[ale] Re: Red Hat scare tactics

[Michael D. Hirsch]

On Thursday 09 October 2003 08:45 pm, Fulton Green wrote:
> Not that I'd ever talk about anything besides Red Hat on this list ...
>
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 06:03:29PM -0400, Michael D. Hirsch wrote:
> > On a related topic, has anyone looked at the forthcoming licensing from
> > RedHat?  They will no longer have freely downloadable ISOs.  The cheapest
> > desktop distribution from them will be $179 per system.  Which comes with
> > RHN updates, no support, no CD, no hardcopy manual.
> >
> > I keep wondering what prevents someone from getting one license, then
> > capturing the RPMs from the update network and redistibuting them to
> > multiple systems.  RH seems to be trying to convince you that this is a
> > no-no, but I don't think they have a leg to stand on.

> It's outdated because what they called "Red Hat Linux" in this context is
> now known as "Fedora Core" ( http://Fedora.RedHat.com/ ).  For most of us
> on the list that haven't caught Slack, apt-get, YaST, InstallDrake or
> Portage fever (sorry if I left out your distro of choice), Fedora would be
> the one to use, since it has 99.9% OSI-compliant licensing.

and Fedora will support both apt and yum archives!

> The RHEL WS, OTOH, has a maintenance lifecycle of 5 years, and comes with
> some proprietary software such as a Java SDK and StarOffice, so I can see
> why there are no ISOs for it.  And the system won't be anywhere near the
> cutting-edgness of Fedora, so even if they offered it for free I
> personally would be interested in it.  But IT managers looking to reroute
> the "Microsoft tax" and having a system that's relatively safe and secure
> might be interested in the WS option if it had a decent SLA.

I am thinking of the inermerable embedded systems (like the ZapStation and 
other set top boxes) that chose to use a base the RedHat linux.  They are 
relying (and freeloading, mostly) on RedHat to give them security updates for 
free.  There is no way they can afford $179 per appliance.  $10 would be more 
reasonable.

> But even so, $179's a little too much to pay for no hand-holding.  This
> might be an opportunity for Sun's upcoming Mad Hatter Linux-based desktop.
>
> As for the redistribution of RHEL binary RPMs, IANAL, but it may very well
> be doable, to the extent that you aren't redistributing software that is
> proprietary (such as Java), contains proprietary modules (if they chose
> to bundle those into the kernel RPM), or contains Red Hat trademarks
> (such as the "Shadowman" artwork).

Yeah, that's the way I read the licenses, too.  But I, too, ANAL.

> Even if there was some GPL loophole that allowed RH to restrict binary
> distribution, there's definitely nothing keeping you from taking the
> SRPMs from the RHEL products and "rolling your own", as long as you don't
> call it a "Red Hat" distro.  (Pink Tie Enterprise, anyone? :)

Yes, that much is clear.  I was wondering if anyone knew of such a GPL 
loophole.  I don't think it exists.

Thanks,

Michael