Is linux free 5025
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 is intended to be - simultaneously licences a...
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 to my buying coffee at starbucks. It is the relationship of the distribution, which is what was being talked about by both Peter and me, to the kernel.
The distribution is a derived work of the kernel. Thus the distribution according to the GPL must also be GPL and cannot restrict copying or distribution not only of the kernel but also of the distribution. Redhat restricts it. Redhat is infringing the copyright on the kernel by not abiding by the terms of the only license under which it uses the kernel.
And you know this how? You guess it? Sheesh. An agreement is the words which comprise it, not words that third parties want it to contain. It is NOT a service agreement. It very clearly refers to more than "service".
??? Your problem is that you seem incapable of reading. Your preconceptions alter the words from what they actually are. Could you please tell me what a "Subscription Agreement" is? It is NOT a Service Agreement.
Argument by blatant buttertion again. Are you really incapable of developing an argument to support your case?
See above. I have no idea what they would do. But they clearly spell out your obligations. I buttume that they would sue you for payment of subscription purchases for each and every computer thatthe software was installed on. That is what the agreement says you must do. That is your obligation under the agreement and that is what they could come after you for if you broke the agreement ( plus punitive damages and whatever else their lawyers could dream up).
Whether they are able to or not, that is whatthey are trying to do.
And you think that theirs is the first contract to demand things they are legally unable to demand? That their agreement contains such terms is in violation of the license under which they copy and supply the kernel. That it may be unenforceable is irrelevant.
And you do not bother to talk about the issues at all, you just make blatant buttertions in whatever location an argument is called for.
Yes. And furthermore, you stated that you were awaiting my comments, so the conversation contained me as well from the first.
But the agreement is in contradiction to this.
Because their left hand does not know what their right hand is doing. I would guess that they...
Just where? You have made no argument at all as to where I am "grossly mistaken"
Linux groups from Newsgroups