Is linux free 5021

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 I was under the impression that you couldn't redistribute RH cds per se because of the trademark and non-GPL parts issue - but I am willing to believe that there are exceptions listed (in what?) that give you permission for this kind of thing.

Well, you've broken the terms of the agreement. That doesn't seem to be germane to the argument to me - the point as far as I see it is that the agreement says you can't exercise your GPL-given right (in MY reading) to install the software all over your house should you feel like it. The agreement says you "WILL" buy one product from RH for each installation. So exercising your GPL right to copy breaks the agreement you signed (will you say that it is only in respect of the copies, not the original? But you didn't buy the copies from RH, just the original).

So what is the status of an agreement not to exercise rights already awarded to you, should yu wish to view it that way? You are saying it is not a restriction of those rights. That seems to be sailing pretty close to the wind to me! To buy their product you HAVE to sign the agreement, so their product comes with a "don't give me any of that GPL baloney or else your money's confetti" sticker on it.

I would have thought that any contract that tried to abridge rights already vested was null, for starters. I am sure you can quote me the law on that.

There you are - as I said, exercising your GPL-given rights makes your money go poof. Mind you, I suspect the intended result is only that they won't support the copies, but then what are the threatened audits for?

Sorry - I read what is said. I am prepared to make deductions from what is said too. If it is not said, then it has to be deducible, or else it is simply not so.

The agreement plainly said what installing the software resulted in (an "installed System") and how many of those you could have per RH purchase (one). So it seems to me that it SAYS it has the power. I don't know how else it can say it!

So your position is that even if their "agreement" abrogates a right given by the GPL, then you always have the choice of disregarding the agreement - which at most loses you the support-service they promised, nothing more.

I would thus have said that the agreement is potentially in conflict with the GPL according to you, but that the consequences of this (according to you) are nothing to be worried about, in that the GPL wins and the agreement gets voided when push comes to shove.

But they couldn't exercise their rights - not without losing RHs services.

Now, I believe I have heard of agreements that do this sort of thing. We won't sue you if you don't sue us, sort of things. Even police plea bargains, perhaps, are similar. The criminal agrees to waive his right to remain silent in return for a lower sentence. If at trial he remains silent despite the agreement ... is he still enbreastled to the remission? Not.

However, it seems to me that a RH contract saying that you can't exercise your GPL right is not acceptable in the spirit of the GPL. They didn't have to make an agreement that said that. They could simply have written "you get support for one and only one installed copy of the software for each boxed copy of RHEL you buy", and "you are free to copy it around as much as you like, but the support don't go with the copies". Instead they said you "WILL" only install one copy for each bought pack of RHEL. That wording aounts to placing a restriction on the rights awarded to you under the GPL via which they received the bulk of their code, so their licence to that code is revoked, by the GPL.

Never mind that business of "you can break their agreement" because it has no force. There has to be a legal word describing this sort of attempt to prevent you exercising your rights under the guise of an agreement (with penalties).

Peter