RHEL forum should be removed

Originally Posted by sag47 I have contacted RedHat support. I explicitly asked them if using RHEL without a support package, with the understanding you will not receive updates, is illegal. When I receive a reply I will post what their response was. Then we can bury this age old hot topic.

Be very careful with any legal advice.
In court, all that counts is your written agreement.

PLEASE READ THIS AGREEMENT CAREFULLY BEFORE PURCHASING AND/OR USING SOFTWARE OR SERVICES FROM RED HAT. BY USING RED HAT SOFTWARE OR SERVICES, CLIENT SIGNIFIES ITS ASSENT TO AND ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGES IT HAS READ AND UNDERSTANDS THIS AGREEMENT. AN INDIVIDUAL ACTING ON BEHALF OF AN ENTITY REPRESENTS THAT HE OR SHE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THAT ENTITY. IF CLIENT DOES NOT ACCEPT THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, THEN IT MUST NOT USE RED HAT SOFTWARE OR SERVICES. This Agreement incorporates those appendices at the end of this Agreement.

http://www.redhat.com/licenses/Enterprise_Agr_EMEA.pdf

Unless I'm missing something very obvious, it's not legal (or different from pirating MS Windows).

Thanks for the feedback. We have no plans to remove or alter the Red Hat forum (and in fact some Red Hat employees participate here at LQ). As long as you're using a legal copy of RHEL (and this is in no way specific to Red Hat, we will not help with illegal software from any company) you are more than welcome to post here at LQ. CentOS is indeed slightly different and we are working on getting a CentOS forum here, although I have no ETA for when that may happen.

--jeremy

Originally Posted by sag47 I think you both made your point so why continue? This cross posting is getting a bit confusing and, in my opinion, takes away from what was originally a decent point. In order to resolve your and TB0ne's fighting like an old married couple I have contacted RedHat support. I explicitly asked them if using RHEL without a support package, with the understanding you will not receive updates, is illegal. When I receive a reply I will post what their response was. Then we can bury this age old hot topic.

Agreed...I stopped replying, since the point clearly isn't registering. But I have to clarify some things, just for my own sake.

Originally Posted by deep27ak Yes and this is what I was talking about now I can't go on and search threads where several members have posted this but I have seen most of the places where members don't post a solution instead they ask OP to contact RHN and get resistered. I mean what is the need to post in that thread then, If you can't help then no need to be rude by saying "If you are not paying then no need to use it"

Really? Again, what I posted was:

Originally Posted by tb0ne I don't assume anything, honestly, but merely say that paid-for support should be used. If someone says they're paying, but want a second opinion/whatever, that's fine. I do TRY to answer questions no matter what, unless they are specifically RHN related. Like "I can't upgrade my RHEL system...it says I'm not registered"

Now deep27ak...read and understand that. If someone does not PAY for RedHat, they WILL NOT BE ABLE to access the RHN, and update. There IS no work around, hack, etc. for it. The ONLY answer to that question is "Call RedHat and pay".

I mean if that is so then the redhat should stop giving its distro to those who don't have the license. I don't get the point of what's wrong if a home user downloads and tries to learn when there is a way around to work with it. If you say that I won't get patches and updates but always i get all the missing updates on internet free of cost on different websites. Now a home user will not get a RHN support if he is using RHEL. It is my choice if I want to use redhat or centOS and I believe if you can't help then no need to post aimlessly pointing towards support. If someone is trying to help then you are saying that I am misleading as if I can't show him the other way when there is one?

You will NOT get the updates on internet, free of cost. The ONLY source for updates to RedHat Enterprise is RedHat, and the only way to get them is to PAY. Free distros (CentOS, Scientific, etc.), are updated free....pay-for distros are NOT.

If you can't then I don't get the point of stopping others from helping? Yes, you can give your opinion that one can also go for CentOs but not in this manner If you don't pay then don't use?

