Relax Folks,
I never thought that my simple questions would lead to such a huge debate.
My questions were very simple.
And I got the answer too through these discussions.
So I have come to this point (please correct me if am wrong or misinterpreted)
1. Just like Microsoft, Red Hat has a per machine License system (thats what its EULA specifies I suppose). This has nothing to do with trade mark, copyright etc etc. but Violation of EULA
2. Copying RH from the original CD (or using the same CD) and installing it on another Machine for which the License payment has not be done is similar to installing Windows from original or (copied CD) on to other unlicensed systems. This is refered to as Piracy I suppose.
3. On the machines without License, users cant get access to Microsoft Updates (including security, service packs, Internet Explorer, Media Player, etc.) as the MS website checks for Genuineness of the installed Windows. So if a user wants those premium facilities, then he/she will have to obviously pay for that in form of License thats what is referred to as Subscriptions in terms of Red Hat where the User needs to pay for support and upgrades.
4. Microsoft I have heard visits its clients (corporates) to audit whether they have installed their products on systems exceding than those permitted in the EULA, if found then the clients are Fined. There is a similar clause in Red Hat EULA (discussed in earlier threads).
So from a Regular (Desktop) End User perspective I can understand that Microsoft:Windows and Red Hat:Linux
Although we dont have an option of FREE Windows, we though have option for FREE Linux alternatives like Debian, CentOS, Fedora, Ubuntu, Open Suse, etc.
So I think thats what answers the question. (For non Geeks)
Bye Regards ------------ Pravin Balaji Dhayfule
On Thursday 09 July 2009 11:04:39 Pravin Dhayfule wrote:
And I got the answer too through these discussions.
So I have come to this point (please correct me if am wrong or misinterpreted)
you are wrong. You get 0% marks. Please go read everything again and attempt the exam again. RHEL is FOSS.
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Thursday 09 July 2009 11:04:39 Pravin Dhayfule wrote:
And I got the answer too through these discussions.
So I have come to this point (please correct me if am wrong or misinterpreted)
you are wrong. You get 0% marks. Please go read everything again and attempt the exam again. RHEL is FOSS.
No. RHEL is FOSS + Trade Marked = Paid and not re-distributable.
On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 17:55 +0530, Rony wrote:
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Thursday 09 July 2009 11:04:39 Pravin Dhayfule wrote:
And I got the answer too through these discussions.
So I have come to this point (please correct me if am wrong or misinterpreted)
you are wrong. You get 0% marks. Please go read everything again and attempt the exam again. RHEL is FOSS.
No. RHEL is FOSS + Trade Marked = Paid and not re-distributable.
FOSS + trademark. Which means if I don't want trademark, I can still use the FOSS part of that.
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
Krishnakant wrote:
On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 17:55 +0530, Rony wrote:
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Thursday 09 July 2009 11:04:39 Pravin Dhayfule wrote:
And I got the answer too through these discussions.
So I have come to this point (please correct me if am wrong or misinterpreted)
you are wrong. You get 0% marks. Please go read everything again and attempt the exam again. RHEL is FOSS.
No. RHEL is FOSS + Trade Marked = Paid and not re-distributable.
FOSS + trademark. Which means if I don't want trademark, I can still use the FOSS part of that.
Is that possible when installing from the same original RHEL = FOSS + Trademark CD? Does the RedHat installation process have two different installation methods for paid and free?
On Thursday 09 Jul 2009, Rony wrote:
Is that possible when installing from the same original RHEL = FOSS + Trademark CD? Does the RedHat installation process have two different installation methods for paid and free?
The only proper way to answer the question:
"Is RHEL FOSS or not?"
is to rephrase it as:
"Does RHEL violate the letter and/or the spirit of any of the software licences it includes?".
Before going into the discussion, do note that RH (like any other producer or consumer of FOSS) is not _obliged_ to provide you with any software. To take the GPL as the extreme example, it says that if you write/modify a piece of software and make it GPL, you don't have to give it away to anyone. However, _if_ you give it to someone, the GPL obliges you to give that person the source code too. In other words, the GPL still doesn't enable me to walk up to you and demand your software from you -- if you choose not to release to someone, that someone is free to get it from an alternative source, but he can't force you to give it to him.
Similarly, RH is not obliged to give its software to you. If you get it from someone else, then that person can give you RHEL, but only those parts of RHEL that fall under a FOSS licence. The RH trademarks do not fall under a FOSS licence however, hence transferring them is violation of trademark law and your source will not be able to legally give you the complete RHEL distribution.
Does this violate the spirit of the software that comprises RHEL? Again, as far as I know RHEL is one of the few companies with a product offering who make the bulk of their revenue from services, not from the product. They co-exist comfortably with CentOS, who effectively provide you with the RHEL product with the trademarks stripped out. If you want RHEL without the service component, just use CentOS; the trademarked logos contribute in no way to the effectiveness of the software and losing them is of no consequence one way or the other. If you do want the service component, call RH and get the product _with the service_ from them. If you want RH service on 2 computers and no service on the other 5, you can buy the service from RH for the 2 and run CentOS on the other 5. The software they developed for maintaining installations over the web is FOSS, so you can even set up your own competing service using CentOS as the product if you're inclined that way.
So RHEL doesn't violate the letter of any of the software licences it includes. Given the openness with which RH has approached the FOSS model, I would find it difficult to justify an assertion that they have violated the spirit of FOSS and the licences too. The key to understanding RHEL is first appreciating that it is not a single, monolithic product -- it's a collection of many objects, each under its own licence. Some of the licences are FOSS and some aren't, so to speak of RHEL being FOSS or not is in some ways meaningless. It helps if we then avoid viewing RHEL from the traditional product point of view and look at it more as a service delivery platform. The platform is available both with and without the service, and RH is making money from the service, not from the platform.
Note: While I do have a fair amount of respect for RH, I am not formally associated with them in any way.
