OK, that's not really true. Mark is a sharp guy, and gets open source as well, indeed, better, than most. But he's completely wrong on his criticism of Red Hat (which Greg of the Fedora Project shoots down). His basic point? Because RHEL is a closed binary, it's proprietary.
Full article at, http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/01/ubuntu_founder.htm...
taharka
Lexington, Kentucky U.S.A.
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 09:53 -0500, taharka wrote:
OK, that's not really true. Mark is a sharp guy, and gets open source as well, indeed, better, than most. But he's completely wrong on his criticism of Red Hat (which Greg of the Fedora Project shoots down). His basic point? Because RHEL is a closed binary, it's proprietary.
Full article at, http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/01/ubuntu_founder.htm...
My intelligence just got insulted with that article there. So, predictably I ranted. I pointed out that rule #1 in Marketing 101 is to never openly attack your competitor. I have no clue how that man made his money, it must have been purely by some act of fate or inheritance, and not by good business skills. I might have decided to give Ubuntu a whirl, but not now. "Ahh Heyal Nahhh", as we said in Texas. Ric
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 09:53 -0500, taharka wrote:
OK, that's not really true. Mark is a sharp guy, and gets open source as well, indeed, better, than most. But he's completely wrong on his criticism of Red Hat (which Greg of the Fedora Project shoots down). His basic point? Because RHEL is a closed binary, it's proprietary.
Full article at, http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/01/ubuntu_founder.htm...
taharka
Going through my Fedora folder, I came back across this one. I have never understood the comment. How is RHEL a "closed binary"? I'm having a time making sense of that statement. No biggie, just curious as heck. Ric
Ric Moore escribió:
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 09:53 -0500, taharka wrote:
OK, that's not really true. Mark is a sharp guy, and gets open source as well, indeed, better, than most. But he's completely wrong on his criticism of Red Hat (which Greg of the Fedora Project shoots down). His basic point? Because RHEL is a closed binary, it's proprietary.
Full article at, http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/01/ubuntu_founder.htm...
taharka
Going through my Fedora folder, I came back across this one. I have never understood the comment. How is RHEL a "closed binary"? I'm having a time making sense of that statement. No biggie, just curious as heck.
If RHEL was closed, CentOS wouldn't exist. :-D
So I would say that Mark really doesn't know what he's talking about.
Martin Marques wrote:
OK, that's not really true. Mark is a sharp guy, and gets open source as well, indeed, better, than most. But he's completely wrong on his criticism of Red Hat (which Greg of the Fedora Project shoots down). His basic point? Because RHEL is a closed binary, it's proprietary.
Full article at, http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/01/ubuntu_founder.htm...
Going through my Fedora folder, I came back across this one. I have never understood the comment. How is RHEL a "closed binary"? I'm having a time making sense of that statement. No biggie, just curious as heck.
If RHEL was closed, CentOS wouldn't exist. :-D
So I would say that Mark really doesn't know what he's talking about.
If RHEL wasn't closed, CentOS wouldn't need to exist. Please explain why I need to know the difference.
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Martin Marques wrote:
Ric Moore escribió:
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 09:53 -0500, taharka wrote:
OK, that's not really true. Mark is a sharp guy, and gets open source as well, indeed, better, than most. But he's completely wrong on his criticism of Red Hat (which Greg of the Fedora Project shoots down). His basic point? Because RHEL is a closed binary, it's proprietary.
Full article at, http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/01/ubuntu_founder.htm...
taharka
Going through my Fedora folder, I came back across this one. I have never understood the comment. How is RHEL a "closed binary"? I'm having a time making sense of that statement. No biggie, just curious as heck.
If RHEL was closed, CentOS wouldn't exist. :-D
So I would say that Mark really doesn't know what he's talking about.
The SRPMS for RHEL are freely available, but the binary RPMs, ISOs, and binary update RPMs are available from RH only by subscription. Red Hat branding (graphics, etc.) cannot be used except in conjunction with official RH products. In this sense, RHEL is a "closed binary".
CentOS uses the RHEL SRPMs, but builds its own binary RPMs, ISOs, and binary update RPMs (without RH branding). Of course, RH does not support CentOS installations except insofar as updates they release for RHEL are available (as source) for CentOS to use.
Ric Moore wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 09:53 -0500, taharka wrote:
OK, that's not really true. Mark is a sharp guy, and gets open source as well, indeed, better, than most. But he's completely wrong on his criticism of Red Hat (which Greg of the Fedora Project shoots down). His basic point? Because RHEL is a closed binary, it's proprietary.
