On 08/16/2013 10:58 AM, Tom Bishop wrote:
Snip...
The bottom line ... Robert is correct, the relationship is certainly
symbiotic and not parasitic. Red Hat (the company) needs to make money,
and software that is built on the same code base is available for free
as well. It is a win-win ...
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:25:40PM -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 08/16/2013 08:07 PM, Jorge Fábregas wrote:
On 08/16/2013 10:53 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
SUSE does not release their enterprise sources and there
is no SLES clone because of it.
I can't believe I never thought about it (to
On Fri, August 16, 2013 11:06, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Reindl Harald
h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
So which section of the GPL is it that exempts binaries from being
considered derived works with the same requiremnets?
the GPL doe snot talk about binaries at
On 08/16/2013 07:06 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 08/16/2013 10:16 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote:
The bottom line ... Robert is correct, the relationship is certainly
symbiotic and not parasitic. Red Hat (the company) needs to
GPL == SOURCECODE
No. It applies to everything copied/derived from/translated from
(etc.) anything where any part is covered by GPL. Including binaries.
GPL == COPYRIGHT
Yes, and without it, nothing gives you the right to distribute
programs where any part is covered.
YOU FOOL RHEL
where Canonical even deserves the right to re-use your code for
non-open development - are you kidding?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement#Canonical
Thanks for the link.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 8:10 AM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
the GPL doe snot talk about binaries at all
Exactly my point. Everything is about derived works. So binaries
cannot be exempt from the requirement that the work as a whole can
only be distributed under a license
On 15/08/2013 23:58, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
So, what about redistribution of copies?
learn the difference between trademarks and software licences
So, if you have a license that says the distribution of the whole
must
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Giles Coochey gi...@coochey.net wrote:
On 15/08/2013 23:58, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
So, what about redistribution of copies?
learn the difference between trademarks and software
On 16/08/2013 12:34, Andrew Wyatt wrote:
RedHat -- Production Systems, with paid-for support, something goes wrong
then I have some commercial comeback to get it fixed. High change control
environment.
CentOS -- QA, Development and Test Systems, and sometimes, non-critical
infrastructure,
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Giles Coochey gi...@coochey.net wrote:
On 16/08/2013 12:34, Andrew Wyatt wrote:
RedHat -- Production Systems, with paid-for support, something goes wrong
then I have some commercial comeback to get it fixed. High change control
environment.
CentOS -- QA,
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 7:13 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.netwrote:
Am 16.08.2013 14:07, schrieb Andrew Wyatt:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 6:45 AM, Giles Coochey gi...@coochey.net
wrote:
While I agree that CentOS will always have support while it is
community
driven, and has an
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
learn the difference between trademarks and software licences
So, if you have a license that says the distribution of the whole
must be on the terms of this License, and You may not impose any
further restrictions
On 08/15/2013 03:12 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
http://www.businessinsider.com/red-hat-ceo-go-ahead-copy-our-software-2013-8
Title says is all. Nice to know RH understands and accepts the
relationship between CentOS and RHEL.C
Although it is complex. After all, if too many choose CentOS,
Snip...
The bottom line ... Robert is correct, the relationship is certainly
symbiotic and not parasitic. Red Hat (the company) needs to make money,
and software that is built on the same code base is available for free
as well. It is a win-win ... which is exactly what the GPL provides
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:28 PM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
On 8/15/2013 2:22 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
And RedHat really DOESN'T own any of the source code it sells!
redhat doesn't sell the source code. they sell their support services
and infrastructure.
I agree
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
So which section of the GPL is it that exempts binaries from being
considered derived works with the same requiremnets?
OK you are really that stupid
the GPL doe snot talk about binaries at all
Exactly my point.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote:
The bottom line ... Robert is correct, the relationship is certainly
symbiotic and not parasitic. Red Hat (the company) needs to make money,
and software that is built on the same code base is available for free
as
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote:
On 08/15/2013 03:12 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
http://www.businessinsider.com/red-hat-ceo-go-ahead-copy-our-software-2013-8
Title says is all. Nice to know RH understands and accepts the
relationship between
On 08/16/2013 10:06 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
So which section of the GPL is it that exempts binaries from being
considered derived works with the same requiremnets?
