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

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-27-2008, 08:09 PM
"max bianco"
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Francis Earl <lunitik@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Greater share of platforms? why? If you define success by marketshare
> > then M$ won long ago. Everyone else might as well curl up in a corner
> > with their knees to their chest and blubber. You say you want to
> > *take* market share but what ever for?what will you do with the
> > marketshare once you have it?Spend all your time wondering how to keep
> > people from jumping ship that's what.
>
> I disagree, I believe RedHat and others WILL gain marketshare eventually
> on the consumer desktop. I think they will just take their time to do it
> CORRECTLY. If companies like RedHat are effective, then the consumers
> demands will change. It takes time to educate people that do not want to
> be educated though, that is the battle for RedHat.
>

I agree but the choice must be in the hands of the user. If you have
to convince people to do the right thing then you have already lost. I
came to the conclusion that free software is for me on my own. Nobody
sold it to me.

Max

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-27-2008, 08:25 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

Francis Earl wrote:

RedHat, of course has a
huge vested interest in keeping others from being able to add
improvements that they can't also automatically obtain but that's not my
point here.


Actually, they don't. It is simply a matter of law. RedHat contributes
ALL of its code under GPL or similar licenses BECAUSE of that law. All
of the companies that contribute to Linux do so understand that the
other parties will do the same.


Yes, I understand that is why the large companies are involved and why
they want to protect their own interests at the expense of their users.
However, that is not why a lot of open source software is written, and
a lot that was originally written without such restrictions has
subsequently had the viral GPL applied.



Why should one company be able to leech off of them without investing in
the code themselves? Why should other companies benefit from the work of
those companies that DO NOT WANT THEM TO? That is the point of GPL, you
scratch my back, I'll scratch yours... translated into legal-speak.


I'm speaking from a user's perspective, not a distributor making money
on support. I'd much rather not have any such restrictions prohibiting
others from improving the code under their own terms. I'd rather make
up my own mind about those terms. Tivo's OS-X, etc. are all good things
from a consumer perspective.



RedHat believes Linux isn't ready on the consumer desktop because there
are so many huge holes in what the consumer desires.


And correctly so because of the nature of the GPL.




Take a look at http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Members to see how
anti-competitive Linux is in the tech industry. Anyone that wants in can
contribute and have a say in the direction of it... No one owns Linux,
all you have to do is play by the rules.
But you can't include content already under different restrictions.
There's a lot of that content - some with no legal alternative
replacements possible.


You can distribute that code under GPL if you have the copyrights to it.


Not if the functionality is covered by patents and you don't have those
rights. Unlike copyrights, patents cover the technique, so rewriting
the code is not sufficient to give you the right to use or distribute it.


>> The way to oppose
overpriced proprietary software is to make usable replacements for as
much of it as possible - which necessarily involves using it with code
under different restrictions for as long as there are no free
alternatives. Instead, the license forces users to continue to use all
non-free code since they can't be mixed.


So the way to counteract expensive proprietary software is to use
proprietary software in the making of the alternative? No, the best way
to counteract such things is to replace the ENTIRE product.


That's not one of the choices. You can't replace a patented product
with one that does the same thing.



Also, the point of Linux is NOT to be a cheap alternative. That is in
fact a stated NON-GOAL. The GPL explicitly allows making money from the
code. If I want, I can charge you $5 million dollars for a copy of GIMP
on CD-ROM, if you're dumb enough to pay it :P


That's pretty much irrelevant.


oh well. Windows users have been perfectly fine using a system that
doesn't even support their hardware out of the box.
Windows doesn't change its driver interface on a monthly basis, so users
have no problem getting and installing a vendor-provided driver that
normally continues to work for the life of their machine. That scheme
is not a problem.


I'll state again, Linux currently provides an interface for drivers that
is stable, but it's only available to those willing to release their
code under GPL.


Stating it often doesn't make it true. Drivers that are accepted
in-kernel have someone that will fix them as things change but that does
not resemble stability. One of the main reasons that people pay for
RHEL is that they do keep the driver interface stable for the life of a
release. And of course it is in their interest for fedora not to do the
same useful thing so people are encouraged to pay for RHEL.



No one is suing ATI
or Nvidia, but they are some of companies not abiding by the rules.
If their software uses components already under different restrictions
they can't possibly abide by the law while releasing under GPL terms.