Full article at, http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/01/ubuntu_founder.htm...
taharka
Going through my Fedora folder, I came back across this one. I have never understood the comment. How is RHEL a "closed binary"? I'm having a time making sense of that statement. No biggie, just curious as heck.
You can't get a copy unless you buy a support contract and agree to only install it on the covered machine, even though all of the GPL'd content includes a clause that says additional restrictions can't be appled to redistribution.
Martin Marques wrote:
Ric Moore escribió:
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 09:53 -0500, taharka wrote:
OK, that's not really true. Mark is a sharp guy, and gets open source as well, indeed, better, than most. But he's completely wrong on his criticism of Red Hat (which Greg of the Fedora Project shoots down). His basic point? Because RHEL is a closed binary, it's proprietary.
Full article at, http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/01/ubuntu_founder.htm...
taharka
Going through my Fedora folder, I came back across this one. I have never understood the comment. How is RHEL a "closed binary"? I'm having a time making sense of that statement. No biggie, just curious as heck.
If RHEL was closed, CentOS wouldn't exist. :-D
So I would say that Mark really doesn't know what he's talking about.
As has been mentioned, this is not Business 101, but mud slinging 101 which clearly proscribes this tactic:
Define a term (any buzzword will do) with a negative connotation and apply it to your opponent.
In this case, define 'closed binary' to mean that the CDs that are 'purchased' contain only binaries. Yes this ignores the facts, but is simply a definition (SUN Marketing did this first). It is true that if you walk into a store that offers a Red Hat box for sale, the definition of 'purchase' means you walk up to the counter and pay for the box. It does not need to mean anything else to be true. It does not need to distinguish between the service agreement that you actually purchased, and the box that it came in or the CDs that are also in the box.
Now imply that your definition (closed binaries) is a bad thing, and your competitor does it.
It does not matter in the least that if you were to pay $0.50 shipping for a UBUNTU CD you have met the requirements of the definition.
It is simply a tactic used often to sling mud on your competitor. It only needs to be true within the limited definition of the statement in which the accusation is made.
Les Mikesell escribió:
Martin Marques wrote:
If RHEL was closed, CentOS wouldn't exist. :-D
So I would say that Mark really doesn't know what he's talking about.
If RHEL wasn't closed, CentOS wouldn't need to exist. Please explain why I need to know the difference.
I'm starting to think that you don't get OSS.
As all src.rpm from RHEL are distributed under the GPL licence (all that is GPL). The difference with Fedora and alike is that they don't have it available for download.
Now, tell me how this makes it "closed software"?
Once again: If RHEL was CLOSED, CentOS CAN'T exist!
Les Mikesell escribió:
Ric Moore wrote:
You can't get a copy unless you buy a support contract and agree to only install it on the covered machine, even though all of the GPL'd content includes a clause that says additional restrictions can't be appled to redistribution.
I haven't read the RHEL license, but if it's like you say, it's in violation of the GPL.
I would really be surprised if RH did something so stupid.
Martin Marques wrote:
If RHEL was closed, CentOS wouldn't exist. :-D
So I would say that Mark really doesn't know what he's talking about.
If RHEL wasn't closed, CentOS wouldn't need to exist. Please explain why I need to know the difference.
I'm starting to think that you don't get OSS.
As all src.rpm from RHEL are distributed under the GPL licence (all that is GPL). The difference with Fedora and alike is that they don't have it available for download.
Now, tell me how this makes it "closed software"?
The binaries can't be redistributed, the source must be modified before redistribution. Mark is perfectly correct and does not attach any such restrictions to Ubuntu.
Once again: If RHEL was CLOSED, CentOS CAN'T exist!
Saying it twice doesn't make it any more true. CentOS does what they do only because RHEL can't be freely redistributed as is.
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 15:18 -0300, Martin Marques wrote:
Les Mikesell escribió:
Ric Moore wrote:
You can't get a copy unless you buy a support contract and agree to only install it on the covered machine, even though all of the GPL'd content includes a clause that says additional restrictions can't be appled to redistribution.
I haven't read the RHEL license, but if it's like you say, it's in violation of the GPL.
I would really be surprised if RH did something so stupid.
