Now I'd like you to think about this very carefully. Do you suppose he can go 114 MPH in first (or even second) gear? No? Then it clearly wasn't while peeling out at a stop sign. Don't forget that these tires are connected to gears. And if he can spin his tires in 4th or 5th gear from dead stop, he really has tuned up his car pretty far I'd say. He also treats it like total crap and clearly has no idea how to drive. You sure don't start in 4th gear if you are trying to drive fast. But I seriously doubt he could spin his tires in 4th or 5th gear. This is a trans am, not an indy car.
Re:Clarifications on my part
on
A Mighty Wind
·
· Score: 1
Well, I still say even meltdown level accidents are highly unlikely. My only concern with nuclear plants at all is that (IIRC, according to the IEEE) many plants have little to no security. I find that somewhat disturbing. But even something like the TMI meltdown wasn't caused by failure of plant design, but because of user interface problems in the control room. (probably the same people who later designed windows UI;P )
I can't disagree with your utility wind power costs, because I don't know those at all. I was just concerned because they seemed to think both utility and non-utility costs were well below solar, and as far as I saw for the non-utility case that isn't true. There's no doubt that if you don't have powerlines already (eg on an island) it could be cheaper than utility power.
As far as fusion protests, I can't find much about it now, but a while back (late 90s?) there were a lot of protests regarding ITER.(International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) IIRC, it was primarily because ITER (and any real fusion plants) would have to use deuterium and tritium, which our radio active. The protesters made it sound as though the radioactive isotopes were very dangerous, and as though the steam released by the plant would contain them. (Actually it is just regular water. You don't mix hydrogen plasma with the water in the turbines to get power!) At the time ITER was scheduled to be a 1.5 GW plant. At some point the US pulled out of the project completely, but other countries seem to have gone ahead with us. The project has now been scaled back to 500 MW non generating power, which would generate only 40 MW to grid if it were connected, which it isn't. They said it would increase cost without any real gain, since this is primarily experimental.
I see that in February (2003) the US rejoined ITER though. Secretary Abraham even had the gall to say that "American leads science leads the world" despite the fact that it seems that the rest of the world was doing just fine with ITER without the US. The decision to rejoin ITER *might* be because China has just joined ITER and we can't have them getting more advanced than the US can we?;) I'm kidding of course, I'm sure that it was under consideration for a while. What I think is silly is that the US ever left, or for that matter that we don't just build our own. The total cost of the project was (in 1999 when the US backed out) $100 billion. Although even that would have been a good investment in my opinion, the price has since been revised down to only $5 billion. The US "FIRE" project is currently intended to cost only $1.2 billion (if it is actually done) but it is less than 1/10th the size of ITER so I question how useful it would be.
Just think how much fusion research we could do if we stopped spending billions on subsidizing farmers.:/
Re:What would they rather have?
on
A Mighty Wind
·
· Score: 2, Informative
While I do think the hypocritical bastards should crawl in a hole and die, I'm not entirely sure I agree with your list anyway.
2) coal - not so much that it is polluting (when done right, as it often is) that it is environmentally unfriendly to get the fuel 4) nuclear - "boom?" Nuclear plants don't really go boom. While environuts always like to say "look at chernobyl," that sort of thing is really impossible with modern plants. That's like saying, "Don't use linux for servers, because look how much microsoft software sucks." 5) wind - Have you looked at actual costs for wind power? I think they are great things, but the prices are still around the same as for solar, which is to say that they are still very expensive. I don't know where they got their numbers, but I recently actually researched non-utility wind generation costs for my parents, who own a small farm with extra land that could be used for something like that. Initially it seemed like solar was more expensive, but a lot of the solar power systems had things like inverters built in. Maybe solar has come down a lot in price since that report, or maybe wind has (somehow) gone up, but at the moment they are very close, and are a several times more expensive than regular utility power. Anyway, I'm just saying their non-utility numbers look off to me. 8) Hydro - not to mention that (at least some) hydrologists think hydro is far more environmentally damaging than most power generation, because it prevents sand/silt from getting to the ocean (by slowing the water down until things precipitate) and causing beach erosion. That may not seem like much damage, but it means that eventually beaches will be pushed completely back to human habitation and will destroy the habitats of the creatures living there. 11?) fusion - We'd probably have it now if the same environuts would stop protesting it and realize how safe it is. Worst case fusion disaster is the same as every day at a fission plant, which is already completely safe.