Regards,
-- Raju
On Thursday 09 July 2009, Raj Mathur wrote:
On Thursday 09 Jul 2009, Rony wrote:
Is that possible when installing from the same original RHEL = FOSS + Trademark CD? Does the RedHat installation process have two different installation methods for paid and free?
The only proper way to answer the question:
"Is RHEL FOSS or not?"
is to rephrase it as:
"Does RHEL violate the letter and/or the spirit of any of the software licences it includes?".
Before going into the discussion, do note that RH (like any other producer or consumer of FOSS) is not _obliged_ to provide you with any software. To take the GPL as the extreme example, it says that if you write/modify a piece of software and make it GPL, you don't have to give it away to anyone. However, _if_ you give it to someone, the GPL obliges you to give that person the source code too. In other words, the GPL still doesn't enable me to walk up to you and demand your software from you -- if you choose not to release to someone, that someone is free to get it from an alternative source, but he can't force you to give it to him.
Red herring. Nobody is asking RH for anything.
Similarly, RH is not obliged to give its software to you. If you get it from someone else, then that person can give you RHEL, but only those parts of RHEL that fall under a FOSS licence. The RH trademarks do not fall under a FOSS licence however, hence transferring them is violation of trademark law and your source will not be able to legally give you the complete RHEL distribution.
True and applies only to a media copy.
Does this violate the spirit of the software that comprises RHEL? Again, as far as I know RHEL is one of the few companies with a product offering who make the bulk of their revenue from services, not from the product. They co-exist comfortably with CentOS, who effectively provide you with the RHEL product with the trademarks stripped out. If you want RHEL without the service component, just use CentOS; the trademarked logos contribute in no way to the effectiveness of the software and losing them is of no consequence one way or the other. If you do want the service component, call RH and get the product _with the service_ from them. If you want RH service on 2 computers and no service on the other 5, you can buy the service from RH for the 2 and run CentOS on the other 5. The software they developed for maintaining installations over the web is FOSS, so you can even set up your own competing service using CentOS as the product if you're inclined that way.
So RHEL doesn't violate the letter of any of the software licences it includes. Given the openness with which RH has approached the FOSS model, I would find it difficult to justify an assertion that they have violated the spirit of FOSS and the licences too.
You cannot install from the original cd on machines not subscribed to RH service. THAT is a clear violation of spirit.
WARNING!!!! I havent read the licence and i am relying on what others wrote in this thread. I havent used RH since 6.2 and could not care less about what hey do.ut
The key to understanding RHEL is first appreciating that it is not a single, monolithic product -- it's a collection of many objects, each under its own licence. Some of the licences are FOSS and some aren't, so to speak of RHEL being FOSS or not is in some ways meaningless. It helps if we then avoid viewing RHEL from the traditional product point of view and look at it more as a service delivery platform. The platform is available both with and without the service, and RH is making money from the service, not from the platform.
Note: While I do have a fair amount of respect for RH, I am not formally associated with them in any way.
Regards,
-- Raju
Raj Mathur raju@kandalaya.org http://kandalaya.org/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves
jtd wrote:
You cannot install from the original cd on machines not subscribed to RH service. THAT is a clear violation of spirit.
This is the opposite of what is mentioned in the last point of your earlier mail. Could you clarify? If copying the original CD is illegal and the above point prevents installation on other machines then the final verdict is that RHEL can be used only by those who buy it from RedHat and only on those machines that have been paid for.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
jtd wrote:
You cannot install from the original cd on machines not subscribed to RH service. THAT is a clear violation of spirit.
This is the opposite of what is mentioned in the last point of your earlier mail. Could you clarify? If copying the original CD is illegal and the above point prevents installation on other machines then the final verdict is that RHEL can be used only by those who buy it from
Yes. You cannot redistribute RHEL as is. You cannot share it with friends -- that is what Fedora is for. If you want to do that then you may gift them the subscription as well. That or take the pain to remove the trademarks.
RedHat and only on those machines that have been paid for.
Yes, so you don't get to pay for only one subscription and use it to keep an entire datacentre up to date. If Red Hat allows that, they will surely go bankrupt in a matter of weeks. This is probably what jtd means by violation of spirit.
Hi,
The problem here, I suppose is with the Laws themselves, which were enacted for situations & conditions that existed erstwhile and we are left in an unfortunate condition of fitting modern practices into them.
:-)
--
ஆமாச்சு
On Saturday 11 July 2009, amachu wrote:
Hi,
The problem here, I suppose is with the Laws themselves, which were enacted for situations & conditions that existed erstwhile and we are left in an unfortunate condition of fitting modern practices into them.
It is more about companies relying on legal innovation rather than business and technical innovation.
In the case of FLOSS companies, the simple act of separating the closed bits on a different media, with whatever licence one deems fit, would remove all ambiguities. Infact in this case making it mandatory to make an EXACT facsimile for copying and redistribution including the artwork, would ensure plenty of free publicity to RH. Why do you think companies handout freebies? What do you think Canonical is doing? It's very smart marketing by Canonical. What came to the top of my mind when i thought of ditching Debian? it was Canonical (mono in ubuntu is another story though). RH has been around longer, but IMO it's Canonical which has mindshare, by the simple act of encouraging copying.
Every Company in trouble thinks of twenty legalities to cover their asses. However the ones that survive produce products and services rather than bits of paper plastered with legal jargon.
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 11:09 AM, jtdjtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
It is more about companies relying on legal innovation rather than business and technical innovation.
Agreed.
In the case of FLOSS companies, the simple act of separating the closed bits on a different media, with whatever licence one deems fit, would remove all ambiguities.
Fedora has a couple of packages which include branding into the distro. Replacing them with generic branding packages is all it takes to spin up a new distro based on Fedora. It is probably not as simple in RHEL, but I am guessing it is simple enough for CentOS to exist.
Infact in this case making it mandatory to make an EXACT facsimile for copying and redistribution including the artwork, would ensure plenty of free publicity to RH. Why do you think companies handout freebies? What do you think Canonical is doing? It's very smart marketing by Canonical.