I tend to agree with you Martin, as RH's lawyers have undoubtedly been all over the GPL with a fine tooth comb. Maybe the word used was RedHat's "offering' of a set of CD's and a built-in price for support, while the SRPMS are freely available for redistribution, then they have satisfied the intent of the GPL. Then you just pick it up or lay it down. Plus, the fact that FC is married in a sense to RedHat and thereby an extension of it, that to say that RedHat is a closed binary is not -entirely- accurate. Maybe some, at some point between 0% and 100%, but not entirely.
So to that effect if Marks statement was 100% correct, then CentoOS would not and could not exist. Yet, on the other hand, CentOS does exist which negates the statement that RH would be *-completely-* closed, instead of 'to-a-degree' closed. Kinda like being a little-bit pregnant, but I think you see my point, even if you do not agree with it, ole friend Les. It is open enough to satisfy the GPL and probably not one erg of energy more.
Also, RedHat has poured more money into devel than just about any other distro, so you at least tip your hat to who brung ya to the dance instead of bitch-slapping at them. It's considered poor form in "Polite Society".
Ric Moore wrote:
I tend to agree with you Martin, as RH's lawyers have undoubtedly been all over the GPL with a fine tooth comb. Maybe the word used was RedHat's "offering' of a set of CD's and a built-in price for support, while the SRPMS are freely available for redistribution, then they have satisfied the intent of the GPL. Then you just pick it up or lay it down. Plus, the fact that FC is married in a sense to RedHat and thereby an extension of it, that to say that RedHat is a closed binary is not -entirely- accurate. Maybe some, at some point between 0% and 100%, but not entirely.
So to that effect if Marks statement was 100% correct, then CentoOS would not and could not exist. Yet, on the other hand, CentOS does exist which negates the statement that RH would be *-completely-* closed, instead of 'to-a-degree' closed. Kinda like being a little-bit pregnant, but I think you see my point, even if you do not agree with it, ole friend Les. It is open enough to satisfy the GPL and probably not one erg of energy more.
In practice, what matters in terms of being 'open' is how easily someone else can take a complete existing work, add value to improve it, and redistribute the combination. CentOS does a lot of work just to get to the point where redistribution is allowed and doesn't add much except an option kernel with more drivers included. I'd rather see that work go into something like a better installer, or combining newer desktop apps into the stable kernel/libs from RHEL - but nobody does because RH goes out of their way to make it difficult to compete by adding improvements. Contrast that with the Debian base and Ubuntu/Mepis/Knoppix if you don't see a difference.
Also, RedHat has poured more money into devel than just about any other distro, so you at least tip your hat to who brung ya to the dance instead of bitch-slapping at them. It's considered poor form in "Polite Society".
OK, but at the same time you have to admit that RedHat has dumped more bugs onto more people's desktops than any other Linux system and that most of the stability they enjoy now came as a result of bugs reported by their early users - and these same users now are prohibited from freely copying the enterprise product around. It's not quite the way anyone expected things to turn out.
The binaries can't be redistributed, the source must be modified before redistribution. Mark is perfectly correct and does not attach any such restrictions to Ubuntu.
Actually if you take their code, totally mash it up and it says its "Ubuntu" you will get into trouble, just as if you do the same with Red Hat. In addition if you modify some packages (eg firefox) you are required to rename them usually again for trademark reasons.
Once again: If RHEL was CLOSED, CentOS CAN'T exist!
Saying it twice doesn't make it any more true. CentOS does what they do only because RHEL can't be freely redistributed as is.
It's not possible to "redistribute" Red Hat Enterprise Linux in that sense, because it isn't about bits on disks its a service, support and the like deal. How are you going to "redistribute" the telephone support service ... ?
Alan
redistribute the combination. CentOS does a lot of work just to get to the point where redistribution is allowed and doesn't add much except an option kernel with more drivers included. I'd rather see that work go
And yum, which is a big change. You assume that Centos wants to do other stuff.
into something like a better installer, or combining newer desktop apps into the stable kernel/libs from RHEL - but nobody does because RH goes
I wouldn't recommend trying that too hard. Current gnome needs current gtk and really wants composite which really wants current X libraries and server which ... and so it goes on.
Alan
Alan wrote:
The binaries can't be redistributed, the source must be modified before redistribution. Mark is perfectly correct and does not attach any such restrictions to Ubuntu.
Actually if you take their code, totally mash it up and it says its "Ubuntu" you will get into trouble, just as if you do the same with Red Hat. In addition if you modify some packages (eg firefox) you are required to rename them usually again for trademark reasons.
You can take an unmodified firefox, add things to the distribution and redistribute, still calling it firefox. I'm not sure how that would work with Ubuntu.
