I will make it simple. If you by a RH Enterprise distribution or RH Workstation distribution can you install it freely on multiple machines or do you have to pay for each installation? Or is the service for the installation only good on one machine but the software can be installed on multiple machines?
Hi,
You can only use one copy on one machine. If you have a cluster of machines - every machine needs a licensed copy. Same thing goes for failover/backup machines that may not be switched on until the primary fails.
Service is on a per-machine basis as well.
Hope this helps, e.
Aaron Konstam wrote:
I will make it simple. If you by a RH Enterprise distribution or RH Workstation distribution can you install it freely on multiple machines or do you have to pay for each installation? Or is the service for the installation only good on one machine but the software can be installed on multiple machines?
From: "Erik Williamson" erik@cpsc.ucalgary.ca
You can only use one copy on one machine. If you have a cluster of machines - every machine needs a licensed copy. Same thing goes for failover/backup machines that may not be switched on until the primary fails.
In which case why in hell bother with Red Hat or Linux at all? {o.o}
Service is on a per-machine basis as well.
Hope this helps, e.
Aaron Konstam wrote:
I will make it simple. If you by a RH Enterprise distribution or RH
Workstation
distribution can you install it freely on multiple machines or do you
have to pay
for each installation? Or is the service for the installation only good
on one
machine but the software can be installed on multiple machines?
-- e r i k w i l l i a m s o n erik@cpsc.ucalgary.ca system admin . department of computer science . university of calgary
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 12:03, jdow wrote:
From: "Erik Williamson" erik@cpsc.ucalgary.ca
You can only use one copy on one machine. If you have a cluster of machines - every machine needs a licensed copy. Same thing goes for failover/backup machines that may not be switched on until the primary fails.
In which case why in hell bother with Red Hat or Linux at all? {o.o}
Because the value of Linux is far more than just being free. Linux is great technology, and Red Hat is well supported great technology. If your only use for an OS is it being no cost, you can't be doing much that's actually important. ;-) Of course, if low/no cost *is* vital to you, then use Fedora, not RHEL.
Sean Middleditch wrote:
Because the value of Linux is far more than just being free. Linux is great technology, and Red Hat is well supported great technology. If your only use for an OS is it being no cost, you can't be doing much that's actually important. ;-) Of course, if low/no cost *is* vital to you, then use Fedora, not RHEL.
I'm a old Red Hat fan from way back, but I must admit to feeling lost at the moment with it. I've bought boxed sets for nearly every version since 3.0.3, and have worked to subscribe clients to RHN or RHEL when required. I try to play the Bugzilla game as well. I try to be loyal.
I'll also mention that I'm speaking for myself in a professional sense, and most definitely not my employer.
Horizontal spreading of services has been an often used method for spreading the risk around a machine room. That is, putting your mail server on one machine, and your web server on another.
I support machines for an office of developers, this means I'm not making increased revenue with each extra machine I install. What I am interested in is quality assurance and consistency on security updates, and that one machine going down doesn't take out all the office services.
24x7 support doesn't solve this issue, especially with the specified support turn around times. I could quite potentially burn the cost of a license with idle developers in the time it takes for Red Hat to return my phone call.
I have no objection to paying for software, and I believe Red Hat is worth decent money. Having said that, a yearly subscription is hostile, not to mention a licensing agreement that is hostile and untrusting, followed by a pricing structure that appears to be the sum process of taking the USD value and applying an exchange rate. I know of admins who are requesting things like site licenses, money in hand, and are getting brushed off by sales reps.
Attitudes like "If you can't afford it, it mustn't be a real task" only shows lack of understanding what business in the real world is like. I cannot rationally burn up the annual salary for a junior programmer on recurring subscription licenses for 10 development boxes that may sit unused for a month at a time.
The sad thing I have to admit, is as a sane, professional, and rational admin who has my, my users, and my employers interests at heart, 64-bit Sun hardware and Solaris looks to be an attractive proposition. At least it's not a bottomless money pit for services I won't use.
David Jericho wrote:
The sad thing I have to admit, is as a sane, professional, and rational admin who has my, my users, and my employers interests at heart, 64-bit Sun hardware and Solaris looks to be an attractive proposition. At least
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Solaris over x86 may be interesting, but SPARC servers/support aren't cheaper.
it's not a bottomless money pit for services I won't use.
you have several alternatives :-)
- to change to a free distribution (Slackware, Debian, Gentoo, Mandrake ...) - to change to a paidware distribution (SuSE, TurboLinux, SCO, Conectiva ...) - to buy the cheapest Red Hat EL based product: x Professional Workstation - $100 x WS - $180 x ES - $350 - to stay with RHL 7.2, 7.3 or 9 and: x to get updates from Fedora Legacy x to build yourself updates from RHEL erratas x to build yourself updates from NET sources x to paid someone to do dirty job x to do nothing and cry - to use Fedora Project distributions - to build yourself RHEL from sources
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 01:02:10 +0100, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote
you have several alternatives :-)
- to stay with RHL 7.2, 7.3 or 9 and:
x to get updates from Fedora Legacy
What would be the easiest approach to take if one wanted to stay with RH 9 and get updates from Fedora Legacy? With up2date, one does not even need to check for updates, the icon changes to red. One click and voila, the update is done.
So, how would one know if updates are available (errata notices)?
What mechanism would be used, apt?
Will all packages be supported, i.e., mysql server, vsftpd, and so on?
If workable, this approach may very well solve a lot of my problems.
Does/will Fedora Legacy have a separate mailing list?
Thanks.
Mike.
Mike Vanecek wrote:
So, how would one know if updates are available (errata notices)?
What mechanism would be used, apt?
Will all packages be supported, i.e., mysql server, vsftpd, and so on?
If workable, this approach may very well solve a lot of my problems.
Does/will Fedora Legacy have a separate mailing list?
http://www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy
Mike Vanecek wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 01:02:10 +0100, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote
you have several alternatives :-)
- to stay with RHL 7.2, 7.3 or 9 and:
x to get updates from Fedora Legacy
What would be the easiest approach to take if one wanted to stay with RH 9 and get updates from Fedora Legacy? With up2date, one does not even need to check for updates, the icon changes to red. One click and voila, the update is done.
Fedora has APT repositories.
So, how would one know if updates are available (errata notices)?
You could write a cronjob that runs the appropriate apt-get command to check for updates and then (if available updates are detected) sends you an e-mail.
Will all packages be supported, i.e., mysql server, vsftpd, and so on?
You get what you pay for, it is a community project being maintained by volunteer efforts and RedHat's Corporate Generosity. THANKS REDHAT!
