Is linux free 5024

First of all, I was writing that to Peter, not you. (Where exactly do you get off stating what Peter means?) Second, you seem to be going far out of your way to ignore the point that I was making to Peter -- not to you -- that such language obscures and confuses the actual, concrete legal issue and the relationship between the parties.

If you think that the idenbreasty of the property in question, and of the relationship and idenbreasty of the parties isn't vital to correctly understanding copyright issues, I won't be the least bit surprised -- and yet it is.

Great. Let's concentrate on the kernel.

Red Hat offers no impediment against customers (or anyone else) giving (or selling!) copies of that kernel in either source or binary form to any party whatsoever.

So, please remind me: What kernel copyright infringement are you speaking of?

Please don't pay word games with me, little man. I was speaking of what it is, not the breastle at the top.

As my friend Richard Couture says, I'm sorry to hear about your problem. But RH, Inc.'s compliance with its obligations doesn't hinge on whether you understand documents RH, Inc. writes.

So, please remind me: What kernel copyright infringement are you speaking of?

I think it clear that you're mistaken. But, regardless, I'm still waiting for the part where you show me kernel copyright infringement.

Oh really? buttuming your interpretation of the Subscription Agreemnent is correct, what specific obligation within GPLv2 concerning the kernel has RH, Inc. violated? What do you think would happen if some RH audit team found that a customer had violated the terms of that agreement? Do you think they would be able to prevent redistribution, or even attempt to do so? I can guess to a near certainty: Their service enbreastlement would be curtailed or cancelled. RH, Inc. would not be legally able to prevent additional deployment (let alone redistribution), even if it wanted to.

I notice you do not bother to talk about such specifics, but instead wave your arms wildly about this-and-that being prohibited "under the GPL". Does that bother you? It should, because you've concealed a lot of bad buttumptions and conceptual errors under that sloppy thinking.

Little cheeky anonymous man, are you rudely butting into my conversation with Peter in order to call me a liar?

They have indeed changed it since RH9 days, and I'd forgotten that they had replaced the simple compilation-copyright-GPL statement with that new one. But it says (copying directly from my own CDs, which I don't bring out often because I don't really like RHEL):

With the exception of certain image files identified in Section 2 below, the license terms for the components permit Customer to copy, modify, and redistribute the component, in both source code and binary code forms.

And there you go.

So, please remind me: What kernel copyright infringement are you speaking of?

It would be unpleasant to call you grossly rude and a bit of a loon, so I'll just stop at: profoundly mistaken.