OK you are really that stupid
the GPL doe snot talk
On 08/16/2013 11:06 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Exactly my point. Everything is about derived works. So binaries
cannot be exempt from the requirement that the work as a whole can
only be distributed under a license that permits free redistribution
and that additional restrictions cannot be
On 08/16/2013 10:16 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote:
The bottom line ... Robert is correct, the relationship is certainly
symbiotic and not parasitic. Red Hat (the company) needs to make money,
and software that is built on the
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote:
OK you are really that stupid
the GPL doe snot talk about binaries at all
Exactly my point. Everything is about derived works. So binaries
cannot be exempt from the requirement that the work as a whole can
only be
Johnny Hughes wrote:
If you are asking for an opinion, I actually agree that they (Red Hat)
should also give it away for free. However, nothing requires them to do
so. Since they didn't, CentOS was created and fills that niche.
Hmm. In my opinion, Red Hat is doing the right thing. I
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.comwrote:
snip
Really? Are none of the trademark-restricted additions packaged into
GPLed items? Or is redistributing the trademark OK as long as nothing
is changed? If you could obtain a copy and didn't care about RNH,
On 2013-08-16 @11:25 UTC, Giles Coochey wrote:
For me Redhat and CentOS have their place, together in the same
environment:
RedHat -- Production Systems, with paid-for support, something goes
wrong then I have some commercial comeback to get it fixed. High
change control environment.
On 08/16/2013 12:18 PM, Carl T. Miller wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
If you are asking for an opinion, I actually agree that they (Red Hat)
should also give it away for free. However, nothing requires them to do
so. Since they didn't, CentOS was created and fills that niche.
Hmm. In my
On 08/16/2013 12:12 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote:
OK you are really that stupid
the GPL doe snot talk about binaries at all
Exactly my point. Everything is about derived works. So binaries
cannot be exempt from the
On 08/16/2013 01:12 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Really? Are none of the trademark-restricted additions packaged into
GPLed items? Or is redistributing the trademark OK as long as nothing
is changed? If you could obtain a copy and didn't care about RNH,
could you ship straight RH binaries
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
Nothing in the GPL says that if you distribute the source to the public
you must distribute binaries to the public;
What about permitting redistribution? And if losing your RHN support
as a consequence isn't a restriction that
On 08/16/2013 01:45 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
What about permitting redistribution? And if losing your RHN support
as a consequence isn't a restriction that the You may not impose any
further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted
herein. covers, then what kind of
On 8/16/2013 10:45 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Lamar Owenlo...@pari.edu wrote:
Nothing in the GPL says that if you distribute the source to the public
you must distribute binaries to the public;
What about permitting redistribution?
redistribution of SOURCE.
On 08/16/2013 12:45 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
What about permitting redistribution? And if losing your RHN support
as a consequence isn't a restriction that the You may not impose any
further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted
herein. covers, then what kind of
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:01 PM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
Nothing in the GPL says that if you distribute the source to the public
you must distribute binaries to the public;
What about permitting redistribution?
redistribution of SOURCE.have you READ the GPL ?
Please
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Ian Pilcher arequip...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/16/2013 12:45 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
What about permitting redistribution? And if losing your RHN support
as a consequence isn't a restriction that the You may not impose any
further restrictions on the
On 08/16/2013 01:27 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Ian Pilcher arequip...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/16/2013 12:45 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
What about permitting redistribution? And if losing your RHN support
as a consequence isn't a restriction that the You may not
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Exactly my point. Everything is about derived works. So binaries
cannot be exempt from the requirement that the work as a whole can
only be distributed under a license that permits free redistribution
and that
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
redistribution of SOURCE.have you READ the GPL ?
Please quote the section that you think exempts binaries
*THE WHOLE GPL TALKS ABOUT SOURCE CODE DAMNED*
*THE WHOLE GPL TALKS ABOUT SOURCE CODE DAMNED*
*THE
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
Exactly my point. Everything is about derived works. So binaries
cannot be exempt from the requirement that the work as a whole can
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
redistribution of SOURCE.have you READ the GPL ?