And they're not making any profits yet. IIRC, this is what Red Hat was doing in its earlier days and they just did not seem to be making money despite all the mindshare. Businesses need money to survive, not just mindshare.
What came to the top of my mind when i thought of ditching Debian? it was Canonical (mono in ubuntu is another story though). RH has been around longer, but IMO it's Canonical which has mindshare, by the simple act of encouraging copying.
And as far as contributions go, you do not see too many Ubuntu contributions upstream compared to Red Hat, IBM or even Novell. Sustainability of FOSS is in upstream, not some distro. So if Ubuntu dies tomorrow, Mandriva will be back as the "Linux for newbies". Or maybe some other distro. It will not affect the larger FOSS ecosystem all that much.
On Saturday 11 July 2009, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 11:09 AM, jtdjtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
It is more about companies relying on legal innovation rather than business and technical innovation.
Agreed.
In the case of FLOSS companies, the simple act of separating the closed bits on a different media, with whatever licence one deems fit, would remove all ambiguities.
Fedora has a couple of packages which include branding into the distro. Replacing them with generic branding packages is all it takes to spin up a new distro based on Fedora. It is probably not as simple in RHEL, but I am guessing it is simple enough for CentOS to exist.
Infact in this case making it mandatory to make an EXACT facsimile for copying and redistribution including the artwork, would ensure plenty of free publicity to RH. Why do you think companies handout freebies? What do you think Canonical is doing? It's very smart marketing by Canonical.
And they're not making any profits yet. IIRC, this is what Red Hat was doing in its earlier days and they just did not seem to be making money despite all the mindshare. Businesses need money to survive, not just mindshare.
It was just a matter of time to spread out sufficiently, and has absolutely nothing to do with (distro) licences.
What came to the top of my mind when i thought of ditching Debian? it was Canonical (mono in ubuntu is another story though). RH has been around longer, but IMO it's Canonical which has mindshare, by the simple act of encouraging copying.
And as far as contributions go, you do not see too many Ubuntu contributions upstream compared to Red Hat, IBM or even Novell. Sustainability of FOSS is in upstream, not some distro.
Are there stats about unpaid contributors becoming paid contributors after contribution v/s contributors who have been shifted from closed projects to FLOSS (and still being paid).
Secondly what is the alternative available to the closed company and its apps? We know it's easy to produce code, but exceedingly hard to prevent bitrot. So original code contributions would IMO be more a requirement rather than an option. As each individual subsystem becomes a smaller part of the whole ecosystem, it will be a nightmare to keep things barely workable in a closed env.
On a sort of related note, its the above reason that is causing M$ grief, and at the same time killing it slowly (rather than rapidly). M$ can innovate only at the rate of it's decay. If it innovates rapidly it will sink rapidly. If it does not innovate it sinks anyway by natural causes.
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 12:05 PM, jtdjtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
Are there stats about unpaid contributors becoming paid contributors after contribution v/s contributors who have been shifted from closed projects to FLOSS (and still being paid).
Maybe someone who has been on the FOSS development scene much longer can comment on the unpaid FOSS contributor to paid FOSS contributor shift.
As for the shift from closed to open, I don't believe it can happen unless the contributors actually *get* what the entire idea of FOSS means. If they don't value the thrill of seeing your code run on hundreds of thousands of computers or the feeling of enlightenment every time someone improves upon your work, it just does not matter.
Secondly what is the alternative available to the closed company and its apps? We know it's easy to produce code, but exceedingly hard to prevent bitrot. So original code contributions would IMO be more a requirement rather than an option. As each individual subsystem becomes a smaller part of the whole ecosystem, it will be a nightmare to keep things barely workable in a closed env.
I guess bitrot does not matter for closed companies as long as it generates revenue for them. Hit their revenues and they will look to innovate. The same goes for some major FOSS projects as well, but the payoff in their case is not revenues -- it is mindshare. Honestly, look under the hood of firefox only if you're really really brave. The same goes for OpenOffice.org. They are not improving all that much under the hood because no one significant is challenging them in that area. They're usable and feature-rich and that is good enough. Firefox is now scrambling to get its act together with Google Chrome giving it some serious competition with superior stability and speed.
On Saturday 11 July 2009, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 12:05 PM, jtdjtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
Are there stats about unpaid contributors becoming paid contributors after contribution v/s contributors who have been shifted from closed projects to FLOSS (and still being paid).
Maybe someone who has been on the FOSS development scene much longer can comment on the unpaid FOSS contributor to paid FOSS contributor shift.
Must keep in mind to search for such stats. Would be very intersting.
As for the shift from closed to open, I don't believe it can happen unless the contributors actually *get* what the entire idea of FOSS means. If they don't value the thrill of seeing your code run on hundreds of thousands of computers or the feeling of enlightenment every time someone improves upon your work, it just does not matter.
True. But that is looking at things in a yellow light only.
Secondly what is the alternative available to the closed company and its apps? We know it's easy to produce code, but exceedingly hard to prevent bitrot. So original code contributions would IMO be more a requirement rather than an option. As each individual subsystem becomes a smaller part of the whole ecosystem, it will be a nightmare to keep things barely workable in a closed env.
I guess bitrot does not matter for closed companies as long as it generates revenue for them. Hit their revenues and they will look to innovate. The same goes for some major FOSS projects as well, but the payoff in their case is not revenues -- it is mindshare. Honestly, look under the hood of firefox only if you're really really brave. The same goes for OpenOffice.org. They are not improving all that much under the hood because no one significant is challenging them in that area. They're usable and feature-rich and that is good enough. Firefox is now scrambling to get its act together with Google Chrome giving it some serious competition with superior stability and speed.
Koffice. Havent tried in in a while, but a client started using Koffice instead of OO and does not know the difference.
Agreed. But Close the source and you have shut all chances. Opening it at least permits prevention.
On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 11:09 +0530, jtd wrote:
What came to the top of my mind when i thought of ditching Debian? it was Canonical (mono in ubuntu is another story though).
