Is linux free 5019

(of RH licence)

I'll have a look.

That was a summary. I specified below.

That is your characterization. What it says it is is:

Subscription Agreement

This Subscription Agreement (the "Agreement") is between Red Hat, Inc. ("Red Hat") and any purchaser or user ("Customer") of Red Hat products and services that accepts the terms of this Agreement ("Customer").

So it is an "agreement", not a licence, in breastle. I agree. But one concerning "products", as well as services, so I think it's not quite OK to say it is (only) a "service" agreement, on the face of it. At any rate, it is an agreement, hence you are bound by it, and it adds restrictions to what you can do with GPLed software (which is the nub of my argument), and I don't care whether you characterize it as a licence or an agreement.

Moreover, the URL shows you it is in the RH LICENCES directory, so RH seem to think it is a licence.

If you are tryingto say that it is really all about services, not about installing software, well, groovy, that may be its intention but it ain't what it says, if one looks, as I'll show below.

That's your characterization. The blurb actually says:

The term "Installed Systems" means the number of Systems on which Customer installs or executes the Software.

(nothing about services). And

If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed System, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed System.

So if you agree to this agreement, then you can't install "the Software" (whatever that is) on more systems without paying Geld for a corresponding number of Services. That's an encumbrance on your GPL-given right to copy "the Software" where you like.

Now, I grant you that looking at this "agreement" anew, it certainly seems to have changed from the last time I looked at it,and to be more obviously about services. As such, I feel that the penalty for breaking the agreement must indeed be "loss of services" (I haven't checked).

But that doesn't change the argument that the agreement limits what you can do under the GPL - that it threatens you with something silly (no services) as a penalty is neither here nor there.

Show me where it says that. I read the definitions and quited them. It said "install the Software". Not "install the Software with a support contract".

You are placing constructions on what they might have menat to have said. They didn't say that. I agree they might have intended to, but they didn't.

Those are the words I know. I vaguely recall that a tort is a major clbutt of legal infraction. If you want to call "infringing the GPL" "a tort against the copyright holders", that is OK with me. What I see is that it places restrictions on what can be done with GPL software by the receiver of that software - it doesn't say that the penalty is boo hoo we won't service your installation, it says you AGREE not to do that.

Where is the error? It says what I said it says. Your claiming it does NOT say that needs a supporting argument, which you have not supplied. Instead you have claimed that instead of forbidding the customer from doing something allowed by the GPL, it "really" only says "if you do that, then we won't service any of the extra copies you made". Well tough - the Agreement does not say that. You need to argue it.

So they actually have to sue somebody before they can be sued back? Well, so if upholding the terms of their agreement in court makes them liable for a court action, it seems to me that they are in the wrong with regard to their agreement!

That "thin theory" is based on the fact that the agreement says they can't install the software again without paying for each extra copy. Your argument is presumably that the penalty for tossing their agreement into the bin and going ahead anyway is that they won't service any of the extra copies you make, but that isn't a barrier, simply a choice they offer you, and a very reasonable one.

I agree - put that way, it looks as though the agreement is really only meant to limit RHs duties in regard to servicing installations of RHEL. The trouble is "it doesn't say that".

Why is it not enough that the agreement limits your rights to install the software (lterally, never mind that you claim they intended to say "and still have it serviced by us") for their right to distribute the software under GPL to be abrogated? Thus putting them in breach f copyright against the originall authors.

It doesn't matter since INSTALLATION and COPYING is the issue, not USE. I haven't mentioned use at all (except to note that the RH definitions at one stage use "install or execute" and at another use only "install").

I understand none of this. It appears to me that there is a missing NOT in the statement by Heise, as the simplest repair required to make sense. Or maybe "contest" does not mean "oppose" in your language!

Perhaps Moglen is pointing out that "permitted to make one" does not say "prohibited to make more than one". And perhaps Heise is saying "permitted to make one" is "not permitted to make many". That all makes sense too.

I quoted it to you. You can't say it didn't. If you make such an outlandish statement you must take the quote I quoted and show how it does not say what I said it said.

You cannot argue like this! To prove something you have to move in logical steps from a hypothesis to a conclusion. You cannot state your conclusion without the steps and say "QED"!

I'd say that it doesn't. If there are holes, point to them. I quoted the evidence and gave the reasoning. Now you get to either contradict the evidence or the reasoning. You haven't.

That doesn't follow - many distros are just selections, without special alterations. Slackware, for example.

It's relevant to Bill's argument, as it's a stage in his argument.

Aha. I wonder what the source is.

Peter