How, exactly, does anyone 'stop' someone from helping? And based on what you're saying, you should be free to give your opinion, but no one else can, by saying people should pay for support, if they're using something they SHOULD be paying for?

Originally Posted by deep27ak Very well but what if I want to use RHEl for installing my oracle apps and practice on them which doesnot supports fedora and CentOS. That is completely my choice which distro to use. I guess you are suppose to give opinion and not stop others from helping.

Sorry, but Oracle loads just fine on CentOS and Fedora, and there are MANY how-to guides showing folks how to load it. The difference? You won't be in a SUPPORTED configuration, so if you call Oracle support, and tell them you're using Fedora, you won't get help. I will not answer again about 'stopping' others from helping, since there's no way ANYONE can stop someone from posting anything.

Originally Posted by deep27ak This is not about this one post I replied I have been seeing this from last many days and on several posts where aimlessly members are sending the users for support and I guess what you have posted here...this is the reason i think RHEl forum should be closed because when we can't pay for it we shouldn't be using it??? so kindly posting this post on 1000s of posts please ask moderators to close Redhat thread. I think you should agree with me on this one?

No, because again, you appear to continue to miss the point.

Originally Posted by deep27ak I can't believe you are still pointing the arrow on me and I don't get it simply how I misleaded the Op by just saying use Redhat dvd source to download the package of ftp server of redhat. If one is not suppose to use those rms then why is redhat giving those rpms with the download source? I mean if you are suppose to download then why there is a different ftp server from redhat to download packages of all versions of distro?

Go back and re-read the thread. You told the OP to type in "which ftp", so they could determine if an FTP server was loaded. The thread is here:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...5/#post4605181

..and it's VERY ironic that YOU posted this:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...5/#post4604927

Originally Posted by deep27ak this is the only way to work around if you dont have RHN support

So if someone else says, "Here's a way to do it, but you really need to be supported", that's 'rude'....but what you said is different somehow? Also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that I DID answer the OP's question in that thread, told them how to manually install the package from DVD, and corrected what you posted, since you were directing them to copy the entire installation DVD to their hard drive to act as a repository...when they can use the DVD by itself, and not copy anything.

deep27ak, I am not going to waste anymore time with you....you are missing the points laid out by many folks here. The only reason I responded to your numerous posts, is that they were incorrect. No matter how many times folks tell you the same thing, you persist, and can't seem to grasp the fact that folks here DO get help for RHEL consistently, and that there are some issues that can ONLY be resolved by paying for RHEL.

Some good points, I will try to deal with Red Hat questions in a more polite/constructive tone-of-voice, starting with this one: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...update-930523/

Originally Posted by sag47 I explicitly asked them if using RHEL without a support package, with the understanding you will not receive updates, is illegal. When I receive a reply I will post what their response was. Then we can bury this age old hot topic.

RedHat has gotten back to me, with a phone conversation instead of an email. They said that running RedHat without a license/service contract is completely legal and allowed. There's nothing wrong with doing that. All it means is that the user running RHEL without the service contract will not be able to receive system and software updates directly from RedHat.

However, as part of their service level agreement, if a company or individual licenses one of their RHEL servers then they are required to license all of their RHEL servers. It wouldn't be fair for a company to have 1 licensed server for support and updates when they are running, say, a 1000 copies of RedHat. As in it wouldn't be fair to other companies who have licenses on all of their servers.

This comes directly from RedHat. So those who keep telling users to "talk to RedHat support" as their default answer really should stop because running RedHat EL does not mean they are required to pay for support from RedHat and it is legal for that to be the case. That's how CentOS was born of course.

