GPL and RHEL

[Michael Lee Yohe]

> If the Enterprise products are being sold under a GPL license (except

I have no idea what the stipulations are for RHEL license.  Here's what
I do know about GPL'd software.  The GPL only specifies that the source
code must be available with your product.  RMS hard-liners want people
to follow the spirit of the GPL and distribute the source code _WITH_
the software, and most people do follow this rather utopian philosophy.

Fedora Core is mostly made of GPL compatible licenses (Fedora Core is a
collection of packages, not just one package).  Some packages have a
slightly different degree of "open source".  The remember, the GPL is
the spirit of "free as in beer".

To the same token RHEL is made up of a collection of packages - Red Hat
gladly gives out the source code for those packages (that's what the GPL
mandates).  However, if Red Hat makes utility that is included with RHEL
released under a RHEULA (Red Hat End User License Agreement) that
specifies that it could only be used on one machine - than it is their
choice.  Even if the majority of the packages are GPL'd, that doesn't
mean Red Hat can't choose to include something proprietary that must be
licensed from them.  They have to make money somehow.

Speaking of which - I almost believe that Red Hat would allow you to
install in on fifteen thousand machines - completely within the scope of
the rights provided by their license.  However, I believe RHEL would
only give you one (or a very limited number) entitlement to RHN (which
is where the money is, anyhow).

-- 
Michael Lee Yohe <michael.yohe at us.army.mil>
U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command Software Engineering Directorate