Is linux free 5022
The subscription agreement is a limitation of what you can do with the software. Any such limitation automatically cancels their right to use the kernel amongst other things. They have no right to distribute their distribution, or to make changes. That they may or may not be able to enforce their contract is irrelevant.
?? Sheesh. Are you now agreeing that what the contract says is that it limits your rights and is not soley a support contract? You seem to be in that you are agreeing that it nowhere says it is a support contract. That it may or may not be enforcable is irrelevant to what it is.
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 00:36:32 -0400, Rick Moen Coming from you, that disrespect surprised me. The point is that the agreement - whatever it...
Again you are reading your own prejudices onto others statements. Noone, not Peter, not me, has ever said that the GPL is law. It is a license. It is an agreement with terms. Just as one can talk about infringing a patent which means using the patent without the permission of the patent holder, infringing a copyright is copying without the permission of the copyright holder. And the GPL is the extent of the permission. And if you do not comply with the terms of the GPL you are infringing the copyright. That is what "infringing the GPL" means to me, and I buttume means to Peter. (He will undoubtedly let us know if this is not what he means, I am not worried about that).
Of course that is what "in violation of the GPL" means-- that they have violated the terms of the copyright license which they agreed to when they copied and used the GPLed software in...
Yes, and that is preciselty what "infringe the GPL" is short for. It is infringing the copyright by not abiding by the terms of the GPL.
No, they forced the customers to sign a contract which explicitly restricted them in a way forbidden by the GPL, the only license by which Redhat can use the kernel.
Would I have standing in the court? Probably not, not least because I do not use Redhat nor have I ever signed that license. But the question was not whether or not Peter or I could sue redhat. the question was whether or not Redhat by its Subscription Agreement was violating the terms of its license, the GPL.
Again in blatant disregard of the explicit words of the agreement.
Yes, it is obvious.
Linux groups from Newsgroups