Personally, if/when I can actually afford a house I'd definitely like to start putting wind and solar power generation on the property. The cost is incredible though, so it might be pretty hard.
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.
Well, I asked my company's lawyer about a month ago, and he wasn't sure if there was a contradiction. (He also isn't familiar with the Gnu GPL so he wasn't sure about all the implications.) I myself am now fairly sure there isn't any disagreement. You simply don't have the right to use or purchase the software if you don't buy support. The Gnu GPL doesn't grant those rights. Do you see any area that actually does grant usage rights? I see the section that says it doesn't place any restrictions on use, but that isn't the same as granting the right to use.
My employer still uses RH 7.3 primarily. We were considering moving to RHEL, but decided the license was too uncertain. We don't need the support from RHEL (we can do that in house, and most of our RPMs are in house versions anyway) but we'd hoped to switch to something that would be more stable while still allowing our customers to be reasonably well supported on their own if they so chose. We'll probably just wait and see how this all pans out. Hopefully either FSF or Red Hat or both will clarify their positions soon.
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)
My question is now (having read both license as carefully as I can) what makes you think that the Gnu GPL is at odds with this. The Gnu GPL specifically excludes the right to use the product. It says that it does not restrict the right to use the product, but that isn't the same as granting the right to use it. The only rights granted by the Gnu GPL are the rights of "copying, distribution, and/or modification." Until I read carefully I was pretty sure that they'd granted the right to use a product, but I don't see that listed anywhere.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I'm sorry, I'm not a lawyer, and sometimes I use the wrong term. This is a contract and when two contracts conflict, the least restrictive is typically followed. Both the Gnu GPL and the Agreement are contracts.
As defined in the contract, RHEL is not the Software and the Services. RHEL is the Software only. RHEN is the Services only. The Software itself is GPLed. That is specified towards the end of the Agreement. An "Installed System" does not include access to Services. It is defined strictly as a System with the Software on it. No mention of the Services is included in the definition of Installed System.
If you examine the Gnu GPL, you will notice this bit, "To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights." They specifically require that the author can't ask you to surrender the rights granted by the Gnu GPL. They don't say that conditionally. The author is forbidden from asking you to surrender your rights for any reason. That doesn't mean that Red Hat has to support every machine you have. As I said before, Software and Services are two different things. The problem is that the Agreement specifically requires you to purchase additional Services if you install additional copies of the Software. The Gnu GPL (as far as I can see) strictly forbids them to ask that you give up your right to freely copy the software. They don't even have to actually enforce or require that you do, they can't even ask.
The only odd part of the Gnu GPL is that although it doesn't restrict the right to use the software, it doesn't actually give you the right to use it either. It seems that a sufficiently irritating company could forbid you from using the product in exchange for large amounts of money, or maybe forbid you from using it on more than one machine without paying more fees, etc. Perhaps if/when Red Hat updates the RHEL licenses they'll change it to "use" or "run" rather than "install." They could probably safely do that unless a new Gnu GPL is released.
I'm sorry if I was unclear. The Agreement does not say "distribution." It specifically says "increasing the number of Installed Systems." The act of installing the software on another system is typically considered "copying" even if you own the system. The Gnu GPL does contain a clause regarding copying. That is the violation. This particular Agreement does indeed pose a restriction on the number of times you can install this peice of software.
RHEL AS (the compilation refered to as the "Software" in the agreement) is released under the Gnu GPL. (It is actually written in the agreement.) The contract doesn't say "You can't distribute product X because it isn't under the Gnu GPL," it says you can't redistribute the Software (RHEL) that IS under the Gnu GPL.
The contract provisions may or may not be negotiable. It doesn't really matter if they've ever been enforced or not. The Gnu GPL says that they aren't permited to distribute the product under the Gnu GPL unless they abide by the terms, which include placing no further restrictions on the distribution and use of the software.
Don't get me wrong. I like Red Hat. I run Red Hat Linux all the time. I administer RHL servers, and I run it at home. I think they made a mistake. Maybe their sales people talked them into it. Maybe their lawyers didn't actually read the full terms. (very naughty if so:) ) That doesn't mean I think we should all ignore it. It means they should fix it.
