I really need it by Friday ! Please answer the questionnaire ASAP and return it
to me !
Thank you.
--
--
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
This transaction appears to have no content
I'm not understanding your sentence (lack of english knowledge for
sure), but if you are asking for the exact text provided by RedHat, you
can find it here and in attachement:
http://home.bfrere.net/EMEASubscriptionAgreementEng.pdf
novalis(a)fsf.org via RT wrote:
>Can someone show me some language here?
>
>
--
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
If you have problem with my digital signature, please install the appropriate au
thority certificate by browsing https://www.cacert.org/certs/root.crt.
This transaction appears to have no content
I'm not understanding your sentence (lack of english knowledge for
sure), but if you are asking for the exact text provided by RedHat, you
can find it here and in attachement:
http://home.bfrere.net/EMEASubscriptionAgreementEng.pdf
novalis(a)fsf.org via RT wrote:
>Can someone show me some language here?
>
>
--
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
If you have problem with my digital signature, please install the appropriate au
thority certificate by browsing https://www.cacert.org/certs/root.crt.
On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 06:55 -0500, \"Brent Frère\" @ bfrere . net via RT
wrote:
> This transaction appears to have no content
> Patrick Kaell wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I know, this topic is a bit old now. But does anybody have news about
> > this? I mean, does the GPL also protect the binaries or only the
> > source code?
> >
> > I have read in some newsgroups that you have the rights to install
> > RHEL binaries on as many machines as you want. But RedHat is
> > misleading you about this on their website. In other words: People who
> > are not aware of their rights will pay?! Is this the business model? A
> > model based on deception?
> >
> > I will be glad if anybody here would have more details. It is very
> > difficult to find someting just by googling.
> >
> > Greeting, Patrick Kaell
>
> I think you're right. If they publish ALL the source code of even
> modified version of GPLed software under GPL as they claim, they are GPL
> compliant.
> But they ARE misleading intentionally customers. More than just a
> commercial lie, they write in black on white in their conditions of use:
> you ARE NOT allowed to install the software on supplementary hosts
> without paying RHN recurring fees, your are NOT allowed to keep your
> system running AFTER the end of your subscription, they even described
> the kind of checks you must accept they do at your premises to ensure
> you comply with those conditions.
>
> So I think RedHat is enfringing GPL.
Can someone show me some language here?
--
-Dave Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Support my work: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=novalis&p=FSF
Dear all,
A big IT company established in Luxembourg asks me very tricky questions about
the best way for it to embrace the FOSS (Free/OpenSource) movement in the
Luxembourg's market. To give them good advices, I would appreciate you to answer
the following questions by e-mail reply. No names will be forwarded. You know
I'm honest.
If you know IT managers in Luxembourg not on this mailing-list, please forward
them the questionnaire. Thank you.
I need it very soon. I'm interested also in feelings of peoples that DON'T have
decisional impact or even are NOT in the IT business. Thank you.
Most questions accepts only one answer. Just please put a 'x' in front of the
chosen answer, this way:
1) Do you agree answering this questionnaire ?
x a) Yes
b) No
===================================================================
1) What is the size of your company in Luxembourg ?
a) 0-5
b) 6-15
c) 16-50
d) 51-250
e) 251 and more
2) What is the importance of IT in your company's business ?
a) Critical
b) Very important
c) Important
d) Useful
e) Low impact
f) No impact
g) Other: .....................
3) What impact do you have on your company IT purchase politic ?
a) decider
b) adviser
c) influencer
d) no impact
4) Do you know what is free software, OpenSource, Linux, GPL or GNU ?
a) Yes
b) No
c) Other: ..........................
5) What company in this list looks to you the most friendly with FOSS movement ?
a) Bull
b) Dell
c) Fujitsu-Siemens
d) HP
e) IBM
f) Novell
g) SCO
h) SUN
i) None
6) What IT company do you feel performed the strongest effort in supporting FOSS
solutions in the last few years ?
a) Bull
b) Dell
c) Fujitsu-Siemens
d) HP
e) IBM
f) Novell
g) SCO
h) SUN
i) None
j) Other: ............
7) What company do you feel being the most able to support professional
deployment of FOSS solutions, such as Linux, Samba or Apache in Luxembourg ?
a) Bull
b) Dell
c) Fujitsu-Siemens
d) HP
e) IBM
f) Novell
g) SCO
h) SUN
i) None
j) Other: ............
8) What company provides the best high-end hardware for a professional
deployment of FOSS-based servers ?
a) Bull
b) Dell
c) Fujitsu-Siemens
d) HP
e) IBM
f) SUN
g) None
h) Other: ............
9) What company provides the best mid-range hardware for a professional
deployement of FOSS-based servers ? (PME market)
a) Bull
b) Dell
c) Fujitsu-Siemens
d) HP
e) IBM
f) SUN
g) None
h) Other: ............
10) What companies (multiple choices possible) sounds to you as having
dual-speech when speaking about FOSS v. proprietary software ?
a) Bull
b) Dell
c) Fujitsu-Siemens
d) HP
e) IBM
f) Novell
g) SCO
h) SUN
i) None
j) Other: ............
11) Do you think migrating from proprietary software to FOSS implies migrating
from a traditional IT company to purely FOSS provider, at software level ? In
other words, when replacing a proprietary domain controller by Samba, it is
normal to get the Samba (and the underlying OS) from FOSS-only companies or from
the Internet ?
a) Yes
b) No
c) Other: .............
d) No opinion
12) Do you think migrating from proprietary software to FOSS implies migrating
from a traditional IT company to purely FOSS provider, at hardware level also ?
In other words, when a new Linux server is installed, it sound normal to run it
on white product PC box.
a) Yes
b) No
c) Other: .............
d) No opinion
13) Do you think those companies have a future in FOSS market ? (select all that
apply)
a) Bull
b) Dell
c) Fujitsu-Siemens
d) HP
e) IBM
f) Novell
g) SCO
h) SUN
i) None
j) Other: ............
14) Which companies in this list have their own desktop solution ready for
deployment ?
a) Bull
b) Dell
c) Fujitsu-Siemens
d) HP
e) IBM
f) Novell
g) SCO
h) SUN
i) None
j) Other: ............
Suggestions and remarks:
Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.
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
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