One who likes Ubuntu should never utter such words. Its reflects a sense of ingratitude.
--
ஆமாச்சு
jtd wrote:
What do you think Canonical is doing? It's very smart marketing by Canonical. What came to the top of my mind when i thought of ditching Debian?
What am I hearing?
On Friday 10 July 2009, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
jtd wrote:
You cannot install from the original cd on machines not subscribed to RH service. THAT is a clear violation of spirit.
This is the opposite of what is mentioned in the last point of your earlier mail. Could you clarify? If copying the original CD is illegal and the above point prevents installation on other machines then the final verdict is that RHEL can be used only by those who buy it from
Yes. You cannot redistribute RHEL as is. You cannot share it with friends -- that is what Fedora is for. If you want to do that then you may gift them the subscription as well. That or take the pain to remove the trademarks.
RedHat and only on those machines that have been paid for.
Yes, so you don't get to pay for only one subscription and use it to keep an entire datacentre up to date. If Red Hat allows that, they will surely go bankrupt in a matter of weeks. This is probably what jtd means by violation of spirit.
Who cares if RH (or any other commercial entity) sank like a stone to the bottom of the sea. The business world is littered with the corpse of yesteryear's most valued companies. I was just reading this
-- Siddhesh Poyarekar http://siddhesh.in
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 10:52 AM, jtdjtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:>
Who cares if RH (or any other commercial entity) sank like a stone to the bottom of the sea. The business world is littered with the corpse of yesteryear's most valued companies. I was just reading this
Yeah, I understood the context of your comment from your last reply, so I was wrong in quoting you on it. And as for whether commercial entities matter, a majority of projects that matter are heavily funded/enabled by these corporations. Them sinking will not matter to the business world as such but will make a big difference to FOSS contributions.
On Saturday 11 July 2009, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 10:52 AM, jtdjtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:>
Who cares if RH (or any other commercial entity) sank like a stone to the bottom of the sea. The business world is littered with the corpse of yesteryear's most valued companies. I was just reading this
Yeah, I understood the context of your comment from your last reply, so I was wrong in quoting you on it. And as for whether commercial entities matter, a majority of projects that matter are heavily funded/enabled by these corporations. Them sinking will not matter to the business world as such but will make a big difference to FOSS contributions.
IMO not at all. The ones who sink vacate that biz space and free up resources. They are replaced very quickly with new ones. We had Hayes and US robotics. They were replaced with a 100 others.
I am exactly in sync with your other mail about FOSS being a different way of doing things and cant be compared to closed software systems.
However I take it one step further and say FLOSS principles applies equally to rules of business, especially for FLOSS companies. Hiding under legal jargon to create a business is suicide.
Having said the above, IMO RH is most unlikely to ever sue any organisation / individual for copying, redistributing and installing- they will collapse from the backlash. But then we do have idiots like the MPAA and RIAA and one can never predict the future.
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 11:41 AM, jtdjtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
IMO not at all. The ones who sink vacate that biz space and free up resources. They are replaced very quickly with new ones. We had Hayes and US robotics. They were replaced with a 100 others.
True. But in the case of FOSS things will change immensely. Consider Red Hat gone and you will see a large chunk of contributions gone (or impaired) from the FOSS scene. True, the people still remain but they will most definitely not be able to contribute while working in some other organization, in the way they are now. Heck, some may not be able to contribute at all, given that some organizations have clauses owning everything their employee spews out. Give them shit and they'll trademark that too.
Of course, these same people can also come back together in some other form and build up a stronger foundation. But that takes time and the impact will be felt for some years. It will change a lot of things in the FOSS world.
Having said the above, IMO RH is most unlikely to ever sue any organisation / individual for copying, redistributing and installing- they will collapse from the backlash. But then we do have idiots like the MPAA and RIAA and one can never predict the future.
True. If it does that, it will most likely collapse from within before it gets anywhere, given the number of FOSS evangelists it houses :)
On Saturday 11 Jul 2009 10:52:37 am jtd wrote:
Yes, so you don't get to pay for only one subscription and use it to keep an entire datacentre up to date. If Red Hat allows that, they will surely go bankrupt in a matter of weeks. This is probably what jtd means by violation of spirit.
Who cares if RH (or any other commercial entity) sank like a stone to the bottom of the sea.
I care. In fact I am totally sick of this redhat bashing. You guys seem to forget or are ignorant of the fact that red hat does not merely package stuff. It is the biggest contributor to the linux kernel and maintains several GNU tool chains. It pays M Tieman who runs the OSI and Venky who is spearheading the movement for open standards in India. They are good guys. And note that FSF, Harald Welte et al have not sued them. Looking at the people who are pontificating about them I find people who even traffic in doze prominent. I suggest we close this thread and sentence anyone who bashes redhat to hard labour - like writing a few lines of foss code.
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Saturday 11 Jul 2009 10:52:37 am jtd wrote:
Yes, so you don't get to pay for only one subscription and use it to keep an entire datacentre up to date. If Red Hat allows that, they will surely go bankrupt in a matter of weeks. This is probably what jtd means by violation of spirit.
Who cares if RH (or any other commercial entity) sank like a stone to the bottom of the sea.
I care. In fact I am totally sick of this redhat bashing. You guys seem to forget or are ignorant of the fact that red hat does not merely package stuff. It is the biggest contributor to the linux kernel and maintains several GNU tool chains. It pays M Tieman who runs the OSI and Venky who is spearheading the movement for open standards in India. They are good guys. And note that FSF, Harald Welte et al have not sued them. Looking at the people who are pontificating about them I find people who even traffic in doze prominent. I suggest we close this thread and sentence anyone who bashes redhat to hard labour - like writing a few lines of foss code.
No one is bashing RedHat. We are just trying to get a clear simple answer to a plain and simple question. Everyone is right in their own way but the final results do not tally. However from all this IMHO, RHEL CDs cannot be copied and/or installed on machines other than the ones for which RedHat has been paid.