Originally Posted by sag47 RedHat has gotten back to me, with a phone conversation instead of an email. They said that running RedHat without a license/service contract is completely legal and allowed. There's nothing wrong with doing that. All it means is that the user running RHEL without the service contract will not be able to receive system and software updates directly from RedHat. However, as part of their service level agreement, if a company or individual licenses one of their RHEL servers then they are required to license all of their RHEL servers. It wouldn't be fair for a company to have 1 licensed server for support and updates when they are running, say, a 1000 copies of RedHat. As in it wouldn't be fair to other companies who have licenses on all of their servers. This comes directly from RedHat. So those who keep telling users to "talk to RedHat support" as their default answer really should stop because running RedHat EL does not mean they are required to pay for support from RedHat and it is legal for that to be the case. That's how CentOS was born of course.

Right...that's what's been said here for years, in many threads. No one ever said that anyone is REQUIRED to pay for support, just that running without it is a bad move, especially when you can load CentOS for free, and have a 99.x% identical system. What you don't get when you don't pay for RHEL is support/updates/patches. You can use RHEL as long as you want...that's not changed. The "why" you should pay is updates/patches/bugfixes.

The licensing scenario you describe above is not really different from ANY other commercial operating system. If you're paying for one copy, you're licensed for one. If you get audited and they find you're using 100, you're going to be in a bit of trouble. No different than how Oracle's database licensing goes, or (from what I remember), Windows corporate licensing.

Thanks for doing the research, sag47!

Originally Posted by sag47 RedHat has gotten back to me, with a phone conversation instead of an email.

I'm not saying Red Hat are going to do anything but do you think that a telephone call that is not in writing would stand up in a court of law? This type of thing becomes a he said she said scenario. Someone else posted in this thread that you should be very careful with legal advice that is not in writing.

Originally Posted by jens Unless I'm missing something very obvious, it's not legal (or different from pirating MS Windows).

Yes, you are missing something very obvious. RHEL is open source software. It can't be illegal to use without paying, you are even allowed to re-distribute the software, if you remove the brands, as CentOS and many others do. In fact, you are not buying the software from Red Hat (or the right to use it), you are buying support subscriptions, which include of course security updates and bugfixes, but also support when having problems, if you choose the standard subscription.
But if you choose a subscription with self-support you are a "legal" user that has to go to forums like LQ to get help. So the RHEL forums does actually make sense, even when you have a subscription.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 I'm not saying Red Hat are going to do anything but do you think that a telephone call that is not in writing would stand up in a court of law? This type of thing becomes a he said she said scenario. Someone else posted in this thread that you should be very careful with legal advice that is not in writing.

After a couple hours of reading RedHat licenses, agreements, and other miscellaneous documentation as well as rereading this entire thread a few times. I found the written documentation to back up my earlier claim from the said phone conversation.

1. License Grant. Subject to the following terms, Red Hat, Inc. ("Red Hat") grants to you a perpetual, worldwide license to the Programs (most of which include multiple software components) pursuant to the GNU General Public License v.2.

Source: http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_rha_eula.html

The previous quote addresses the following statement I made. With the exception that what I should have said was service contract and omitted the mention of "without a license" as there will always be some sort of license.

Originally Posted by sag47 They said that running RedHat without a license/service contract is completely legal and allowed. There's nothing wrong with doing that.

------------

5.1 Reporting. Client will notify Red Hat (or the Business Partner from whom Client purchased Software or Services) promptly if the actual number of Units of Software or Services utilized by Client exceeds the number of Units for which Client has paid the applicable Fees. In its notice, Client will include the number of additional Units and the date(s) on which such Units were first utilized. Red Hat (or the Business Partner) will invoice Client for the applicable Services for such Units and Client will pay for such Services no later than thirty (30) days from the date of the invoice. 5.2 Inspection. During the term of this Agreement and for one (1) year thereafter, Red Hat or its designated agent may inspect Client's facilities and records to verify Client's compliance with this Agreement. Any such inspection will take place only during Client's normal business hours and upon no less than ten (10) days prior written notice from Red Hat. Red Hat will give Client written notice of any noncompliance, including the number of underreported Units of Software or Services, and Client will have fifteen (15) days from the date of this notice to make payment to Red Hat for the applicable Services provided with respect to the underreported Units. If Client underreports the number of Units utilized by more than five percent (5%) of the number of Units for which Client paid, Client will also pay Red Hat for the cost of such inspection.

