Lilux-info November 2004

lilux-info@lilux.lu

30 participants
50 discussions

Re: [Lilux-info] Re: [gnu.org #213194] RedHat conditions of use

by Brent Frère

Really interesting. But as I read in your quote, RedHat says "all the code in Red Hat products is [...] licensed under the GPL [...]. So you always have free access to the source code. For me, the GPL does not only give the free access to the code, but also the freedom to execute and redistribute the software. Extract from the fsf web site: (http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) Free software [...] refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: * The freedom to run the program [...] (freedom 0). [...] * The freedom to redistribute copies [...] (freedom 2). [...] My problem is that the terms of the "Software and service terms and conditions" under which RedHat distributes Linux in EMEA deny the right to the customer to copy freely the GPL'ed software, and explicitely deny the right to freely run the software on as many computers as the user wants, which is exactly opposed the the very GPL terms: (http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html, point 6) 6. Each time you redistribute the Program [...], the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program [...]. You may NOT IMPOSE ANY FURTHER RESTRICTIONS on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. For me, RedHat redistributes GPL'ed software, but impose restrictions on the user's right on the software, by imposing a subscription to RedHet Network for any supplementary host running the software, physical control of the amount of hosts running the software, and prohibition to run the software after the subsciption to RedHat Network ended. I'm still waiting for FSF conclusion on this. Patrick Kaell <sparc(a)kayoon.net> wrote: > Brent Frère wrote: > > >>Redhat is fully GPL'ed (inclusive the installer). > > > > This is a valuable information to me. > > I have now found the place where it is written: > http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/faq/#4 > > <quote> > Except for a few components provided by third parties (for example, > Java) all the code in Red Hat products is open source and licensed under > the GPL (or a similar license, such as the LGPL). So you always have > free access to the source code. > </quote> > > So, if you do not look at Java and some other few components, which you > do not have to install (and which are missing in Fedora anyway) for a > working copy, Redhat is fully GPL'ed (inclusive the installer). It may > even not be too hard to remove these few packages (RPMs) from the ISOs > yourself. > > Greetings, Patrick Kaell > -- -- Brent Frère Private e-mail: Brent(a)BFrere.net Postal address: 5, rue de Mamer L-8280 Kehlen Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg European Union Mobile: +352-021/29.05.98 Fax: +352-26.30.05.96 Home: +352-307.341 URL: http://BFrere.net

21 years

[eric.dondelinger@tudor.lu: Fw: Kick-Off GI Regionalgruppe Trier Luxembourg]

by Eric Dondelinger

Hi, I think I already forwarded the first mail about this. Greetings, Eric

21 years

Re: [Lilux-info] Re: [gnu.org #213194] RedHat conditions of use

by Brent Frère

Patrick Kaell <sparc(a)kayoon.net> wrote: > Serge Marelli wrote: > > > Actually... NO! > > The GPL states that if you "distribute" the software (in ANY form, > > binary or not) then you're obliged to provide _means_ to find the source > > code and you're _obliged_ to grant permission to modify and > > re-distribute in _any_ form your user wish. > > > > You're not allowed to put ANY limitation to the rights of users! > > Maybe you are right. But *who* cares??? Not even the FSF! That's what I want to check. > We are paying 700 Euro for each server/year at work for Redhat > Enterprise ES (2.1 & 3) and are still limited to 2 CPUs per server. Nothing wrong with asking money for the RHN service, or even for free software. But I have a problem with the limitation on free installation on ANY host. I don't have any problem with a RHN subscription pricing scheme that depends on the amount of supported systems, or even on their "size" (number of CPUs, number of concurent users, ...) but on the break to GPL licence when they forbid you from freely install the software on as many computers as you want. > Redhat is fully GPL'ed (inclusive the installer). This is a valuable information to me. > Universities who used consumer Redhat (7.3, 8, 9) on Linux clusters for > numerical computations are migrating to other distros, because Redhat > Enterprise is not affordable anymore on midsized clusters (ie 64 node > clusters). As soon as you consider as unusable an unmaintained system, indeed. > Oracle is only certified for the real Redhat. Not obvious to see on their web site what distros are officially supported, but I saw info about SLES (SuSE Linux Enterprise Server), so I could imagine you can switch to SLES... Maybe same limitations apply to SLES, I don't know yet. I use (even at customer's side) SuSE Linux Professional, which is allowed to be copied, installed and distributed freely, and that can be updated without any restriction from their YOU (YaST On-line Update) servers or replications of it. > Oracle will never help you if you have problems with a recompiled version of Redhat Enterprise Linux. I can indeed imagine. > Redhat made much money and is doing very strongly since they introduced > their new business model and as far as *I* know, the FSF didn't > complain ! Once again, nothing wrong with this BUT if they impose conditions on the redistribution and installation of GPL'ed software. Let's see what the FSF legal dpt will answer... (sorry about having taken by mistake a private e-mail as their official answer). > Greetings, Patrick > _______________________________________________ > Lilux-info mailing list > Lilux-info(a)lilux.lu > http://lilux.lu/mailman/listinfo/lilux-info > -- -- Brent Frère Private e-mail: Brent(a)BFrere.net Postal address: 5, rue de Mamer L-8280 Kehlen Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg European Union Mobile: +352-021/29.05.98 Fax: +352-26.30.05.96 Home: +352-307.341 URL: http://BFrere.net

