der.hans said:
> What's to prevent me from buying RHEL, removing references to RH and RH
> logos, then selling it as FEL ( fred's Enterprise Linux )?

I am not sure if there is anything preventing you from doing that. 
However, I see two issues.

1. No one is really doing it well at this point.  So Red Hat and their
"license + support" is the only current option.

2. Unlike Debian this creates a very fractured environment.  As now if you
have 3 companies doing this you have a jumbled mess.  That is a fractured
community.

To be clear I am not saying the RHEL product is bad.  Therefore, I don't
see the need for someone else to repackage it.  I think the binding of
support to the license is less than desirable.

For example this is why UserLinux is starting.  They basically want to
have a more updated version of Debian (but will put all their stuff back
into Debian) and not have licensing issue.

I think they are addressing issue 1, because instead of "forking" and
starting a new project, they are attempted to just "merge" the 3 versions
of Debian into something palatable to the market they are targetting. 
They are addressing issue #2 by attempting to NOT offer the support
themselves but rather build a network of ISVs to provide choice to the
users for support.

I hope that makes sense.

>> I guess for me, why be the RIAA.  Why treat your customers like
>> thieves by default?  If I buy support for 10 machines.  I run 10
>> machines.  Why go through licensing mechanisms to force me to prove
>> it?

> Because people/companies will buy support for one machine, then try to
> pretend that all the machines they have are that one machine.
> I agree it's not a great, but I don't have a better suggestion right
> now.

Well, then they don't make very good customers.  You should probably not
do business with them.  Why however assume that all people/companies are
criminal by default?

-Derek