Once again: If RHEL was CLOSED, CentOS CAN'T exist!
Saying it twice doesn't make it any more true. CentOS does what they do only because RHEL can't be freely redistributed as is.
It's not possible to "redistribute" Red Hat Enterprise Linux in that sense, because it isn't about bits on disks its a service, support and the like deal. How are you going to "redistribute" the telephone support service ... ?
So what's the point of prohibiting the code and update redistribution?
It's not possible to "redistribute" Red Hat Enterprise Linux in that sense, because it isn't about bits on disks its a service, support and the like deal. How are you going to "redistribute" the telephone support service ... ?
So what's the point of prohibiting the code and update redistribution?
All the SRPMS are on the web site for free download by anyone. The binaries contain things like the Red Hat trademarks and logos that are associated with the Red Hat Enterprise Linux and the whole service and support deal, so you'd have to rebuild them anyway.
The update service is exactly that a *service*.
Alan wrote:
It's not possible to "redistribute" Red Hat Enterprise Linux in that sense, because it isn't about bits on disks its a service, support and the like deal. How are you going to "redistribute" the telephone support service ... ?
So what's the point of prohibiting the code and update redistribution?
All the SRPMS are on the web site for free download by anyone. The binaries contain things like the Red Hat trademarks and logos that are associated with the Red Hat Enterprise Linux and the whole service and support deal, so you'd have to rebuild them anyway.
The update service is exactly that a *service*.
That doesn't really answer the question of why redistribution of unmodified products and updates should be prohibited. Or why calling such a restriction 'closed' is off the mark.
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 15:31 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
Alan wrote:
It's not possible to "redistribute" Red Hat Enterprise Linux in that sense, because it isn't about bits on disks its a service, support and the like deal. How are you going to "redistribute" the telephone support service ... ?
So what's the point of prohibiting the code and update redistribution?
All the SRPMS are on the web site for free download by anyone. The binaries contain things like the Red Hat trademarks and logos that are associated with the Red Hat Enterprise Linux and the whole service and support deal, so you'd have to rebuild them anyway.
The update service is exactly that a *service*.
That doesn't really answer the question of why redistribution of unmodified products and updates should be prohibited. Or why calling such a restriction 'closed' is off the mark.
---- I don't recall anything/anyone saying that redistribution is prohibited with the exception of the trademarks/logos which are part of the RHEL packaging.
Craig
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 21:24 +0000, Alan wrote:
It's not possible to "redistribute" Red Hat Enterprise Linux in that sense, because it isn't about bits on disks its a service, support and the like deal. How are you going to "redistribute" the telephone support service ... ?
So what's the point of prohibiting the code and update redistribution?
All the SRPMS are on the web site for free download by anyone. The binaries contain things like the Red Hat trademarks and logos that are associated with the Red Hat Enterprise Linux and the whole service and support deal, so you'd have to rebuild them anyway.
The update service is exactly that a *service*.
I thought when RHEL started there was a matter of some its binaries not being distributable because they were proprietary. Then Centos was RHEL minus service and minus the proprietary binaries. Is that not still true? Just asking. -- ======================================================================= A person who has nothing looks at all there is and wants something. A person who has something looks at all there is and wants all the rest. ======================================================================= Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam@sbcglobal.net
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 11:57 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
You can't get a copy unless you buy a support contract and agree to only install it on the covered machine, even though all of the GPL'd content includes a clause that says additional restrictions can't be appled to redistribution.
This is from the license agreement you sign when you buy a Redhat contract:
With the exception of certain image files identified in Section 2 below, the license terms for the components permit Client to copy, modify, and redistribute the component, in both source code and binary code forms. This agreement does not limit Client's rights under, or grant Client rights that supersede, the license terms of any particular component.
So you are definitely free to distribute the binaries and source code you receive from Redhat. But the RHN agreement that you sign also says that you can only use binaries you get from RHN in certain ways, and if you don't follow the terms you won't get more updates from RHN. It's like when you buy a product from a store, and get a warranty. The warranty says that if you do certain things, the warranty isn't valid anymore. This doesn't mean that the warranty _prohibits_ you from doing these things. Same thing with Redhat. You aren't prohibited, in a legal sense, from redistributing the software you download from RHN. It's just that Redhat won't give you any more updates if you do. Obviously this is a little different with respect to trademarks and such, but this is the general idea.
The license also doesn't say you can only install RHEL on one machine. It says you get one license to use RHN, and you can only use the RHN updates on one machine. Again, there's nothing from stopping you from installing RHEL wherever you want as long as you don't use RHN without paying Redhat for it.