On Sunday 12 July 2009, Rony wrote:
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Saturday 11 Jul 2009 10:52:37 am jtd wrote:
Yes, so you don't get to pay for only one subscription and use it to keep an entire datacentre up to date. If Red Hat allows that, they will surely go bankrupt in a matter of weeks. This is probably what jtd means by violation of spirit.
Who cares if RH (or any other commercial entity) sank like a stone to the bottom of the sea.
I care. In fact I am totally sick of this redhat bashing. You guys seem to forget or are ignorant of the fact that red hat does not merely package stuff. It is the biggest contributor to the linux kernel and maintains several GNU tool chains. It pays M Tieman who runs the OSI and Venky who is spearheading the movement for open standards in India. They are good guys. And note that FSF, Harald Welte et al have not sued them. Looking at the people who are pontificating about them I find people who even traffic in doze prominent. I suggest we close this thread and sentence anyone who bashes redhat to hard labour - like writing a few lines of foss code.
No one is bashing RedHat. We are just trying to get a clear simple answer to a plain and simple question. Everyone is right in their own way but the final results do not tally.
That is because the questions are wrong. and the conclusions from the wrong question being partly answered and extended to unasked questions.
So the question can you copy RH cd? No Conclusion RH = not FLOSS = EULA = M$ EULA.
So the real answer Can you copy RH CD? Yes except the trademark and non FLOSS software Conclusion RH = Floss + Non FLoss + RH TRademark. I van Copy the FLoss part
Can I install on multiple machines Yes. except the NonFLoss and the for service parts.
However from all this IMHO, RHEL CDs cannot be copied and/or installed on machines other than the ones for which RedHat has been paid.
Do not conflate copying and installing. They are two utterly different things. You cant copy certain parts. You can install except certain parts.
And there is no comparison between M$ EULA and RH EULA.
-- Regards,
Rony.
GNU/Linux ! No Viruses No Spyware Only Freedom.
jtd wrote:
On Sunday 12 July 2009, Rony wrote:
No one is bashing RedHat. We are just trying to get a clear simple answer to a plain and simple question. Everyone is right in their own way but the final results do not tally.
That is because the questions are wrong. and the conclusions from the wrong question being partly answered and extended to unasked questions.
So the question can you copy RH cd? No Conclusion RH = not FLOSS = EULA = M$ EULA.
So the real answer Can you copy RH CD? Yes except the trademark and non FLOSS software Conclusion RH = Floss + Non FLoss + RH TRademark. I van Copy the FLoss part
Again we are missing the simple question of copying an original CD. How can you copy a CD without certain contents. Then it is not a CD copy. When a user burns a CD using the 'copy CD' option in a burner how will he remove certain contents from the image? He is simply talking about a copy of the original, like true copy. That is not allowed and I'm sure you will agree with that.
Can I install on multiple machines Yes. except the NonFLoss and the for service parts.
Since a copy of the original CD or the original CD itself contains embedded NonFLOSS parts, there is no way one can separate them during the installation process. So for all practical reasons, the original CD or its true copy cannot be installed elsewhere.
However from all this IMHO, RHEL CDs cannot be copied and/or installed on machines other than the ones for which RedHat has been paid.
Do not conflate copying and installing. They are two utterly different things. You cant copy certain parts. You can install except certain parts.
The certain parts are embedded in an original CD or its true copy so they cannot be separated during installation. RedHat is not giving any such options in RHEL.
And there is no comparison between M$ EULA and RH EULA.
OK.
On Sunday 12 July 2009, Rony wrote:
jtd wrote:
On Sunday 12 July 2009, Rony wrote:
No one is bashing RedHat. We are just trying to get a clear simple answer to a plain and simple question. Everyone is right in their own way but the final results do not tally.
That is because the questions are wrong. and the conclusions from the wrong question being partly answered and extended to unasked questions.
So the question can you copy RH cd? No Conclusion RH = not FLOSS = EULA = M$ EULA.
So the real answer Can you copy RH CD? Yes except the trademark and non FLOSS software Conclusion RH = Floss + Non FLoss + RH TRademark. I van Copy the FLoss part
Again we are missing the simple question of copying an original CD.
That is a wrong question, simply because there is an hidden question and others are confusing the distro and it's licences with FLOSS and their licences. And to add to the confusion, the interpretation of trademark, copyright, installing and copying.
In short the question is not as simple as it seems.
How can you copy a CD without certain contents. Then it is not a CD copy. When a user burns a CD using the 'copy CD' option in a burner how will he remove certain contents from the image? He is simply talking about a copy of the original, like true copy. That is not allowed and I'm sure you will agree with that.
Can I install on multiple machines Yes. except the NonFLoss and the for service parts.
Since a copy of the original CD or the original CD itself contains embedded NonFLOSS parts,
There is no embedded non floss part. If there is some closed stuff, the licence has to pop up before installation. If it does not you are free to do as you please. BTW there is a court ruling on this, including a judgement that negates the "opening this pack means you agree" clause.
there is no way one can separate them during the installation process. So for all practical reasons, the original CD or its true copy cannot be installed elsewhere.
However from all this IMHO, RHEL CDs cannot be copied and/or installed on machines other than the ones for which RedHat has been paid.
Do not conflate copying and installing. They are two utterly different things. You cant copy certain parts. You can install except certain parts.
The certain parts are embedded in an original CD or its true copy so they cannot be separated during installation. RedHat is not giving any such options in RHEL.
As i said if no licence pops up during the installation process you are free to do as you please.
jtd wrote:
On Sunday 12 July 2009, Rony wrote:
Again we are missing the simple question of copying an original CD.
That is a wrong question, simply because there is an hidden question and others are confusing the distro and it's licences with FLOSS and their licences. And to add to the confusion, the interpretation of trademark, copyright, installing and copying.
In short the question is not as simple as it seems.
The newbie simply wants to know if he/she can duplicate an original RHEL CD and use it for free of cost installations.
How can you copy a CD without certain contents. Then it is not a CD copy. When a user burns a CD using the 'copy CD' option in a burner how will he remove certain contents from the image? He is simply talking about a copy of the original, like true copy. That is not allowed and I'm sure you will agree with that.
Can I install on multiple machines Yes. except the NonFLoss and the for service parts.
Since a copy of the original CD or the original CD itself contains embedded NonFLOSS parts,
There is no embedded non floss part. If there is some closed stuff, the licence has to pop up before installation. If it does not you are free to do as you please. BTW there is a court ruling on this, including a judgement that negates the "opening this pack means you agree" clause.
The license should be there. I believe that is what the OP spoke about. Its been some years since I had installed RHEL so I don't recollect it now.
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
The newbie simply wants to know if he/she can duplicate an original RHEL CD and use it for free of cost installations.
Why is it necessary to dumb things down so much? Is this explanation not simple enough:
"Yes, you can copy it for your own backup. You cannot give it to friends or install it on more computers than your own. It's useless anyway, since you or your friend won't get any updates for it. Here, take this Fedora/CentOS/Ubuntu CD/DVD instead."
It doesn't take more than 5-10 seconds to say all of that. And it does not include any jargon. I don't see what is so difficult in this.
The license should be there. I believe that is what the OP spoke about. Its been some years since I had installed RHEL so I don't recollect it now.
The OP is talking about license for the service element and the installation media usage. The DVD does not install proprietary third party software in the default installation. Heck, they're not even shipped in the DVD. There are some extras proprietary software (like adobe acrobat reader, etc.) available through red hat network but they are not available by default and neither are they supported by Red Hat. You have to login to red hat network and enable the channel before you can use it.
Hi,
Against better judgment, I feel compelled to rejoin this thread for one last post.
Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
The OP is talking about license for the service element and the installation media usage. The DVD does not install proprietary third party software in the default installation. Heck, they're not even shipped in the DVD. There are some extras proprietary software (like adobe acrobat reader, etc.) available through red hat network but they are not available by default and neither are they supported by Red Hat. You have to login to red hat network and enable the channel before you can use it.
You obviously have not been reading this thread too closely. Here let me help you with the highlights.
For the purposes of this thread: a. Facts are of no importance. To participate in here does not require to actually use/install/own RHEL nor can you be bothered to actually take the time to read the licenses under question. b. What is of the utmost importance however, is a rabid belief in some sort of philosophy. This philosophy would not be based on sound reasoning or Facts (See (a) above), but on personal bias. c. The aim here is to keep this thread alive by asserting forcefully the said beliefs under the guise of trying to learn something. d. While asserting these beliefs, it is also important to assert one's right to forcefully assert.
I am sure others could add to this summarizing of the thread, and would do so even under the threat of being forced to write some foss code or meet govt. officials.
cheers, - steve
Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
The newbie simply wants to know if he/she can duplicate an original RHEL CD and use it for free of cost installations.
Why is it necessary to dumb things down so much? Is this explanation not simple enough:
"Yes, you can copy it for your own backup. You cannot give it to friends or install it on more computers than your own. It's useless anyway, since you or your friend won't get any updates for it. Here, take this Fedora/CentOS/Ubuntu CD/DVD instead."
The above statement has a flaw. Updates or not, you cannot install it on another system. Anyway, why would a newbie own a paid RHEL CD. I recollect now that the RHEL CD that was given to us for free for the course was a stripped version with less server packages and no paid services. Maybe those CDs are meant to be distributed. We even got extra CDs with the source code.
On Sunday 12 Jul 2009 12:24:30 pm Rony wrote:
I care. In fact I am totally sick of this redhat bashing. You guys seem to forget or are ignorant of the fact that red hat does not merely package stuff. It is the biggest contributor to the linux kernel and maintains several GNU tool chains. It pays M Tieman who runs the OSI and Venky who is spearheading the movement for open standards in India. They are good guys. And note that FSF, Harald Welte et al have not sued them. Looking at the people who are pontificating about them I find people who even traffic in doze prominent. I suggest we close this thread and sentence anyone who bashes redhat to hard labour - like writing a few lines of foss code.
No one is bashing RedHat. We are just trying to get a clear simple answer to a plain and simple question. Everyone is right in their own way but the final results do not tally. However from all this IMHO, RHEL CDs cannot be copied and/or installed on machines other than the ones for which RedHat has been paid.
why would you care? what business is it of yours? you use/install ubuntu and doze - stick to that.
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Sunday 12 Jul 2009 12:24:30 pm Rony wrote:
I care. In fact I am totally sick of this redhat bashing. You guys seem to forget or are ignorant of the fact that red hat does not merely package stuff. It is the biggest contributor to the linux kernel and maintains several GNU tool chains. It pays M Tieman who runs the OSI and Venky who is spearheading the movement for open standards in India. They are good guys. And note that FSF, Harald Welte et al have not sued them. Looking at the people who are pontificating about them I find people who even traffic in doze prominent. I suggest we close this thread and sentence anyone who bashes redhat to hard labour - like writing a few lines of foss code.
No one is bashing RedHat. We are just trying to get a clear simple answer to a plain and simple question. Everyone is right in their own way but the final results do not tally. However from all this IMHO, RHEL CDs cannot be copied and/or installed on machines other than the ones for which RedHat has been paid.
why would you care? what business is it of yours? you use/install ubuntu and doze - stick to that.
You can't dictate to me what I should install. BTW trained in RHEL. If you are so concerned for RedHat you should know that if people make illegal true copies of the original Red Hat CDs and install them, it will hurt their business.
On Sunday 12 Jul 2009 7:03:51 pm Rony wrote:
why would you care? what business is it of yours? you use/install ubuntu and doze - stick to that.
You can't dictate to me what I should install
and why would you install non-foss stuff like RHEL? As I said, stick to ubuntu and doze.
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Sunday 12 Jul 2009 7:03:51 pm Rony wrote:
why would you care? what business is it of yours? you use/install ubuntu and doze - stick to that.
