I've never heard of Open Binary Licenses, or Open Package Licenses. Why does this keep coming up?
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Yasha Karant <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/03/2015 05:00 AM, David Sommerseth wrote: > >> On 03/02/15 00:25, Yasha Karant wrote: >> >>> On 02/02/2015 11:35 AM, Connie Sieh wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2015, Yasha Karant wrote: >>>> >>>> On 01/30/2015 10:32 AM, Brett Viren wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Yasha Karant <[email protected]> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>> For example, will a >>>>>>> legally licensed MS Win application that does not run under >>>>>>> Wine/CrossOver work under Docker under SL 7 the same as it would >>>>>>> under >>>>>>> VirtualBox with a full install of say MS Win 8.1 (soon MS Win 10)? >>>>>>> >>>>>> Docker containers run on Linux (the kernel) so, no, if your >>>>>> application >>>>>> requires honest-to-badness MicroSoft Windows don't plan on using >>>>>> Docker. >>>>>> >>>>>> Can one make a Docker application package on the target host (e.g., >>>>>>> SL >>>>>>> 7) or does one need first a full install of the (virtual) base >>>>>>> >>>>>> I don't know what "target" (host? guest?) means here. >>>>>> >>>>> The application, say A, runs under environment (OS) X, not environment >>>>> Y. One wants A under Y. The target is Y. Can one build A under Y >>>>> using the appropriate "chunks" >>>>> from X with Docker, or does one re-build ("dockerise") A under X for >>>>> target Y? In the first event, one only needs to be running Y; in the >>>>> second event, one needs to be running X to build for Y. >>>>> >>>>>> A Docker image is a full OS (minus the kernel). To start you write >>>>>> one >>>>>> line in a Dockerfile like: >>>>>> >>>>>> FROM fedora:20 >>>>>> >>>>>> and do a "docker build" >>>>>> >>>>>> You can follow up this line with additional instructions (such as "yum >>>>>> install ...") to further populate. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you have a second image that shares some portion of these >>>>>> instructions, or as you add more instructions, any prior existing >>>>>> "layer" is reused. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't find a lot of bases for SL but there are ways to add new base >>>>>> OSes from first principles (CMS has some scripts in github) and there >>>>>> are established ones for centos. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -Brett. >>>>>> >>>>> Presumably, any application that will run under CentOS, in particular, >>>>> CentOS 7 that is the RHEL source release for other ports, such as SL 7, >>>>> should be able to run under SL. My understanding is that SL 7 is not >>>>> built from the actual RHEL 7 source that is used to build RHEL 7 that >>>>> is >>>>> licensed for fee, but from the RHEL packaged CentOS source (CentOS now >>>>> effectively being a unit of Red Hat, a for-profit corporation) that is >>>>> used to build CentOS 7 (that, as with SL 7, is licensed for free as a >>>>> binary installable executable system that requires no building from >>>>> source per se). >>>>> >>>>> Yasha >>>>> >>>>> SL is built from the source that Red Hat has provided . It is built >>>> from the same source that all rebuilds can build from. There is no >>>> such thing as "RHEL packaged CentOS source" . >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Connie J. Sieh >>>> Computing Services Specialist III >>>> >>>> Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory >>>> 630 840 8531 office >>>> >>>> http://www.fnal.gov >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> Please correct me if I am in error. RHEL, binary licensed for fee, >>> >> No, you are wrong. You pay for a subscription, which may include >> updates, support and so on, depending on what you sign up for. You >> don't pay for a license at all, only subscription. Which is what Red >> Hat calls it all over their site. >> >> <https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/catalog.html> >> >> is built from a source that RH does not seem to release. >>> >> <ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/7Server/en/os/README> >> >> >> -- >> kind regards, >> >> David Sommerseth >> >> > To be clear, the legal language may be "license for fee", "subscription > for fee", or "stand on your head for fee". The operative language is > "FEE". The RHEL 7 binary executable and the RPM updates are not available > from Red Hat (not CentOS, SL, etc.) except to those who pay a fee, > irrespective of whether or not one wants any "support". Note that SL, in > the USA, is a Fermilab project, and thus is ported and/or "supported" at > public expense under grants and contracts ultimately from USA Federal > agencies (in addition to whatever private/corporate funding may be provided > under separate arrangement). The above are not to be regarded as negative > or positive comments about the business practices of Red Hat that is a > for-profit corporation and thus needs profit and cash flow models and > mechanisms. > > Regards, > > Yasha Karant > -- Thanks, Jamie Duncan @jamieeduncan
