RedHat Advanced Server licensing?

[Chuck Yerkes]

To my knowledge, like SuSE X.Y "Professional", it contains
a number of nonGPL and restricted licensed things in them.

They will sell you, for a bit of cash, licenses for multiple
machines.

If you want something to run on multiple machines, you can
download 7.3 or 9.0 for free and know its free.

I do have some issues with making copies of software they
do sell and that they ONLY sell.  They've done plenty of
good for the open source world.  Use their stuff
that's clearly free if you don't want to pay.

Quoting Rick Moen (rick at linuxmafia.com):
> Quoting Michael T. Halligan (michael at halligan.org):
> 
> > I was wondering if anybody has done anything with AS? 
> 
> Oh yeah.  RHEL 2.1 (formerly called RHAS 2.1) is just RH 7.2 with a few
> tweaks, put in a box, and bundled with a support contract.
> 
> RHEL 3.0 (just out) seems to be RH9 with similar small tweaks, and is
> published in similar bundles.
> 
> > I use it to run some of my internal servers.. The licensing was never
> > clear.
> 
> If you get a chance to verify the licensing of all the constituent
> packages, please let me know.  I haven't had time.
> 
> > It seems to me that everything in it is GPL...
> 
> Um, that's a big no, there:  Apache is Apache-licensed, the bsdutils are
> BSD-licensed, XFree86 is MIT/X11-licensed, etc.  At least one component,
> pine/pico, is under a proprietary licence that permits public
> redistribution.  It's possible that at least one package's licence
> doesn't permit that, but I haven't so far found any.
> 
> > ...and the extra features are just really tools for some of the redhat
> > developed tools like tux, piranha, redhat cluster manager, etc.. All
> > of the programs appear to be GPL though..
> 
> To the best of my knowledge, every piece of software issued by RH, Inc.
> (except for some proprietary tools issued by the former Cygnus division)
> have always been issued under GNU GPL v. 2.  However, that's a far cry
> from the entire distribution being GPLed.  Obviously, it would not be, 
> given the components from elsewhere known to be otherwise licensed.
> 
> > So it seems to me the only licensing issue is if I use it on other
> > servers that aren't "licensed", I'm not breaking licensing terms, it's
> > just not supported.  
> 
> The above is a bit fuzzy.  Possible encumbrances are as follows:
> 
> o  Copyright - subject to checking of the individual packages, as noted
> o  Trademark - definitely has these.  See: 
>                http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info/trademark-law
> o  Patents - believed not to apply in this case
> o  Contract - definitely an issue as to the company purchasing RHEL.  See:
>               http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info/rhel-isos
> o  Trade secret - not bloody likely in this case, but listed for completeness.
> 
> Main points about RHEL, in my view, are at the two URLs above.  Beware
> of obligations under the support contract (which automatically renews).
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,           find / -user your -name base -print | xargs chown us:us
> Rick Moen
> rick at linuxmafia.com