You can't dictate to me what I should install
and why would you install non-foss stuff like RHEL? As I said, stick to ubuntu and doze.
Why would you take so much interest in non-foss stuff like RHEL?
On Sunday 12 Jul 2009 7:18:35 pm Rony wrote:
and why would you install non-foss stuff like RHEL? As I said, stick to ubuntu and doze.
Why would you take so much interest in non-foss stuff like RHEL?
because redhat is the one company that has done as much or more than any other entity to bring linux and foss into the mainstream - they contribute upstream which Canonical doesn't.
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Sunday 12 Jul 2009 7:18:35 pm Rony wrote:
and why would you install non-foss stuff like RHEL? As I said, stick to ubuntu and doze.
Why would you take so much interest in non-foss stuff like RHEL?
because redhat is the one company that has done as much or more than any other entity to bring linux and foss into the mainstream - they contribute upstream which Canonical doesn't.
So who's denying it?
On Sunday 12 July 2009, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Saturday 11 Jul 2009 10:52:37 am jtd wrote:
Yes, so you don't get to pay for only one subscription and use it to keep an entire datacentre up to date. If Red Hat allows that, they will surely go bankrupt in a matter of weeks. This is probably what jtd means by violation of spirit.
Who cares if RH (or any other commercial entity) sank like a stone to the bottom of the sea.
I care. In fact I am totally sick of this redhat bashing.
Note my "any other commercial entity". Some one or the other is always affected and there is no pure black or white. Any commercial entity will dissappear and 10 others will come in as replacement. So when i say who cares it is specific the the statement "how will RH make money". They should not be in business if they dont know howto within the framework of FLOSS.
You guys seem to forget or are ignorant of the fact that red hat does not merely package stuff. It is the biggest contributor to the linux kernel and maintains several GNU tool chains. It pays M Tieman who runs the OSI and Venky who is spearheading the movement for open standards in India. They are good guys. And note that FSF, Harald Welte et al have not sued them.
Absolutely. Therfore one can install to a hundred machines witout a problem. So why the weasel words in the licence?. Same reason that Trolltech has about "commercial". sort of mislead people into believing that they cannot use the software commercially. In this case that I am barred by copyright / trademark laws from installing on another machine. There is no such restriction.
Looking at the people who are pontificating about them I find people who even traffic in doze prominent. I suggest we close this thread and sentence anyone who bashes redhat to hard labour - like writing a few lines of foss code.
Meeting govt officials to straigten out standards etc ;-E.
-- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/
On Friday 10 July 2009, Rony wrote:
jtd wrote:
You cannot install from the original cd on machines not subscribed to RH service. THAT is a clear violation of spirit.
According to the licence. According to me you can install and there can never be any over riding wrapper on GPL software.
This is the opposite of what is mentioned in the last point of your earlier mail. Could you clarify? If copying the original CD is illegal and the above point prevents installation on other machines then the final verdict is that RHEL can be used only by those who buy it from RedHat and only on those machines that have been paid for.
-- Regards,
Rony.
GNU/Linux ! No Viruses No Spyware Only Freedom.
2009/7/9 Rony gnulinuxist@gmail.com:
No. RHEL is FOSS + Trade Marked = Paid and not re-distributable.
Trademark in itself does not make it non-FOSS. Paid or free of cost is not at all a criteria to decide if it is Free Software or Open Source. Last point is what we are debating.
GNU's guidelines for a Free distrution says
"Similarly, the distribution itself may hold particular trademarks. It is not a problem if modification requires removal of these trademarks, as long as they can readily be removed without losing functionality.
However, it is unacceptable to use trademarks to restrict verbatim copying and redistribution of the whole distribution, or any part."
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
These guidelines disqualifies RHEL on other counts already. But as the entire distrution is under GPL, it would invalidate the trademark requirement.
Now I would like to hear from Redhat what do they say about section 7 of GPL
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
It is indeed a very close call.
- Praveen
On Thursday 09 July 2009, Pravin Dhayfule wrote:
Relax Folks,
I never thought that my simple questions would lead to such a huge debate.
My questions were very simple.
And I got the answer too through these discussions.
So I have come to this point (please correct me if am wrong or misinterpreted)
- Just like Microsoft, Red Hat has a per machine License system (thats
what its EULA specifies I suppose). This has nothing to do with trade mark, copyright etc etc. but Violation of EULA
Wrong.
- Copying RH from the original CD
This is ambiguous as far as trademarks go. There is no copyright violation however.
(or using the same CD) and installing it on another Machine for which the License payment has not be done is similar to installing Windows from original or (copied CD) on to other unlicensed systems. This is refered to as Piracy I suppose.
Wrong. You can install from the original to as many machines as you wish.
- On the machines without License, users cant get access to Microsoft
Updates (including security, service packs, Internet Explorer, Media Player, etc.) as the MS website checks for Genuineness of the installed Windows. So if a user wants those premium facilities, then he/she will have to obviously pay for that in form of License thats what is referred to as Subscriptions in terms of Red Hat where the User needs to pay for support and upgrades.
Sort of. You can download the upgrades from their website anyway. But you cant get support.
- Microsoft I have heard visits its clients (corporates) to audit whether
they have installed their products on systems exceding than those permitted in the EULA, if found then the clients are Fined. There is a similar clause in Red Hat EULA (discussed in earlier threads).
Yes.
So from a Regular (Desktop) End User perspective I can understand that Microsoft:Windows and Red Hat:Linux
Not at all.
Although we dont have an option of FREE Windows, we though have option for FREE Linux alternatives like Debian, CentOS, Fedora, Ubuntu, Open Suse, etc.
RH is free. As a user you are guaranteed certain rights under various FLOSS licences. Those rights do not go away just because RH says so.
jtd wrote:
RH is free. As a user you are guaranteed certain rights under various FLOSS licences. Those rights do not go away just because RH says so.
Why not have a RedHat representative answer the following questions directly as they are. In all the questions we are assuming that there is no requirement for paid support of any kind.
