Re: Fedora and the System Administrator

[Miguel M]

Bill Anderson wrote 2003-10-01
> Well if you need no support from RH ....
> -> Buy as many licenses as you feel you can, you can even use these on
> your priority production machines for the support aspect
> -> Download the SRPMS[1]
> -> Use an installed system to build the SRPMS into a distro, since they
> are GPLed.[2]
> -> Deploy the GPL version to your other systems, "branding" it a "Common
> Operating Environment"
> There is a project already underway on making a system to build an
> installable release from the SRPMS.

Thank you very much for you ideas Bill!

It's good to read at last a smart solution to the
problem instead of "change Linux Distribution", etc.

Do you know the name (or better yet the URL) of
that "installable release from the SRPMS" project?

Cheers,

Miguel

_________________________________________________________________
Get McAfee virus scanning and cleaning of incoming attachments.  Get Hotmail 
Extra Storage!   http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es

Fedora and the System Administrator

[Bill Anderson]

On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 18:40, Miguel M wrote:
> Bill Anderson wrote 2003-10-01
> > Well if you need no support from RH ....
> > -> Buy as many licenses as you feel you can, you can even use these on
> > your priority production machines for the support aspect
> > -> Download the SRPMS[1]
> > -> Use an installed system to build the SRPMS into a distro, since they
> > are GPLed.[2]
> > -> Deploy the GPL version to your other systems, "branding" it a "Common
> > Operating Environment"
> > There is a project already underway on making a system to build an
> > installable release from the SRPMS.
>
> Thank you very much for you ideas Bill!
>
> It's good to read at last a smart solution to the
> problem instead of "change Linux Distribution", etc.
>
> Do you know the name (or better yet the URL) of
> that "installable release from the SRPMS" project?

I'm on this list:
"""
rhel-rebuild mailing list
[e-mail]
Hosted at the University of Innsbruck, Austria
"""

Sorry, don't recall the website ... wait one ... google returns this:
http://www2.uibk.ac.at/zid/software/unix/linux/rhel-rebuild.htm

Fedora and the System Administrator

[William Hooper]

Bill Anderson said:
[snip]
> Sorry, don't recall the website ... wait one ... google returns this:
> http://www2.uibk.ac.at/zid/software/unix/linux/rhel-rebuild.htm

Seems to me if you buy a copy of RHEL in order to do this rebuild (as
suggested) it would make more sense to just remove the non-distributable
bits and install it on all your machines.  Either way it is just as
unsupported.

Fedora and the System Administrator

[Buck]

> From what I hear, that would be in violation of their contract.

Additionally, it might also be known as pIrAcY.

Buck

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
On Behalf Of William Hooper
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 12:03 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Fedora and the System Administrator

Bill Anderson said:
[snip]
> Sorry, don't recall the website ... wait one ... google returns this: 
> http://www2.uibk.ac.at/zid/software/unix/linux/rhel-rebuild.htm

Seems to me if you buy a copy of RHEL in order to do this rebuild (as
suggested) it would make more sense to just remove the non-distributable
bits and install it on all your machines.  Either way it is just as
unsupported.

Fedora and the System Administrator

[Bill Anderson]

On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 15:42, Buck wrote:
> > From what I hear, that would be in violation of their contract.
>
> Additionally, it might also be known as pIrAcY.

The you heard wrong. I get a Cd that is not redistributable when certian
packages are redistributed, remove those packages and am left with a
redistributable CD. You have to follow the trademark guidelines, but by
removing those packages (plus the IBM ones) and not calling it Red Hat
Advanced Server or other derivations, you're fine. Even RH says this.

Fedora and the System Administrator

[Buck]

You might be right, I may have misunderstood what he meant by the
"bits".  If he were talking copyright stuff, you are right.  But you
would have to remove all the Red Hat trademarks and art work and symbols
as well.  However, I have read that RH imbeds them or attaches them in a
way to destroy the normal operational abilities of the OS.  So it may be
possible but it may also be very difficult.