If they want to change the terms of the support agreement to say that they will only support a server with some special license key that is tied to the hardware some how, that's fine they can do that. I might even be convinced to buy a copy of RHEL AS, though hardware based licenses really irritate me. If they wanted to only offer support to systems that have a special sticker on them that will chemically expire unless it is affixed to something within 10 days, that's fine too. They can't deliberately continue to violate a license though, and once it has been brought to their attention, it can only be considered deliberate.
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.
I'm not sure why you added the last part. I know they said the collective work is released under the Gnu GPL. That's what this is all about...
As to the first part, it doesn't matter what the contract's primary function is. It places a restriction on distribution. It doesn't matter that the restriction may only relate to a separate product, it is still an additional restriction on the distribution of the software. The Gnu GPL doesn't simply say that you can distribute it without paying them more, it says that you can use and distribute it without any further restrictions.
I've noticed a lot of people on here have been saying, "That doesn't matter, you can just violate the contract" as if that is an acceptable thing to do. Even if the contract said, "You can't redistribute the software, but there are no penalties if you do," it would still not be acceptible under the Gnu GPL because even without penalties it is an additional restriction. Even if the restriction were something rediculous like "Any time you redistribute the Software, you must accept a $10 payment from us to you," it would still violate the terms of the Gnu GPL.
This is also a bit more serious than it would be with other contracts, because the Gnu GPL revokes their right to distribute the software under that license unless they agree to abide by it. They (by releasing under the Gnu GPL) actively agreed to abide by the terms. Then they actively published an agreement that contradicts those terms. They must rectify their license or stop distributing the software.
Whether it is legal for the end user to distribute the software is not in question. In cases of contradictions, the least restrictive license is generally followed. The question is whether or not it is legal for Red Hat to continue to claim they are distributing the software under the Gnu GPL. Since they are own the copyright, at least for the compilation, they are welcome to use another license, just not under this one.
Even if they dual license it, (as some companies have done) they still can't release it under both the Gnu GPL and another more restrictive license. The legal sort of Gnu GPL dual licensing is when the copyright holder allows someone to use the software less restrictively than defined in the GPL, for example by permitting the buyer to distribute the binaries commercially without the source. That would remove the source distribution restriction that is normally associated with the Gnu GPL, so it would be OK. You just can't add restrictions.
I'm not sure what would be most clear here, so I'll try one more example. Let's say I wrote two pieces of software, WidgetA and WidgetB. I give you WidgetA and say it is released under the Gnu GPL. Then I tell you that I'll sell you WidgetB, but only if you don't reditribute WidgetA. I would be violating the GPL at that point. I can't make such a restriction. I could have chosen not to give you WidgetA under the GPL. I could have chosen not to give you WidgetB at all. I could have chosen to give you WidgetB under different terms. If you pay me for WidgetB and I say I won't give it to you until you agree to the contract, then you can sue me for breach of contract, and I will be forced to return the money I charged for it.
Another implication is that since Red Hat states that they are charging only for the support and not for the product (it says in the agreement that the fee is for the annual support subscription) then I can purchase a copy of the software, install it whereever I like, and sue for a refund if they don't honor the support contract (for the one machine). They are obligated to give me either the support, or my money back.
uh, 5% is "high" for you? what exactly is "low" then?:) I'll use an example I used elsewhere, except we can make it more extreme for this point. If I am (eg) a company that does internet application development and hosting, I might have, lets say, 45 servers. If I have 4 different projects ongoing at one time, I might need to have 4 development systems set up with the same OS as the target machines. I don't need support for the devel machines, I just need to be sure the 45 servers that are hosting actual customer apps are well supported. If Red Hat finds out, they'll charge me $12,000 for my extra 4 systems. That's irritating, considering how few machines it is.
Or in another situation, lets say you are a midsize business with 15 quad xeon app servers running RHEL AS. (You can get a lot of hits on that many servers I'd wager.) RedHat shows up and you realize there were actually 16 machines, not 15, because one of your people installed RHEL AS on some other machine (management machine, devel machine, whatever). Oops, now you are fined $3000.
As for it being non-GPL, if you look towards the bottom of the license page you will also see that they specifically release the Software under Gnu GPL. So you *should* be able to copy it and use it wherever you want.
And if you install the software on a completely separate unrelated machine, your $2500 service contract for the original machine is also void unless you pay the same amount for the new machine. You can't choose not to buy support for the second machine.
