On Thursday 09 Jul 2009, Rony wrote: > > Is that possible when installing from the same original RHEL = FOSS + > Trademark CD? Does the RedHat installation process have two different > installation methods for paid and free?
The only proper way to answer the question: "Is RHEL FOSS or not?" is to rephrase it as: "Does RHEL violate the letter and/or the spirit of any of the software licences it includes?". Before going into the discussion, do note that RH (like any other producer or consumer of FOSS) is not _obliged_ to provide you with any software. To take the GPL as the extreme example, it says that if you write/modify a piece of software and make it GPL, you don't have to give it away to anyone. However, _if_ you give it to someone, the GPL obliges you to give that person the source code too. In other words, the GPL still doesn't enable me to walk up to you and demand your software from you -- if you choose not to release to someone, that someone is free to get it from an alternative source, but he can't force you to give it to him. Similarly, RH is not obliged to give its software to you. If you get it from someone else, then that person can give you RHEL, but only those parts of RHEL that fall under a FOSS licence. The RH trademarks do not fall under a FOSS licence however, hence transferring them is violation of trademark law and your source will not be able to legally give you the complete RHEL distribution. Does this violate the spirit of the software that comprises RHEL? Again, as far as I know RHEL is one of the few companies with a product offering who make the bulk of their revenue from services, not from the product. They co-exist comfortably with CentOS, who effectively provide you with the RHEL product with the trademarks stripped out. If you want RHEL without the service component, just use CentOS; the trademarked logos contribute in no way to the effectiveness of the software and losing them is of no consequence one way or the other. If you do want the service component, call RH and get the product _with the service_ from them. If you want RH service on 2 computers and no service on the other 5, you can buy the service from RH for the 2 and run CentOS on the other 5. The software they developed for maintaining installations over the web is FOSS, so you can even set up your own competing service using CentOS as the product if you're inclined that way. So RHEL doesn't violate the letter of any of the software licences it includes. Given the openness with which RH has approached the FOSS model, I would find it difficult to justify an assertion that they have violated the spirit of FOSS and the licences too. The key to understanding RHEL is first appreciating that it is not a single, monolithic product -- it's a collection of many objects, each under its own licence. Some of the licences are FOSS and some aren't, so to speak of RHEL being FOSS or not is in some ways meaningless. It helps if we then avoid viewing RHEL from the traditional product point of view and look at it more as a service delivery platform. The platform is available both with and without the service, and RH is making money from the service, not from the platform. Note: While I do have a fair amount of respect for RH, I am not formally associated with them in any way. Regards, -- Raju -- Raj Mathur [email protected] http://kandalaya.org/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
