s/RedHat/Red Hat/g
On Wed, Jul 05, 2000 at 04:59:56AM -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Matt Wilson wrote:
> >Red Hat did not develop Red Baron. It was developed by Spyglass
> >(Spyglass Moasic anyone? :)
>
> Hmmm. I wasn't aware of that at all. I ran it once, said YIKES,
> and then dumped it... ;o) No offense guys.. I dove for
> netscape immediately and never looked back.
Right, but remember that during this time:
(1) Netscape was charging a per-copy license fee for redistribution
that Red Hat could not afford.
(2) Someone at Netscape decided that signing an exclusive "you have
first rights to All Things Linux" agreement with Caldera was a
good idea.
Red Hat knew that a GUI browser was important. That's the best that
could be come up with at the time... :|
> >Still, even then no code for it was written or maintained by us.
>
> Sure... <grin> nobody wants to admit to it eh? ;o)
>
> Some programs are just best kept in /dev/null... ;o)
Yup, and it's landed there - I can't find a copy anywhere anymore.
>
> Oh no, not at all. Of course X is using its own licence. I'm
> just not getting my own thoughts across clearly.. What I really
> meant to say is more along the lines of:
>
> Does redhat produce or contribute to any software at all that
> is commercial and closed source, or uses a license that doesn't
> comply to FSF/OpenSource guidelines?
The policy is that all software written by us should be written using
a Open Source compliant license. There was some non Open Source
development going on at Cygnus, but all of that is changing now that
the merger has been finished.
> That is more what I was interested in... just for curiousity
> sake. Considering the amount of work RedHat does for the world
> of open source software, and in particular GPL/LGPL software,
> should they decide to release something under a license that was
> not as open, I'd consider it acceptable. I suspect that that
> won't be the case though, but would certainly respect it if it
> happened.
Well, there is one thing that we develop, but because of license
restrictions we can't release the source. It's Secure Web Server.
There's just no way we can do it. Our hands are tied. We can't
afford to not have a secure web server. Hopefully things will change
in that regard Real Soon Now.
Other than that, I can't think of anything.
> Yep, I remember. As soon as electric eyes was functional, it
> replaced xv. I added xv back in on my setup because 'ee' didn't
> do everything xv did, but I like the fact that RedHat has been
> cleaning the distribution to be open-source pure. Once Netscape
> is gone (if ever) and replaced by Mozilla, etc.. (if that
> happens) then we'll be completely Open Source, no?
I do believe so. We try to be careful with what goes in the "core
distribution" of Red Hat Linux. We want you to be able to share your
CD with your neighbor, make a copy, etc without worrying about it.
Similarly, we want you to be able to develop sofware using the
development tools and libraries in the core distribution and not have
to worry about "am I voloating a license?" That is, LGPL style
library licenses (except for the relinking provision part - ugh) are
preferred for that sort of stuff.
> Yet another reason for people to choose RH over other competing
> products. If I were to have to write my own installer, I'd
> probably not bother.. ;o) Thanks guys! ;o)
No problem. :P
> Kickstart is wonderful as hell also. Makes automating customized
> installs a breeze.
The rawhide installer has the ability to insert Python scripting in
kickstart files now, as well as a %pre for people who want to script
some fdisk magic before staring the install process... :P
Matt
_______________________________________________
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
