Ok. Let's summarise the situation. About all RedHat software is released under GPL: (Source: http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/faq/#4) "Except for a few components provided by third parties (for example, Java) all the code in Red Hat products is open source and licensed under the GPL (or a similar license, such as the LGPL)." (Note: RedHat mixes the words OpenSource and GPL, while GPL is a Free Software Foundation licence, not an OpenSource Initiative text, but as OSI recognises GPL as OpenSource compliant, it's not technically false to speak about OpenSource in this case, even if inadequate.) The "Subscription Agreement" that you must accept to purchase RedHat products says clearly that you ARE NOT allowed to run the software on more than one computer, that RedHat has the right to control you and that if you wish to run it on more hosts, you MUST purchase more subscriptions to RedHat network. Source: EMEASubscriptionAgreementEng.pdf from RedHat, version 20031022. "4. REPORTING AND AUDIT. If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed System, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed System. During the term of this Agreement and for one (1) year thereafter, Customer expressly grants to Red Hat the right to audit Customer s facilities and records from time to time in order to verify Customer s compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. [...] Red Hat shall give Customer written notice of any non-compliance, and if a payment deficiency exists, then Customer shall have fifteen (15) days from the date of such notice to make payment to Red Hat for any payment deficiency. The amount of the payment deficiency will be determined by multiplying the number of underreported Installed Systems or Services by the annual fee for such item. If Customer is found to have underreported the number of Installed Systems or amount of Services by more than five percent (5%), Customer shall, in addition to the annual fee for such item, pay liquidated damages equal to twenty percent (20%) of the underreported fees for loss of income and administration costs suffered by Red Hat as a result." Hopefully, the same text has a paragraph that explicitely gives priority to the licence terms of each software component, which is GPL or LGPL: 1. The Software. Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Red Hat Applications (the Software ) are either a modular operating system or application consisting of hundreds of software components. The end user license agreement for each component is located in the component s source code. [...] the license terms for the components permit Customer to copy, modify, and redistribute the component, in both source code and binary code forms. This agreement does not limit Customer's rights under, or grant Customer rights that supersede, the license terms of any particular component. So, explicitely, RedHat says you are ALLOWED to copy all the GPLed or LGPLed software in both source code and binary format, and that this agreement does not change those rights given by license terms. So, where's the trick ? Am I allowed or not to run copies or RedHat software ? The answer is difficult to find (I'm seeking for it since weeks now) but I think I have the answer now (sadly not provided by RedHat): The Free Software definition, as stated on the fsf.org web site, says: "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." So, it seems clear that we DO HAVE the right to copy the software, even in binary format, and to run it the way we want without any control from "any other specific entity", neither RedHat themselves. But this is the PRINCIPLE of Free Software, not the wordings of the GPL, which is actually the only text legally protecting the software... So, let's have a look at what we find in the GPL text about this freedom: Source: the GPL: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program)." Damned ! I can understand this two ways: * The GPL only deals with copying, distribution and modification of the sofware, not running the software. Running the program is not covered by this text (not restricted) or * The GPL only deals with copying, distribution and modification of the sofware. By the way, running the program is not restriced (meaning, you can run it on as many computers you want, for whatever purpose, and so on...) In the first understanding, the GPL does not implement the freedom 0 because it just doesn't deal with the right to run the software at all, leaving space for restrictions coming from other texts (such as the RedHat agreement). In the second understanding, the GPL implements the freedom 0 but it is strange to me that it would have been done in such few words ("The act of running the Program is not restricted,") and that it is in contradiction with the beginning of the sentence ("Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License"). So I would assume the right interpretation is the first one. Under this understanding, RedHat has the right to impose whatever conditions they want on the EXECUTION of the software you get from them... You can copy the GPLed software, in both binaries and source forms, but you CAN'T execute it without paying a subscription fee to RedHat. I knew Free Software does not means gratis, but this scheme is new to me. This doesn't destroy the principle of Free Software: as long as the source is available to anybody without having to accept this "agreement", there is room for competition and everybody has access to the source code under the GPL (or LGPL) terms. This also explains the "White Box Linux" initiative: they download the source code, they compile it and they distribute it without restrictions on the execution. This is legal and makes sense now. I would like to have the FSF confirmation of all this, mainly about the lack of implementation of freedom 0 in the GPL. Is it intentional or a mistake ?