Is linux free 5023

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 their distributions. What else would it mean.

Lets concentrate on the kernel, for want of anything more obvious.

I am sorry, it is not a "Service Agreement" it is a ilicense (note the term in the url you have posted below) or a "Subscription Agreement" as the very top of the agreement states. One of the first questions is what in the hell a Subscription Agreement is. I know what a subscription to a magazine is, and my purchasing Redhat looks nothing like that. Next is says that this "Subscription Agreement applies to "RED HAT PRODUCTS AND SERVICES" in capital letters. Now, it does include Services but it also includes "PRODUCTS". The only product I know that Redhat sells is its software, (unless you claim that this Subscription Agreement applies to its mugs and T-shirts).

Then we come to the next paragraph which contains The term "Software" means the subscription for the family of software products purchased under this Agreement and defined herein, if any. The term "Installed Systems" means the number of Systems on which Customer installs or executes the Software.

This seems to me unambiguous as the software NOT the service (mentioned in the previous paragraph) and also uses the term "subscription" as applied to the software, not the service. Ie, this Subscription Agreement applies to the software Not the Services alone.

Then in section 4 "If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed System,then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed System." Remember the definition above. Installed systems are NOT service agreements. Installed systems is the number of computers etc, that the software is installed on. Under the GPL, Redhat CANNOT impose conditions on your installing the software on other systems. The customer, under the GPL is free to increase the number of installed systems without any limits or conditions. The customer of course cannot demand service on those, but that is NOT what the Agreement states. It clearly and explicitly places conditions on the customer as to the copying and installation of the software on otehr systems. The GPL clearly states that ANY such conditions voids the license under which Redhat is allowed to copy the software, eg the kernel.

Redhat is explicitly and clearly in violation of the license under which they use the kernel.

No they are not. They are for a Subscription Agreement. Sheesh. People change the contract and then argue till they are blue in the face that that changed contract is not in disagreement with the GPL. Of course they argue that those changes are minor and of no account, which makes it very obscure why they made the changes.

It is. It says so specifically and clearly and unambiguously that if the customer wishes to increase the installed systems, the customer MUST buy additional Subscriptions. That is a limit on the right to install the software.

No, that is NOT what it says. It is how you are rewriting the contract to say so.

IF that voiding of the service contract is because of copying or installing the software on other machines, then it does consbreastute a tort against the copyright holders.

This is called argument by blatant buttertion. If you repeat a lie often enough that does not make it the truth.

The GPL specifically states that no limitations on the rights to copy are allowed. This is a limitation. It is thus a tort against the copyright holder. Now, I will agree that since I am not Torvalds or any other contributor to the kernel, and thus the court might well argue that I have no standing. That does not negate that Redhat has violated the terms of their license, which was the whole point of this exercise.

Copyright law is silent on use because that is not its purvue. It refers to copying. Furthermore, the Agreement also refers to copying (Installing). Futhermore the GPL states that any limitation on the right to copy invalidates teh license. It does not claim that that limitation need come from copyright law. It might come from trademark law or contract law, or criminal law, or whatever.

Agreed.

Of course it does. Section 4 which both he and I quoted.

I would say that you have no logic at all. You blatantly ignore the clear words of the agreement, and having ignored them state that they do not exist.

Please don't hold your breath. Netnews is sufficiently slow that you would die before you read my comments, and would not want that to happen.

You say you read the license. I do not think you have. Let me quote

"LICENSE AGREEMENT AND LIMITED PRODUCT WARRANTY RED HAT¨ ENTERPRISE LINUX¨ AND RED HAT¨ APPLICATIONS

This agreement governs the use of the Software and any updates to the Software, regardless of the delivery mechanism. The Software is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. Subject to the following terms, Red Hat, Inc. ("Red Hat") grants to the user ("Customer") a license to this collective work pursuant to the GNU General Public License."

Good we agree. Thus the question is whether their subscription agreement cpmpies with the GPL.

Note that under the GPL, they are not allowed to place conditions on copying or distribution. They do. Now, you may say that they are explicitly disavowing that section of the GPL by their statement "Subject to the following terms" However, insofar as their work is a work which is "derived" (under copyright law) from the kernel, they have no right to make the license subject to anything and continue to use that kernel.

Note that they also commit a tort against all users of their software. They claim implicitly if not otherwise, that they have the right to supply the kernel to the end user. By violating the terms of the license to do so, they do not have such a right and commiting fraud against the end user.