First, let me thank you for your rapid, professional and pertinent answer. It helps all of us to understand more accurately the issue. license-violation(a)fsf.org wrote: To my understanding, this contract covers all the RedHat product and services. They seems to mix the two notions. At least, it is not explained what software exactly is covered by the proposed agreement. For me, product means RedHat Linux Enterprise (ES, AS or WS) and service means RedHatNetwork, but this is only my perception of the issue. There is no explanation from their side. When I visit their web site, I don't see any way to purchase a product without purchasing the RHN service. And the contract they propose covers both, so I conclude it also covers the product alone, even if I don't figure out up to now how to have the product alone... I fully agree that they have freedom to sell services as well as softwares, even free softwares, and that they have the freedom to price support on per CPU basis, as example, and that they have the right to refuse me support for 50 CPUs if I'm actually running 500 CPUs using the service, but as soon as the only way to purchase the software is by purchasing the service, and the service bans your right to install the software on supplementary CPUs (even if not using the service from those supplementary CPUs), then the conditions of the GPL doesn't seems met anymore to me... I have strong restrictions on my freedom to use the software, which is by the way freedom N°0 from the definition of free software... "Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to _run_, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: * The freedom to _run_ the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). [...] The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job, and without being required to communicate subsequently with the developer or any other specific entity." More precisely, in the GPL that covers most of the GNU/Linux system, it is explicitely told that: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.". I feel the obligation to purchase a chargeable service for any supplementary CPU running the software against this statement. They don't say I'm not allowed to copy the software, they explicitely say in this agreement that in this case I MUST PURCHASE a supplementary subscription to RHN, and that they even have the right to check once a year in my premises the amount of RedHat products that are running... They also confirmed me that if I elected to stop a subscription, I lost the right to run the software... Isn't there something wrong ? I think they should correct their wording, saying that any new installed station SHOULD lead to the purchase of a supplementary subscription, or IS NOT ALLOWED to be patched nor upgraded by use of the RHN provided services or patches. The RedHat behaviour leads to declarations of high-tech leaders that says that due to the support conditions imposed by "OpenSource" companies such as RedHat, RedHat Linux is actually becoming proprietary software. I was shocked when I heard this, and that's why I wished to check the exact licence conditions. I slowly begins to conclude that indeed, through its mandatory and very restrictive agreement conditions, the RedHat distribution does not meet anymore the criterias imposed by the GPL, nor the very basic principles of Free Software. What are your conclusions about this ? Thank you for your time. -- Brent Frère Private e-mail: Brent(a)BFrere.net Postal address: 5, rue de Mamer L-8280 Kehlen Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg European Union Mobile: +352-021/29.05.98 Fax: +352-26.30.05.96 Home: +352-307.341 URL: http://BFrere.net