Shuttleworth: Mistakes made, lessons learned, a principle clarified and upheld

Posted Mar 1, 2011 21:19 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
In reply to: Shuttleworth: Mistakes made, lessons learned, a principle clarified and upheld by jspaleta
Parent article: Shuttleworth: Mistakes made, lessons learned, a principle clarified and upheld

RHEL customers absolutely have the ability to use the code in question under the licensing terms provided by the GPL. Red Hat is under no obligation to continue to provide service or support.

I think you'll find that paying them money normally gives them a corresponding obligation to provide you with services.

Shuttleworth: Mistakes made, lessons learned, a principle clarified and upheld

Posted Mar 1, 2011 21:29 UTC (Tue) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]

I'll think you'll find that contract law generally allows for parties to set terms and conditions of a service contract in a far more nuanced way that what your statement would suggest and allows a party to set specific terms under which another party is in breach in such a way such that fees paid considered non-refundable.

For example there are many day to day situations where I can contract for services and if I don't cancel with enough notice I lose a portion or all of the money I paid even though I did not actually use the services I originally contracted for. Contract law has a lot of leeway for parties to define breach of contract which result in the non-refunding of fees paid.

But of course such a line of discourse has absolutely nothing to with GPL compliance and everything to do with risk management and the value proposition of the service in question.

-jef