On Monday 06 July 2009, narendra sisodiya wrote: > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Pravin Dhayfule <[email protected]> wrote: > > ========================================================= > > > > Re: Can Red Hat Enterprise products fall under FOSS? (Atanu Datta) > > > > > Re: Can Red Hat Enterprise products fall under FOSS? > > > (Sukhdev Jadhav) > > > Re: Can Red Hat Enterprise products fall under FOSS? (jtd) > > > Re: Can Red Hat Enterprise products fall under FOSS? (Raj Mathur) > > > Re: Can Red Hat Enterprise products fall under FOSS? > > > (narendra sisodiya) > > > > =========================================================== > > > > Hi Folks, > > > > Thanks for the reply and the explanations. They all were well > > explainative and logical :) > > > > But my friends, I do agree about what CentOS does, distribute by removing > > trademarks etc etc. > > > > I agree. > > > > But folks, these all apply to them who want to entirely distribute a new > > Flavor by reusing Red Hat code. > > > > My question lies related to End Users. Just for the example what my > > friend did. Obtained the Red Had Linux CD from institute as a COPY of > > Original CD, just like how Windows, Linux Mint, Ubuntu and other OS CDs > > are replicated and distributed. > > > > Now on Ubuntu's cover for example, they permit Users the exclusive > > freedom to replicate and distribute the CDs, although for Windows its > > Restricted, and I guess this would be even restricted by Red Hat since > > every CD may be charged per System. > > > > So my questions is will this END USER style of distribution and sharing > > lead > > to Piracy? > > > > Trademark Removal etc are all Programmer Level steps. I am talking from a > > perspective of Sharing the OS with a neighbor to install on his/her > > system as it is received..... Will it be piracy? > > > > Bye > > Regards > > -- > > http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers > > See, FOSS licence give various freedom to code and programmer !! > like MIT licence give maximum freedom to coder and GNU licence give > maximum freedom to code itself. > but I have full freedom to "not to use my freedom" -- > like, Suppose one of my client want to write a code !! He do not to show > code to world !! then I will code or him and give him under GPL !! So i am > coding a free software (because i am giving him full freedom) for my client > but i am going to share it with rest of world, and my client will not going > to share it with rest of world !! I think it truly valid scenario where I > am restriciting my freedom !! > > There are many example where companies do have dual licence , for example > -- see this flowplayer > http://techfandu.blogspot.com/2009/06/this-is-how-you-can-earn-using-foss.h >tmlrelease same code under different licence , one os Open source - GPL3.0 > and other is commercial licence . because he is the creator of code base he > has full right to do it. and this is fully valid. > > If redhat is bundling some with GPL software and making a new OS which has > restriction, this is truly valid scenario. You can say "Redhat Linux" is > not a Open Soruce Linux OS, It is commerical Linux OS.
I would add that "bundling" means merely putting on the same distribution medium, additional closed software. Bundling does not include linking to / including within the source code, GPLV2 or higher licenced software. Essentially there is no simple explanation, due to the hughe variety of usage and licences included within a distro. So a BSD source can be included in a gpl and or a closed product. Thus RH is entirely free to use BSD source with RH restrictions and create a closed package (although they dont afaik). Again closed would mean a package whose source is unavailable, even though the binary maybe freely distributable. Open would mean the source is available, but maynot necessarily be distributable / modifiable. Such a package would be classified as open, but not free - MS has several such packages, including dot net. And there can be a whole range of inbetweens for linking, source, binary, library, runtime, services distribution. So when one says Open (source), it can mean anything. A fact exploited by M$ and others. The term "Free" can also be abused by merely giving away gratis, the binary- eg flash player, Acrobat Reader. Bottomline READ the licence. Buzzwords dont mean a thing. -- Rgds JTD -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
