Hi Folks,
One of my friend was arguing me that RED HAT is superior to any of the FREELY available Linux Distro as it provides Support (although in form of Subscriptions).
However I told him that he can get free community support for many other free distros and more over they are Open Source.
Now for this he said that Red Hat too is open Source, and he has got one installed in his home through a CD provided by his institute where he is studying REHL.
I asked him, whether he needed to enter Serial Key like Windows, he replied no, but he wont be able to use their support. So I told him that he is using a PIRATED version of LINUX. HE said yes.
I went ahead to cross check Red Hat License Agreement, and saw it to be similar to Microsoft's EULA that states, you cannot install it on more computers than the licensed purchased for etc. Secondly if the Subscription expires, the OS will no longer be Legal until its renewed (similar to Norton Anti Virus)
So my question is... Can Red Hat enterprise products be really considered as Open Source (as their website claims) http://investors.redhat.com/index.cfm *Red Hat is the world's leading open source provider. Bringing the choice, collaboration, cost savings and value of open source to enterprises worldwide. Solutions include our Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating platforms, JBoss Enterprise Middleware and other Red Hat enterprise technologies. * I am a bit confused on this argument... When we refer to Open Source philosophy, it says "FREEDOM", but REHL EULA looks similar to Microsoft EULA, then is also Red Hat play a role in giving rise to "PIRATED LINUX" race?
Bye Regards
On Saturday 04 Jul 2009 15:56:00 Pravin Dhayfule wrote:
Hi Folks,
One of my friend was arguing me that RED HAT is superior to any of the FREELY available Linux Distro as it provides Support (although in form of Subscriptions).
However I told him that he can get free community support for many other free distros and more over they are Open Source.
Now for this he said that Red Hat too is open Source, and he has got one installed in his home through a CD provided by his institute where he is studying REHL.
I asked him, whether he needed to enter Serial Key like Windows, he replied no, but he wont be able to use their support. So I told him that he is using a PIRATED version of LINUX. HE said yes.
I went ahead to cross check Red Hat License Agreement, and saw it to be similar to Microsoft's EULA that states, you cannot install it on more computers than the licensed purchased for etc. Secondly if the Subscription expires, the OS will no longer be Legal until its renewed (similar to Norton Anti Virus)
So my question is... Can Red Hat enterprise products be really considered as Open Source (as their website claims) http://investors.redhat.com/index.cfm *Red Hat is the world's leading open source provider. Bringing the choice, collaboration, cost savings and value of open source to enterprises worldwide. Solutions include our Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating platforms, JBoss Enterprise Middleware and other Red Hat enterprise technologies.
I am a bit confused on this argument... When we refer to Open Source philosophy, it says "FREEDOM", but REHL EULA looks similar to Microsoft EULA, then is also Red Hat play a role in giving rise to "PIRATED LINUX" race?
Hi Praveen,
There was a discussion on iLUG-Delhi on similar lines, on which LFY ran a story by compiling the inputs from the mailing list and posing some questions to the official RH India spokesperson then... Here I reproduce the complete QnA:
------------------------------- Q: Although we’re aware of free (as in beer) RHEL alternatives like CentOS, what if I opt to use RHEL without buying a subscription? Is that 'legally' possible?
A: RHEL is open source software governed by GPL licensing. As per the GPL terms it is freely available on the Internet for download and use. Since this would be free download without subscription, it would not cover any support, updates or any of the benefits that a subscription would entitle. Once the subscription period ends, unless it is renewed again, the service support ceases. However, the customer can still continue using the product.
One thing I’d like to bring fourth for subscribers is that Red Hat extends the Red Hat Open Source Assurance program, which safeguards customers who are developing and deploying open source solutions from legal harm.
You can get more information about the purchase and usage of the RHEL subscription for India in Section 3.1 and Section 5 of the Enterprise Agreement [www.redhat.com/licenses/Enterprise_Agr_India.pdf].
Q. Let’s assume I’ve been an RHEL subscriber. I then choose to discontinue it, well aware that I won’t get security updates (having already made up my mind to get the security updates from CentOS repositories). So, as per you, I can still keep RHEL on the system?
A: Yes, this is one of the important benefits to the customer where he can continue using RHEL but, at the same time, he would lose the advantage of Red Hat support ecosystem.