If it helps you, lets think of a scenario. Lets say I work at a small application hosting and development company. We have a server with RHEL AS on it, and our customers fully expect the server to be supported. Fine, we've paid our $2500 so there is no problem. We also have a machine we do development on, and we'd like it to be the same OS version, though we don't care about supporting that machine. Too bad. We have to pay for it anyway or lose our support contract, and if we do it anyway and they audit us, we also agree to pay $3000 instead of just $2500.
To put it another way, you can not install on another machine without either A) giving up support on the first machine or B) giving up $2500. The point of the Gnu GPL is that they can't force you to give up anything to use/copy the software once you have it. The agreement does force you to give up either A or B, which is an additional restriction beyond the Gnu GPL. By agreeing to release their software under the Gnu GPL, they also agreed not to place any further restrictions on it.
The first two paragraphs of the agreement say that you must not use the software if you don't agree. It doesn't just cover the support or RH Enterprise Network, it very explicitly says you can't use RHEL at all unless you agree.
If it were only that, it wouldn't be as much of a problem, but if you look at my other post you'll see that the agreement specifically forbids you to use RHEL unless you agree to the license. It says so right at the top of the license. And you don't just agree to the license for support, they specifically say that you have to give them your complete and accurate billing information, and that they have permission to audit you, and if you haven't reported to them the number of systems on which RHEL is installed they will fine you the full annual service price plus 20%. It's a pretty onerous license.
People, the license is available online... READ IT
on
Red Hat License Challenged
·
· Score: 5, Informative
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.
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").
PLEASE READ THIS AGREEMENT CAREFULLY BEFORE PURCHASING OR USING RED HAT ENTERPRISE LINUX. BY USING OR PURCHASING RED HAT ENTERPRISE LINUX, CUSTOMER SIGNIFIES ITS ASSENT TO THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU ARE ACTING ON BEHALF OF AN ENTITY, THEN YOU REPRESENT THAT YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THAT ENTITY. IF CUSTOMER DOES NOT ACCEPT THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, THEN IT MUST NOT USE OR PURCHASE RED HAT ENTERPRISE LINUX.
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.
If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed System, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed System.
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.
You can in fact view the agreement online on redhat's site. They define "Installed Systems" as the number of Systems on which Customer installs the Software.
In this context, it seems that there may be a problem. IANAL (unlike our slashdot editors aparently), but to me this seems contradictory.
You might also notice that their "Subscription Agreement" contains the following text:
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"). BY
USING OR PURCHASING RED HAT ENTERPRISE LINUX, CUSTOMER SIGNIFIES ITS ASSENT TO THIS AGREEMENT.
If you read that the way I do, then it says that you must agree to the subscription in order to "use" RHEL. If it only said "purchaser" it might be ok, or if it said "user of Support Services and RHEN" that would probably also cover it. But the license clearly states that it applies to all users of RHEL, no matter what.
Slashdot Mirror
Now I'd like you to think about this very carefully. Do you suppose he can go 114 MPH in first (or even second) gear? No? Then it clearly wasn't while peeling out at a stop sign. Don't forget that these tires are connected to gears. And if he can spin his tires in 4th or 5th gear from dead stop, he really has tuned up his car pretty far I'd say. He also treats it like total crap and clearly has no idea how to drive. You sure don't start in 4th gear if you are trying to drive fast. But I seriously doubt he could spin his tires in 4th or 5th gear. This is a trans am, not an indy car.
Well, I still say even meltdown level accidents are highly unlikely. My only concern with nuclear plants at all is that (IIRC, according to the IEEE) many plants have little to no security. I find that somewhat disturbing. But even something like the TMI meltdown wasn't caused by failure of plant design, but because of user interface problems in the control room. (probably the same people who later designed windows UI ;P )
;) I'm kidding of course, I'm sure that it was under consideration for a while. What I think is silly is that the US ever left, or for that matter that we don't just build our own. The total cost of the project was (in 1999 when the US backed out) $100 billion. Although even that would have been a good investment in my opinion, the price has since been revised down to only $5 billion. The US "FIRE" project is currently intended to cost only $1.2 billion (if it is actually done) but it is less than 1/10th the size of ITER so I question how useful it would be.
:/
I can't disagree with your utility wind power costs, because I don't know those at all. I was just concerned because they seemed to think both utility and non-utility costs were well below solar, and as far as I saw for the non-utility case that isn't true. There's no doubt that if you don't have powerlines already (eg on an island) it could be cheaper than utility power.
