Is linux free 5020
No you were making blanket statements about people who talk about Redhat and the GPL. What has that to do with anything? Redhat also offers no impediment...
The subscription agreement is a limitation of what you can do with the software. Any such limitation automatically cancels...
Agreed that it talks about, and has conditions concerning, products. But it's a contract for maintenance updates and technical support.
You're bound to it (to the extent of contract) if you become a party to that agreement. But say you come over to my house and I duplicate 5 CDs of RHEL 4.0 x8664. (Actually, I currently couldn't duplicate CD#1 for you, because it's cracked, but that's just an indication of how seldom I bother to pull out the blasted thing.) Then, you are not a party to it.
But let's continue with your hypothetical:
No. It says that, if you do those things, you have violated the terms of the Subscription Agreement. And what do you think they'd be able to do then? Get a restraining order against you installing onto more machines? Fat chance. Nope. All they'd be able to do is end or reduce your service enbreastlement.
Yes, you can. You're merely not carrying out your end of a "Subscription Agreement" if you do, and might be subject to its cancellation or curtailment.
It doesn't need to say that. It has no power over your right to install the software as you please, which was separately conveyed by the licences of the software packages themselves.
It doesn't matter: Even if they wanted to imposed some more drastic penalty, they have no power to do so.
A tort is a business wrong in civil (as opposed to criminal) wrong. But that's not the point. The point is that GPL is not a law, which is what you make it sound like when you speak of someone "infringing" it. It is a set of license terms granted to others by a copyright holder. So, the only thing that can be infringed is the owner's property rights, if you attempt to use it in an unlicensed fashion. That is called "copyright infringement". (The fact that in legal jargon it's within a category called "torts" is beside the point.)
A copyright infringer can be (successfully) sued if he-she violates plaintiff's copyright. That requires showing that defendent did something clearly violating his-her licence terms. Just running up in front of a judge and saying "These guys induced a bunch of customers to sign a contract that made them feel as if they couldn't fully exercise their rights" would merely get you bounced out of court on your butt.
I'll answer some of this now, although I have flu ... You are trying to distinguish clearly a licence from a contract. I don't know what you are allowed to do under the contract, but...
Sorry, those rights aren't actually curtailed, it seems to me. See above.
Anyhow, I apologise if I've failed to do your post justice, but it's
-- Cheers, Chip Salzenberg: "Usenet is not a right." Rick Moen Edward Vielmetti: "Usenet is a right, a left, a jab, The postman hits! You have new mail."
Linux groups from Newsgroups