Q. I understand that RH artwork and logos are trademarked by Red Hat Inc. Does that stop me from freely sharing a copy with my friends like I do in the case of Fedora?
A: The Red Hat artwork and logo are trademarked and cannot be used freely. Yes, the code can be shared, but it cannot be duplicated with the Red Hat logo.
Q. Can you elaborate on the trademark policies in laymen’s terms? Essentially, what are the dos and don’ts?
A: The trademark and logo are completely owned by Red Hat and any use would be illegal.
------------------------
Guess that solves your query on the restrictions imposed by RHEL. As for your friend's institute distributing RHEL DVDs/CDs, well, I guess, they comes as part of the RH certification courses. And no, it's not pirated.
Best, Atanu
Atanu Datta wrote:
Hi Praveen,
There was a discussion on iLUG-Delhi on similar lines, on which LFY ran a story by compiling the inputs from the mailing list and posing some questions to the official RH India spokesperson then... Here I reproduce the complete QnA:
Q: Although we’re aware of free (as in beer) RHEL alternatives like CentOS, what if I opt to use RHEL without buying a subscription? Is that 'legally' possible?
A: RHEL is open source software governed by GPL licensing. As per the GPL terms it is freely available on the Internet for download and use. Since this would be free download without subscription, it would not cover any support, updates or any of the benefits that a subscription would entitle. Once the subscription period ends, unless it is renewed again, the service support ceases. However, the customer can still continue using the product.
This answers my earlier question about RedHat.
On Saturday 04 July 2009, Pravin Dhayfule wrote:
Hi Folks,
One of my friend was arguing me that RED HAT is superior to any of the FREELY available Linux Distro as it provides Support (although in form of Subscriptions).
However I told him that he can get free community support for many other free distros and more over they are Open Source.
Now for this he said that Red Hat too is open Source, and he has got one installed in his home through a CD provided by his institute where he is studying REHL.
I asked him, whether he needed to enter Serial Key like Windows, he replied no, but he wont be able to use their support. So I told him that he is using a PIRATED version of LINUX. HE said yes.
I went ahead to cross check Red Hat License Agreement, and saw it to be similar to Microsoft's EULA that states, you cannot install it on more computers than the licensed purchased for etc.
This applies ONLY to the SERVICE. You CAN install to hundred machines if you want to. And no amount of licence weasel words will change that fact. The reason being that the developers of the software have given you that right and that right cannot be taken away by anyone other than the software author.
Secondly if the Subscription expires, the OS will no longer be Legal until its renewed (similar to Norton Anti Virus)
WRONG. Only the subscription to services ends.
So my question is... Can Red Hat enterprise products be really considered as Open Source (as their website claims)
All software that is under FLOSS licences (GPL, BSD, APL, etc.) are Opensource.
However there are likely to be several closed packages included (eg. nvidia drivers) and these maybe governed by more restricted licences, including being restricted to installation on one single cpu and or user.
http://investors.redhat.com/index.cfm *Red Hat is the world's leading open source provider. Bringing the choice, collaboration, cost savings and value of open source to enterprises worldwide. Solutions include our Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating platforms, JBoss Enterprise Middleware and other Red Hat enterprise technologies.
I am a bit confused on this argument... When we refer to Open Source philosophy, it says "FREEDOM", but REHL EULA looks similar to Microsoft EULA, then is also Red Hat play a role in giving rise to "PIRATED LINUX" race?
How is RH playing a role?. It's the person who copies without a care who is the problem. As you can see even when there are perfectly free alternatives, people who dont care about other's rights will do exactly what they want.
Further RH spends very good money on branding and (probably) providing good service, and anyone who copies a RH cd WITH RH logos and trademarks, is sort of mis representing RH, as he cannot provide a RH service.
On Saturday 04 Jul 2009, jtd wrote:
On Saturday 04 July 2009, Pravin Dhayfule wrote:
I went ahead to cross check Red Hat License Agreement, and saw it to be similar to Microsoft's EULA that states, you cannot install it on more computers than the licensed purchased for etc.
This applies ONLY to the SERVICE. You CAN install to hundred machines if you want to. And no amount of licence weasel words will change that fact. The reason being that the developers of the software have given you that right and that right cannot be taken away by anyone other than the software author.