Yeah, this is a kind of crappy policy that Redhat has. But it's a policy that makes Redhat a lot of money, and consequently they can hire a lot of good developers and make great products. Redhat, by a huge margin, is the biggest contributor to open source projects, especially GNU projects and in the kernel. They have also done really great things in the server environment (e.g. the amazing amount of work they spend on SELinux). Canonical basically repackages other people's software. The amount of things that they have actually developed (I'm thinking of upstart and bazaar) is really paltry compared to Redhat's contributions. So even though I could get free updates from Canonical for their server products, I really like Redhat because they contribute a lot more to the community, and because I really feel like they value open source and the GPL, especially evident through offerings like Fedora.
Just my two cents, Evan Klitzke
Aaron Konstam escribió:
I thought when RHEL started there was a matter of some its binaries not being distributable because they were proprietary. Then Centos was RHEL minus service and minus the proprietary binaries. Is that not still true? Just asking.
Yes, it's true.
{CentOS} = {RHEL} - {Service} - {proprietary}
BTW, Les said nobody developed extra things for RHEL, which is not true. Just look a Dag and Dries rpms repository. Those are "newer desktop apps into the stable kernel/libs from RHEL" as was quoted.
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Denis Leroy wrote:
Matthew Saltzman wrote:
Red Hat branding (graphics, etc.) cannot be used except in conjunction with official RH products. In this sense, RHEL is a "closed binary".
And therefore so is Ubuntu.
Don't take my remarks out of context.
But if you insist, then yes, the portions of Ubuntu that cannot be modified and redistributed are "closed".
I thought when RHEL started there was a matter of some its binaries not being distributable because they were proprietary.
The RHEL package includes some bundled applications from other vendors that are proprietary (Java interpreters, media players that kind of thing), separate to the OS itself. They are not required as part of the system.
Alan
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 22:36 +0000, Alan wrote:
I thought when RHEL started there was a matter of some its binaries not being distributable because they were proprietary.
The RHEL package includes some bundled applications from other vendors that are proprietary (Java interpreters, media players that kind of thing), separate to the OS itself. They are not required as part of the system.
Alan
Well if these bundled applications are what you get when you buy RHEL than I would say the distribution is in some sense closed. Whether they are required for the system to run seems irrelevant. They are part of RHEL. Or am I not understanding what you are saying?
Martin Marques wrote:
BTW, Les said nobody developed extra things for RHEL, which is not true. Just look a Dag and Dries rpms repository. Those are "newer desktop apps into the stable kernel/libs from RHEL" as was quoted.
If it wasn't clear, what I meant was that no one takes the complete existing RHEL work and adds things to improve it, redistributing the entire bundle. That may not match anyone else's definition of 'open', but it is what affects the products you'll be able to use in the future.
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Craig White wrote:
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 15:31 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
Alan wrote:
It's not possible to "redistribute" Red Hat Enterprise Linux in that sense, because it isn't about bits on disks its a service, support and the like deal. How are you going to "redistribute" the telephone support service ... ?
So what's the point of prohibiting the code and update redistribution?
All the SRPMS are on the web site for free download by anyone. The binaries contain things like the Red Hat trademarks and logos that are associated with the Red Hat Enterprise Linux and the whole service and support deal, so you'd have to rebuild them anyway.
The update service is exactly that a *service*.
That doesn't really answer the question of why redistribution of unmodified products and updates should be prohibited. Or why calling such a restriction 'closed' is off the mark.
I don't recall anything/anyone saying that redistribution is prohibited with the exception of the trademarks/logos which are part of the RHEL packaging.
If you subscribe to the service, you get some level of support and access to the binary distributions (media and/or ISOs and individual RPMs) and the update service (and other system management services, depending on what you pay). In return, you agree not to install or run ("all or part of") the binary distributions on unsubscribed systems you own.
A case could be made that you can't redistribute the ISOs because they contain trademarks/logos. In that case, the only legal way to get ISOs is from Red Hat. Individual SRPMs are publicly available, so you could get those and redistribute them or compile and package them and redistribute that. That's what CentOS et al. do.
The actual license is here:
https://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us.html?country=buying+a+Red+Hat+Subscr...
Craig
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Les Mikesell wrote:
Martin Marques wrote:
BTW, Les said nobody developed extra things for RHEL, which is not true. Just look a Dag and Dries rpms repository. Those are "newer desktop apps into the stable kernel/libs from RHEL" as was quoted.
