RedHat Advanced Server licensing?

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Chuck Yerkes (chuck+baylisa at snew.com):

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

Yes, but what _is_ the extent of your knowledge on this matter?  I ask
that in all sincerity, and intend no disrespect:  Please let us know
which packages are under restricted licensing (i.e., licensing that
unlike that of the pine/pico package doesn't permit public
redistribution).  Here's RHAS/RHEL 2.1:

http://altruistic.lbl.gov/mirrors/redhat/enterprise/2.1AS/en/os/i386/SRPMS/

I have to admit, I haven't had a chance to licence-audit all of that
stuff, but I spot-checked it, and nothing immediately popped out as
unredistributable.  (You can unpack the SRPMs using cpio, if need be --
among other things.)

> I do have some issues with making copies of software they
> do sell and that they ONLY sell.

The factual question of interest is what, if anything, encumbers someone
who's lawfully received a copy from redistributing it.  People can make up
their minds _after_ determining the facts whether they like those facts
or not.  ;->

> Use their stuff that's clearly free if you don't want to pay.

I hope you're not confusing cost with licensing.  Trust me, you really
don't want to review that.  ;->

Just as a point of comparison, here is my write-up on SuSE licensing:
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info/suse-product-strategy
Please note that SuSE exercises control over redistribution of SuSE
Professional through its copyright over YaST/YaST2 and their installer 
routine -- none of which codebases is open source or any other licensing
permitting unrestricted public redistribution.  I will be grateful
if you can point to any RHAS packages similarly encumbered.

-- 
Cheers,             "Don't use Outlook.  Outlook is really just a security
Rick Moen            hole with a small e-mail client attached to it."
rick at linuxmafia.com                        -- Brian Trosko in r.a.sf.w.r-j