[TriLUG] Re: gentle reminder

[Ben Simpson]

Read the seventh paragragh of the EULA.

Try debian.  Something other that a Redhat based distro.

Ben

Ed Hill wrote:

>On Wed, 2002-08-28 at 13:27, Roberto J Dohnert wrote:
>
>[*snip*]
>
>  
>
>>The threat was worded like this " If you continue to preload Red
>>Hat Linux without being a registered OEM we will sue you and it doesnt
>>matter if you buy a retail version or not we will not offer any support for
>>anybody who buys a computer preloaded with Red Hat Linux from any reseller
>>who is not an OEM. wether it is a supported Retail version or not." But my
>>concern is that these people put the faith in me and my systems on my word
>>alone.  
>>    
>>
>
>[*snip*]
>
>  
>
>>>BTW - I'd like to hear more about the legal threat Red Hat gave you WRT
>>>preloading their distro on machines.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but
>>>doesn't the GPL prevent them from doing any such thing?
>>>      
>>>
>
>
>Hi ThunderBear and Roberto,
>
>Ok, now we're getting to the heart of the matter.  The GPL says
>absolutely *NOTHING* about support.  The word doesn't even appear in the
>license document.  And don't take my word for it.  Instead, please go
>(re-)read it at:
>
>  http://www.fsf.org/licenses/licenses.html
>
>
>Under such licensing terms, Red Hat and other companies are able to
>offer support contracts for the GPL'ed and similarly licensed software
>under *any* terms that they desire so long as their terms do not
>infringe upon the basic licenses for the distributed packages.  Try to
>understand the distinction.  Support is a service offered under one or
>more contracts and is thus separate from the physical software
>distribution.
>
>That said, I think Red Hat is totally justified in their efforts to
>license and control OEM installs.  As we all know, installing Linux is
>not always easy due to hardware issues (eg. sound cards).  Support calls
>cost Red Hat money and they certainly don't want to get flooded with
>complaints from buyers of machines that have been poorly installed or
>poorly configured by shoddy or clueless resellers.  Its just common
>sense.  Remember, Red Hat is mostly in the business of selling their
>"brand" and support.  They have a clear responsibility to their
>shareholders to protect and nurture their brand.
>
>So what can a small reseller do about this situation?  Here are, AFAIK,
>four legitimate approaches:
>
>  1) Follow Red Hat's OEM terms.  Get the training, pay the fees, 
>     and work with them under their terms.  Remember, its *their* 
>     name that you are, in part, selling and they own the trade-
>     mark so they get some control over its use.
>
>  2) Be an OEM for a different distribution if you don't like Red 
>     Hat's terms.
>
>  3) Create your own distro.  In fact, you can copy and use every 
>     last *bit* of the Free and Open Source packages within Red 
>     Hat's distribution (which is nearly *ALL* of it) so long as 
>     you don't use Red Hat's name in your advertising or sales 
>     documents.  Go ahead and call your new distribution "Pink 
>     Hat Linux" and loudly proclaim "100% compatibility with 
>     leading Linux distributions" in your advertisements.  You 
>     could then sell your own support for your own OS.  This 
>     is totally legal and is being done by numerous consultants 
>     including the good folks (http://www.tummy.com) who make 
>     and sell KRUD.
>
>  4) Become a boxed-OS reseller.  Follow whatever terms are 
>     necessary to re-sell end-user copies of Red Hat.  At the 
>     same time, sell computers with no OS installed. If the 
>     consumer buys the computer and OS and loads the OS by 
>     themselves then they are covered under Red Hat's support 
>     terms.
>
>Roberto, #3 and #4 both sound like good approaches for companies who
>are, as you have described, trying to do it "on-the-cheap".
>
>And I'm sure there are other legal approaches to this issue.  But they
>don't include silly tactics like pre-installing end-user copies of Red
>Hat as an end-run around the OEM/support terms.  Such gimmicks belie a
>fundamental mis-understanding of the support contracts and are clearly
>unprofessional and, depending on the support contract terms, probably
>illegal.
>
>Ed
>
>ps - I'm not a lawyer.  I cannot offer legal advice.
>
>pps - I have not closely read the support or OEM terms for 
>      Red Hat Linux.  Have you?
>
>
>  
>


-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: EULA
URL: <http://www.trilug.org/pipermail/trilug/attachments/20020828/1c269257/attachment.ksh>