[ale] Lindows vs the semi-annual Windows suck-a-thonRE: [ale] Lindows vs the semi-annual Windows suck-a-thon

[cfowler]

I've allways speculated on why the assembly of OS programs into a distrubution
can be freely downloaded.  In the case of RedHat,  I firmly
believe that anyone should be able to download any package that is OSS on its
distribution free of charge.  However, the assembly of that software into what
we call RH 8.0 should be paid for.  

I'm guilty like most of just downloading from the website and doing my own
support.  I've only purchased one version of RH and I think that was 4.2 and I
also bought the CDE development kit.

So I think Lindows has the right to do what they do.  The ought to make the 
software like ssh, init, binutils, gcc, and etc. aavailable to those who
want them but we should pay for the product called "Lindows" itself.

I believe that RH may be smart and start selling its disti and not allowing
it to be freely downloaded anymore.  I give them total support for this if
they did it. I believe SuSe does it since I've not been able to find the
latest and greates iso available for free.  RH will just wait till it gets a
good solid userbase.  Like MS not going after people who pirate until they get
a big userbase. 

Chris


On 12/31/1969, "Greg" <runman at speedfactory.net> wrote:

>Exactly.  I posted before my research.  Of course, CodeWeavers did leave
>them since Lindows didn't want to share, and many members of the open
source
>community don't like the way Lindows operates - especially since 99% of
>their system is from open source to begin with and they haven't played nice
>with everyone else in the sandbox by sharing code.
>
>Greg
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ale-admin at ale.org [mailto:ale-admin at ale.org]On Behalf Of Jason Day
>> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 6:37 PM
>> To: ale at ale.org
>> Subject: Re: [ale] Lindows vs the semi-annual Windows suck-a-thon
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 05:15:46PM -0500, Greg wrote:
>> > On the GPL issue, well, I *think* that Lindows, Inc interprets
>> the GPL to
>> > say that they have to provide the source code to USERS only,
>> and in order to
>> > be a user you need to pay at least $49.00 for the OS.  Their EULA
(!??!)
>> > says this also (note the  first sentence "source code" ???)
>>
>> This is allowed by the GPL.  I don't know the correct paragraph off the
>> top of my head, but a quick search of the GPL FAQ should provide
>> answers.
>>
>> On the other hand, while Lindows, Inc is well within their rights to
>> only supply source code to users who have bought the binary, there is
>> nothing to prevent a Lindows user from putting the source on a public
>> FTP server, or distributing it in any other way.  If their EULA claims
>> otherwise, then that would be a violation of the GPL.
>>
>> Jason
>> --
>> Jason Day                                       jasonday at
>> http://jasonday.home.att.net                    worldnet dot att dot net
>>
>> "Of course I'm paranoid, everyone is trying to kill me."
>>     -- Weyoun-6, Star Trek: Deep Space 9
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ale mailing list
>> Ale at ale.org
>> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ale mailing list
>Ale at ale.org
>http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>
_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale