a bundle of both software and service. The bundle is both GPL and non-GPL. Specifically, the "GPL" part is the software, and the "non-GPL" part is the service. Because it contains both GPL work and non-GPL work, and each are distinctly separated, Red Hat is allowed to release the bundle (as a whole) under non-free terms, ergo the EULA.
You are still free to use the GPL part only, and you can download RHAS from Red Hat and use it for free (beer and speech).
However, as part of the EULA of the RHAS (software and service) bundle, you in effect agree that you will not use the GPL-only version of RHAS, and you agree that you will allow Red Hat to check your compliance if they wish. Because this bundle is collectively not GPLed Red Hat is allowed to attach any provisions that are legal under contract law.
If you don't agree to the terms of the RHAS (software and service) bundle, you can continue to use the GPL-only RHAS, you just won't get any support from Red Hat. If, however, you agree to those terms and then violate them, well, you get what anyone deserves when they violate an agreement.
The preceding comments reflect the author's personal opinion and are public domain, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
I was incorrect about the Enterprise version being on their site for d/l, but you can still get a copy from anywhere else and install it without the EULA. It is still GPL, so if I buy a copy, I can freely give a copy to you.
As for them violating the GPL, no where in the GPL does it mention support. To follow the GPL, they have to make the source available to anyone who gets the binaries, that's all. They can't make people stop using the software if they violate their agrrement for the support services, but they can charge them for the support services. The agreement is that if you receive support services for this software, you must pay for and recieve support services for all servers in your organiztion that run the software. You can opt ot use the software without the support services and just abide by the basic GPL, but if you want the support services, you must abide by the agreement for the support services.
The support services and the software are basically 2 seperate items. I can get the software through the GPL and use it following the GPL (it's free and I can distribute it). If I want the support services, I have to take out a contract with RedHat and agree to the terms that they set. They can't stop me from using the software as long as I comply with the GPL, but they can stop me from using the support services and charge me for it if I don;t abide by the support services contract. Support services and the software are tied only because they are coming from the same company, not because they must follow the rules of the GPL
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
To précis, the FSF (specifically Prof. Moglen and rms) are aware of the issue, are talking with Red Hat, and hope to have something official to say soon.
FWIW, my reading is that Red Hat assert that for each machine running a RHEL distro, you must to purchase matching RHN services (see the beginning of clause 4), regardless of whether you even even want support, or Red Hat Network functionality. I'm intrigued as to how it can be read any other way.
A seperate concern of mine is that Red Hat, could, if they wished, choose not to distribute the source to BSD-licensed components such as XFree86 and Apache. That would be unbearable for me, at least, and I would move ASAFP to Debian.
--
By failing to meet the terms of the subscription agreement you get your subscription service revoked but you do NOT lose the right to use the software (thus it is still GPL compatible).
As for the auditing it seems quite reasonable. The agreement is very clear on that:
Any such audit shall only take place during Customer's normal business hours and upon no less than ten (10) days prior written notice from Red Hat. Red Hat shall conduct no more than one such audit in any twelve-month period except for the express purpose of assuring compliance by Customer where non-compliance has been established in a prior audit.
I think that the agreement is very reasonable and I don't understand what's all the fuss about.
AFAIK, you can't just "get a copy from anywhere," in that there aren't any copies out there that didn't come from the version that includes the Agreement. Someone would have to have violated the Agreement to give it to you. I also notice, now having read it several times to answer everyone here, that the Agreement is not simply for support. The Agreement specifically prohibits "use" of the product unless you agree to the terms. The Gnu GPL, for whatever reason, does not protect your right to use the product, though it does not restrict it either. It is possible (but unclear) if they are assuming that possession entitles use. Red Hat (and all other EULAs I've read) disagree with that idea. As I read the two contracts now, I suppose someone could buy the product and distribute it to anyone else, so long as they (the people who purchased the original) agree not to use it themselves. That would only work if the Install software doesn't display the same Agreement.
Does anyone have a copy that they can check to see if that shows up also during the installation?
This is SO educational! -- Kintaro Oe
When I wrote the parent to your message, I was under the assumption (as you appear to be) that the Gnu GPL protected the right to use the software. Since the Gnu GPL doesn't appear to protect usage rights, I suppose that it is contractually possible for the Agreement to forbid you from using the software unless you pay them.
This is SO educational! -- Kintaro Oe
Actually the Agreement forbids you from using the Software (not just the support Services) if you don't agree. This does not appear to violate the Gnu GPL from what I see. The Gnu GPL does not protect your right to use the product. It only protects your right to copy, distribute, and modify it. If you actually want to use the product, I guess you're SOL.
