The more I read the confuser I get.

[Paul Jakma]

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 at clubi.ie	paul at jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
	warning: do not ever send email to spam at dishone.st
Fortune:
Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms.
		-- Groucho Marx