Uhh, hence my insinuating that their drivers are illegal.


No you missed the point entirely. They can't do a GPL release. Some
people might claim that a driver is a work derived from one of the
kernels it might be used with (which is the only thing that would make
it illegal with respect to the GPL) but that is a controversial and in
my opinion, unlikely, claim. They are staying legal in respect to
whatever pre-existing restrictions may be on included components.



DRI
is working as fast as they can though to create a good story despite
that.

Video drivers are a tiny part of this problem.


What do you consider the more important area for the discussion?


All code under any other restrictions falls into the same category as
something you simply can't have in Linux, at least combined with
anything containing GPL code. All code covered by patents can't be
worked around by writing a new implementation. We don't have any way of
knowing how much this might cover in existing code (samba, for example
seems almost certain to duplicate functionality that Microsoft has
patented), and anything that we do know is patented that we need has to
be isolated across interfaces that prevent it from being considered a
'combined work' when used with any specific instance of other code or
for either part to be considered a derived work of the other.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-27-2008, 08:28 PM
Alan Cox
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

> However, that is not why a lot of open source software is written, and
> a lot that was originally written without such restrictions has
> subsequently had the viral GPL applied.

Actually people have spent time working out where the code came from
(usually for marketing reasons so they can claim ther company produced
more than rivals!). There is very little code that has gone from other
free licences to GPL (and where it has you can always take the original).
In each case where code has become GPL it has been *in accordance with the
original licence*.

Most GPL code has spent its entire existance being GPL code. Even more
positively the amount of GPL and other free licenced code continues to
grown rapidly and it seems exponentially (although clearly that cannot
continue forever!)

> my opinion, unlikely, claim. They are staying legal in respect to
> whatever pre-existing restrictions may be on included components.

There are so many people left to pursue (and as a last resort sue) who are
simply pirating GPL code that even if anyone was to go after Nvidia
(which I suspect is unlikely) they wouldn't be too high up the queue.

Alan

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-27-2008, 08:41 PM
Francis Earl
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

> Yes, I understand that is why the large companies are involved and why
> they want to protect their own interests at the expense of their users.
> However, that is not why a lot of open source software is written, and
> a lot that was originally written without such restrictions has
> subsequently had the viral GPL applied.

Large companies are involved in open source because it is more cost
effective to provide your share of the total R&D rather than the entire
R&D. They also enjoy the fact that they can still have a say in the
direction of the resulting whole.

GPL is designed to EMPOWER users, to give the control BACK to the user.
You should read the GNU Manifesto some time.

> I'm speaking from a user's perspective, not a distributor making money
> on support. I'd much rather not have any such restrictions prohibiting
> others from improving the code under their own terms. I'd rather make
> up my own mind about those terms. Tivo's OS-X, etc. are all good things
> from a consumer perspective.

Use the livna repo if you do not care about such restrictions. For what
it's worth, a Tivo is a Linux box.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-27-2008, 10:05 PM
Tim
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 13:01 -0700, Francis Earl wrote:
> So you're going to give up on all that... because you can't figure out
> how to set up the Livna repo?

A big company taking the moral stand versus a handful of users taking an
opposite moral stand. Guess which one wins?

--
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-27-2008, 10:15 PM
Francis Earl
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

> A big company taking the moral stand versus a handful of users taking an
> opposite moral stand. Guess which one wins?

I don't see how setting up livna, or complaining about the contents
therein not being in Fedora is a moral stand? It's just lazy and/or
ignorant.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-27-2008, 10:28 PM
Tim
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

Tim:
>> A big company taking the moral stand versus a handful of users taking an
>> opposite moral stand. Guess which one wins?

Francis Earl:
> I don't see how setting up livna, or complaining about the contents
> therein not being in Fedora is a moral stand? It's just lazy and/or
> ignorant.

Do I really need to spell it out? In the red corner we have a company
that has taken a stand on what they will and won't do. In the blue
corner we have a user that has taken a stand that if the system doesn't
do what they think it should do, to hell with them...

Both sides are posturing about principles, but he's no David, and
Goliath isn't disturbed.