Am Sa, den 01.11.2003 schrieb Ben Russo um 03:49:
Mike Vanecek wrote:
You could write a cronjob that runs the appropriate apt-get command to check for updates and then (if available updates are detected) sends you an e-mail.
No need to. There already is a cronjob for nightly yum updates. Copy it and edit the commandline to "yum -check-update" and get the output as mail. :-)
Christoph
From: "Xose Vazquez Perez" xose@wanadoo.es
David Jericho wrote:
The sad thing I have to admit, is as a sane, professional, and rational admin who has my, my users, and my employers interests at heart, 64-bit Sun hardware and Solaris looks to be an attractive proposition. At least
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Solaris over x86 may be interesting, but SPARC servers/support aren't
cheaper.
it's not a bottomless money pit for services I won't use.
you have several alternatives :-)
- to change to a free distribution (Slackware, Debian, Gentoo, Mandrake
...)
- to change to a paidware distribution (SuSE, TurboLinux, SCO, Conectiva
...)
- to buy the cheapest Red Hat EL based product: x Professional Workstation - $100 x WS - $180 x ES - $350
- to stay with RHL 7.2, 7.3 or 9 and: x to get updates from Fedora Legacy x to build yourself updates from RHEL erratas x to build yourself updates from NET sources x to paid someone to do dirty job x to do nothing and cry
- to use Fedora Project distributions
- to build yourself RHEL from sources
- to move to one of the BSDs and get some real security. {^_^}
jdow wrote:
From: "Xose Vazquez Perez" xose@wanadoo.es
David Jericho wrote:
The sad thing I have to admit, is as a sane, professional, and rational admin who has my, my users, and my employers interests at heart, 64-bit Sun hardware and Solaris looks to be an attractive proposition. At least
...
- to move to one of the BSDs and get some real security.
{^_^}
If you think that, what are you doing on this list? Oh, right: all us Linux losers need some education.
David Jericho wrote:
I have no objection to paying for software, and I believe Red Hat is worth decent money. Having said that, a yearly subscription is hostile, not to mention a licensing agreement that is hostile and untrusting, followed by a pricing structure that appears to be the sum process of taking the USD value and applying an exchange rate. I know of admins who are requesting things like site licenses, money in hand, and are getting brushed off by sales reps.
I don't think RedHat's license is "hostile" in any way. It is just legaleeze. Sure it is confusing and complex, but the GPL is too, that doesn't mean it is hostile. This excerpt is straight from the RHAS 2.1 license:
------BEGIN EXCERPT from http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_2-1.html?country=United+States& Most of the Linux Programs are licensed pursuant to a Linux EULA that permits Customer to copy, modify, and redistribute the software, in both source code and binary code forms. With the exception of certain image files identified below, the remaining Linux Programs are freeware or have been placed in the public domain. Customer must review these Linux EULAs carefully, in order to understand its rights and to realize the maximum benefits available with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Nothing herein limits Customer's rights under, or grants Customer rights that supersede, the terms of any applicable Linux EULA. Red Hat may provide Red Hat Enterprise Linux or other software or content by means of Red Hat Network or Red Hat Enterprise Network. Each software component has its own applicable EULA and all content is provided subject to its own licensing terms.
...
Red Hat Enterprise Linux itself is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. Subject to the trademark use limitations set forth below, Red Hat grants Customer a license in this collective work pursuant to the GNU General Public License. ------ END EXCERPT from http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_2-1.html?country=United+States&
Attitudes like "If you can't afford it, it mustn't be a real task" only shows lack of understanding what business in the real world is like. I cannot rationally burn up the annual salary for a junior programmer on recurring subscription licenses for 10 development boxes that may sit unused for a month at a time.
The sad thing I have to admit, is as a sane, professional, and rational admin who has my, my users, and my employers interests at heart, 64-bit Sun hardware and Solaris looks to be an attractive proposition. At least it's not a bottomless money pit for services I won't use.
Do your research.... ------BEGIN EXCERPT FROM http://www.redhat.com/advice/ask_shadowman_apr02.html *Shadowman says:* Like the Red Hat Linux products before it, Advanced Server contains software from a variety of sources. The majority of it is open source (using a variety of licenses, including the GPL), with a few packages consisting of "redistributable" content.
This means that, like the Red Hat Linux products before it, the sources for the software comprising Advanced Server will be available to anyone wanting a copy. And -- as always -- any code written by Red Hat is GPL'ed, with the sources being freely available.
However, unlike the Red Hat Linux products before it, we will not be making ISO images freely available for Advanced server. However, if you are a "1337 haxx0r d00d" with "m4d ski11z" (or even a mildly interested sysadmin with a year or two of Linux experience), and you want to roll your own, go for it. Shadowman recommends that you might consider reviewing our trademark policies (http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/) before doing something like going into business selling it on eBay, however. Since Java technology is part of Advanced Server, if you "roll your own", you'll have to acquire a JRE/JDK yourself. ------END EXCERPT FROM http://www.redhat.com/advice/ask_shadowman_apr02.html
Ben Russo wrote:
I don't think RedHat's license is "hostile" in any way. It is just legaleeze. Sure it is confusing and complex, but the GPL is too, that doesn't mean it is hostile. This excerpt is straight from the RHAS 2.1 license:
Yes, the source that makes up RHEL is GPL. I understand that, I've been in the game long enough to know the difference.
What isn't GPL is the preparation and distribution of the GPLed software. That is, the build and process of installing a RHEL system. If you reread the license, you'll note the mention of "Installed Systems".
Go reread the FSF website and Stallman's comments. They can do that.[1]
However, unlike the Red Hat Linux products before it, we will not be making ISO images freely available for Advanced server. However, if you are a "1337 haxx0r d00d" with "m4d ski11z" (or even a mildly interested sysadmin with a year or two of Linux experience), and you want to roll your own, go for it. Shadowman recommends that you might consider reviewing our trademark policies
I have actually built RHEL from the source RPMs. I even prepared a bootable install CD for myself using those RPMs. I have the afore mentioned m4d skillz. But both the replies I've seen so far are missing the point.
Quality Assurance.
To illustrate my point, I'll propose a scenario.
Security hole in Apache, new update to apply. Apply the RPM to the test box, works as per spec, so set about deploying it to a web farm.
Apache works fine on all but one machine. It's the same package, GPG checksums verify that, as do the md5sums. So what do I look at now? Libraries are fine on the system, all the numbers add up, meaning something else is suspect. Hardware maybe, or something more malicious?
Without having to go into phallis size wars, anyone who has been in the OSS world using the software for quite a number of years knows that GCC and the like are not perfect. Obscure quirks can happen. Things can be machine specific. It's rare, but random reboots, signal 11 and signal 4 faults are not something I tolerate.
