Linux.com

Re:Resale / redistribution possible, sort of

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 19, 2004 10:10 AM
My guess would be to try to prevent fraud when it came to service contracts. You could easily have the exact same hardware in two servers, buy on copy of RHE and install it on both machines. Then if something happens and you need support for either machine, it would be too easy to say both the machines were the same machine and have both covered by a single service contract. And that could extend to situations where the problem might be hardware independant as well. Red Hat just wants insure they are servicing only what has been paid for.

And as big business as it sounds, Red Hat has to protect itself against resource draining holes such as this. So I don't blame them there.

Where I use to work in an accounting office, we had provisions of software audits, and if our contractor came to see if we were compliant, it wasn't that big of deal. Of course there were only 300 or so machines, we weren't that large.

But if you're ligit, and you plan for it, it's not that bad. And how many brownie points do you score with a company if they come in all the sudden, audit you without you having a chance to hide anything, and they walk away having found you in full compliance? They would be obligated in the future, and happily so, to swing deals and prestige contracts your way.

Maybe I'm just being the devils advocate, but I'm not all that suprised or offended by it at all. JMO...

#

Return to The true cost of software ownership