It wouldn't be too hard or outlandish. My personal effects easily fit on one 600MB CD, and that's after over 10 years of actively being a computer nerd.
Unless one includes audio and video, the entire US could have a GB of permanat webspace on 300TB or so. With hard disks approaching 1TB a disk, this isn't too far off.
I've heard this brought up before, but it doesn't seem like a likely outcome. For one, the agreement says that it applies 1 year after you no longer have any RHEL subscribed systems.
I don't think a FAQ would be very helpful, I think they need to change the agreement outright. A FAQ probably wouldn't be very legally binding. They could say one thing, and if the agreement says another they might argue that the agreement is the only thing that matters.
I think that's inevitable anyway. There's no way you can have good DRM. It's just not possible. Copy protection always has, and always will be, a myth, designed to trick people in suits.
It's inevitable that they find out, sooner or later.
How are you going to explain to your client that you need to come do a full OS upgrade every 8 months? Bear in mind that there's currently no supported upgrade option other than rebooting into the installer. apt-get upgrade and such are not guaranteed to work, and I don't think anyone's working toward making them work either.
But they aren't allowed to say "We'll sell you this GPL software, but you aren't allowed to install it on more than one server, unless you buy more support seats."
But Red Hat probably would have a problem with it, if they ever audited you. That clause seems specifically crafted to prevent people from doing what you are doing (and what I would be doing too, if I wasn't afraid of the risk it would expose my company to through that EULA).
It's standard operating procedure to have a some development servers that aren't in production, and may never be. That's one of the key benefits of Linux as I see it, that we can just throw an extra machine or two together on a whim, and see if it works out for what we are planning to use it as. This EULA seems to prevent this, unless you buy a bunch of extra seats that may rarely be used.
Hahaha that's so funny! A guy gets really pissed off becuase scum are abusing his property, and now the government might throw him into jail and put a felony on his record that makes it very hard to ever get a job again. Anal rape is hilarious too!
But it is still inconsistant even if you view it in that light. If they intend "Installed Systems" to mean "Installed Systems that have seats paid for under the support agreement", then the whole section is pointless, because then by definition you can never increase the number of installed systems past the number of installed systems you have support seats for, and the reporting, audit, and penalty sections are all moot.
I don't think there's any way to view this agreement in a way consistant with the GPL, without making the assumption that the REPORTING AND AUDIT section is completely unenforcable. By virtue of it being there, it implies the intent for Red Hat to enforce it. As I said, I don't want my company to be the one to fight Red Hat in court to find out what their intent really was.
Speaking in the Pink Tie sense, I don't think they could even use trademarks in this case, I don't think it's against the law to copy, distribute, or display a trademark within your own company. It wouldn't be like you were selling a product with the Red Hat trademark on it, so there's absolutely no chance of market confusion or dilution. I just don't see any legal grounds whatsoever for Red Hat to base this agreement on.
See the reply that is higher up in this thread for more details. You can't buy RHEL without agreeing to this.
I am moving most of our servers to Debian now because of this Red Hat fiasco.
No, I don't work for MS. Hell I even own a little RHAT stock. I really like RHAT, I just want people to be educated so we don't see the next big story "Red Hat sues company X for support agreement violations".
Ideally I'd like Red Hat to remove the obnoxious parts of the support agreement. I'd be a hell of a lot more likely to buy some RHEL server support seats.
REPORTING AND AUDIT. If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed System, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed System. During the term of this Agreement and for one (1) year thereafter, Customer expressly grants to Red Hat the right to audit Customer's facilities and records from time to time in order to verify Customer's compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
Now before you say "But that's just the support agreement!", note that it's impossible to purchase RHEL without agreeing to it. You can download src.rpms and compile it all yourself, but if you purchase even one single copy, you are subject to that agreement, and then couldn't increase the number of installed servers even by downloading and compiling clean src.rpms. This obviously violates the GPL, if enforced this way. Another section of this agreement says that "nothing here should be taken to override the GPL", but if that's true, why do they even say the first part at all?
I sure don't want my company to be the test case in court to see if the agreement is unenforcable or not.
Here's an article about it: http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/10/HNr edhat balk_1.html
It might as well be a License. The EULA says you can't install more servers than you have support seats for. That sounds a hell of a lot like a license to me.
Not quite. Due to the EULA, if you increase the number of installed servers, you are required to increase the number of support seats.
The EULA says it doesn't overrride the GPL, but do you really want to go to court with Red Hat to sort out wether that part of the EULA overrides the GPL or not? Why would they put a part in that is clearly incompatible with the GPL if they didn't intend to enforce it?
There's no way to know, because you are using closed source proprietary software that goes down to the core of your desktop. Anyone could put a keylogger anywhere, and no one would know.
Heh, but Family Guy did rip off the Simpsons a lot. Remember the gag when Peter was trying to eat popcorn and the bird kept grabbing it? That's stright up simpsons rip-off, homer did the same exact gag. There's a lot of stuff like that, especially a lot of the simple gags.
Slashdot Mirror
So wait, OSDL is going to rape SCO in the confessional?
It wouldn't be too hard or outlandish. My personal effects easily fit on one 600MB CD, and that's after over 10 years of actively being a computer nerd.
Unless one includes audio and video, the entire US could have a GB of permanat webspace on 300TB or so. With hard disks approaching 1TB a disk, this isn't too far off.
Not defending and exercising the 2nd amendment ensures there would be no "other tactics" to fall back on.
do you use just one of the center conductors, or both of them?