I really do want to do more with my life than chase an endless stream of machine and software quirks as I have had to do with other distributions. My experience has shown that Red Hat and RHEL has this advantage over other distributions.
Part of why I feel passionately about this, is because I have to source a large number of 64-bit machines in the near future. I can afford the licensing schemes and the hardware. But I have an objection to the view that you're licensed to use the product, and have to continue to pay to use the product, rather than actually owning a copy of the product.
[1] If my understanding is way off mark, please, someone correct me and explain why.
David Jericho said: [snip]
I have actually built RHEL from the source RPMs. I even prepared a bootable install CD for myself using those RPMs. I have the afore mentioned m4d skillz. But both the replies I've seen so far are missing the point.
Quality Assurance.
Ding, ding, ding. QA isn't free.
To illustrate my point, I'll propose a scenario.
Security hole in Apache, new update to apply. Apply the RPM to the test box, works as per spec, so set about deploying it to a web farm.
Apache works fine on all but one machine.
[snip]
I really do want to do more with my life than chase an endless stream of machine and software quirks as I have had to do with other distributions. My experience has shown that Red Hat and RHEL has this advantage over other distributions.
Part of why I feel passionately about this, is because I have to source a large number of 64-bit machines in the near future. I can afford the licensing schemes and the hardware. But I have an objection to the view that you're licensed to use the product, and have to continue to pay to use the product, rather than actually owning a copy of the product.
Who says you can't use it after you quit paying for updates? No one. Red Hat just says that if you want service (you know, things like that QA thing you mention, RHN, free OS updates), then you need to share the cost. It's a little thing called staying in business...
If everyone were to buy one copy of RHEL, put it on their 100 machines, then start calling up RH for problems on all of them, taking up Red Hat's bandwidth to get updates, and generally just doing the "free ride" thing, then RH wouldn't have money to pay those QA people. Therefore you would get a downward spiral that ends in RH being out of business.
Almost every argument I hear against the RHEL products is "well, I used to get this without having to pay". That is part of the problem. It is hard to make a profit giving away software and services. RH has chose the path of still giving away the software, but charging for the services. -- William Hooper
Who says you can't use it after you quit paying for updates? No
one. Red
RedHat does. In my dealings with their sales reps, it is a "no-go" to keep using RHEL after your subscription runs out.
Almost every argument I hear against the RHEL products is "well, I used to get this without having to pay". That is part of the problem. It is hard
I'd say that it's the fact that there's a certain degree of inflexibility coming from them. People know that it's been a long, free lunch with Red Hat Linux for years. What they're doing now is 100% right (with the switch) - but *.edu and small businesses are taking it up the rear. My school can't afford the educational pricing - well - we could if it wasn't a yearly subscription.
So now, the company that I feel DESERVES whatever money we can give to them will get *none* as we switch to Fedora and Solaris x86.
e.
Erik Williamson said:
Who says you can't use it after you quit paying for updates? No
one. Red
RedHat does. In my dealings with their sales reps, it is a "no-go" to keep using RHEL after your subscription runs out.
Please quote me where in the license agreement it says you can't use the GPL, BSD, etc. software after your subscription runs out.
Erik Williamson wrote:
Who says you can't use it after you quit paying for updates? No
one. Red
RedHat does. In my dealings with their sales reps, it is a "no-go" to keep using RHEL after your subscription runs out.
I think your particular RedHat salesman is mistaken. Their license speaks for itself.
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Ben Russo wrote:
I think your particular RedHat salesman is mistaken. Their license speaks for itself.
Note that the agreement you have with RH for RHEL (which despite the URL on redhat.com), is a /service agreement/ not a licence.
Note also, that it affirms the customers rights to distribute the software according to each components licence (which tends to be "free to redistribute", bar the 2 RH trademarked rpms, redhat-logos and anaconda-images)
So, AFAICT, it ought to be perfectly legal for a RHEL customer to put up a website of the RPMs and of any update RPMs that come along. Not that it would be financially beneficial for the RHEL customer concerned - you are contracted to pay for all your RHEL installations as per your agreement with RH.
IANAL.
regards,
Who says you can't use it after you quit paying for updates? No
one. Red
RedHat does. In my dealings with their sales reps, it is a "no-go" to keep using RHEL after your subscription runs out.
http://www.redhat.com/software/whichlinux.html
Red Hat Enterprise Linux is sold through a one-year subscription and it does have a licensing agreement. But before you mention the "p"-word ("proprietary"), understand that the code is open and protected by the GPL license. It's not proprietary. We're licensing the services, not the software. The source code files can be downloaded by anyone, and you still have the right to use the software after the license and services expire.
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003, Con Tassios wrote:
The source code files can be downloaded by anyone,
And quite probably the binary RPMs too. Unless someone knows of a reason why the RPMs are encumbered.
regards,
In attempting to install a product I need to use rpm reports the following:
error: Failed dependencies: tkinter >= 2.0.0 is needed by pymol ...
On the python site I find the following:
http://www.python.org/topics/tkinter/download.html You don't need to download Tkinter - it's an integral part of all Python distributions (except binary distributions for platforms that don't support Tcl/Tk).
I have tk-8.3.5-93, tcl-8.3.5-93 and python-2.2.3-7 installed. Tkinter was not contained within the python rpm.
Does anyone know where I can find Tkinter?
Aaron J. Greenwood wrote:
[...]
I have tk-8.3.5-93, tcl-8.3.5-93 and python-2.2.3-7 installed. Tkinter was not contained within the python rpm.
Does anyone know where I can find Tkinter?
$ whichcd Tkinter You appear to be running Fedora Core 1. I'll search for rpms for that version. Searching for Tkinter...
CD-3:tkinter-2.2.3-7.i386.rpm
$
http://sourceforge.net/projects/whichcd/
--Kai
Aaron J. Greenwood wrote:
Does anyone know where I can find Tkinter?
# whichcd tkinter You appear to be running Fedora Core 1. I'll search for rpms for that version. Searching for tkinter...
CD-3:tkinter-2.2.3-7.i386.rpm
So, it's on the 3rd Fedora CD.
People know that it's been a long, free lunch with Red Hat Linux for years.
I'm pretty embarassed that there's a (hopefully small) group within RedHat that seems to see it that way. RedHat has benefitted from the community just as much as the community has benefited from RedHat. Sure, they deserve to make a profit just like any other business. But when Mat Szulik gets up on the stage at LinuxWorld and pontificates about how great it is that we all support the Open Source community, and then the company turns around and tells me to pay up for the free lunch I've been taking from them, I just want to spit in their face.