If it wasn't clear, what I meant was that no one takes the complete existing RHEL work and adds things to improve it, redistributing the entire bundle. That may not match anyone else's definition of 'open', but it is what affects the products you'll be able to use in the future.
Sure they do. CentOS does, in fact. Look at CentOS Extras, CentOS Plus, CentOS Cluster Suite/Global File System. Look at Scientific Linux customizations https://www.scientificlinux.org/about/customize.
Well if these bundled applications are what you get when you buy RHEL than I would say the distribution is in some sense closed. Whether they are required for the system to run seems irrelevant. They are part of RHEL. Or am I not understanding what you are saying?
They are bundled with it, not as part of it. People like the FSF consider it important that such things are kept separate so that people who choose freedom can separate the free and non-free easily.
Whether it makes it "closed" is a matter of personal definition I guess.
Matthew Saltzman wrote:
BTW, Les said nobody developed extra things for RHEL, which is not true. Just look a Dag and Dries rpms repository. Those are "newer desktop apps into the stable kernel/libs from RHEL" as was quoted.
If it wasn't clear, what I meant was that no one takes the complete existing RHEL work and adds things to improve it, redistributing the entire bundle. That may not match anyone else's definition of 'open', but it is what affects the products you'll be able to use in the future.
Sure they do. CentOS does, in fact.
No, they are required to remove things. And they claim it is a non-trivial amount of work to comply.
Look at CentOS Extras, CentOS Plus, CentOS Cluster Suite/Global File System. Look at Scientific Linux customizations https://www.scientificlinux.org/about/customize.
And White Box, now gone because it was not practical to maintain...
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Les Mikesell wrote:
Matthew Saltzman wrote:
BTW, Les said nobody developed extra things for RHEL, which is not true. Just look a Dag and Dries rpms repository. Those are "newer desktop apps into the stable kernel/libs from RHEL" as was quoted.
If it wasn't clear, what I meant was that no one takes the complete existing RHEL work and adds things to improve it, redistributing the entire bundle. That may not match anyone else's definition of 'open', but it is what affects the products you'll be able to use in the future.
Sure they do. CentOS does, in fact.
No, they are required to remove things. And they claim it is a non-trivial amount of work to comply.
Ah, you're right. They are required to remove the Red Hat branding. I expect it was a non-trivial amount of work to comply in the first place. I would speculate that it's easier to maintain compliance once achieved, but I don't know for sure, as I've never tried to build a distribution.
Look at CentOS Extras, CentOS Plus, CentOS Cluster Suite/Global File System. Look at Scientific Linux customizations https://www.scientificlinux.org/about/customize.
And White Box, now gone because it was not practical to maintain...
But what about it was not practical to maintain? Compliance with Red Hat's brand protection policy? Or other aspects of the distro?
I can't speak authoritatively to the question. Can you?
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 19:44 -0500, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Les Mikesell wrote:
Look at CentOS Extras, CentOS Plus, CentOS Cluster Suite/Global File System. Look at Scientific Linux customizations https://www.scientificlinux.org/about/customize.
And White Box, now gone because it was not practical to maintain...
But what about it was not practical to maintain? Compliance with Red Hat's brand protection policy? Or other aspects of the distro?
I can't speak authoritatively to the question. Can you?
---- perhaps 'not practical to maintain' with respect to whiteboxlinux is because each round of updates that were released by Red Hat were slower to come out of whiteboxlinux than the previous set of updates to the point where you had to either rebuild SRPM errata/security updates yourself of find them elsewhere.
whiteboxlinux was the result of one and only one person and with both RHEL3 and RHEL4 + pressure to provide builds on various hardware platforms and not just i386, the bandwidth to distribute all of the updates, it became too much of a burden for John to carry. He is still on the nahant list so you could ask him directly if you wish.
Craig
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 14:15 -0800, Evan Klitzke wrote:
I really like Redhat because they contribute a lot more to the community, and because I really feel like they value open source and the GPL, especially evident through offerings like Fedora.
When you work there, in the morning there is gallons of fresh coffee and bags and bags of bagels with tubs of assorted cream-cheese spreads. You just gotta love those guys. I doubt the Debian or Ubuntu folks get the bagels. <g> Ric
-
Aaron Konstam -
Alan Cox -
Craig White -
Craig White -
Denis Leroy -
Evan Klitzke -
Les Mikesell -
Martin Marques -
Matthew Saltzman -
Phil Meyer -
Ric Moore -
taharka