Buck wrote:
The real dilemma is that the provider, whether Red Hat or another Linux operation, needs to make a profit or they will go away (I assume).
Yes, they don't be the charity sisters.
Linux was created with the idea of offering an operating system at NO COST required, an open license to allow a user to have and use as many
not true, then false. LiNUX was created because Linus T. wanted a OS for his very very new i386 system. DOS based OS were shit, and he wanted some more professional. But SCO UNIX, now it's funny ;-), cost toooooo much. Then he only got one possibility. To write his OS.
copies as desired without violating the copyright and to be freely distributed. I believe his goal is to have offered a product available that anyone with a computer can afford.
He wanted to do a better MINIX, with a free/open license but the Linux license was not decided until 0.12 or thus. Thanks to Ari Lemmke, Linus got GPL.
What bothers me is that the GNU license on the product says that If I have the product and wish to distribute it, I can - without recourse! But Red Hat now requires the buyers of their product to sign a contract that takes that very purpose out of the license. If I were to work for a company that has that product, that contract would prevent me from getting a copy to learn from or from installing it on another computer for a backup at the office without paying for it again.
If Red Hat's contract is deemed legal, then they have just effectively found a way around the GNU license. Now they can take what is required to be public by license and taken it for themselves and restricted the distribution.
Do you remember Cygnus ? It's same business model. Are you saying that M.Tiemann, D.Henkel and J.Gilmore were breaking GPL ? X-)
not to know how to read is not supported ;-)
http://www.linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info/rhas-isos http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/ http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html