I've spent most of my *LIFE* over the last ten years installing, patching, coding, maintaining, upgrading, teaching and learning about Linux, mostly on RedHat's platform. It's gone from a hobby to the *thing* that pays the bills and puts food in my Son's belly. I *AM* the community that helped get RedHat where it is now.
I don't mind paying for the support and the services. That's how I make my money and naturally, I expect that that's how RedHat should make theirs. I was pretty excited to see RedHat take the community approach once they realized they couldn't keep up the pace of development and still remain profitable (among other reasons). I figured that they'd pushed it as far as they could and it was our turn to contribute. I'm dedicated to Fedora (currently focusing on Fedora Legacy) and look forward to what the future brings.
Like the previous poster said, now that RedHat has made its move, small businesses (like mine) and *.edu are taking it up the ass. That's pretty much life and I'm willing to accept that without complaint. RedHat needs to be reminded though that it's in poor taste to throw it back in our faces telling us to "pay up or shut up".
-Chuck
Chuck Wolber wrote:
Like the previous poster said, now that RedHat has made its move, small businesses (like mine) and *.edu are taking it up the ass. That's pretty much life and I'm willing to accept that without complaint. RedHat needs to be reminded though that it's in poor taste to throw it back in our faces telling us to "pay up or shut up".
Why is there so much noise about this *now* ?
http://www.redhat.com/archives/redhat-watch-list/2002-December/msg00008.html
I believe people had more than one year to do something about this.
Fedora is free($$$$, sources and binaries), if you need longer lifetime is because you are going to *win money* with it. And Red Hat wants his part, this is capitalism. If you hate it, sorry URSS was going down :-)
Red Hat sells products/services. If you like it, pay for it. If you hate it, change you to another distribution.
Other thing is on *.edu, *.org and nonprofit organizations *without lucrative aims/projects* I believe Red Hat _should relax_ RHEL license or doing lower prices.
Something like Free Solaris Binary License Program http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris/binaries/bcl.html http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris/binaries/
-- HTML mails are going to trash automagically
Xose Vazquez Perez said:
Other thing is on *.edu, *.org and nonprofit organizations *without lucrative aims/projects* I believe Red Hat _should relax_ RHEL license or doing lower prices.
It has been documented on these list before that *.edu gets a very good discount on volume licenses. I have yet to hear anyone from an *.org say they have called to check.
William Hooper wrote:
It has been documented on these list before that *.edu gets a very good discount on volume licenses. I have yet to hear anyone from an *.org say
one snag -> ^^^^^^
If this is true maybe RH needs to update http://redhat.com/software/rhel/purchase/ with more accuracte information because says nothing about discount on volume licenses to enterprise, *.edu, nonprofit orgs....
On Nov 2, 2003 at 01:46, Xose Vazquez Perez in a soothing rage wrote:
William Hooper wrote:
It has been documented on these list before that *.edu gets a very good discount on volume licenses. I have yet to hear anyone from an *.org say
one snag -> ^^^^^^
If this is true maybe RH needs to update http://redhat.com/software/rhel/purchase/ with more accuracte information because says nothing about discount on volume licenses to enterprise, *.edu, nonprofit orgs....
Free Business Advice 101.
Get your CIO to pen a nice letter to RH stating that they would like to buy XXX amount of licenses from RH for use throughout your institution. Make sure the letter has flowery prose about how your institution is doing this and that for world <blank>. Make sure the letter is on nice letterhead paper. I am pretty confident the results would be satifactory. If they aren't, buy 15% of voting RH stock. This should at the minimum get you a place on the board of directors. The rest is up to you.
N.Emile...
Xose Vazquez Perez said:
William Hooper wrote:
It has been documented on these list before that *.edu gets a very good discount on volume licenses. I have yet to hear anyone from an *.org say
one snag -> ^^^^^^
If this is true maybe RH needs to update http://redhat.com/software/rhel/purchase/ with more accuracte information because says nothing about discount on volume licenses to enterprise, *.edu, nonprofit orgs....
What business doesn't offer volume discounts? No one is going to publish their price list for it, either. As another poster said, call RH sales.
William Hooper wrote:
What business doesn't offer volume discounts? No one is going to publish their price list for it, either. As another poster said, call RH sales.
who did say the prices must be on the web page? and notice "*discount on volume" is enough.
On Sunday 02 Nov 2003 12:21 am, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
Chuck Wolber wrote:
Like the previous poster said, now that RedHat has made its move, small businesses (like mine) and *.edu are taking it up the ass. That's pretty much life and I'm willing to accept that without complaint. RedHat needs to be reminded though that it's in poor taste to throw it back in our faces telling us to "pay up or shut up".
Why is there so much noise about this *now* ?
http://www.redhat.com/archives/redhat-watch-list/2002-December/msg00008.htm l
Redhat hooked us in with there (now initial) pricing policy $60 per/machine/year. Then one day they say no we are now going to triple that for the desktop and I know times that by six for the server.
either way you cut it this is pretty poor for the customer.
I believe people had more than one year to do something about this.
Fedora is free($$$$, sources and binaries), if you need longer lifetime is because you are going to *win money* with it. And Red Hat wants his part, this is capitalism. If you hate it, sorry URSS was going down :-)
Red Hat sells products/services. If you like it, pay for it. If you hate it, change you to another distribution.
Yes I suspect that is what we may end up doing, however it is not that easy since although they're all linux they tend to do things differently, even small things can make a transition time consuming and if you are a small business man power is not something you have in abundance.
Personally although I have some serious misgivings about sun I'm kind of intrigued by their java desktop, saw a demo of it a linux world and it was pretty cool.
Dave.
[snip]
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
David Jericho wrote:
Ben Russo wrote:
However, unlike the Red Hat Linux products before it, we will not be making ISO images freely available for Advanced server. However, if you are a "1337 haxx0r d00d" with "m4d ski11z" (or even a mildly interested sysadmin with a year or two of Linux experience), and you want to roll your own, go for it. Shadowman recommends that you might consider reviewing our trademark policies
I have actually built RHEL from the source RPMs. I even prepared a bootable install CD for myself using those RPMs. I have the afore mentioned m4d skillz. But both the replies I've seen so far are missing the point.
I don't understand David, you say that you have built your free distribution and you know how to install it for free on all your systems. But you feel like RedHat should provide some type of support for you? For Free? why?
On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 09:39, Aaron Konstam wrote:
I will make it simple. If you by a RH Enterprise distribution or RH Workstation distribution can you install it freely on multiple machines or do you have to pay for each installation? Or is the service for the installation only good on one machine but the software can be installed on multiple machines?