Read the post by Atanu again. RH cannot prevent you from redistributing or making copies of the software in RHEL; however they can restrict you from copying and/or redistributing their trademarked logos and artwork, and for that reason it is illegal to make copies of or to redistribute RHEL.
So my question is... Can Red Hat enterprise products be really considered as Open Source (as their website claims)
All software that is under FLOSS licences (GPL, BSD, APL, etc.) are Opensource.
However there are likely to be several closed packages included (eg. nvidia drivers) and these maybe governed by more restricted licences, including being restricted to installation on one single cpu and or user.
Again, while the software licences are FOSS, the artwork and logos that RHEL includes are not. You can copy the software, but you can't copy the distribution as a while without violating the law (note: trademark law, NOT copyright law).
Regards,
-- Raju
snipped..
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Raj Mathur raju@linux-delhi.org wrote:
Read the post by Atanu again. RH cannot prevent you from redistributing or making copies of the software in RHEL; however they can restrict you from copying and/or redistributing their trademarked logos and artwork, and for that reason it is illegal to make copies of or to redistribute RHEL.
I think I does means, If i do not touch/distribute there artwork and logo, trademark, I can distribute rest of the things with/without modifications !!
So my question is... Can Red Hat enterprise products be really considered as Open Source (as their website claims)
All software that is under FLOSS licences (GPL, BSD, APL, etc.) are Opensource.
However there are likely to be several closed packages included (eg. nvidia drivers) and these maybe governed by more restricted licences, including being restricted to installation on one single cpu and or user.
Again, while the software licences are FOSS, the artwork and logos that RHEL includes are not. You can copy the software, but you can't copy the distribution as a while without violating the law (note: trademark law, NOT copyright law).
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
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 9:03 PM, narendra sisodiyanarendra.sisodiya@gmail.com wrote:
snipped..
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Raj Mathur raju@linux-delhi.org wrote:
Read the post by Atanu again. RH cannot prevent you from redistributing or making copies of the software in RHEL; however they can restrict you from copying and/or redistributing their trademarked logos and artwork, and for that reason it is illegal to make copies of or to redistribute RHEL.
I think I does means, If i do not touch/distribute there artwork and logo, trademark, I can distribute rest of the things with/without modifications !!
That's precisely what CentOS is doing.
With regards,
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 9:03 PM, narendra sisodiyanarendra.sisodiya@gmail.com wrote:
I think I does means, If i do not touch/distribute there artwork and logo, trademark, I can distribute rest of the things with/without modifications !!
Isn't that what centos does? Remove the redhat artwork and logo and distribute the rest.
On Saturday 04 July 2009 21:13:55 Mehul Ved wrote:
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 9:03 PM, narendra
sisodiyanarendra.sisodiya@gmail.com wrote:
I think I does means, If i do not touch/distribute there artwork and logo, trademark, I can distribute rest of the things with/without modifications !!
Isn't that what centos does? Remove the redhat artwork and logo and distribute the rest.
they also do some positive work - don't insult them
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Kenneth Gonsalveslawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
they also do some positive work - don't insult them
Did I say that it's the only thing they did? I said that this is what they do, they may or may not be doing anything in addition. I haven't mentioned anything about that.
Pravin Dhayfule wrote:
Hi Folks,
One of my friend was arguing me that RED HAT is superior to any of the FREELY available Linux Distro as it provides Support (although in form of Subscriptions).
However I told him that he can get free community support for many other free distros and more over they are Open Source.
Now for this he said that Red Hat too is open Source, and he has got one installed in his home through a CD provided by his institute where he is studying REHL.
Official RedHat affiliated RHEL institutes provide RHEL Cds without support, for study purposes. They are legal. RHEL courses cost Rs. 15 K and now it may be even more. If the CD has the original RedHat label on it, it is original.
I asked him, whether he needed to enter Serial Key like Windows, he replied no, but he wont be able to use their support. So I told him that he is using a PIRATED version of LINUX. HE said yes.
I went ahead to cross check Red Hat License Agreement, and saw it to be similar to Microsoft's EULA that states, you cannot install it on more computers than the licensed purchased for etc. Secondly if the Subscription expires, the OS will no longer be Legal until its renewed (similar to Norton Anti Virus)
Could RedHat guys confirm whether the installed OS becomes illegal if earlier properly paid subscription is not renewed? Once a RedHat product is purchased, is it compulsory to keep renewing its license? Is this something like the anti-virus software that has to be renewed every year?