This is SO educational! -- Kintaro Oe
Actually, as I'm reading the Gnu GPL now, the parent post (mine) is wrong, despite being +5. :) The Gnu GPL does not protect the right to use the software. If they want to probihit usage unless you pay them huge gobs of money, the Gnu GPL will allow that. It only protects "copying, distribution, and/or modification" of the software. All other activities, including using the software, are "outside its scope." In fact, it looks to me like GPLed programs could even require annoying Windows XP style license keys. You could copy the software, but not actually run it without the key.
This is SO educational! -- Kintaro Oe
Codeweavers?
Transgaming?
Will I retire or break 10K?
>The entire purpose of the GPL is to prevent companies from making money off the sale of software.
;P
No, it isn't. That is merely a poor interpretation of the GPl that is confused by a misunderstanding of the English language and an apparent need to be a troll.
The purpose of the GPL is to keep people from restricting the rights of people to modify and/or use software to their benefit. The GPL basically insures that you supply me the source for any GPL'd product, that I can modify same if I wish, and that if I make any modifications or changes to that software, then I must share those changes back to the community that originated the GPL'd software in the first place if I choose to ship a product based on the original work.
In other words, I don't take public software, build it into a proprietary product and then start denying access to the source to enrich myself at your expense.
That is what the GPL is for, to ensure that the community has access to the software and cannot be denied access to same.
No funny stuff with NDA's as well. There is nothing in the GPL that denies you the right to sell software or make money from software at all.
Now, please refrain from saying that the GPL is designed to keep people from making money - that is just garbage.
Have a nice day.
All Ad hominem replies happily ignored as the sender shall be deemed to lack the faculties to comprehend the equation.
What do you mean large segment?
I thought that the term "large segment" was fairly obvious. It means a large percentage of the group. It is synonymous with "many", as in "many people in this town oppose building that road" or "many voters are distrustful of younger candidates."
The entire purpose of the GPL is to prevent companies from making money off the sale of software.
Apparently, you are a part of the "large segment" to which I referred earlier. But, as another poster so clearly explained, that is not the purpose of the GPL.
As an aside, why would anyone be opposed to companies making money by selling software? That's what keeps many companies in business. They, in turn, employ hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of software engineers and other tech workers, providing those workers with an income to invest in other goods and services (cars, homes, home improvements, repairs, food, clothing, shelter, etc.).
I never cease to be amazed by the number of people who are either already software engineers, or who are getting an education in order to be, stridently opposing the concept of selling software for a profit. It's like auto workers picketing because they are opposed to the cars they make being sold for a profit. That will never happen, of course, because the average auto worker has more common sense than the average software engineer.
On RedHats site they say that Advanced Server features up to 8 CPUs and 16 Gb of RAM. How does that differ from the free version I downloaded a few days ago? Is it the software, or just the packaging that differs?
If I buy AS, will I get any software that is not available for download?
I do agree with many of you who says the license agreement looks like something MS has put together, and that parts of it appears to be in violation with GPL. However, as an engineer (not a lawyer), I see that
1) The headline says it is a Service Agreement License
2) The license mentions the GPL and explicitly says all rights from the GPL are respected.
Thus, I think it is obvious that RHs INTENTION is to NOT sublicense any software in more restrictive terms than the GPL. The intention is to sell a service, and to have a working agreement for that enterprise service. Again - am I actually getting different software/source if I buy AS rather than downlode shrike from the net?
Just a thought: I "obtain" the actual RHAS CDs from somewhere, and install it on a server (I have not payed, and not agreed to anything but GPL). Obviously RH can not stop me from using/modifying/distributing/selling the lot. However, can they stop me from saying "I run Red Hat Advanced Server".
Basically: if you do not agree to this license, it is not Red Hat Advanced Server anymore, but you are of course free to use it anyway you like.
GPL says nothing about such things - does it? I recall the BSD license says something about not using the authors name for marketing purposes.
If I make a modified version of the Linux kernel, I can not Brand it as Linux, since Linux is a trademark of Linus?
Thanks! I stand corrected -- I did overgeneralize my statement about the GPL.
Whew! This water sure is cold!
Sure, they can sell a service, no problem.
But they seem to be saying you can not install this GPL product if you don't buy the service contract. Seems a cheesy attempt at flanking the GPL.
I understand that someone might install it on 10 servers, and only pay for support for 1 server, but that is a 'flaw' in there business model.
This will hurt them in the long run because it will be seens as MS like and thus remove a reason for people to switch.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
This also:Besides, I've never heard of a license to own but not to use. Is such a license even legal?
Mac OSX, BSD without the point.
