would someone kindly clarify this paragaph, please (RH business model)

[Elton Woo]

On October 27, 2003 02:46 am, Mike A. Harris , <"Mike A. Harris" 
<mharris at redhat.com>> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Elton Woo wrote:
> >"Open source software is not free. Though freedom may be an abstract
> > concept for commercial products, it can be ideal for software. Free
> > software means no one company can fully own and conceal it. Software
> > lock-in is impossible."
> >
> >I have just read, and re-read the above statement four times, and I still
> >don't understand it.
> >Here's the link:
> >
> >http://www.redhat.com/about/mission/business_model.html

> >... and NO, I am *not* being sarcastic. I honestly can not understand
> >that statement.
>
> I read the page now also, and I think it is a bit confusing
> although I do know what was intended by the statement.  What was
> intended is something like "Open source software is not always
> free of cost, however it is always free in the sense of the
> liberty one has with the source code."  The statement as present
> on the web page I believe assumes too much from the reader, and
> should be clarified.

Thank you Mike. I thought I was the only one who thought the paragraph
to be confusing, and at the very least, *contradictory*. IMHO, if it
were worded thus:
"Unlike closed-source, or propietart software, open-source code is free."

I am aware and I would even dare to say that I *understand* the GPL.
... as *I* understand it (please correct me if I am off-base):

I am free to download the code, and re-engineer or even reverse engineer
it ... AS LONG AS I provide the original code, my modified code is OPEN
to view by anyone, and that I MAINTAIN *all accreditation* to the original
sources and developers (to wit, the programmers who developed the
original code, and where this is applicable, accreditation to Red Hat's
participation).

What I may NOT do is to copy and redistribute the source with parts of
it being CLOSED, and / or stripping any references to the originators or 
developers of the code, *OR* claim that the work is solely MINE.

I am also free to CHARGE for the media on which the code is distrubuted,
even to the point of selling in a boxed set, and charging for printed
(*hard-copy*) documentation, _as long as)_ I do NOT charge for the actual
software. So, going by that, if I download Red Hat Fedora, and burn some
CD's, I am not "stealing", and I can even print a manual, and creat a
shrink-wrapped set for resale, _as long as_ 

1) I do not claim the code as my own, 
2) Either I strip Red Hat's trademarks from the code, or licence such
marks from Red Hat. AND clearly indicate this has been done.
3) Charge only for the _physical_ media: CD or DVD disks, printed
manual(s), container.

The above is how I understand and interpret the terms of the GPL, 
(including how it applies to Red Hat linux).

Of course, I am not claiming that my interpretation is *correct* so
please direct me wherever I am at fault.


Elton ;-)

-- 
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_4504.html
"You only live once: let's make life BETTER for each other."
LINUX User #193975 [AMD ATHLON CPU] ICQ #149608718.