Dear Sirs,
Thank you all for good bad appreciating and threatening comments.I shall keep
respecting all even if they do not respect me.This happens when complex issues
are debated.First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you,
then you win.”
This is the one of the comment made by PC Quest Reader.According to him he
states as follows.
According to GPL Redhat cannot put any restriction on RHEL redistribution.
But if redhat put restrictions in any distribution of GPLed softwares in
aggregate , it violates the license agreement GPL..But when REDHAT do modify
Fedora which is community made and distribute it as derived version of Fedora
,
you (Redhat) can't put any restrictions on redistribution that will negate any
of the conditions in FSF's definition of free software and freedoms.
PC QUEST is most admired IT magazine .It also brings every year Linux
distribution.This year PCQ Linux 2008
.. PCQLinux 2008 Core was built from scratch to have a minimal
installer and installed footprint so as to be a powerful host system
for running virtual .This distribution is based on CentOS 5.1.
Therefore it shares the same installer technology as the
original-which is the RPM format. RPM stands for RedHat Package
Manager after the creators of this packaging method.This also can be taken as
opening locked gate of RHEL as it also is based on CentOS which has already
opened the gate of locked RHEL.Redhat should take note of most popular voice of
community.What redhat achieves by locking the main gate of the RHEL
distribution when inside all gates are open.RHEL lock does not work.Is Redhat
is gate keeper and wachman with the key in hand to give every body the key to
open the main gate without any objection.This is mockery of GPL and Trademarks
laws.It needs only common sense to understand.It does not need rocket science
to understansd this isuue.
PC QUEST has published cover story entitled the complete guide to open source
and free software.i am extractung two paragraph from it to defend the GPL..The
gist of this paragraph is this. But if you put restrictions in any distribution
of GPLed softwares aggregate , it violates the license agreement.But when you
do modify and distribute it, you can't put any restrictions that will negate
any
of the conditions in FSF's definition of free software.I am Extracting of two
paragraph from march 2008 PC QUEST Magzine with due credit to PCQ.IT says.The
other definition of free software has been created by the FSF or Free
Software Foundation (www.fsf.org). The FSF was formed by Richard Stallman, the
founder of GNU software and the famous GNU General Public License (GPL). The
FSF
has its own definition of free software. In this definition, free does not mean
'no cost'. It's free as in freedom or liberty to run, modify, distribute, or
improve the software. Needless to say that access to the program's source code
is a must to fulfils at least three of these needs.GNU software and GPLed
software come under this 'free' software definition,
i.e. you have the right to run it for your own requirements, modify its source
code to suite your needs, distribute it for free or even sell it. But when you
do modify and distribute it, you can't put any restrictions that will negate
any
of the conditions in FSF's definition of free software. For instance, you must
distribute the source code along with the program as a part of the agreement.
But if you put restrictions, it violates the license agreement. You can read
the full article at
http://pcquest.ciol.com/content/search/showarticle1.asp?arid=103073&mode=disp
I SHALL CONTINUE TO RECIEVE COMMENTS ON THIS TOPIC.ALL ARE WELCOME .
M.S.Yatnatti
KPN UNLIMITED Corporate Office:No.18/6, Executive chambers, Cunningham Road,
Bangalore – 560052. WEBSITE WWW.KPNUNLIMITED.ORG
_______________________________________________
ilugd mailinglist -- [email protected]
http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd
Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