As far as fusion protests, I can't find much about it now, but a while back (late 90s?) there were a lot of protests regarding ITER.(International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) IIRC, it was primarily because ITER (and any real fusion plants) would have to use deuterium and tritium, which our radio active. The protesters made it sound as though the radioactive isotopes were very dangerous, and as though the steam released by the plant would contain them. (Actually it is just regular water. You don't mix hydrogen plasma with the water in the turbines to get power!) At the time ITER was scheduled to be a 1.5 GW plant. At some point the US pulled out of the project completely, but other countries seem to have gone ahead with us. The project has now been scaled back to 500 MW non generating power, which would generate only 40 MW to grid if it were connected, which it isn't. They said it would increase cost without any real gain, since this is primarily experimental.
I see that in February (2003) the US rejoined ITER though. Secretary Abraham even had the gall to say that "American leads science leads the world" despite the fact that it seems that the rest of the world was doing just fine with ITER without the US. The decision to rejoin ITER *might* be because China has just joined ITER and we can't have them getting more advanced than the US can we?
Just think how much fusion research we could do if we stopped spending billions on subsidizing farmers.
While I do think the hypocritical bastards should crawl in a hole and die, I'm not entirely sure I agree with your list anyway.
2) coal - not so much that it is polluting (when done right, as it often is) that it is environmentally unfriendly to get the fuel
4) nuclear - "boom?" Nuclear plants don't really go boom. While environuts always like to say "look at chernobyl," that sort of thing is really impossible with modern plants. That's like saying, "Don't use linux for servers, because look how much microsoft software sucks."
5) wind - Have you looked at actual costs for wind power? I think they are great things, but the prices are still around the same as for solar, which is to say that they are still very expensive. I don't know where they got their numbers, but I recently actually researched non-utility wind generation costs for my parents, who own a small farm with extra land that could be used for something like that. Initially it seemed like solar was more expensive, but a lot of the solar power systems had things like inverters built in. Maybe solar has come down a lot in price since that report, or maybe wind has (somehow) gone up, but at the moment they are very close, and are a several times more expensive than regular utility power. Anyway, I'm just saying their non-utility numbers look off to me.
8) Hydro - not to mention that (at least some) hydrologists think hydro is far more environmentally damaging than most power generation, because it prevents sand/silt from getting to the ocean (by slowing the water down until things precipitate) and causing beach erosion. That may not seem like much damage, but it means that eventually beaches will be pushed completely back to human habitation and will destroy the habitats of the creatures living there.
11?) fusion - We'd probably have it now if the same environuts would stop protesting it and realize how safe it is. Worst case fusion disaster is the same as every day at a fission plant, which is already completely safe.
Personally, if/when I can actually afford a house I'd definitely like to start putting wind and solar power generation on the property. The cost is incredible though, so it might be pretty hard.
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.
Well, I asked my company's lawyer about a month ago, and he wasn't sure if there was a contradiction. (He also isn't familiar with the Gnu GPL so he wasn't sure about all the implications.) I myself am now fairly sure there isn't any disagreement. You simply don't have the right to use or purchase the software if you don't buy support. The Gnu GPL doesn't grant those rights. Do you see any area that actually does grant usage rights? I see the section that says it doesn't place any restrictions on use, but that isn't the same as granting the right to use.
My employer still uses RH 7.3 primarily. We were considering moving to RHEL, but decided the license was too uncertain. We don't need the support from RHEL (we can do that in house, and most of our RPMs are in house versions anyway) but we'd hoped to switch to something that would be more stable while still allowing our customers to be reasonably well supported on their own if they so chose. We'll probably just wait and see how this all pans out. Hopefully either FSF or Red Hat or both will clarify their positions soon.
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)
My question is now (having read both license as carefully as I can) what makes you think that the Gnu GPL is at odds with this. The Gnu GPL specifically excludes the right to use the product. It says that it does not restrict the right to use the product, but that isn't the same as granting the right to use it. The only rights granted by the Gnu GPL are the rights of "copying, distribution, and/or modification." Until I read carefully I was pretty sure that they'd granted the right to use a product, but I don't see that listed anywhere.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I'm sorry, I'm not a lawyer, and sometimes I use the wrong term. This is a contract and when two contracts conflict, the least restrictive is typically followed. Both the Gnu GPL and the Agreement are contracts.