I've heard this brought up before, but it doesn't seem like a likely outcome. For one, the agreement says that it applies 1 year after you no longer have any RHEL subscribed systems.
I don't think a FAQ would be very helpful, I think they need to change the agreement outright. A FAQ probably wouldn't be very legally binding. They could say one thing, and if the agreement says another they might argue that the agreement is the only thing that matters.
Ohhhhh Yoko! Why didn't you guys say so in the first place!
Give me a break. By your argument, we shouldn't have war themed video games at all! That would kill at least 2 whole genres.
A knee-jerk emotional response is not insightful. These are games we are talking about here, the original poster was joking around.
But who are "The Beatles"? :)
I think that's inevitable anyway. There's no way you can have good DRM. It's just not possible. Copy protection always has, and always will be, a myth, designed to trick people in suits.
It's inevitable that they find out, sooner or later.
How are you going to explain to your client that you need to come do a full OS upgrade every 8 months? Bear in mind that there's currently no supported upgrade option other than rebooting into the installer. apt-get upgrade and such are not guaranteed to work, and I don't think anyone's working toward making them work either.
But they aren't allowed to say "We'll sell you this GPL software, but you aren't allowed to install it on more than one server, unless you buy more support seats."
Which is what they are saying.
But Red Hat probably would have a problem with it, if they ever audited you. That clause seems specifically crafted to prevent people from doing what you are doing (and what I would be doing too, if I wasn't afraid of the risk it would expose my company to through that EULA).
It's standard operating procedure to have a some development servers that aren't in production, and may never be. That's one of the key benefits of Linux as I see it, that we can just throw an extra machine or two together on a whim, and see if it works out for what we are planning to use it as. This EULA seems to prevent this, unless you buy a bunch of extra seats that may rarely be used.
Hahaha that's so funny! A guy gets really pissed off becuase scum are abusing his property, and now the government might throw him into jail and put a felony on his record that makes it very hard to ever get a job again. Anal rape is hilarious too!
Easy answer: So he can steal your programs!
(OK, maybe not steal, but you know what I mean)
This is hilarious. So you suckers bought a $500 piece of equipment, and you can't even change your own batteries!?!
Hell, a $10 walkman has that capability!
But it is still inconsistant even if you view it in that light. If they intend "Installed Systems" to mean "Installed Systems that have seats paid for under the support agreement", then the whole section is pointless, because then by definition you can never increase the number of installed systems past the number of installed systems you have support seats for, and the reporting, audit, and penalty sections are all moot.
I don't think there's any way to view this agreement in a way consistant with the GPL, without making the assumption that the REPORTING AND AUDIT section is completely unenforcable. By virtue of it being there, it implies the intent for Red Hat to enforce it. As I said, I don't want my company to be the one to fight Red Hat in court to find out what their intent really was.
Speaking in the Pink Tie sense, I don't think they could even use trademarks in this case, I don't think it's against the law to copy, distribute, or display a trademark within your own company. It wouldn't be like you were selling a product with the Red Hat trademark on it, so there's absolutely no chance of market confusion or dilution. I just don't see any legal grounds whatsoever for Red Hat to base this agreement on.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer.
Here
See the reply that is higher up in this thread for more details. You can't buy RHEL without agreeing to this.
I am moving most of our servers to Debian now because of this Red Hat fiasco.
No, I don't work for MS. Hell I even own a little RHAT stock. I really like RHAT, I just want people to be educated so we don't see the next big story "Red Hat sues company X for support agreement violations".
Ideally I'd like Red Hat to remove the obnoxious parts of the support agreement. I'd be a hell of a lot more likely to buy some RHEL server support seats.
Sure thing:
r edhat balk_1.html
REPORTING AND AUDIT. If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed System, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed System. During the term of this Agreement and for one (1) year thereafter, Customer expressly grants to Red Hat the right to audit Customer's facilities and records from time to time in order to verify Customer's compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
Red Hat EULA
Now before you say "But that's just the support agreement!", note that it's impossible to purchase RHEL without agreeing to it. You can download src.rpms and compile it all yourself, but if you purchase even one single copy, you are subject to that agreement, and then couldn't increase the number of installed servers even by downloading and compiling clean src.rpms. This obviously violates the GPL, if enforced this way. Another section of this agreement says that "nothing here should be taken to override the GPL", but if that's true, why do they even say the first part at all?
I sure don't want my company to be the test case in court to see if the agreement is unenforcable or not.
Here's an article about it:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/10/HN
It might as well be a License. The EULA says you can't install more servers than you have support seats for. That sounds a hell of a lot like a license to me.
Not quite. Due to the EULA, if you increase the number of installed servers, you are required to increase the number of support seats.
The EULA says it doesn't overrride the GPL, but do you really want to go to court with Red Hat to sort out wether that part of the EULA overrides the GPL or not? Why would they put a part in that is clearly incompatible with the GPL if they didn't intend to enforce it?
There's no way to know, because you are using closed source proprietary software that goes down to the core of your desktop. Anyone could put a keylogger anywhere, and no one would know.
It might use ASICs not normally available. Since they mentioned speed of platform, it does seem to imply a full software solution, however.
Heh, but Family Guy did rip off the Simpsons a lot. Remember the gag when Peter was trying to eat popcorn and the bird kept grabbing it? That's stright up simpsons rip-off, homer did the same exact gag. There's a lot of stuff like that, especially a lot of the simple gags.
The simpsons is still pretty good... sometimes at least. That episode they sued themselves over, that one in particular was funny and edgy.
So we just freebase the moon into crack, and then it's profitable!