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