Source: Red Hat Enterprise Agreement (United States Only), see this page for terms which apply to your country.

The previous quote addresses the following statement I made.

Originally Posted by sag47 However, as part of their service level agreement, if a company or individual licenses one of their RHEL servers then they are required to license all of their RHEL servers. It wouldn't be fair for a company to have 1 licensed server for support and updates when they are running, say, a 1000 copies of RedHat. As in it wouldn't be fair to other companies who have licenses on all of their servers.

------------

Red Hat sells subscriptions that entitle you to receive Red Hat services and/or Software during the period of the subscription (generally, one or three years). ... For each Software Subscription that you purchase, Red Hat provides you one or more of the following benefits: ... Software Maintenance: Access to updates, upgrades, corrections, security advisories and bug fixes for the Software, if and when available.

Source: Appendix 1 of United States Red Hat Enterprise Agreement

The previous quote addresses the following statement I made.

Originally Posted by sag47 All it means is that the user running RHEL without the service contract will not be able to receive system and software updates directly from RedHat.

------------

Originally Posted by TB0ne Right...that's what's been said here for years, in many threads. No one ever said that anyone is REQUIRED to pay for support, just that running without it is a bad move, especially when you can load CentOS for free, and have a 99.x% identical system. What you don't get when you don't pay for RHEL is support/updates/patches. You can use RHEL as long as you want...that's not changed. The "why" you should pay is updates/patches/bugfixes. The licensing scenario you describe above is not really different from ANY other commercial operating system. If you're paying for one copy, you're licensed for one. If you get audited and they find you're using 100, you're going to be in a bit of trouble. No different than how Oracle's database licensing goes, or (from what I remember), Windows corporate licensing.

TBone, I was addressing previous statements you made. You basically said it's justified to tell a person "go talk to RedHat support" in lieu of giving them support for their issue at hand or even in addition to support. I've already addressed this to a point so I'll just quote a previous statement I made.

Originally Posted by sag47 There are a lot of assumptions in this discussion (the user isn't paying, etc.). I have RedHat at work and I've asked questions about it on LQ before. The issue isn't security patches or updates but rather simply helping a person who has a problem on RedHat with something other than, "go ask RHN support". Like all Linux I'm allowed to choose where I get my support and sometimes I choose both RedHat and the LQ community to get a variety of responses to my problems (if I need it).

One should not tell a user "go to XYZ support" if they don't want to support the user themselves. Just let someone else on the forum support them if that's the case.

All the evidence I have provided is simply to prove my case that the RHEL forum should not be removed as suggested from the first post. Not that I ever thought it would be. Nor should the user be told to go to RedHat support as a response to their question. It's like users on AndroidQuestions telling an inquiring user to, "Go talk to Verizon Support since you're paying for it," when they have a simple question about their phone.

SAM

Originally Posted by sag47 After a couple hours of reading RedHat licenses, agreements, and other miscellaneous documentation as well as rereading this entire thread a few times. I found the written documentation to back up my earlier claim from the said phone conversation.

This is what you need, excellent work.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Yes, you are missing something very obvious. RHEL is open source software.

Nonsense.
Being Open Source (or partly) has absolutely nothing to do with this.

For those who consider forum opinions as legal advice, do contact Red
Hat Legal (and/or one of their mailing lists).

Originally Posted by jens For those who consider forum opinions as legal advice, do contact Red Hat Legal (and/or one of their mailing lists).

It's not an opinion if you cite sources to legal documents provided by RedHat. I know you weren't singling me out but I'm just mentioning that in case you were referring to the post I made talking to RedHat. I fully agree one should seek legal advice from proper sources though and your own advisers.

There's also the #sflc IRC channel on irc.freenode.org. For reference here's the SFLC website. They are a group of practicing lawyers who freely provide council on open source legal matters.