Is linux free 5033

What kind of argument it this? I decide to buy the software from redhat for whatever reason (eg I want to support redhat because of all they have done for Linux). They state that they are selling me the software only if I agree to their subscription agreement. That subscription agreement violates teh GPL. Of course I could have done something else. I could have installed Mandrake instead for example. The fact that I could have done something else does ot lessen Redhat's culpability in the case that I bought from them.

Your honour I could have gone for a walk beside the river instead of liquidateing that man. Thus I should be allowed to go free since there is nothing illegal about walking beside the river.

I don;t want it, thanks anyway.

No, I call them bad because they force those that DO buy from them into a agreement which violates the GPL. I feel that the status of Linux is harmed for all by that kind of behaviour from one of the largest distributors of Linux. They are saying by their actions that the terms of the GPL are null and void, that they are optional and anyone who does not like one or the other of the terms can ignore it. That position harms me, as well as those directly affected by their agreement.

IF what they bundled was a service contract, then I would have absolutely no argument with them. They are clearly withing their rights to do whatever they wish with their service contracts. But they do not. They limit the rights of people who buy their distribution beyond what the GPL allows. That is what bothers me ( almost as much as the fact that so many people do not care that they do so.) Were SCO to put forth this contract, everyone would be jumping up and down in anger and horror.