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
Pravin Dhayfule wrote:
Hi Folks,
One of my friend was arguing me that RED HAT is superior to any of the FREELY available Linux Distro as it provides Support (although in form of Subscriptions).
However I told him that he can get free community support for many other free distros and more over they are Open Source.
Now for this he said that Red Hat too is open Source, and he has got one installed in his home through a CD provided by his institute where he is studying REHL.
Official RedHat affiliated RHEL institutes provide RHEL Cds without support, for study purposes. They are legal. RHEL courses cost Rs. 15 K and now it may be even more. If the CD has the original RedHat label on it, it is original.
Yes, Vibrant Technologies (http://www.vibrantcomputers.com/) in Andheri did give me a copy of RHEL 5 as I am presently pursuing my Red Hat Certification course there. They gave me a copy of RHEL 5 on a DVD that did not have any Red Hat logos on the DVD. The Software provided in the DVD did have the RH logos.
Vibrant eTechnologies has a tie up with Red Hat (http://www.vibrantcomputers.com/news/linuxnews.htm) and they tell me that they are permitted to copy the RHEL 5 DVD sans support updates from Red Hat.
Can anyone from Red Hat subscribed to the list tell me if it is permitted for training centers or even individuals which do not have a tie up with Red Hat to distribute the RHEL 5 DVD if it is used for training/testing purposes without the logo ?
Regards,
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
RHEL courses cost Rs. 15 K
RHEL course fee is 12 K with 3 K for the 3 text books (15 K total). The certifications exams costs 250 $ and Vibrant eTechnologies offers a second shot at the exam for 500 Rs.
Regards,
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Pravin Dhayfuledhayfule@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Folks,
One of my friend was arguing me that RED HAT is superior to any of the FREELY available Linux Distro as it provides Support (although in form of Subscriptions).
However I told him that he can get free community support for many other free distros and more over they are Open Source.
Now for this he said that Red Hat too is open Source, and he has got one installed in his home through a CD provided by his institute where he is studying REHL.
I asked him, whether he needed to enter Serial Key like Windows, he replied no, but he wont be able to use their support. So I told him that he is using a PIRATED version of LINUX. HE said yes.
I went ahead to cross check Red Hat License Agreement, and saw it to be similar to Microsoft's EULA that states, you cannot install it on more computers than the licensed purchased for etc. Secondly if the Subscription expires, the OS will no longer be Legal until its renewed (similar to Norton Anti Virus)
So my question is... Can Red Hat enterprise products be really considered as Open Source (as their website claims) http://investors.redhat.com/index.cfm *Red Hat is the world's leading open source provider. Bringing the choice, collaboration, cost savings and value of open source to enterprises worldwide. Solutions include our Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating platforms, JBoss Enterprise Middleware and other Red Hat enterprise technologies.
I am a bit confused on this argument... When we refer to Open Source philosophy, it says "FREEDOM", but REHL EULA looks similar to Microsoft EULA, then is also Red Hat play a role in giving rise to "PIRATED LINUX" race?
Bye Regards -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
I once met a senior government officer who was blasting Red Hat saying that the software does not work. It turns out that the hardware vendor simply got some amateurs to make copies of Red Hat and install it. The result was that his application would crash if 20 people logged into it. Who gets the blame? Yes, you guessed right, Red Hat! This despite the fact that Red Hat was not even involved in the implementation. This is a perfect example of why it is so critically important to protect the trademark.
Venky
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Venkatesh Hariharanvenkyh@gmail.com wrote:
I once met a senior government officer who was blasting Red Hat saying that the software does not work. It turns out that the hardware vendor simply got some amateurs to make copies of Red Hat and install it. The result was that his application would crash if 20 people logged into it. Who gets the blame? Yes, you guessed right, Red Hat! This despite the fact that Red Hat was not even involved in the implementation. This is a perfect example of why it is so critically important to protect the trademark.