Possibly.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:39:33AM -0600, Aaron Konstam wrote:
I will make it simple. If you by a RH Enterprise distribution or RH Workstation distribution can you install it freely on multiple machines or do you have to pay for each installation? Or is the service for the installation only good on one machine but the software can be installed on multiple machines? --
I got the answers to my questions. I went to the horses mouth. RedHat said: If you buy one Enterprise system or Workstation system and put it on other machines you have the following three restrictions: 1. You can not update the other machines through binary updating. If they find someone rampantly distributing their licenced updates to unlcensed machines, they intend to take legal action.
2. You have to remove all references to the redhat name from the unlicenced machines.
3. Their is a propritery IBM package included which will have to be removed.
If anyone on from RedHat on the list disaggrees with this analysis of RedHat's position I owuld be interested in hearing from them.
From: "Aaron Konstam" akonstam@trinity.edu
I will make it simple. If you by a RH Enterprise distribution or RH Workstation distribution can you install it freely on multiple machines or do you have to pay for each installation? Or is the service for the installation only good on one machine but the software can be installed on multiple machines? --
I got the answers to my questions. I went to the horses mouth. RedHat said: If you buy one Enterprise system or Workstation system and put it on other machines you have the following three restrictions:
- You can not update the other machines through binary updating. If
they find someone rampantly distributing their licenced updates to unlcensed machines, they intend to take legal action.
- You have to remove all references to the redhat name from the
unlicenced machines.
- Their is a propritery IBM package included which will have to be
removed.
If anyone on from RedHat on the list disaggrees with this analysis of RedHat's position I owuld be interested in hearing from them.
This is a much saner approach than the prior response. {^_^}
Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 09:39:33AM -0600, Aaron Konstam wrote:
I will make it simple. If you by a RH Enterprise distribution or RH Workstation distribution can you install it freely on multiple machines or do you have to pay for each installation? Or is the service for the installation only good on one machine but the software can be installed on multiple machines? --
I got the answers to my questions. I went to the horses mouth. RedHat said: If you buy one Enterprise system or Workstation system and put it on other machines you have the following three restrictions:
- You can not update the other machines through binary updating. If
they find someone rampantly distributing their licenced updates to unlcensed machines, they intend to take legal action.
- You have to remove all references to the redhat name from the
unlicenced machines.
- Their is a propritery IBM package included which will have to be
removed.
If anyone on from RedHat on the list disaggrees with this analysis of RedHat's position I owuld be interested in hearing from them.
This is basically the same answer that I got. RedHat says that they are selling their RHN subscription, the software on the CD's is GPL'd (except for the redhat logos and the IBM Java stuff)
They don't give away CD's and you can't download them. RedHat doesn't allow free downloads of the Binary RPM's either, you have to pay for the RHN subscription.
However, all the source RPM's are available, and if you want to use anaconda to build your own installer distro (you remove the IBM java pkg's and the redhat-logo's)
You can then maintain your own RPM repository which contains binary packages that you will have to build from source. It isn't hard to do, just a little time consuming. And of course there is no */Guarantee/* that RedHat will continue to make SRPMs available to freeloaders. The GPL doesn't require them to provide SRPM's to people to whom RedHat has not given binaries.
However, if I have one RHN subscription, there is nothing to stop me from using the SRPM'd packages I download in the way the GPL intends.
I think this is very fair. I just wish RedHat would work with me to get a bulk discount. I mean if I want to buy 25 or 50 licenses. I'd rather pay a reasonable amount for RHN access than maintain this myself.
The reasoning I have is.... If i am going to maintain lot's of servers it becomes more and more efficient for me to support my own repository of built RPM's. So my incentive to pay for RHN access becomes lower. Also, I could set up a caching proxy server for the RHN site (use no ssl) and then it wouldn't cost RedHat any more bandwidth or CPU time to service my network of 25-30 machines than it costs them to service my 4 (currently) licensed boxes. I would be willing to pay $100 or $200 per year for RHN access for each box. but not $800/yr.
And of course there is no */Guarantee/* that RedHat will continue to make SRPMs available to freeloaders. The GPL doesn't require them to provide SRPM's to people to whom RedHat has not given binaries.
If Red Hat stop making the SRPMS available to the those who haven't subscribed to RHEL, all it takes is one paying customer to release them on their own FTP servers.
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:10:25 +1100 (EST), Con Tassios wrote:
And of course there is no */Guarantee/* that RedHat will continue to make SRPMs available to freeloaders. The GPL doesn't require them to provide SRPM's to people to whom RedHat has not given binaries.
If Red Hat stop making the SRPMS available to the those who haven't subscribed to RHEL, all it takes is one paying customer to release them on their own FTP servers.
Why should that customer do that? It would threaten Red Hat's business model. That should not be in the interest of a paying enterprise customer.
--
If Red Hat stop making the SRPMS available to the those who haven't subscribed to RHEL, all it takes is one paying customer to release them on their own FTP servers.
Why should that customer do that? It would threaten Red Hat's business model. That should not be in the interest of a paying enterprise customer.
IMHO stopping to provide SRPMS wouldn't be in RedHat's interests in the first place.
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
IMHO stopping to provide SRPMS wouldn't be in RedHat's interests in the first place.
I have trouble seeing why.
The software in the distribution is under a number of individual different licenses. Red Hat, like anyone else must comply with those software licenses.
A lot of the software makes no requirements that source code *MUST* be available. Examples of software which there is no legal requirement that source code must be provided are: XFree86, BSD licensed code, MIT licensed code, similar other licenses. That said however, there is no benefit to Red Hat whatsoever in not distributing the source code to those software components even though there is no legal requirement to do so. Quite the opposite - Red Hat has nothing to lose, and everything to gain by making the source code available, as this promotes others to use the code, modify it, fix bugs, and contribute back stuff to Red Hat, and more importantly to the open source community at large.
Other software in the distribution is under the GPL or LGPL licenses or some other license which explicitly requires that if you distribute binaries to someone, you must also make the source code be made available to them which was used to create those binaries also. The terms of those licenses vary depending on the license, however source code must be made available to whomever the binaries are made availble to, in an acceptable manner which is legally compatible with the terms of the license.
IANAL, however from a purely legal standpoint, to my knowledge Red Hat has no obligation to provide any src.rpms for RHEL on the ftp site or website, as Red Hat is only obligated to provide source code to RHEL to those whom are provided the binaries for RHEL. RHEL comes with the source code included, so those people already have it and Red Hat's obligations under any of the licenses of the software are met by including the source code on CDROM with the product. The source code for erratum updates could be provided via RHN to RHEL customers only, or via CDROM as well, and meet any GPL/LGPL or similar requirements of providing the source code.
