Re:Is it, though? (Score 1)

I don't see that. The GPL *specifically* grants you the right to re-distribute. Red Hat *itself* is using that same clause when they distribute - and *SELL SERVICE* - for their distribution. Nothing in the GPL restricts a Linux vendor from charging for a service contract. But it *does* restrict you from charging more than a "reasonable copying fee" for the actual code itself. Red Hat is; in essence; saying that (1) you *have* to buy the bundle of distribution and service and (2); though the GPL gives you the right of unrestricted further distribution; we're prohibiting you from exercising that by terminating you if you exercise your legal right. That seems to me to be at least "prior restraint of trade". This looks to be (1) an anti-trust/collusion issue (similar to what led the SEC to forbid banks from requiring borrowers to use specific insurance vendors for mortgages and collateral property for loans); and (2) to some degree; anti-competitive behavior; which wouldn't be allowed in any other line of business. *IF* you buy a car; you don't have to get service at the same dealership you bought it from. If you license software - and the license allows copying (which most; admittedly do not); then you can generally use and run it on however many machines you want. *IF* you purchase a service contract; you have the right to specify which and how many units you're buying it for. It doesn't have to be the same number of units you actually *have*. As long as these "3rd party" distributors can reproduce any *new* issues they're reporting and asking for fixes for on a box licensed for support; they're arguably following the license terms. If not; that's another story. But if they're only "grazing" the available fixes and updating their code *preemptively*; they're not doing anything any other user might well be doing.