Umm... wasn't that a classic example of why their needs to be a more technically competent partner system ? ;)
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:54 PM, sankarshansankarshan.mukhopadhyay@gmail.com wrote:
Umm... wasn't that a classic example of why their needs to be a more technically competent partner system ? ;)
s/their/there. Sorry about that.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:54 PM, sankarshansankarshan.mukhopadhyay@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Venkatesh Hariharanvenkyh@gmail.com wrote:
I once met a senior government officer who was blasting Red Hat saying that the software does not work. It turns out that the hardware vendor simply got some amateurs to make copies of Red Hat and install it. The result was that his application would crash if 20 people logged into it. Who gets the blame? Yes, you guessed right, Red Hat! This despite the fact that Red Hat was not even involved in the implementation. This is a perfect example of why it is so critically important to protect the trademark.
Umm... wasn't that a classic example of why their needs to be a more technically competent partner system ? ;)
Well, to simplify things, I deliberately left out one fact. That the hardware vendor actually took money from the client for Red Hat subscriptions but the money never reached Red Hat. So this was a matter of greed, plain and simple.
Venky
On Monday 06 July 2009, Venkatesh Hariharan wrote:
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Pravin Dhayfuledhayfule@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Folks,
One of my friend was arguing me that RED HAT is superior to any of the FREELY available Linux Distro as it provides Support (although in form of Subscriptions).
However I told him that he can get free community support for many other free distros and more over they are Open Source.
Now for this he said that Red Hat too is open Source, and he has got one installed in his home through a CD provided by his institute where he is studying REHL.
I asked him, whether he needed to enter Serial Key like Windows, he replied no, but he wont be able to use their support. So I told him that he is using a PIRATED version of LINUX. HE said yes.
I went ahead to cross check Red Hat License Agreement, and saw it to be similar to Microsoft's EULA that states, you cannot install it on more computers than the licensed purchased for etc. Secondly if the Subscription expires, the OS will no longer be Legal until its renewed (similar to Norton Anti Virus)
So my question is... Can Red Hat enterprise products be really considered as Open Source (as their website claims) http://investors.redhat.com/index.cfm *Red Hat is the world's leading open source provider. Bringing the choice, collaboration, cost savings and value of open source to enterprises worldwide. Solutions include our Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating platforms, JBoss Enterprise Middleware and other Red Hat enterprise technologies.
I am a bit confused on this argument... When we refer to Open Source philosophy, it says "FREEDOM", but REHL EULA looks similar to Microsoft EULA, then is also Red Hat play a role in giving rise to "PIRATED LINUX" race?
Bye Regards -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
I once met a senior government officer who was blasting Red Hat saying that the software does not work. It turns out that the hardware vendor simply got some amateurs to make copies of Red Hat and install it. The result was that his application would crash if 20 people logged into it. Who gets the blame? Yes, you guessed right, Red Hat! This despite the fact that Red Hat was not even involved in the implementation. This is a perfect example of why it is so critically important to protect the trademark.
No beef with the need to protect trademarks. But afaik you would have to sue a few every now and then. Otherwise protection offered would lapse as per law (KG ?). That would be quite counter productive
Since RH is protecting the service, a monthly nag screen will convey properly what exactly the client is missing. So there would be no need for any restrictions. Someone would then have to deliberately misrepresent RH.
On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 15:56 +0530, Pravin Dhayfule wrote:
I am a bit confused on this argument... When we refer to Open Source philosophy, it says "FREEDOM", but REHL EULA looks similar to Microsoft EULA, then is also Red Hat play a role in giving rise to "PIRATED LINUX" race?
go through Centos's slides as it gets installed, it answers most of doubts on RHEL :-)
--
Sri Ramadoss M
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Pravin Dhayfuledhayfule@gmail.com wrote:
I asked him, whether he needed to enter Serial Key like Windows, he replied no, but he wont be able to use their support. So I told him that he is using a PIRATED version of LINUX. HE said yes.
There is nothing known as pirated 'Linux'. Linux is the kernel of the GNU/Linux operating system and the kernel is distributed under the terms of the GPL. I've not heard of a pirated GNU/Linux distribution either.
Regards,
-
amachu -
Atanu Datta -
Dinesh Shah (દિનેશ શાહ/दिनेश शाह) -
jtd -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Mehul Ved -
narendra sisodiya -
Pravin Dhayfule -
Raj Mathur -
Rony -
sankarshan -
Sukhdev Jadhav -
Venkatesh Hariharan -
Vivek Varghese Cherian