Please quote the section that you think exempts binaries
*THE WHOLE GPL TALKS
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Sorry, but that quote does not appear in any copy of the GPL that I
can find. And it's not true, either. Everything it says is about
'works as a whole' and anything that can be considered a copy or
derivative work
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
wow - everybody but you understands the GPL
Apparently not...
GPL == SOURCECODE
No. It applies to everything copied/derived from/translated from
(etc.) anything where any part is covered by GPL. Including binaries.
On 08/16/2013 03:12 PM, Andrew Wyatt wrote:
RedHat's trademarks are the only reason why you can't take the RedHat ISO
and distribute it to whomever you want.
Not exactly. The aggregate collection, just because it contains
GPL-licensed software, is not necessarily under the GPL as a whole, and
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
On 08/16/2013 03:12 PM, Andrew Wyatt wrote:
RedHat's trademarks are the only reason why you can't take the RedHat ISO
and distribute it to whomever you want.
Not exactly. The aggregate collection, just because it contains
oracle is the bad!!
On Aug 15, 2013 11:12 PM, Robert Arkiletian rob...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.businessinsider.com/red-hat-ceo-go-ahead-copy-our-software-2013-8
Title says is all. Nice to know RH understands and accepts the
relationship between CentOS and RHEL.
Although it is complex.
On 08/16/2013 10:53 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
SUSE does not release their enterprise sources and there
is no SLES clone because of it.
I can't believe I never thought about it (to wonder why there wasn't any
SLES clone)...
Shouldn't they release the source for the GPL packages? I thought there
On 8/16/2013 6:07 PM, Jorge Fábregas wrote:
On 08/16/2013 10:53 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
SUSE does not release their enterprise sources and there
is no SLES clone because of it.
I can't believe I never thought about it (to wonder why there wasn't any
SLES clone)...
Shouldn't they release
On 08/16/2013 08:07 PM, Jorge Fábregas wrote:
On 08/16/2013 10:53 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
SUSE does not release their enterprise sources and there
is no SLES clone because of it.
I can't believe I never thought about it (to wonder why there wasn't any
SLES clone)...
Shouldn't they release
http://www.businessinsider.com/red-hat-ceo-go-ahead-copy-our-software-2013-8
Title says is all. Nice to know RH understands and accepts the
relationship between CentOS and RHEL.
Although it is complex. After all, if too many choose CentOS, there
may no longer be a CentOS. However, I don't think
Robert Arkiletian wrote:
http://www.businessinsider.com/red-hat-ceo-go-ahead-copy-our-software-2013-8
Title says is all. Nice to know RH understands and accepts the
relationship between CentOS and RHEL.
Although it is complex. After all, if too many choose CentOS, there
may no longer be a
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:20 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Yeah, and the author *really* doesn't understand, and didn't bother to
try, to do their research.
Excerpt:
Arguably one critical area that CentOS hasn't helped Red Hat is with
developers. While developers want the latest and greatest
I have no problems with RedHat and have used CEntOS steadily for quite
some time now. Even though it's at home on my personal machines, I have
been aching for my company to adopt an open source alternative to the
five or six Windows 2008 servers that are currently in place...and I've
made
On 8/15/2013 2:22 PM, Eddie G. O'Connor Jr. wrote:
And RedHat really DOESN'T own any of the source code it sells!
redhat doesn't sell the source code. they sell their support services
and infrastructure.
--
john r pierce 37N 122W
somewhere on the middle
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
How about the real history, where Red Hat took a bunch of software
developed by others, published the barely-working stuff with horrible
bugs (read the changelogs if you disagree), then accepted
contributed
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 04:40:14PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
What about bait and switch?
What about the fact that you've been beating this same horse for many
years now and it's a little tired at this point?
I guess I'd rather have seen the contributed work go to a distribution
that didn't
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 4:45 PM, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote:
What about bait and switch?
What about the fact that you've been beating this same horse for many
years now and it's a little tired at this point?
They are the ones that changed their position. Mine hasn't and won't.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
are you really that dumb?
take the free version away - come on and explain how this works for GPL
software
Exactly, explain where the GPL distinguishes between what restrictions
you can add to binaries vs source
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
So, what about redistribution of copies?
learn the difference between trademarks and software licences
So, if you have a license that says the distribution of the whole
must be on the terms of this License, and You
58 matches
Mail list logo