Buck

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
On Behalf Of Bill Anderson
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 5:47 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Fedora and the System Administrator

On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 15:42, Buck wrote:
> > From what I hear, that would be in violation of their contract.
>
> Additionally, it might also be known as pIrAcY.

The you heard wrong. I get a Cd that is not redistributable when certian
packages are redistributed, remove those packages and am left with a
redistributable CD. You have to follow the trademark guidelines, but by
removing those packages (plus the IBM ones) and not calling it Red Hat
Advanced Server or other derivations, you're fine. Even RH says this.

Fedora and the System Administrator

[Alan Thew]

Quoting Buck :
> You might be right, I may have misunderstood what he meant by the
> "bits".  If he were talking copyright stuff, you are right.  But you
> would have to remove all the Red Hat trademarks and art work and symbols
> as well.  However, I have read that RH imbeds them or attaches them in a
> way to destroy the normal operational abilities of the OS.  So it may be
> possible but it may also be very difficult.

They certainly made it harder in normal RHL given that I supported a local
Linux group by buying their downloaded RH ISOs with all logos.trademarks
removed and RH9 would not boot as easily as RH7.3 had... but "destroy"
seems rather er.. over the top IMHO.

Alan
> Buck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> On Behalf Of Bill Anderson
> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 5:47 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Fedora and the System Administrator
>
> On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 15:42, Buck wrote:
> > > From what I hear, that would be in violation of their contract.
> >
> > Additionally, it might also be known as pIrAcY.
>
> The you heard wrong. I get a Cd that is not redistributable when certian
> packages are redistributed, remove those packages and am left with a
> redistributable CD. You have to follow the trademark guidelines, but by
> removing those packages (plus the IBM ones) and not calling it Red Hat
> Advanced Server or other derivations, you're fine. Even RH says this.

Fedora and the System Administrator

[William Hooper]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
> On Behalf Of William Hooper
> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 12:03 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Fedora and the System Administrator
>
> Bill Anderson said:
> [snip]
> > Sorry, don't recall the website ... wait one ... google returns this:
> > http://www2.uibk.ac.at/zid/software/unix/linux/rhel-rebuild.htm
>
> Seems to me if you buy a copy of RHEL in order to do this rebuild (as
> suggested) it would make more sense to just remove the non-distributable
> bits and install it on all your machines.  Either way it is just as
> unsupported.

Buck said:
> > From what I hear, that would be in violation of their contract.

Support contract, yes.  So as I said above, when it breaks you own both
pieces.
> Additionally, it might also be known as pIrAcY.

What's that?  Have you read the GPL?  Or the BSD license?  Or the large
number of other licenses that give you the right to redistribute software?
 Anything that doesn't give you that right would fall in the
"non-distributabe bits" section and need to be removed.

Fedora and the System Administrator

[Bill Anderson]

On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 16:07, Alan Thew wrote:
> Quoting Buck :
> > You might be right, I may have misunderstood what he meant by the
> > "bits".  If he were talking copyright stuff, you are right.  But you
> > would have to remove all the Red Hat trademarks and art work and symbols
> > as well.  However, I have read that RH imbeds them or attaches them in a
> > way to destroy the normal operational abilities of the OS.  So it may be
> > possible but it may also be very difficult.
>
> They certainly made it harder in normal RHL given that I supported a local
> Linux group by buying their downloaded RH ISOs with all logos.trademarks
> removed and RH9 would not boot as easily as RH7.3 had... but "destroy"
> seems rather er.. over the top IMHO.

Agreed. A lot of it depend son how you do it. If you simply remove the
trademarked images, etc., well yeah things will look funny/not work
right. If you *repelace* them with images of the same format and size,
that's a different story. Of course, if your new images look funny ...

I've got several servers that are running "Red Hat Linux" 7.3. There is
nothing of RH trademarks left, and everything works flawlessly.