As defined in the contract, RHEL is not the Software and the Services. RHEL is the Software only. RHEN is the Services only. The Software itself is GPLed. That is specified towards the end of the Agreement. An "Installed System" does not include access to Services. It is defined strictly as a System with the Software on it. No mention of the Services is included in the definition of Installed System.
If you examine the Gnu GPL, you will notice this bit, "To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights." They specifically require that the author can't ask you to surrender the rights granted by the Gnu GPL. They don't say that conditionally. The author is forbidden from asking you to surrender your rights for any reason. That doesn't mean that Red Hat has to support every machine you have. As I said before, Software and Services are two different things. The problem is that the Agreement specifically requires you to purchase additional Services if you install additional copies of the Software. The Gnu GPL (as far as I can see) strictly forbids them to ask that you give up your right to freely copy the software. They don't even have to actually enforce or require that you do, they can't even ask.
The only odd part of the Gnu GPL is that although it doesn't restrict the right to use the software, it doesn't actually give you the right to use it either. It seems that a sufficiently irritating company could forbid you from using the product in exchange for large amounts of money, or maybe forbid you from using it on more than one machine without paying more fees, etc. Perhaps if/when Red Hat updates the RHEL licenses they'll change it to "use" or "run" rather than "install." They could probably safely do that unless a new Gnu GPL is released.
I'm sorry if I was unclear. The Agreement does not say "distribution." It specifically says "increasing the number of Installed Systems." The act of installing the software on another system is typically considered "copying" even if you own the system. The Gnu GPL does contain a clause regarding copying. That is the violation. This particular Agreement does indeed pose a restriction on the number of times you can install this peice of software.
RHEL AS (the compilation refered to as the "Software" in the agreement) is released under the Gnu GPL. (It is actually written in the agreement.) The contract doesn't say "You can't distribute product X because it isn't under the Gnu GPL," it says you can't redistribute the Software (RHEL) that IS under the Gnu GPL.
:) ) That doesn't mean I think we should all ignore it. It means they should fix it.
The contract provisions may or may not be negotiable. It doesn't really matter if they've ever been enforced or not. The Gnu GPL says that they aren't permited to distribute the product under the Gnu GPL unless they abide by the terms, which include placing no further restrictions on the distribution and use of the software.
Don't get me wrong. I like Red Hat. I run Red Hat Linux all the time. I administer RHL servers, and I run it at home. I think they made a mistake. Maybe their sales people talked them into it. Maybe their lawyers didn't actually read the full terms. (very naughty if so
If they want to change the terms of the support agreement to say that they will only support a server with some special license key that is tied to the hardware some how, that's fine they can do that. I might even be convinced to buy a copy of RHEL AS, though hardware based licenses really irritate me. If they wanted to only offer support to systems that have a special sticker on them that will chemically expire unless it is affixed to something within 10 days, that's fine too. They can't deliberately continue to violate a license though, and once it has been brought to their attention, it can only be considered deliberate.
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.
I'm not sure why you added the last part. I know they said the collective work is released under the Gnu GPL. That's what this is all about...
As to the first part, it doesn't matter what the contract's primary function is. It places a restriction on distribution. It doesn't matter that the restriction may only relate to a separate product, it is still an additional restriction on the distribution of the software. The Gnu GPL doesn't simply say that you can distribute it without paying them more, it says that you can use and distribute it without any further restrictions.
I've noticed a lot of people on here have been saying, "That doesn't matter, you can just violate the contract" as if that is an acceptable thing to do. Even if the contract said, "You can't redistribute the software, but there are no penalties if you do," it would still not be acceptible under the Gnu GPL because even without penalties it is an additional restriction. Even if the restriction were something rediculous like "Any time you redistribute the Software, you must accept a $10 payment from us to you," it would still violate the terms of the Gnu GPL.
This is also a bit more serious than it would be with other contracts, because the Gnu GPL revokes their right to distribute the software under that license unless they agree to abide by it. They (by releasing under the Gnu GPL) actively agreed to abide by the terms. Then they actively published an agreement that contradicts those terms. They must rectify their license or stop distributing the software.
Whether it is legal for the end user to distribute the software is not in question. In cases of contradictions, the least restrictive license is generally followed. The question is whether or not it is legal for Red Hat to continue to claim they are distributing the software under the Gnu GPL. Since they are own the copyright, at least for the compilation, they are welcome to use another license, just not under this one.