1. Is the RedHat Enterprise Linux operating system available free of cost for installation in any form like CD or an ISO or directly downloadable through a distro builder like Jigdo that will produce a ready ISO for burning into a CD or through a net install CD ISO that installs a minimum base software and downloads the remaining packages from the repos?
2. If one customer has purchased an RHEL CD, can anyone else make a copy of the CD or use the same CD and legally install it on other systems free of cost without involving RedHat in any way?
On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 18:11 +0530, Rony wrote:
- Is the RedHat Enterprise Linux operating system available free of
cost for installation in any form like CD or an ISO or directly downloadable through a distro builder like Jigdo that will produce a ready ISO for burning into a CD or through a net install CD ISO that installs a minimum base software and downloads the remaining packages from the repos?
then someone might ask, how is Redhat different from Debian? ;-)
--
Sri Ramadoss M
On Thursday 09 July 2009, Rony wrote:
jtd wrote:
RH is free. As a user you are guaranteed certain rights under various FLOSS licences. Those rights do not go away just because RH says so.
Why not have a RedHat representative answer the following questions directly as they are.
Because irrespective of what they say, ( and they are telling you thru the licence dont copy and You waive your right to install, even though in this case you obviously haven't.) 1) you cannot make a gpl package into a non gpl package by adding or removing anything. 2) Even if the distro as a whole is copyright RH and hence cannot be copied, nothing prevents you from installing on as many machines as installing != copying.
In all the questions we are assuming that there is no requirement for paid support of any kind.
And closed packages are governed by their respective licences.
- Is the RedHat Enterprise Linux operating system available free of
cost for installation in any form like CD or an ISO or directly downloadable through a distro builder like Jigdo that will produce a ready ISO for burning into a CD or through a net install CD ISO that installs a minimum base software and downloads the remaining packages from the repos?
- If one customer has purchased an RHEL CD, can anyone else make a copy
of the CD
or use the same CD and legally install it on other systems free of cost without involving RedHat in any way?
Yes.
-- Regards,
Rony.
GNU/Linux ! No Viruses No Spyware Only Freedom.
2009/7/8 Pravin Dhayfule dhayfule@gmail.com:
I never thought that my simple questions would lead to such a huge debate.
My questions were very simple.
And I got the answer too through these discussions.
Even though the question is simple, if the topic is not familiar it could lead to big debates. Sometime we may need to go back to basics and question our assumptions. For example many thought to qualify as Free Software, you should be able to download it free of cost, but we had to go back to Free Software definition to understand it. Common does not necessarily mean it correct, neither does simple.
Legal issues may need much effort to understand than many simple issues, and on top of that lawyers like to make it complicated than it needs to be.
So I have come to this point (please correct me if am wrong or misinterpreted)
Sometimes you have to read a lot if you are new to a concept, and you may have to talk and discuss with many. This is especially the case with legal issues like licensing.
- Just like Microsoft, Red Hat has a per machine License system (thats what
its EULA specifies I suppose). This has nothing to do with trade mark, copyright etc etc. but Violation of EULA
It is not a correct analogy. Existance of EULA is not the issue, but what exactly a EULA is trying to do.
- Copying RH from the original CD (or using the same CD) and installing it
on another Machine for which the License payment has not be done is similar to installing Windows from original or (copied CD) on to other unlicensed systems. This is refered to as Piracy I suppose.
No.
"Subject to the following terms, Red Hat, Inc. ("Red Hat") grants to you ("User") a perpetual, worldwide license to the Programs pursuant to the GNU General Public License v.2."
http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_rha_eula.html The Red Hat EULA is GPL and that means it is a unilateral grant of its rights as the copyright holder. Where as Microsoft EULA (and most proprietary EULAs) tries to go much beyond what copyright law grants by blokcing even rights already granted by the copyright law, like right to reverse engineer.
What GPL tries to do is give away the rights the copyright holder has, where as what proprietary EULAs do is take away even the small rights you enjoy under copyright law.
- On the machines without License, users cant get access to Microsoft
Updates (including security, service packs, Internet Explorer, Media Player, etc.) as the MS website checks for Genuineness of the installed Windows. So if a user wants those premium facilities, then he/she will have to obviously pay for that in form of License thats what is referred to as Subscriptions in terms of Red Hat where the User needs to pay for support and upgrades.
That is not the widely accepted criteria of deciding whether it is Free Software or Open Source. If you think these criteria are important please find a new term to describe the category of softwares that follow these crieteria.
The only criteria to make it Free Software is
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). * The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Since RHEL has all the 4 freedoms it is Free Software.
In the same way it does follow Open Source definition http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
The important part is these definitions are made for individual programs and not for a collection like RHEL. If you feel there should be such criteria for collections of softwares like RHEL, please go ahead and propose one.
- Microsoft I have heard visits its clients (corporates) to audit whether
they have installed their products on systems exceding than those permitted in the EULA, if found then the clients are Fined. There is a similar clause in Red Hat EULA (discussed in earlier threads).
Does not matter, that is not how we measure if it is FOSS or not.
So from a Regular (Desktop) End User perspective I can understand that Microsoft:Windows and Red Hat:Linux
Although we dont have an option of FREE Windows, we though have option for FREE Linux alternatives like Debian, CentOS, Fedora, Ubuntu, Open Suse, etc.
So I think thats what answers the question. (For non Geeks)
Trying to fit Free Software into a proprietary model is what is making it difficult to understand. Instead of trying to look at Free Software as a kind of proprietary software, look at it as a different model altogether, something you are hearing for the first time. Somethink totally different from what you have seen all your life, something that most people you talked to are familiar with.
In proprietary model the only motivation to develop something is to sell it, on the contrary most Free Softwares are developed because they have a need for it (though many Free Software now a days are developed with a motivation to sell it, that is just one of the many motivations of developing Free Software).
- Praveen
-
amachu -
jtd -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Krishnakant -
Praveen A -
Pravin Dhayfule -
Raj Mathur -
Rony -
Siddhesh Poyarekar -
steve