Red Hat License Challenged 391
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.
Isn't it a bit pointless (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay when "we" do it (Score:5, Insightful)
Gee, when Microsoft (and other "bad" companies) does that kind of thing, everyone here gets upset. I wonder why that is.
Remind you of anything? (Score:1, Insightful)
Think before you reply defending RedHat, lest you sound like a hypocrite.
Why was this even posted? (Score:1, Insightful)
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
Re:I love /. (Score:5, Insightful)
You immediately got modded down (was "1, Offtopic" when I looked at it, now "-1, Offtopic" when I clicked "Reply"). I probably will be too, but I wanted to say I agree with you.
What is it with the editors? They posted an article like "here's some news, but don't bother reading it because the guy is wrong". Come on, guys!
Redhat have defended this before. (Score:5, Insightful)
Creative server registering of this type has been catching them out for a while, so they are trying to minimise it with that change.
Scary Headline but no meat (Score:5, Insightful)
What? (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
Re:Okay when "we" do it (Score:2, Insightful)
Relevant quandry (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why was this even posted? (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is your opinion, why are you reading? Why are you posting? You're acting like the religious nuts that listen to Howard Stern all day just so they can find something to complain about. If you don't like it, change the fucking channel.
Its the monopoly, stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has monopolies (ones that have been found guilt of illegally maintaining, even) in several markets.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
End why is it that all the legal stuf seems to have become so important in the Open-Source/Unix® world.
{sigh} You obviously havn't been around the Unix wolrd for very long. The unix world has been beset by hideous legal issues since at least the early 80s:
Just who owns the unix trademark? I can think of at least 5 different owners.
The BSD 4.4 -> BSD Lite stupidity that stopped the *BSD's cold for at least a year (without that, it's quite possible that /. would be a BSD focused forum)
IIRC, there were several Xwindows legal challenges, OpenWin never came to fruition, etc, etc, etc
and those are just the ones I can think of on a couple hours of sleep.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Editors...say it with me...EDITORS...Very good! (Score:5, Insightful)
"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
Re:That's weird... (Score:5, Insightful)
As GPL does not say anything about service and support, there is no conflict whatsoever.
Re:Not so fast... (Score:3, Insightful)
You can have as many machines as you want running other Redhat versions, but you aren't allowed to install RHAS on more machines than you have service contracts for.
http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhlas_us.html
"If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed Servers, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed Server."
Earlier they defined "installed server" as "the number of servers on which Customer installs Red Hat Linux Advanced Server"
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. Plus for folks like me -- someone who uses Debian and not Red Hat -- I was shocked to learn that Red Hat would be doing audits on anyone. I mean, isn't that a huge reason people want to use Linux in the first place?
Re:Well- Interesting arguement, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Similar but not the same (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Relevant quandry (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Similar but not the same (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclaimer. I own Red Hat stock
Re:Okay when "we" do it (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is, you can choose to buy (or download) Linux from another distributor. Who, besides Microsoft, sells Windows?
Re:Redhat have defended this before. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Okay when "we" do it (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is the parent modded "Insightful"?
Furthermore, /. is not a gelatinous blob of people all of the same mind...
And me... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
They are the very same people who slurp up MS products year after year, crappy revision after crappy revision. The folks like you and me who don't like the MS eula might switch to Linux to avoid it, but we wouldn't be choosing Red Hat Advanced Server. In any case, RH is interested in making sure you aren't trying to get them to support more machines than you have paid for since this is only a support agreement. They are not trying to prevent you from using the software which is the intent of the MS eula so I don't think the two are terribly comparable.
"What the market will bear." (Score:3, Insightful)
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".
IANAL... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:That's weird... (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, from the agreement itself:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux itself is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. Subject to the trademark use limitations set forth below, Red Hat grants Customer a license in this collective work pursuant to the GNU General Public License.
Re:Its the monopoly, stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"What the market will bear." (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't take Microsoft for instance. They are extremely atypical. Take Random Company X for instance. They don't "take" more and more concessions. They don't "abuse the customer" more and more. They offer a more restricted product, and customers then decide if they still want it. Everyone had better expect to "bear as much as they can bear"; this is how prices are set in a market.
The problem with Microsoft isn't the supposedly extreme restrictions they put on their software; the problem is whether you realistically have the choice to not use it. With MS I would argue you don't neccessarily have that choice. But with RedHat? Does anyone feel locked in to RedHat??? Seems to me like "the market is entitled to tell them to fuck off", so they are free and expected, yes even "entitled" to ask for "whatever concessions they think the market will bear". This doesn't damage capitalism, this is capitalism. The threat to capitalism worth worrying about is successful capitalists.
Re:Okay when "we" do it (Score:2, Insightful)
If your job requires Windows, you're forced to abide by Microsoft's rules. If your job requires Linux, you most certainly aren't forced to use Redhat's EULA.
And we can't forget, at any given point in time, another Mandrake Linux could be born from what is now Redhat Linux.
I thought everyone knew that...