On Mar 14, 12:14 pm, "Alex Mizrahi"
wrote:
> i know that Red Hat's policy is too sell RHEL on "per system per year"
> basis -- they want users to pay for subscription of each system on which
> RHEL is installed.
> i also know that there are totally free distributions like CentOS, that are
> 100% binary compatible.
>
> but nevertheless, i'd like to know what exactly stops people from installing
> Red Hat on many computers from legal point of view -- that is, exact license
> agreement statements, or any other arguments that can be used in court, etc.
>
> as i understand, if Someone gets RHEL distribution, that is already illegal,
> because license agreement does not allow people to distribute full RHEL
> distro because it contains Red Hat logo:
>
> ---
> The "Red Hat" trademark and the "Shadowman" logo are registered trademarks
> of Red Hat in the U.S. and other countries. This agreement does not permit
> Client to distribute the Software using Red Hat's trademarks.
> ---
>
> ok, suppose another situation -- Someone buys subscription for one system
> and installs it, but then installs it on other system too. and he doesn't
> use updates or whatever (i see one Red Hat Subscription is allowed to be
> used only for one system) -- just installs binaries and use them.
> which exact statements form license prohibit this? is it a about 'logo'
> again?
>
> unfortunately it's not clear from FAQ question about licensing:
>
> http://kbase.redhat.com/faq/FAQ_80_1074.shtm
>
> "However, Red Hat does not provide free access to the binaries of Red Hat
> Enterprise Linux, "
>
> this tells me nothing, Red Hat does not provide access -- but what if i
> already have a system and would like just to install it?
>
> p.s. i don't actually want to install RHEL at all . it's just a theoretic
> question -- these legal aspects are interesting to me

Well you answered your own question. Nothing prevents you per se from
installing it after purchasing one copy. You can ,for that matter
download a 30 day trial from their website and keep it running without
the updates after the 30 days. It is the updates that matter in such
kind of a licensing.

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:38:16 -0700, Kalyan Manchikanti wrote:

> On Mar 14, 12:14 pm, "Alex Mizrahi"
> wrote:
>> i know that Red Hat's policy is too sell RHEL on "per system per year"
>> basis -- they want users to pay for subscription of each system on
>> which RHEL is installed.
>> i also know that there are totally free distributions like CentOS, that
>> are 100% binary compatible.
>>
>> but nevertheless, i'd like to know what exactly stops people from
>> installing Red Hat on many computers from legal point of view -- that
>> is, exact license agreement statements, or any other arguments that can
>> be used in court, etc.
>>
>> as i understand, if Someone gets RHEL distribution, that is already
>> illegal, because license agreement does not allow people to distribute
>> full RHEL distro because it contains Red Hat logo:
>>
>> ---
>> The "Red Hat" trademark and the "Shadowman" logo are registered
>> trademarks of Red Hat in the U.S. and other countries. This agreement
>> does not permit Client to distribute the Software using Red Hat's
>> trademarks. ---
>>
>> ok, suppose another situation -- Someone buys subscription for one
>> system and installs it, but then installs it on other system too. and
>> he doesn't use updates or whatever (i see one Red Hat Subscription is
>> allowed to be used only for one system) -- just installs binaries and
>> use them. which exact statements form license prohibit this? is it a
>> about 'logo' again?
>>
>> unfortunately it's not clear from FAQ question about licensing:
>>
>> http://kbase.redhat.com/faq/FAQ_80_1074.shtm
>>
>> "However, Red Hat does not provide free access to the binaries of Red
>> Hat Enterprise Linux, "
>>
>> this tells me nothing, Red Hat does not provide access -- but what if i
>> already have a system and would like just to install it?
>>
>> p.s. i don't actually want to install RHEL at all . it's just a
>> theoretic question -- these legal aspects are interesting to me
>
> Well you answered your own question. Nothing prevents you per se from
> installing it after purchasing one copy.

With the exception of ethics.