CentOS - Apr 2016 - Free Redhat Linux (rhel) version 7.2

On Tue, 2016-04-05 at 11:17 +0200, Maikel van Leeuwen wrote:
>     Techopedia explains Production Server
> 
> A production server is the core server on which any website or Web
> application is being hosted and accessed by users. It is part of the
> entire software and application development environment. Typically, the
> production server environment, hardware and software components are
> exactly similar to a staging server.
> 
> Though, rather being confined to in-house usage as in a staging server,
> the production server is open for end-user access. The software or
> application must be tested and debugged on a staging server before being
> deployed on the production server."
That is not applicable legally.  

What matters for the 'free' Red Hat software is ***ONLY*** Red Hat's
stated terms and conditions - definitely not what what someone else has
put on a web site.


-- 
Regards,

Paul.
England, EU.      England's place is in the European Union.

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Always Learning <centos at u64.u22.net>
wrote:
>
> What matters for the 'free' Red Hat software is ***ONLY*** Red
Hat's
> stated terms and conditions - definitely not what what someone else has
> put on a web site.
>
> Here is the link:
https://developers.redhat.com/terms-and-conditions/

Akemi

On Tue, 2016-04-05 at 08:16 -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Always Learning <centos at
u64.u22.net> wrote:
> 
> >
> > What matters for the 'free' Red Hat software is ***ONLY*** Red
Hat's
> > stated terms and conditions - definitely not what someone else has
> > put on a web site.
>  Here is the link:
> 
> https://developers.redhat.com/terms-and-conditions/

Thanks Akemi.

I remind everyone, who is interested, that the absence of clearly
expressed definitions in

https://developers.redhat.com/terms-and-conditions/

(a) 'development purposes only'

(b) 'a production installation'

and the lack of specific detail on
http://www.redhat.com/en/about/licenses (English version)

means Red Hat would experience difficulties proving commercial loss,
other than a subscription fee loss.

Even a subscription fee loss might be difficult for Red Hat to prove
taking into consideration Red Hat knew, or had good cause to know or was
recklessly indifferent to users comprehensively knowing precisely what
Red Hat meant by (a) and (b) above.

A defendant could argue that Red Hat deliberately withheld that vital
knowledge from the unsuspecting users because Red Hat sought to exploit
users lack of full and detailed knowledge of the restrictions by
extorting money from users for commercial gain - a gain that would not
have been available to Red Hat if Red Hat had been a lot more specific
about the full extent of its limitations.

One could legally argue that a criminal fraud was committed by obtaining
a free copy when the intention was to use it for conspicuous commercial
purposes. That argument is unlikely to apply to a person running their
own private system for non-commercial gain.

Don't be frightened by Red Hat's statement "are required to pay the
applicable subscription fees, in addition to any and all other remedies
available to Red Hat under applicable law"

"Other remedies" is fantasy. No one can possible legally commit
themselves to unknown and undefined "other remedies" as Red Hat's
lawyers should know.  Seems like US of A style "bullying tactics"
intended to frighten people without access to affordable competent legal
advice.

Me ? Well I am staying on C6 :-)


-- 
Regards,

Paul.
England, EU.      England's place is in the European Union.