Even if they dual license it, (as some companies have done) they still can't release it under both the Gnu GPL and another more restrictive license. The legal sort of Gnu GPL dual licensing is when the copyright holder allows someone to use the software less restrictively than defined in the GPL, for example by permitting the buyer to distribute the binaries commercially without the source. That would remove the source distribution restriction that is normally associated with the Gnu GPL, so it would be OK. You just can't add restrictions.
I'm not sure what would be most clear here, so I'll try one more example. Let's say I wrote two pieces of software, WidgetA and WidgetB. I give you WidgetA and say it is released under the Gnu GPL. Then I tell you that I'll sell you WidgetB, but only if you don't reditribute WidgetA. I would be violating the GPL at that point. I can't make such a restriction. I could have chosen not to give you WidgetA under the GPL. I could have chosen not to give you WidgetB at all. I could have chosen to give you WidgetB under different terms. If you pay me for WidgetB and I say I won't give it to you until you agree to the contract, then you can sue me for breach of contract, and I will be forced to return the money I charged for it.
Another implication is that since Red Hat states that they are charging only for the support and not for the product (it says in the agreement that the fee is for the annual support subscription) then I can purchase a copy of the software, install it whereever I like, and sue for a refund if they don't honor the support contract (for the one machine). They are obligated to give me either the support, or my money back.
uh, 5% is "high" for you? what exactly is "low" then? :) I'll use an example I used elsewhere, except we can make it more extreme for this point. If I am (eg) a company that does internet application development and hosting, I might have, lets say, 45 servers. If I have 4 different projects ongoing at one time, I might need to have 4 development systems set up with the same OS as the target machines. I don't need support for the devel machines, I just need to be sure the 45 servers that are hosting actual customer apps are well supported. If Red Hat finds out, they'll charge me $12,000 for my extra 4 systems. That's irritating, considering how few machines it is.
Or in another situation, lets say you are a midsize business with 15 quad xeon app servers running RHEL AS. (You can get a lot of hits on that many servers I'd wager.) RedHat shows up and you realize there were actually 16 machines, not 15, because one of your people installed RHEL AS on some other machine (management machine, devel machine, whatever). Oops, now you are fined $3000.
As for it being non-GPL, if you look towards the bottom of the license page you will also see that they specifically release the Software under Gnu GPL. So you *should* be able to copy it and use it wherever you want.
And if you install the software on a completely separate unrelated machine, your $2500 service contract for the original machine is also void unless you pay the same amount for the new machine. You can't choose not to buy support for the second machine.
If it helps you, lets think of a scenario. Lets say I work at a small application hosting and development company. We have a server with RHEL AS on it, and our customers fully expect the server to be supported. Fine, we've paid our $2500 so there is no problem. We also have a machine we do development on, and we'd like it to be the same OS version, though we don't care about supporting that machine. Too bad. We have to pay for it anyway or lose our support contract, and if we do it anyway and they audit us, we also agree to pay $3000 instead of just $2500.
To put it another way, you can not install on another machine without either A) giving up support on the first machine or B) giving up $2500. The point of the Gnu GPL is that they can't force you to give up anything to use/copy the software once you have it. The agreement does force you to give up either A or B, which is an additional restriction beyond the Gnu GPL. By agreeing to release their software under the Gnu GPL, they also agreed not to place any further restrictions on it.
The first two paragraphs of the agreement say that you must not use the software if you don't agree. It doesn't just cover the support or RH Enterprise Network, it very explicitly says you can't use RHEL at all unless you agree.
You'd think so, but it specifically says that you must not use RHEL unless you agree to it. Read the first two paragraphs of the agreement.
If it were only that, it wouldn't be as much of a problem, but if you look at my other post you'll see that the agreement specifically forbids you to use RHEL unless you agree to the license. It says so right at the top of the license. And you don't just agree to the license for support, they specifically say that you have to give them your complete and accurate billing information, and that they have permission to audit you, and if you haven't reported to them the number of systems on which RHEL is installed they will fine you the full annual service price plus 20%. It's a pretty onerous license.
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.
In this context, it seems that there may be a problem. IANAL (unlike our slashdot editors aparently), but to me this seems contradictory.
You might also notice that their "Subscription Agreement" contains the following text:
If you read that the way I do, then it says that you must agree to the subscription in order to "use" RHEL. If it only said "purchaser" it might be ok, or if it said "user of Support Services and RHEN" that would probably also cover it. But the license clearly states that it applies to all users of RHEL, no matter what.