Cheers
Stor
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
"If the customer does not accept the terms of this agreement, then it THEN IT MUST NOT USE OR PURCHASE RED HAT ENTERPRISE LINUX . "
."
This says it all. I looked for anything that limited, modified or in anyway altered this statement's meaning or intent. I couldn't find anything.
If you don't buy you can't use the "software." Period.
Farther down in the license are the words:
"If customer makes a commercial redistribution of the software and (a) it does not fall within an exception provided in Red Hat's Trademark Guidelines, (b) it has not entered into a redistribution agreement with Red Hat, or (c) it do not have a trademark license agreement with Red Hat, then the customer must modify the files identified as RedHat-Logos and Anaconda-Images so as to remove all use of images containing the 'Red Hat' trademark or Red Hat's Shadow Man logo. Note that the mere deletion of those files may corrupt the software
This is no way reassuring. Does this mean that If you try to remove Red Hat's deal the software won't work properly? This sounds a lot like extortion. Definitely an overt threat.
No, it's not really. The "trying to use" portion of your analogy is not an element of the licensing incompatibility. The licenses are at odds even if the user makes no attempt to fraudulently obtain service/support on an installation.
Nope. "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." It only rule against restricting the rights it specifically grants, namely "copying, distribution, and/or modification." Usage is not a right that is granted in the license, and so is not protected by the Gnu GPL.
This is SO educational! -- Kintaro Oe
Well, the "licensed as a whole" is interesting, but in my reading that means that the rights granted in the license must apply to the whole work and not just a part. It would still only refer to the rights granted within this license.
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." It only rule against restricting the rights it specifically grants, namely "copying, distribution, and/or modification." Usage is not a right that is granted in the license, and so is not protected by the Gnu GPL.
This is SO educational! -- Kintaro Oe
I understand your point, it clearly states "use or purchase," however, it is also clearly a "Subscription Agreement for Red Hat Enterprise Linux." The wording is deceptive but If you don't purchase the Subscription Service, they can't hold you to the Subscription Agreement.
IANAL (yet)
It is also a "Subscription Agreement." If you are not Subscribing, they can't hold you to a Subscription Agreement. I do agree that the wording is confusing... Perhaps on purpose.
For the first part, you're right, you can't purchase or use the software. The Gnu GPL doesn't ever say you could. Maybe version 3 of the Gnu GPL will say so, but until then you can't legally use RHEL unless you buy support from Red Hat.
The second part only refers to commercial distribution. If you want to make a bunch of copies for yourself, your friends, and your family, (and casual aquantences, people on the street, etc) you can just copy the whole thing. Only a problem if you plan to sell it.
My only question about the last part is, does redistributing an exact copy of the software dilute their trademark in any way. I'd think not, since it is exactly what they sell. As long as you didn't suggest it came with any support, it seems like you wouldn't be damaging them, so it wouldn't be a trademark violation. But that is a separate issue, and (afaik) not covered by the Gnu GPL (which is more concerned with patents than trademarks)
This is SO educational! -- Kintaro Oe
Although it is named a "subscription agreement", the contract itself clearly states that it covers all use or purchase of the Software as well as the supporting Services. They could (if they chose) call it a "Baseball Playing Agreement" and it wouldn't change the affects of the clauses within it. The title probably is intentionally misleading to help hide the meaning of the contract. The content of the contract is what matters.
Similarly, they could have replaced "Installed Systems" with "Supported Systems" but it would still be an issue if they had defined "Supported Systems" as being "any machine with the Software installed on it." Because the term is a defined term (hence its capitalization in the contract, to differentiate it from the regular words "installed systems") it means exactly what the term is defined as, not what it might mean in regular conversation. That's why many contracts have a very long and detailed Terms and Conditions section.
Either way though, the Gnu GPL doesn't protect the licensee's right to use the software, so it probably isn't a violation of the Gnu GPL. It doesn't violate the spirit of Open Source either, since the source is available, even if you don't buy the product. It might be against the spirit of Free (as in libre) Software, since you can't freely use the product, but that depends on what you mean by libre. You are free to copy it, but not free to use it. To me, that means it isn't free (libre) at all.
This is SO educational! -- Kintaro Oe
"1. The upgrade to RH 9 is free"
Only if you have an IT department that works for free. I don't know any like that, we have to pay them to do the upgrades. And we have to pay them to do it when the office is closed or it also costs us productivity time. Of course, there will also be costs associated with the broken programs we used with the old version. If there were no breaking changes, it wouldn't be an upgrade at all, would it?
"2. If you or someone else wants to create upgrade RPMS for 7.x or 8, you can do that too."
yeah, but I don't want to. The $100/year Windows costs is much cheaper than what you're suggesting.
The truth doesn't care what I think.