On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Ben Russo wrote: > I think your particular RedHat salesman is mistaken. Their license > speaks for itself. Note that the agreement you have with RH for RHEL (which despite the URL on redhat.com), is a /service agreement/ not a licence. Note also, that it affirms the customers rights to distribute the software according to each components licence (which tends to be "free to redistribute", bar the 2 RH trademarked rpms, redhat-logos and anaconda-images) So, AFAICT, it ought to be perfectly legal for a RHEL customer to put up a website of the RPMs and of any update RPMs that come along. Not that it would be financially beneficial for the RHEL customer concerned - you are contracted to pay for all your RHEL installations as per your agreement with RH. IANAL. regards, -- Paul Jakma paul@xxxxxxxx paul@xxxxxxxxx Key ID: 64A2FF6A warning: do not ever send email to spam@xxxxxxxxxx Fortune: Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms. -- Groucho Marx
