| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Apparent (not real) conflict between GPL & reported licensing termsApparent (not real) conflict between GPL & reported licensing termsPosted Jul 31, 2003 13:01 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433)In reply to: Apparent (not real) conflict between GPL & reported licensing terms by jre Parent article: Sun Sees Road To Prosperity Paved With Its Own Products (TechWeb) Or look at RedHat - WHICH CHARGES A PER-SEAT LICENCE ... (as does SuSE, I think) The point is, for both RH and SuSE, you can take their linux and install it on as many computers as you like. BUT The service contract is "all or nothing". If you have six computers, but only buy five or fewer "distro packs", then ALL the maintenance contracts thrown in with the official pack are VOID. Basically, the "licence" is a service contract, and if you try to be cheap by only licencing some computers, then RH, SuSE, and presumably Sun, will just say "sorry" and leave you in the lurch. Cheers,
(Log in to post comments)
Apparent (not real) conflict between GPL & reported licensing terms Posted Jul 31, 2003 13:55 UTC (Thu) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link] > <i>Or look at RedHat - WHICH CHARGES A PER-SEAT LICENCE</i><p>This is just plain wrong.
Apparent (not real) conflict between GPL & reported licensing terms Posted Jul 31, 2003 14:24 UTC (Thu) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] Or look at RedHat - WHICH CHARGES A PER-SEAT LICENCEI think you must be confusing Red Hat Linux (the general distribution) with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The former can be downloaded without paying any licensing fees: http://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/9/en/iso/i386/ ...if you try to be cheap by only licencing some computers, then RH, SuSE, and presumably Sun, will just say "sorry" and leave you in the lurch. If you intend "leave you in the lurch" to mean that they won't provide a service which you did not pay for, then yes, that is correct. This is a strategy followed by most financially solvent companies.
|
|
||||||||||||