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, 11:48 AM
Nicu Buculei
 
Default

Ralf Corsepius wrote:

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".


I tried to stay away from this flame but... I also can decide to call
"non-free" software that does not help me getting laid, how is that
relevant?


--
nicu :: http://nicubunu.ro :: http://nicubunu.blogspot.com
Cool Fedora wallpapers: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro/wallpapers/
Open Clip Art Library: http://www.openclipart.org
my Fedora stuff: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-14-2008, 12:04 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default

On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 14:48 +0300, Nicu Buculei wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > 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".
>
> I tried to stay away from this flame but... I also can decide to call
> "non-free" software that does not help me getting laid, how is that
> relevant?
This rationale contributes to me not to consider RHEL and CentOS, which
is the rationale why I don't consider them to be replacements for a
"Fedora LTS".

Or differently: It doesn't matter what people sell as "free", it matters
what people accept as "free".




--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-14-2008, 12:54 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default

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.


How does that clause "You may not impose any further restrictions on the
recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." mesh with the
further restrictions that Red Hat imposes? The GPL does not distinguish
between binaries and source in the required terms.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-14-2008, 12:55 PM
Tim Lauridsen
 
Default

Ralf Corsepius wrote:

On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 14:48 +0300, Nicu Buculei wrote:


Ralf Corsepius wrote:


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".


I tried to stay away from this flame but... I also can decide to call
"non-free" software that does not help me getting laid, how is that
relevant?


This rationale contributes to me not to consider RHEL and CentOS, which
is the rationale why I don't consider them to be replacements for a
"Fedora LTS".

Or differently: It doesn't matter what people sell as "free", it matters
what people accept as "free".



I don't accept the earth is round, so it must be flat !



Tim



--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-14-2008, 12:58 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default

On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 14:55 +0200, Tim Lauridsen wrote:

> I don't accept the earth is round, so it must be flat !

The GDR was democratic, was it?


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-14-2008, 12:58 PM
"Jeffrey Ollie"
 
Default

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How does that clause "You may not impose any further restrictions on the
> recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." mesh with the further
> restrictions that Red Hat imposes? The GPL does not distinguish between
> binaries and source in the required terms.

To which additional restrictions do you refer?

--
Jeff Ollie

"You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then
I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the
terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve
them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and
unfairness of the universe."

-- Marcus to Franklin in Babylon 5: "A Late Delivery from Avalon"

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-14-2008, 01:17 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default

Jeffrey Ollie wrote:

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:

How does that clause "You may not impose any further restrictions on the
recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." mesh with the further
restrictions that Red Hat imposes? The GPL does not distinguish between
binaries and source in the required terms.


To which additional restrictions do you refer?


Can I buy one copy of a Red Hat package and redistribute it as the GPL
permits for any GPL covered portion? Or install on as many machines as
I want? Does every part that has any GPL component permit
redistribution of the work-as-a-whole?


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-14-2008, 01:25 PM
Ralph Angenendt
 
Default

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> This rationale contributes to me not to consider RHEL and CentOS, which
> is the rationale why I don't consider them to be replacements for a
> "Fedora LTS".

So CentOS is non-free?

Ralph
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-14-2008, 01:37 PM
"Jeffrey Ollie"
 
Default

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 7:54 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> How does that clause "You may not impose any further restrictions on the
>>> recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." mesh with the further
>>> restrictions that Red Hat imposes? The GPL does not distinguish between
>>> binaries and source in the required terms.
>>
>> To which additional restrictions do you refer?

OK, so I'm not a lawyer, and I've never purchased a copy of RHEL, and
I don't work for Red Hat but:

> Can I buy one copy of a Red Hat package and redistribute it as the GPL
> permits for any GPL covered portion?

For certain you can redistribute the source for the GPL and other OSS
bits. I'm less clear on whether the GPL allows you to redistribute
the binary code. A quick re-reading of the GPLv2 left me confused as
to whether it was always talking about source code or it was talking
about source code + binaries.

> Or install on as many machines as I want?

I would say yes. What you won't get is updates (at least not directly).

> Does every part that has any GPL component permit redistribution of
> the work-as-a-whole?

On that I have no idea.

Anyway, if all you want is RHEL without having to pay for support, why
not go for CentOS (or one of the other rebuilds)?

One thing to note is that Red Hat has some very F/OSS-savvy lawyers
around. I would be very surprised to find out that Red Hat was
deliberately trying to "get around" the GPL.

--
Jeff Ollie

"You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then
I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the
terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve
them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and
unfairness of the universe."

-- Marcus to Franklin in Babylon 5: "A Late Delivery from Avalon"

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-14-2008, 01:42 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default

On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 15:25 +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > This rationale contributes to me not to consider RHEL and CentOS, which
> > is the rationale why I don't consider them to be replacements for a
> > "Fedora LTS".
>
> So CentOS is non-free?
CentOS is free as "free-beer", but CentOS is not free to take decisions
on their own, because they depend on RHEL's sources.




--
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 11:21 PM.

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