FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 10-14-2008, 06:43 AM
"Martin Langhoff"
 
Default

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> wrote:
>> The free
>> availability of binaries is never a requirement for any of the free and
>> open source licenses.
> This is what RedHat propaganda is telling you.

I've done several papers in Law School specifically on software
licensing and analysis of GPL and related licenses. Rahul's statement
is correct -- no licenses require availability of binaries.

Might be awkward or less than helpful, but it's comfortably within the
rules of the license.

cheers,



m
--
martin.langhoff@gmail.com
martin@laptop.org -- School Server Architect
- ask interesting questions
- don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first
- http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-14-2008, 07:01 AM
"Paul Black"
 
Default

2008/10/14 Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de>

> The free

> availability of binaries is never a requirement for any of the free and

> open source licenses.

This is what RedHat propaganda is telling you.
Software isn't truly free until someone else builds it for you?

--
Paul


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-14-2008, 07:01 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default

On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 19:43 +1300, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> wrote:
> >> The free
> >> availability of binaries is never a requirement for any of the free and
> >> open source licenses.
> > This is what RedHat propaganda is telling you.
>
> I've done several papers in Law School specifically on software
> licensing and analysis of GPL and related licenses. Rahul's statement
> is correct -- no licenses require availability of binaries.
>
> Might be awkward or less than helpful, but it's comfortably within the
> rules of the license.
I am not doubting this: It's a different definition of free. It's one
case of the usual word-games with "freedom"-related words.

To me, a product you can not get without having to pay for, doesn't
qualify as free - It's may be free in the sense of "intellectual
property", but this doesn't make it free in the "common man's sense".

Ask your neighbor, if he would pay USD600 for a barrel of "free beer".

Ralf






--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-14-2008, 08:06 AM
"Martin Langhoff"
 
Default

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> wrote:
> I am not doubting this: It's a different definition of free. It's one
> case of the usual word-games with "freedom"-related words.

Then you are equivocating around with the 2 meanings of free, which is
a royal waste of time.



m
--
martin.langhoff@gmail.com
martin@laptop.org -- School Server Architect
- ask interesting questions
- don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first
- http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-14-2008, 08:18 AM
Alan Cox
 
Default

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 05:39:11AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > It /is/ free... you pay for support only.
> Wrong. RHEL is opensource, but it is not free. You can't get RHEL
> binaries anywhere.

I would suggest you re-read the FSF definition of free.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-14-2008, 08:21 AM
Alan Cox
 
Default

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 08:09:15AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > availability of binaries is never a requirement for any of the free and
> > open source licenses.
> This is what RedHat propaganda is telling you.

Red Hat, two words please. If you are going to pointless and pedantic you
could at least get trademarks correct even if you can't get the FSF definition
of free software right

Alan

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-14-2008, 08:24 AM
Alan Cox
 
Default

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 09:01:53AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Ask your neighbor, if he would pay USD600 for a barrel of "free beer".

I think you fundamentally miss the entire point of free software here.

Lots of people will pay for "free" beer in the sense that free means the
recipe is published and you could go make your own. They don't want to make
their own beer at the moment and they understand either intuitively or directly
the most basic concepts of economics like specialisation.

Alan

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-14-2008, 09:32 AM
"Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski"
 
Default

On Tuesday, 14 October 2008 at 05:39, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 17:42 -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
> > Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@freenet.de> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 16:48 -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
[...]
> > > > Fedora (or any other large group of people) will move where the majority
> > > > wants to go...
> >
> > > Well, deployment of an OS to servers, will always be a "minority use
> > > case" and will always collide somewhere with mere desktop oriented
> > > developments.
> >
> > So?
> Examples: NetworkManager, PulseAudio, setroubleshoot, SELinux-policies,
> PackageKit, defaults ...

I have to agree here. NM maintainer keeps pushing it on people who don't
want it. There is a bug[1] filed, which was fixed and then reverted and now
yum update wants to install NM on my system again, which drags in other
packages which I don't want on my system either.
Another example of its brokenness is this: if you log out of the X session,
you lose your (wireless) network connection.

SELinux is another subject for a good rant. Example: I created /var/log/dovecot,
chowned it to dovecot user and configured it to put its logs there. Bang!
SELinux denial. There's no easy way to fix it permanently either and SELinux
tools documentation is akin to arcane knowledge. Unless you're familiar with
all the terminology, you won't understand it.

PulseAudio is another mess. Three Fedora releases down the road and it still
doesn't work right. It's another of the things I turn off and uninstall after
installing a new Fedora box.

I could go on, but that's enough for now.

[...]
> > > ... tools
> >
> > Huh?
> koji, bodhi, bugzilla, packagedb ...
>
> One detail: The amount of administration emails I am receiving from
> koji, bodhi, packagedb: Often, several 1000s per month.

Yeah. Why would I want to receive notification that I requested an update
to be pushed to testing or stable? I already know that, I just did it!

Regards,
R.

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=351101

--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-14-2008, 11:34 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default

On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 04:24 -0400, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 09:01:53AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > Ask your neighbor, if he would pay USD600 for a barrel of "free beer".
>
> I think you fundamentally miss the entire point of free software here.
I don't think so.

I simply decided not to contribute to software products, which are not
freely (cost-free) available nor cost-freely redistributable and to
brand them as "non-free".

Ralf



--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-14-2008, 11:38 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default

On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 04:18 -0400, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 05:39:11AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > It /is/ free... you pay for support only.
> > Wrong. RHEL is opensource, but it is not free. You can't get RHEL
> > binaries anywhere.
>
> I would suggest you re-read the FSF definition of free.
>
I know the FSF-definition very well. They are defining free in the sense
of "open source" - RHEL is opensource, nevertheless, there are no freely
available binaries.



--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:18 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org