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 05-29-2011, 10:36 AM
"madunix@gmail.com"
 
Default License

Hi

what are the differences between:
RHEL Red Hat Enterprise linux server standard 1-2 sockets (Up to 1 guest)
vs.
RHEL Red Hat Enterprise linux server standard (up 2 sockets)


Thx

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
 
Old 05-30-2011, 06:47 AM
eugenejvr
 
Default License

Hi,

The licensing model changed a bit. "RHEL Red Hat Enterprise linux server
standard 1-2 sockets (Up to 1 guest)" is just the new description because
they now look at populated sockets and not your hardware's ability. The "Up
to 1 guest" obviously means the red hat allows your to have 1 virtual
instance of rhel on that physical server.

Regards,

--*
*

*Eugene Jansen van Rensburg*
eMail: eugenejvr@gmail.com

*"Quit is NOT an option"*



On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 12:36, madunix@gmail.com <madunix@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
>
> what are the differences between:
> RHEL Red Hat Enterprise linux server standard 1-2 sockets (Up to 1 guest)
> vs.
> RHEL Red Hat Enterprise linux server standard (up 2 sockets)
>
>
> Thx
>
> --
> redhat-list mailing list
> unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
>
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
 
Old 08-25-2011, 10:17 PM
"Nathan O."
 
Default License

I am looking at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text .

It sounds to me that upstream must provide the COPYING file. I am reviewing pipebench at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731219


The issue with the one the upstream author provided contained some problems in it according to rpmlint. The fix I read about the error was to replace it with one from GNU's site. I currently told the submitter to include it from GNU's site and also notified upstream of the problem with the COPYING file. Should we wait for the upstream to provide the COPYING file or have this as a temporary fix?


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-25-2011, 10:37 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default License

On 08/26/2011 12:17 AM, Nathan O. wrote:
> I am looking at
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text .
>
> It sounds to me that upstream must provide the COPYING file.
No, this is a misinterpretation and overinterpretation

Upstreams need to license their works properly. How to do this is
largely up to their discretion. Nothing obliges the to ship a "COPYING
file".

> I am
> reviewing pipebench at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731219
> The issue with the one the upstream author provided contained some
> problems in it according to rpmlint.
Well, don't take rpmlint's output too seriously. Read it's output as
"hints" but not as "mandatory".

The fact rpmlint treats packages using an older FSF's address as error,
to me is nothing but one of the many defects rpmlint suffers from.


> The fix I read about the error was
> to replace it with one from GNU's site.
> I currently told the submitter
> to include it from GNU's site and also notified upstream of the problem
> with the COPYING file.
> Should we wait for the upstream to provide the
> COPYING file or have this as a temporary fix?
As long as upstreams express their licensing clearly, you shouldn't do
anything nor try to force anybody to do anything.

Ralf


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-25-2011, 10:41 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default License

On 08/26/2011 03:47 AM, Nathan O. wrote:
> I am looking at
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text .
>
> It sounds to me that upstream must provide the COPYING file. I am
> reviewing pipebench at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731219
> The issue with the one the upstream author provided contained some
> problems in it according to rpmlint. The fix I read about the error
> was to replace it with one from GNU's site. I currently told the
> submitter to include it from GNU's site and also notified upstream of
> the problem with the COPYING file. Should we wait for the upstream to
> provide the COPYING file or have this as a temporary fix?

Ask the submitter to notify upstream. Patching COPYING file is upto to
discretion of the submitter and shouldn't be a blocker. Spot answered
a similar question

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2011-August/001701.html

Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:28 AM.

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