--
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-27-2008, 10:53 PM
Francis Earl
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 07:58 +0930, Tim wrote:
> Tim:
> >> A big company taking the moral stand versus a handful of users taking an
> >> opposite moral stand. Guess which one wins?
>
> Francis Earl:
> > I don't see how setting up livna, or complaining about the contents
> > therein not being in Fedora is a moral stand? It's just lazy and/or
> > ignorant.
>
> Do I really need to spell it out? In the red corner we have a company
> that has taken a stand on what they will and won't do. In the blue
> corner we have a user that has taken a stand that if the system doesn't
> do what they think it should do, to hell with them...
>
> Both sides are posturing about principles, but he's no David, and
> Goliath isn't disturbed.

Using that analogy, Ubuntu is Davids stone... throw away.

People that use Fedora believe in its philosophies, if they're not for
you, there are around 300 more distros to pick and choose from.

Having that many distros should be proof enough that one size doesn't
fit all.

Given the breadth of choices available to the Linux user, why should
RedHat cave to those that believe playing an MP3 out of the box is worth
risking their company over?

Fedora has never been intended for your Grandparents, it is intended for
people that wish to play with the latest and greatest Linux has to
offer.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-27-2008, 11:21 PM
David Boles
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

Tim wrote:

Tim:

A big company taking the moral stand versus a handful of users taking an
opposite moral stand. Guess which one wins?


Francis Earl:

I don't see how setting up livna, or complaining about the contents
therein not being in Fedora is a moral stand? It's just lazy and/or
ignorant.


Do I really need to spell it out? In the red corner we have a company
that has taken a stand on what they will and won't do. In the blue
corner we have a user that has taken a stand that if the system doesn't
do what they think it should do, to hell with them...

Both sides are posturing about principles, but he's no David, and
Goliath isn't disturbed.



The true difference here is that 'the company' can be sued for doing things
that are illegal. And they, 'the company', chose not to do those things. And
that they also have standards and principles that they chose to follow.
Clearly stated. Open to view. Often repeated.


The user is unhappy about that and knows of other distributions that don't
care if they do things that are illegal and that don't have standards and
principles. The user, if he wishes to remain with Fedora, should either deal
with what 'this distribution' choses to do, following the laws and their
principles, and quietly deal with these minor problems. They really are minor
to those that know what they are doing in Linux. Or to those that can read,
comprehend, and follow simple directions.


Or the user could chose to move on to those distributions that don't care if
they do things that are illegal and that have no standards and no principles.


These seems like really, really simple solutions. Either way the user choses
to decide.

--


David

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
 
Old 04-27-2008, 11:36 PM
Bob Kinney
 
Default Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

--- On Sun, 4/27/08, David Boles <dgboles@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: David Boles <dgboles@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves
> To: "For users of Fedora" <fedora-list@redhat.com>
> Date: Sunday, April 27, 2008, 6:21 PM
> Tim wrote:
> > Tim:
> >>> A big company taking the moral stand versus a
> handful of users taking an
> >>> opposite moral stand. Guess which one wins?
> >
> > Francis Earl:
> >> I don't see how setting up livna, or
> complaining about the contents
> >> therein not being in Fedora is a moral stand?
> It's just lazy and/or
> >> ignorant.
> >
> > Do I really need to spell it out? In the red corner
> we have a company
> > that has taken a stand on what they will and won't
> do. In the blue
> > corner we have a user that has taken a stand that if
> the system doesn't
> > do what they think it should do, to hell with them...
> >
> > Both sides are posturing about principles, but
> he's no David, and
> > Goliath isn't disturbed.
>
>
> The true difference here is that 'the company' can
> be sued for doing things
> that are illegal. And they, 'the company', chose
> not to do those things. And
> that they also have standards and principles that they
> chose to follow.
> Clearly stated. Open to view. Often repeated.
>
> The user is unhappy about that and knows of other
> distributions that don't
> care if they do things that are illegal and that don't
> have standards and
> principles. The user, if he wishes to remain with Fedora,

<snip>

My impression is that the RedHat chose to remove the functionality because there was no unencumbered license for the MP3 and other proprietary media
codecs, which could put them at *risk* for legal action or ridiculous
demands. This seems like a wise business move on their part.

But I don't think that from this decision, one should conclude that the
other distros are doing anything illegal.


--bobcat


__________________________________________________ __________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:13 PM.

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