However, even though Red Hat has no legal obligation to provide the RHEL src.rpm packages to the public at large, they are nonetheless there, and hopefully people out there benefit from them wether they are an RHEL customer or if they're anyone else.
There is no real benefit in my opinion to Red Hat holding back the source code rpm packages to everything. I'm kindof confused as to why people would think otherwise personally, as not providing source code to people would more likely do more harm than any good. Both in terms of less people being able to access the sources and potentially fix things or use the code to improve other software, learn, advocate Linux/whatever, etc. and also in terms of negative publicity, public beatings, the slashdot effect, etc.
I definitely agree with the statement "stopping to provide SRPMS wouldn't be in RedHat's interests in the first place."
So.... conspiracy theorists please seek therapy or something...
We're on your side. ;o) Source code good. Fire bad! ;o)
Hi
I am all for RHEL. I think it is an awesome thing. This is because I want to see big software vendors provide software for LINUX:
Examples--- WindRiver (vxWorks) Big CAD/CAM companies MathCAD from the MathWorks
The only thing that RedHat should not forget is that the reason SUN Micro made their OS distribution free (binaries that is) was due to distros like Red Hat Linux. Good Job. Red Hat should distribute the binaries and SRPMS for free and only charge for support!! Don't make us pay for your binaries. I don't mind paying for support.
Thanks, Ernesto
On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 06:14, Mike A. Harris wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
IMHO stopping to provide SRPMS wouldn't be in RedHat's interests in the first place.
I have trouble seeing why.
The software in the distribution is under a number of individual different licenses. Red Hat, like anyone else must comply with those software licenses.
A lot of the software makes no requirements that source code *MUST* be available. Examples of software which there is no legal requirement that source code must be provided are: XFree86, BSD licensed code, MIT licensed code, similar other licenses. That said however, there is no benefit to Red Hat whatsoever in not distributing the source code to those software components even though there is no legal requirement to do so. Quite the opposite - Red Hat has nothing to lose, and everything to gain by making the source code available, as this promotes others to use the code, modify it, fix bugs, and contribute back stuff to Red Hat, and more importantly to the open source community at large.
Other software in the distribution is under the GPL or LGPL licenses or some other license which explicitly requires that if you distribute binaries to someone, you must also make the source code be made available to them which was used to create those binaries also. The terms of those licenses vary depending on the license, however source code must be made available to whomever the binaries are made availble to, in an acceptable manner which is legally compatible with the terms of the license.
IANAL, however from a purely legal standpoint, to my knowledge Red Hat has no obligation to provide any src.rpms for RHEL on the ftp site or website, as Red Hat is only obligated to provide source code to RHEL to those whom are provided the binaries for RHEL. RHEL comes with the source code included, so those people already have it and Red Hat's obligations under any of the licenses of the software are met by including the source code on CDROM with the product. The source code for erratum updates could be provided via RHN to RHEL customers only, or via CDROM as well, and meet any GPL/LGPL or similar requirements of providing the source code.
However, even though Red Hat has no legal obligation to provide the RHEL src.rpm packages to the public at large, they are nonetheless there, and hopefully people out there benefit from them wether they are an RHEL customer or if they're anyone else.
There is no real benefit in my opinion to Red Hat holding back the source code rpm packages to everything. I'm kindof confused as to why people would think otherwise personally, as not providing source code to people would more likely do more harm than any good. Both in terms of less people being able to access the sources and potentially fix things or use the code to improve other software, learn, advocate Linux/whatever, etc. and also in terms of negative publicity, public beatings, the slashdot effect, etc.
I definitely agree with the statement "stopping to provide SRPMS wouldn't be in RedHat's interests in the first place."
So.... conspiracy theorists please seek therapy or something...
We're on your side. ;o) Source code good. Fire bad! ;o)
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 07:36:13AM -0500, Ernest L. Williams Jr. wrote: [...]
The only thing that RedHat should not forget is that the reason SUN Micro made their OS distribution free (binaries that is) was due to distros like Red Hat Linux.
[...]
Sun Solaris is not free: For the Sparc version, you have to pay the licence (unless it's a 1 CPU boxed supplied to you by Sun or an authorised dealer) and for x86 they ask for a fee (albeit nominal) for download. In both cases, you're not allowed to redistribute the OS yourself, AFAIK. Long way to go, Sun...
Cheerio,
Thomas
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Ernest L. Williams Jr. wrote:
I am all for RHEL. I think it is an awesome thing. This is because I want to see big software vendors provide software for LINUX:
Examples--- WindRiver (vxWorks) Big CAD/CAM companies MathCAD from the MathWorks
The only thing that RedHat should not forget is that the reason SUN Micro made their OS distribution free (binaries that is) was due to distros like Red Hat Linux. Good Job. Red Hat should distribute the binaries and SRPMS for free and only charge for support!! Don't make us pay for your binaries. I don't mind paying for support.
If you pay for support however, then you're getting the binaries already, so the point is kindof moot.
Man , what a winding thread. I think the bottom line is their should be more flexibility in support options. The problem with this is everyone always try to fit square pegs into round holes.
Say I purchase 10 ES licenses, and I make 1 tech support call in year, I then become a gravy train. Another person purchases 1 license and makes 10 tech support calls, this would be a losing proposition.
Ultimately in the real world every shop is unique and some need more hand holding than others. The real problem is that it is impossible for any vendor to have the perfect fit for everyone.
My past experiences have taught me that we the users are the ultimate QA. We the users must be treated as such. I have over the years been able to get some flexibility with various maintenance agreements from various vendors. From my perspective I want to pay for support, that is what keeps a vendor in revenue and in business. But I also don't want to be left with a totally inflexible maintenance agreement either.
Ultimately it is the sales team that make a company go, the sales team has to be the ones to provide the right type of support for "their" customer. If they have no incentive other than to make their number, you will always end up with poop, and they will have no incentive other that to sell you what you really don't need. This is more profound in publicly traded companies that have share holders to answer to than in privately held ones.
Now to end this wind storm, with what is going on today, if you stick with IBM or HP/Compaq hardware, they both will provide you with decent support for Redhat just based on the hardware purchase, I am talking server class here, not desktops. If you have something on a mission critical box, than 600$ or even 1K$ a year is chump change in the big picture.
Since the salesman won't provide what you need, the best recourse is to take them out of the loop, when the profits derived from maintenance go down, they will either adapt or go by the way side. That is how a free market economy should work.
Ted
On Sat, 2003-11-01 at 02:20, Mike A. Harris wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Ernest L. Williams Jr. wrote:
I am all for RHEL. I think it is an awesome thing. This is because I want to see big software vendors provide software for LINUX:
Examples--- WindRiver (vxWorks) Big CAD/CAM companies MathCAD from the MathWorks
The only thing that RedHat should not forget is that the reason SUN Micro made their OS distribution free (binaries that is) was due to distros like Red Hat Linux. Good Job. Red Hat should distribute the binaries and SRPMS for free and only charge for support!! Don't make us pay for your binaries. I don't mind paying for support.
