Whitebox Linux

[Rui Miguel Seabra]

On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 17:34, William Hooper wrote:
> Rui Miguel Seabra said:
> > The problem is that that limitation of the Service Agreement might be of
> > bad faith in light of the spirit of the license of the software they're
> > redistributing.
> 
> The service agreement has nothing to to with the license.  You are about
> to do anything with the software within it's license agreement.  The

<sarcasm>Really? Who would guess?</sarcasm>

Contract law (the service agreement) has _nothing_ to do with copyright
law, but a contract that has clauses limiting rights granted by the real
authors of software might not be seen as good faith (I don't see it as
good faith. Legal, yes, honorable, not really).

> service agreement is what you are paying for, and any service agreement is
> going to have terms that say "if you do this your agreement has been
> breached".  If you don't like Red Hat's service agreement, convince
> someone else to provide you with support.

Oh, that already happens with at least one company here in Portugal...

Rui

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20040120/ece73eec/attachment-0001.sig>