An commercial entity has purchased a CD-ROM copy of RedHat
Advanced Server (RHAS) from RedHat's
store, and installed that copy to a single server. The company
paid around $2500 dollars for the software and accompanying
services. The software on the CD-ROMs the company purchased is only
licensed to it.
The great majority of the software
comprising RHAS is licensed under the Free Software Foundation's GNU
General Public License (GPL).
The GPL in Section 0 expressly allows "the act of running the
Program" without restriction, and Section 1 permits unlimited
copying and distribution. Because RHAS includes several value-added
components and services that it has itself authored or provides, it
can restrict the delivery of those elements to the purchaser, and set
other conditions on the use of the Distribution as a whole by
contract. The company was required to accept the terms of two
agreements before delivery of the software: 1,
2.
Though
the RHAS license allows installation and use, the linked
graphic still shows the acts of installation and startup
on the server as prohibited. That's because not all the software
is properly licensed to the company. That ate_utils.c file is not
at its disposal.
Common Questions:
What can Some Company say in response to SCO's claim?
See
the next section...