If you pay for support however, then you're getting the binaries already, so the point is kindof moot.
On Sat, 2003-11-01 at 08:22, Ted Kaczmarek wrote:
Man , what a winding thread. I think the bottom line is their should be more flexibility in support options. The problem with this is everyone always try to fit square pegs into round holes.
Say I purchase 10 ES licenses, and I make 1 tech support call in year, I then become a gravy train. Another person purchases 1 license and makes 10 tech support calls, this would be a losing proposition.
Ultimately in the real world every shop is unique and some need more hand holding than others. The real problem is that it is impossible for any vendor to have the perfect fit for everyone.
My past experiences have taught me that we the users are the ultimate QA. We the users must be treated as such. I have over the years been able to get some flexibility with various maintenance agreements from various vendors. From my perspective I want to pay for support, that is what keeps a vendor in revenue and in business. But I also don't want to be left with a totally inflexible maintenance agreement either.
Ultimately it is the sales team that make a company go, the sales team has to be the ones to provide the right type of support for "their" customer. If they have no incentive other than to make their number, you will always end up with poop, and they will have no incentive other that to sell you what you really don't need. This is more profound in publicly traded companies that have share holders to answer to than in privately held ones.
Now to end this wind storm, with what is going on today, if you stick with IBM or HP/Compaq hardware, they both will provide you with decent support for Redhat just based on the hardware purchase, I am talking server class here, not desktops. If you have something on a mission critical box, than 600$ or even 1K$ a year is chump change in the big picture.
This is actually the best answer that I have seen in this entire thread. We have done this. However, sometimes you end up wanting to deal straight with Red Hat because the hardware vendors will sell you support but don't have a competent linux Tech support team. For example, one vendor "I won't mention any names" told me to use their windows-based tools to trouble-shoot a problem. Now, I find that ridiculous!!
Since the salesman won't provide what you need, the best recourse is to take them out of the loop, when the profits derived from maintenance go down, they will either adapt or go by the way side. That is how a free market economy should work.
Ted
On Sat, 2003-11-01 at 02:20, Mike A. Harris wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Ernest L. Williams Jr. wrote:
I am all for RHEL. I think it is an awesome thing. This is because I want to see big software vendors provide software for LINUX:
Examples--- WindRiver (vxWorks) Big CAD/CAM companies MathCAD from the MathWorks
The only thing that RedHat should not forget is that the reason SUN Micro made their OS distribution free (binaries that is) was due to distros like Red Hat Linux. Good Job. Red Hat should distribute the binaries and SRPMS for free and only charge for support!! Don't make us pay for your binaries. I don't mind paying for support.
If you pay for support however, then you're getting the binaries already, so the point is kindof moot.
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Ted Kaczmarek said:
Say I purchase 10 ES licenses, and I make 1 tech support call in year, I then become a gravy train. Another person purchases 1 license and makes 10 tech support calls, this would be a losing proposition.
You are falling into the same old trap. Support calls are not the only cost involved with supporting the product. Back-porting fixes, testing, QA, etc. are also a big part of the cost that doesn't fluctuate with have much you call. We are talking about keeping the same major version of software for 5 years and keeping it secure and stable. I'm sure there is a "break even" cost associated with calling support, but the isn't the whole picture.
You are falling into the same old trap. Support calls are not the only cost involved with supporting the product. Back-porting fixes, testing, QA, etc. are also a big part of the cost that doesn't fluctuate with have much you call. We are talking about keeping the same major version of software for 5 years and keeping it secure and stable. I'm sure there is a "break even" cost associated with calling support, but the isn't the whole picture.
And since out small business has been priced out of RHEL, there's not a darn thing we can do about it. Well, there *IS* one thing we can do. We've considered purchasing one copy of RHEL 3.0, stripping all of the non-GPL stuff out of it, purposely never using the support option, and calling it Quantum Linux. Is that wrong? Legally, no. We've been studying the GPL and the RH licensing agreement closely and they support such an action. Is it moral? I believe it is. We're happy to pay RH a chunk of change once a year as our "contribution" towards all of the QA you speak of. NPR works the same way, with a great deal of success.
-Chuck
Chuck Wolber wrote:
darn thing we can do about it. Well, there *IS* one thing we can do. We've considered purchasing one copy of RHEL 3.0, stripping all of the non-GPL
You don't need to buy it. Get the sources from redhat ftp server. But it is easier to rebuild a RHEL clone from itself.
stuff out of it, purposely never using the support option, and calling it Quantum Linux. Is that wrong? Legally, no. We've been studying the GPL
If you delete *all* Red Hat references, logos, ... from all packages and rebuild _all_ from sources then it's ok. cAos[1] and rhel-rebuild[2] are doing the same.
and the RH licensing agreement closely and they support such an action. Is it moral? I believe it is. We're happy to pay RH a chunk of change once a year as our "contribution" towards all of the QA you speak of. NPR works the same way, with a great deal of success.
You will need to rebuild every update from sources and then release it to your customers. Otherswise is a license violation.
[1] http://caosity.org/ [2] http://www2.uibk.ac.at/zid/software/unix/linux/
William Hooper wrote:
You will need to rebuild every update from sources and then release it to your customers. Otherswise is a license violation.
Cite the source for this "license violation".
"5. NON-TRANSFERABLE. This Agreement, and all Services provided by Red Hat pursuant to this Agreement, may not be transferred, assigned or distributed without the prior written consent of Red Hat. Any attempted transfer, assignment or distribution without Red Hat's prior written consent shall terminate this Agreement, and Red Hat shall have no further obligation hereunder."
an example, but there are more in: http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html
this is not a legal or lawyers list, people with doubts must read:
http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html http://www.linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info/rhas-isos http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/ http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
Xose Vazquez Perez said:
William Hooper wrote:
You will need to rebuild every update from sources and then release it to your customers. Otherswise is a license violation.
Cite the source for this "license violation".
"5. NON-TRANSFERABLE. This Agreement, and all Services provided by Red Hat pursuant to this Agreement, may not be transferred, assigned or distributed without the prior written consent of Red Hat. Any attempted transfer, assignment or distribution without Red Hat's prior written consent shall terminate this Agreement, and Red Hat shall have no further obligation hereunder."
How are RPMs "Services"?
On Saturday 01 November 2003 07:16 pm, William Hooper wrote:
How are RPMs "Services"?