21 years

Re: [gnu.org #213194] RedHat conditions of use

by Brent Frère

First, let me thank you for your rapid, professional and pertinent answer. It helps all of us to understand more accurately the issue. license-violation(a)fsf.org wrote: > In general, these sorts of licenses apply only to the bits which are not > under the GPL. In a typical Red Hat distro, this is mainly the Red Hat > Network client (but please check carefully). To my understanding, this contract covers all the RedHat product and services. They seems to mix the two notions. At least, it is not explained what software exactly is covered by the proposed agreement. For me, product means RedHat Linux Enterprise (ES, AS or WS) and service means RedHatNetwork, but this is only my perception of the issue. There is no explanation from their side. When I visit their web site, I don't see any way to purchase a product without purchasing the RHN service. And the contract they propose covers both, so I conclude it also covers the product alone, even if I don't figure out up to now how to have the product alone... > Red Hat may price support at a per-pc price, and may generally make > agreements which support this practice. Such agreements may say that > Red Hat won't sell you support for 50 PCs if you in fact have 500 PCs > running RH software. I fully agree that they have freedom to sell services as well as softwares, even free softwares, and that they have the freedom to price support on per CPU basis, as example, and that they have the right to refuse me support for 50 CPUs if I'm actually running 500 CPUs using the service, but as soon as the only way to purchase the software is by purchasing the service, and the service bans your right to install the software on supplementary CPUs (even if not using the service from those supplementary CPUs), then the conditions of the GPL doesn't seems met anymore to me... I have strong restrictions on my freedom to use the software, which is by the way freedom N°0 from the definition of free software... "Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to _run_, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: * The freedom to _run_ the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). [...] The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job, and without being required to communicate subsequently with the developer or any other specific entity." More precisely, in the GPL that covers most of the GNU/Linux system, it is explicitely told that: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.". I feel the obligation to purchase a chargeable service for any supplementary CPU running the software against this statement. > You still have your full rights under the GPL -- but Red Hat may simply > choose not to sell you support. This is probably what the RH rep meant > when they said that you "weren't allowed" to copy the software. They don't say I'm not allowed to copy the software, they explicitely say in this agreement that in this case I MUST PURCHASE a supplementary subscription to RHN, and that they even have the right to check once a year in my premises the amount of RedHat products that are running... They also confirmed me that if I elected to stop a subscription, I lost the right to run the software... Isn't there something wrong ? I think they should correct their wording, saying that any new installed station SHOULD lead to the purchase of a supplementary subscription, or IS NOT ALLOWED to be patched nor upgraded by use of the RHN provided services or patches. The RedHat behaviour leads to declarations of high-tech leaders that says that due to the support conditions imposed by "OpenSource" companies such as RedHat, RedHat Linux is actually becoming proprietary software. I was shocked when I heard this, and that's why I wished to check the exact licence conditions. I slowly begins to conclude that indeed, through its mandatory and very restrictive agreement conditions, the RedHat distribution does not meet anymore the criterias imposed by the GPL, nor the very basic principles of Free Software. What are your conclusions about this ? Thank you for your time. -- Brent Frère Private e-mail: Brent(a)BFrere.net Postal address: 5, rue de Mamer L-8280 Kehlen Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg European Union Mobile: +352-021/29.05.98 Fax: +352-26.30.05.96 Home: +352-307.341 URL: http://BFrere.net

21 years

Polish Government ePatents / Luxembourg Petition Chamber

by dmichels＠chd.lu

FYI 1) It is now official that the Polish gouvernment will not support the present Council text of the directive on software patents that has to pass for a second round in the Council. It is now very likely that the Council will have to open again negotiations with all of the 25 Members states. 2) The LiLux petition to the Luxembourg "Chamber" will be put on the aganda very soon. The president of the "Commission des Pétitions" is now the Green MP Camile Gira and he will make sure that you will be invited soon to present your petition. Dan Michels DÉI GRÉNG (Les Verts) 25, Rue Notre-Dame L-2240 Luxembourg T: (+352) 463740-26 F: (+352) 463743 Mobile: (+352) 021 233 121

21 years

Re: [Lilux-info] LuxBox "it news" 11/2004

by Eric Dondelinger

Salut Serge, On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 04:47:52PM +0100, Serge Marelli wrote: > Quelle est la raison évoquée par Adecco pour être repassé sous l'aile > protectrice de MS? En fait c'est assez habituel... ils n'ont pas investi dans la (re-)formation des gens avec le nouveau logiciel, il y a eu des problemes d'echange de donnees avec des externes et internes (qui travaillaient encore p.ex. avec Excel), apparemment SO serait plus lent que MS Office, resistance passive des utilisateurs, ... enfin tous les symptomes habituels du "format lock-in". Somme toute, c'etait de toute evidence une migration mal planifiee et executee (meme s'ils ne le disent pas). Eric

21 years

M$ Warcraft

by Alex

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/18/ballmer_linux_lawsuits/ -- <°)))=< Thanks for the fish! Al

21 years

Meeting Thursday

by Thierry Coutelier

LiLux meeting will be held this Thursday (18/11) in the LGL at 20.00. For those who want to help for the courses for the Linuxdays please come at 19:00 so we can discuss about the details. See You there. P.S.: There will be NO install fest during the Netdays !! --- Thierry Coutelier

21 years

[eric.dondelinger@tudor.lu: Fw: Groupe de discussion CETIC - Les usages avances des logiciels Open Source]

by Eric Dondelinger

Hi, I got this one @work... maybe someone's interested. Greetings, Eric

21 years

Cable-modem and MAC number

by Serge Marelli

Hi, I'm using a cable-modem and need to find out what it's MAC number is. 1) is this equivalent to the MAC address of an ethernet adapter? 2) does anyone know how to find this MAC number using Linux? thanks Serge -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Serge Marelli, Luxembourg E-mail : serge.marelli(a)linux.lu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- LiLux - http://www.lilux.lu/ Defending Innovation against Patent Inflation http://swpat.ffii.org/ Free Software Foundation - http//www.fsf.org/

21 years

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

Lilux-info November 2004