On Monday 06 July 2009, Venkatesh Hariharan wrote: > On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Pravin Dhayfule<[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > > > One of my friend was arguing me that RED HAT is superior to any of the > > FREELY available Linux Distro as it provides Support (although in form of > > Subscriptions). > > > > However I told him that he can get free community support for many other > > free distros and more over they are Open Source. > > > > Now for this he said that Red Hat too is open Source, and he has got one > > installed in his home through a CD provided by his institute where he is > > studying REHL. > > > > I asked him, whether he needed to enter Serial Key like Windows, he > > replied no, but he wont be able to use their support. So I told him that > > he is using a PIRATED version of LINUX. HE said yes. > > > > I went ahead to cross check Red Hat License Agreement, and saw it to be > > similar to Microsoft's EULA that states, you cannot install it on more > > computers than the licensed purchased for etc. > > Secondly if the Subscription expires, the OS will no longer be Legal > > until its renewed (similar to Norton Anti Virus) > > > > So my question is... Can Red Hat enterprise products be really considered > > as Open Source (as their website claims) > > http://investors.redhat.com/index.cfm *Red Hat is the world's leading > > open source provider. Bringing the choice, collaboration, cost savings > > and value of open source to enterprises worldwide. Solutions include our > > Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating platforms, JBoss Enterprise Middleware > > and other Red Hat enterprise technologies. > > * > > I am a bit confused on this argument... When we refer to Open Source > > philosophy, it says "FREEDOM", but REHL EULA looks similar to Microsoft > > EULA, then is also Red Hat play a role in giving rise to "PIRATED LINUX" > > race? > > > > Bye > > Regards > > -- > > http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers > > I once met a senior government officer who was blasting Red Hat saying > that the software does not work. It turns out that the hardware vendor > simply got some amateurs to make copies of Red Hat and install it. The > result was that his application would crash if 20 people logged into > it. Who gets the blame? Yes, you guessed right, Red Hat! This despite > the fact that Red Hat was not even involved in the implementation. > This is a perfect example of why it is so critically important to > protect the trademark.
No beef with the need to protect trademarks. But afaik you would have to sue a few every now and then. Otherwise protection offered would lapse as per law (KG ?). That would be quite counter productive Since RH is protecting the service, a monthly nag screen will convey properly what exactly the client is missing. So there would be no need for any restrictions. Someone would then have to deliberately misrepresent RH. -- Rgds JTD -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
