On Monday 06 July 2009, narendra sisodiya wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Pravin Dhayfule dhayfule@gmail.com wrote:
=========================================================
Re: Can Red Hat Enterprise products fall under FOSS? (Atanu Datta)
Re: Can Red Hat Enterprise products fall under FOSS? (Sukhdev Jadhav) Re: Can Red Hat Enterprise products fall under FOSS? (jtd) Re: Can Red Hat Enterprise products fall under FOSS? (Raj Mathur) Re: Can Red Hat Enterprise products fall under FOSS? (narendra sisodiya)
===========================================================
Hi Folks,
Thanks for the reply and the explanations. They all were well explainative and logical :)
But my friends, I do agree about what CentOS does, distribute by removing trademarks etc etc.
I agree.
But folks, these all apply to them who want to entirely distribute a new Flavor by reusing Red Hat code.
My question lies related to End Users. Just for the example what my friend did. Obtained the Red Had Linux CD from institute as a COPY of Original CD, just like how Windows, Linux Mint, Ubuntu and other OS CDs are replicated and distributed.
Now on Ubuntu's cover for example, they permit Users the exclusive freedom to replicate and distribute the CDs, although for Windows its Restricted, and I guess this would be even restricted by Red Hat since every CD may be charged per System.
So my questions is will this END USER style of distribution and sharing lead to Piracy?
Trademark Removal etc are all Programmer Level steps. I am talking from a perspective of Sharing the OS with a neighbor to install on his/her system as it is received..... Will it be piracy?
Bye Regards -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
See, FOSS licence give various freedom to code and programmer !! like MIT licence give maximum freedom to coder and GNU licence give maximum freedom to code itself. but I have full freedom to "not to use my freedom" -- like, Suppose one of my client want to write a code !! He do not to show code to world !! then I will code or him and give him under GPL !! So i am coding a free software (because i am giving him full freedom) for my client but i am going to share it with rest of world, and my client will not going to share it with rest of world !! I think it truly valid scenario where I am restriciting my freedom !!
There are many example where companies do have dual licence , for example -- see this flowplayer http://techfandu.blogspot.com/2009/06/this-is-how-you-can-earn-using-foss.h tmlrelease same code under different licence , one os Open source - GPL3.0 and other is commercial licence . because he is the creator of code base he has full right to do it. and this is fully valid.
If redhat is bundling some with GPL software and making a new OS which has restriction, this is truly valid scenario. You can say "Redhat Linux" is not a Open Soruce Linux OS, It is commerical Linux OS.
I would add that "bundling" means merely putting on the same distribution medium, additional closed software. Bundling does not include linking to / including within the source code, GPLV2 or higher licenced software.
Essentially there is no simple explanation, due to the hughe variety of usage and licences included within a distro. So a BSD source can be included in a gpl and or a closed product. Thus RH is entirely free to use BSD source with RH restrictions and create a closed package (although they dont afaik).
Again closed would mean a package whose source is unavailable, even though the binary maybe freely distributable.
Open would mean the source is available, but maynot necessarily be distributable / modifiable. Such a package would be classified as open, but not free - MS has several such packages, including dot net.
And there can be a whole range of inbetweens for linking, source, binary, library, runtime, services distribution.
So when one says Open (source), it can mean anything. A fact exploited by M$ and others. The term "Free" can also be abused by merely giving away gratis, the binary- eg flash player, Acrobat Reader.
Bottomline READ the licence. Buzzwords dont mean a thing.