The more I read the confuser I get.
davidj at pisoftware.com
Fri Oct 31 00:47:42 UTC 2003
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.
> 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
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.
 If my understanding is way off mark, please, someone correct me and
More information about the users