They are available only by subscription under a license you sign and agree to that says you'll only use them on the machine you've licensed.
This has been discussed several times on this list in the past few days.
The most important part of the equation is that Red Hat has publicly stated that they will go after anyone who violates this provision of their license. Reference several articles on this list this past weekend and the license itself.
Jeff
Jeff Lasman said:
On Saturday 01 November 2003 07:16 pm, William Hooper wrote:
How are RPMs "Services"?
They are available only by subscription under a license you sign and agree to that says you'll only use them on the machine you've licensed.
This has nothing to do with a license. This has to do with a service agreement.
The other poster quoted a section that said you couldn't transfer the Service. It had nothing to do with RPMs.
This has been discussed several times on this list in the past few days.
The most important part of the equation is that Red Hat has publicly stated that they will go after anyone who violates this provision of their license. Reference several articles on this list this past weekend and the license itself.
Jeff
Again, the only thing this covers is services. Please point me to where it says you can't copy RPMs from one machine to another if you have one RHEL machine setup and one machine that has no Red Hat trademarks on it.
William Hooper wrote:
The other poster quoted a section that said you couldn't transfer the Service. It had nothing to do with RPMs.
If you have any doubt about RHEL license consult your local lawyer, this is not a legal advice list. Period.
http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/ http://www.linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info/rhas-isos http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
Xose Vazquez Perez said:
William Hooper wrote:
The other poster quoted a section that said you couldn't transfer the Service. It had nothing to do with RPMs.
If you have any doubt about RHEL license consult your local lawyer, this is not a legal advice list. Period.
Nah, really. There seems to be a lot of legal advise being thrown around about what I can't do. I personally don't have an interest in copying RHEL, I'm just tired of hearding the FUD.
Put up or shut up. Where does RHEL restrict what I can do with GPL (BSD, etc.) code? It might be there, but I have yet to see it. Feel free to do it off list if you want.
Chuck Wolber said:
And since out small business has been priced out of RHEL, there's not a darn thing we can do about it. Well, there *IS* one thing we can do. We've considered purchasing one copy of RHEL 3.0, stripping all of the non-GPL stuff out of it, purposely never using the support option, and calling it Quantum Linux.
What is the difference between doing this and just using Fedora?
And since out small business has been priced out of RHEL, there's not a darn thing we can do about it. Well, there *IS* one thing we can do. We've considered purchasing one copy of RHEL 3.0, stripping all of the non-GPL stuff out of it, purposely never using the support option, and calling it Quantum Linux.
What is the difference between doing this and just using Fedora?
RHEL 3.0 is supported with errata releases for five years. Any given fedora release does not. If we purchase one copy of RHEL 3.0, we'll be privy to those updates through the usual channels. Granted, the updates are already freely available, but I consider a yearly "contribution" a fair trade for the value I get from an OS that's supported for five years. If we get bigger, then we'll purchase porportionally more "copies".
-Chuck
Mike A. Harris wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
IMHO stopping to provide SRPMS wouldn't be in RedHat's interests in the first place.
I have trouble seeing why.
There is no real benefit in my opinion to Red Hat holding back the source code rpm packages to everything. I'm kindof confused as to why people would think otherwise personally, as not providing source code to people would more likely do more harm than any good. Both in terms of less people being able to access the sources and potentially fix things or use the code to improve other software, learn, advocate Linux/whatever, etc. and also in terms of negative publicity, public beatings, the slashdot effect, etc.
I definitely agree with the statement "stopping to provide SRPMS wouldn't be in RedHat's interests in the first place."
I agree that in the LONG term it is in RedHat's interest to release the SRPM's of their packages. For all the reasons you state. And maybe also for the simple reason that SW is inherently better if all participants share and share alike! :-) This is the whole idea of OpenSource right?
(Cynically and practically however) I also think that they RedHat could /strategically/ decide that some SOURCE packages for critical security updates might be available to RHN subscribers a week before they are available for anonymous public download.
RedHat could also limit their public FTP site to a reasonable throttled limit (maybe 8Mb/s cap and a limit of 100 simultaneous logins.)
This would have two effects. It would basically make it impossible for for people to be complete freeloaders. (they would at least have to pay for one RHN subscription so that they could get the security patches for their publically accessible servers in a reasonable time frame).
This couldn't be reasonably argued against RedHat as being bad, just as being less philanthropic than they had been before.
Sure there would be lot's of people who think they are owed something for nothing, but they are just a lot of noise.
Also, I think that RedHat should work out a deal with Oracle and BMC and Veritas etc...... RedHat should provide Certificates for their systems that could be BOUND (SIGNED WITH or BY) to a certificate for an Orcale or BMC or Veritas etc.... That way Oracle could refuse to honor your Oracle support contract unless you had a paid subscription for RedHat. This would bind RH-Labs better too. Ensuring that the players in the party could all contribute fairly.
You might think that vendors would never do that.... But in my experience it wouldn't have any practical difference whether done or not.
When you call vendors for support they insist that you have all applicable patches (and their dependencies) installed before you can get any support from the vendor that isn't already available in their documentation anyway. I mean sure, they will pay someone minimum wage to read the docs to you over the phone, but if you really need an Engineer's or Developer's support, they will make sure you have the current "blessed" configuration before they waste their time.
-Ben.
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 12:45:10 +0500, Konstantin Zemlyak wrote:
If Red Hat stop making the SRPMS available to the those who haven't subscribed to RHEL, all it takes is one paying customer to release them on their own FTP servers.
Why should that customer do that? It would threaten Red Hat's business model. That should not be in the interest of a paying enterprise customer.
IMHO stopping to provide SRPMS wouldn't be in RedHat's interests in the first place.
[First a reminder, we should not be discussing anything like this on fedora-list because other subscribers might be annoyed. We're off-topic. Would be more suitable for the general redhat-list. I won't reply to this thread beyond this reply.]
Anyway, please read the very top of the quote again and see how that would meet the requirements of the GNU GPL. It would. It is a scenario that *might* happen one time.
--
-
Aaron J. Greenwood -
akonstam＠trinity.edu -
Ben Russo -
Christoph Wickert -
Chuck Wolber -
Con Tassios -
David Holden -
David Jericho -
Emmanuel Seyman -
Erik Williamson -
Ernest L. Williams Jr. -
jdow -
Jeff Lasman -
Kai Thomsen -
Konstantin Zemlyak -
Michael Schwendt -
Mike A. Harris -
Mike Vanecek -
ne... -
Paul Gear -
Paul Jakma -
Randy Kelsoe -
Sean Middleditch -
Steve Bergman -
T. Ribbrock -
Ted Kaczmarek -
William Hooper -
Xose Vazquez Perez