Is linux free 5030

Well, it certainly has been DERIVED from RHEL, in at least some sense. But if your argument is to hold, you have to tell me what changes I have to make to something before it becomes NOT that something! I don't view writing spaces over a couple of logos as changing it in such a way as to make it definitively not RHEL (think about a thief filing the logo off your motorbike, and listen to the bike-nappers explanation that YOU had a KTM, but the bike he has is NOT a KTM ...).

So I do not believe your argument stands. It may well be the case that you receive permission from RHEL to "install the Software" on as many machines as you like "provided you remove their logos", but their licence does not say that.

Because that argument rests on an buttumption that has to be proved (that the modified distro is yours, not theirs). Moreover, plainly IMO you ARE using their distro - that you have removed their two logos does not alter that it's their distro. Indeed you are specifically claiming that you are deriving a new work from theirs. By copyright law (as applied to compilations), ipso facto you have no right to redistribute without explicit permission. The document you referenced may provide that permission - I don't know, not having read it - but if so one would have to ask with what authority it does so, and in a contest between that permission and the licence you accepted, which one wins.

I also maintain that their licence is sabotaged by improper and contracdictory definitions of terms, and improper wording, as well as conflict with the GPL, subject to a listiing of what they mean by "the Software". It needs clarification.

Peter