On 2 Jan 2003, Ben Russo wrote: > I'm not trying to steal anything from RedHat. And I will use another > distribution if I have to. But if the packages are GPL'd then RedHat > has no right to stop me from redistributing the packages that are on > my office server, right? Even if they are binary, and even if they > were distributed in a "mixed" way with other non-source packages. > (So long as I explicitly do *NOT* copy or redistribute proprietary > software.) > > Now I am not saying that RedHat is bad, or "like M$" as Dave said... > And I don't think that anyone owes me anything, RedHat is free to make > money however they want. > > However, I just think that there seems to be something wrong with RedHat > saying that they are distributing an binary OpenSource package that is > not free to redistribute? I thought this was explicitly BREAKING the > GPL?
I'm not sure what they are saying can not be redistributed. If they are saying that a binary that is a GPL derived work can not be redistributed then that would violate the GPL. If they are saying that the license to provide *support* for that binary can not be redistributed then that goes right in line with the GPL's claim of no warrenty/liablity. Do you have a specific URL to a section of the Red hat site or documentation that states a limitation your objecting to? Again, I do believe the RPM header could be a non-derived work making a RPM a mixed license. I believe rpm2cpio strips the header from the RPM and would address that issue. > Now, maybe I am wrong, and that is what I am trying to find out. Is my > understanding of the GPL wrong? Or is RedHat breaking the GPL by > implying that GPL'd Software they are distributing and implying are > *NOT* free to copy, modify and redistribute. I'm not sure I could provide an answer to satify you. Probably because I don't know myself. I do not have a copy of the RHAS to evalute. Feel free to contact the FSF with as much details as you can about specific written statements on the part of Red Hat that claim limitations on rights to redistribute or modify. Also, please get back to us on what you find out from the FSF since I believe there are probably others that are interested in hearing what they have to say. As far as I can tell, the SRPMS packages for RHAS to provide openly copiable, modifyable and redistributable source for all the RHAS packages covered by the GPL. > On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 21:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Yes. There has been a history of problems with intermixing closed > > source and non-redistributable packages with the largely open source > > distribution such that it is hard to provide an equivlent freely > > redistributable version. Caldera had done this for a while in an attempt > > to collect per-seat licenses regardless of if you needed per-seat support > > or not. I believe that there is indications that with United Linux that > > the SCO Group will be playing the same game of intermixing licenses to > > force per-seat payment based on the fact that a closed installer or other > > software will be involved in per-seat. > > > > I believe the RHAS is different. While Red Hat has had a couple RH > > branded "value added" closed products like the Red Baron web browser and > > their repackaged CDE, they tend to be short lived attempts to fill a need > > which get replaced eventually by a Free Software or Open Source solution. > > Rather than lock you in based on needing a closed piece of software mixed > > in, I believe RHAS licensing mostly goes toward *support*. For example, > > it is my understanding that RHAS will be Oracle 9i *certified*. If there > > is a "need" for a free non-supported flavor of RHAS, it seems like all the > > SRPMS files are available to build it. So, you will be able to build your > > own "Pink Tie Advnaced Server" based on the same source RPMS that produced > > RHAS but if you call Red Hat or Oracle for support then don't be suprised > > when they tell you that PTAS isn't support/certified for use. If you are > > considering Linuxfromscratch then you probably don't need the support > > level that RHAS provides. However, if you ever do decide you need an > > "unbreakable Oracle 9i farm" made up of three servers then for the small > > fee of $2,400 you get a commerically supported OS (I say small because > > once you get your bill from Oracle for installing 9i Enterprise on three > > servers you will wish that Oracle was as cheap RH). The $799 is to get > > you the support you need so that if being down for over 24 hours will cost > > you more than $799 in business that you will get the support you need. > > > > If your conserned about the direction that RH is going, feel free to > > check out some of the other camps. RH is not the best distribution for > > everything, it is just usually the most convient distribution for most > > things. Other interesting GNU/Linux distributions include Debian, Gentoo > > and Immunix. Oh, DemoLinux and TriLInux are also fun to play with. > > > > That's just my three cents short of a nickel on it. > > > > On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, David Busby wrote: > > > > > How does the OpenSource stuff ever have a problem with Licenses!? I moved to > > > OpenSource cause the M$ licensing issue just annoyed me (and cost too much). > > > If I'm having problems with RH (which has been compared to M$ more than > > > once) then I'll just have to try http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/ > > > > > > /B > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Nathan G. Grennan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 15:39 > > > Subject: Re: Open Source Licensed RHAS, licenses? > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 15:33, Ben Russo wrote: > > > > > I've been told by a few people that if I pay $799 for a set of > > > > > RHAS CD's that I am not allowed to install it on more than one > > > > > machine. > > > > > > > > > > Last time I checked anaconda and RPM are GPL'd, > > > > > as are the overwhelming majority of the software packages > > > > > on the RHAS CD's.... > > > > > > > > > > So my question is, how might it be illegal to copy > > > > > everything **EXCEPT** the commercial software RPM's from > > > > > the RHAS CD's and then make copies of the resulting subset? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am also interested in this question. > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > Also, I've been told that Redhat is making Source RPM's available > > > > > for patches and updates for their Advanced Server. So if you wanted > > > > > to download the SRPM's and compile them yourself you are free to do > > > > > so. And then of course (being GPL'd material) they would be > > > > > free to redistribute. That makes sense. I'd even understand if > > > > > RedHat put the FTP site on a 56Kb/s modem. ( ha ha ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you tried Redhat's ftp servers lately? I think they are on a 56k > > > > modem. It was better back in the Mother's Day release days on the 28.8k > > > > than it is now. > > > > > > > > > But, if I had one licensed server and were downloading binary packages > > > > > legitimately... How could it possibly be illegal to copy and > > > > > redistribute those binary RPM's if they are OpenSourced software based > > > > > packages? > > > > > > > > > > ---- > > > > > > > > > > I have asked several RedHat employees (sales and tech support) > > > > > and either they just don't seem to "get" the question, or they are > > > > > purposefully dancing around the subject. I decided after asking the > > > > > question 3 or 4 times and not getting anywhere that I was beating a > > > > > dead horse. RedHat won't tell me that it is illegal or forbidden, > > > > > but they also won't say tell me that I *AM* allowed to do so. > > > > > > > > > > Isn't one of the concepts of the GPL, that when the software is > > > > > distributed the user has to be made aware that it is Free to be > > > > > copied and modified so long as the GPL is maintained? > > > > > > > > > > If RedHat is just selling FTP access to pre-compiled binaries for > > > > > $799 per year per server, I understand that. But they don't seem > > > > > to be able to tell me exactly what the $799 price tag is for. > > > > > > > > > > What I don't understand is how they can restrict further redistribution > > > > > of bundled open source applications? I thought that this was > > > > > **PATENTLY** against the GPL? And even insinuating that it is > > > > > forbidden would be **PATENTLY** against the GPL, right? > > > > > > > > > > I'm not pointing fingers or making accusations, I'm just trying > > > > > to understand what is going on here and want to see what others > > > > > thoughts are? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not surprised at this at all. There seems to be alot of companies > > > > dancing around or flat out violating GPL these days. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > redhat-list mailing list > > > > unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe > > > > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
