Fwd: Possible GPL violation by Red Hat/Dell alliance

[rek2 at linuxbusca.com (GNU/Linux :-))]

Forgot...
it also happends that I do know what I talk about of the profesional
edition of Redhat cause I was talking one hour with Marisa Keller 
from Redhat and other friend of mine that works in RedHat abut
clusters(sense I love making beowulfs), I asked them if I could get the
Clustering monitor they were displaying in the booth as example for
their Cluster software, they told me that I can only get it in the
profesional edition and that it was a in house software, not 3rd party.

 No I don't know the name sense I can't download it cause I can only get
it in the profesional edition ;-)

Now,they do have a nice user group program... :-)

ReK2



On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 21:40, Paul Iadonisi wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 14:22, rek2 wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > To be positive here. I am not saying that I hate redhat ,I rather Redhat
> > 100 times that other non-gnu/linux/BSD OS, just that I rather use other
> > distro for different rearons, RedHat have done good things also for the
> > community, I am just saying that they may not be like that forever they
> > are a company :-) and like you say they don't have to give back to the
> > community if they don't want to as long they don't break the GPL. 
> 
>   Oh, but they do.  And in a large way.  See below.
> 
> > They already have software that is only available under their
> > profesional edition(like the clustering monitors I saw at the
> 
>   Have you ever purchased or been somewhere that has purchased the
> professional edition?  If so, you would see that the three install CDs +
> two source CDs are identical to the personal edition.  Bit for bit.
>   If you are talking about the additional CDs in the professional
> edition, note that these are mostly third party applications usually in
> demo versions only.  Red Hat has been moving toward an even more
> free-software based distribution than they have in the past.  Netscape
> 4.x was the last non-free piece that was eliminated in 8.0.  Now,
> probably the worse license that remains is the one for pine (which
> really isn't that bad, just not as free as most of the rest of the
> distribution.)
> 
> > conference). what about us the guys that are not corporate, and want to
> > run it at home? I guess we need to use other distro then :-)
> 
>   Specifics, please.  I've posted a number of rebuttals of Red Hat's
> supposed bad behavior on other lists in the past, so I'm going to try to
> keep this short.  (Not that you said they have behaved badly, though.)
>   I do find this thread, and even the original post, completely
> speculative.  There are also some assumptions made in the original post
> that I find quite bothersome.  (I am aware that it was forwarded from
> another list.)
>   Let me say, to start, that I am a FANATICAL supporter of the GPL and
> am the first to criticize anyone willfully violating the license.  But I
> have found most accusations against Red Hat to be unfounded.  Even in
> this case.  I find it particularly specious that the Red Hat KDE/Gnome
> Bluecurve issue has been brought up when the KDE project itself has a
> spotty history with their linking of GPLed code QPL and pre-QPL QT
> toolkits, which was arguably a violation of the GPL and the reason Red
> Hat did not include KDE initially.  Note that I find the KDE project
> quite laudable today, just that those developers screaming foul is a bit
> out of place considering KDE's history.
>   If the original post is accurate, then I'd say that Mark Webbink is
> correct in saying that Dell is responsible to provide the GPLed source. 
> If it is unmodified (unlikely), they only need to provide links to the
> original (which, if I read correctly, they do not, anyhow).
>   The bottom line is that unless you are making out a check to Red Hat,
> Inc for the server you buy from Dell, you probably have no legal grounds
> to bring Red Hat to task for violating the GPL.  Dell is the vendor. 
> Even when it comes to the shadowman logo.  It is not Red Hat's
> responsibility to police all violations of the GPL and see that the are
> brought into line except when it comes to their own code.  And if Dell
> is not subsequently modifying code that Red Hat has a copyright on, then
> there probably isn't a lot they can do, anyhow.  All unmodified Red Hat
> copyrighted code is available at Red Hat's site and I highly doubt that
> it isn't painfully obvious in many places in the actual OS install.
>   And intent is nine tenths of the law, so to speak.  Red Hat's history
> of providing source (and even GPLing!) previously unreleased code is
> exemplary and I challenge anyone to provide specific intent on the part
> of Red Hat to violate the GPL.  And except for cases where they *could
> not legally* GPL code (such as CCVS) since there were IP rights that
> they did not own or prior contracts that prohibited it, all of software
> released that is Red Hat authored code has been GPLed (witness Source
> Navigator for but one example).
>   I am not trying to convince you that you should use Red Hat.  But I
> will say that I agree with Robert Krawitz that your statements about
> them are unfair, to say the least.  I will keep an open mind and
> probably watch the web site mentioned in the original post, but I can
> almost guess how this is going to turn out.  Another 'Red Hat is the
> Microsoft of Linux' BS site.  I'll bet it just turns out to be a problem
> of logistics -- not a blatant violation in need of 'community action.' 
> A simple meeting with Eben Moglen or Brad Kuhn will take place and the
> issue will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
>   Oh, and if you think you can't continue the development of Red Hat
> Linux (albeit, under a different name -- big freakin' deal), take a look
> at Aurora Linux at http://www.auroralinux.org/ for info on a Sparc Linux
> distribution based on Red Hat 7.3.  Also witness Mandrake and probably
> at least a few other distros that began with a snapshot (or released
> version) of Red Hat in the beginning.  I hardly think that if Red Hat
> were to go bankrupt tomorrow or was purchased by Microsoft that the
> distribution would die.  There are plenty of developers out there who
> will ensure it's continuance (like, yours truly...well, sort of...I
> haven't coded in a while, but I know there are other ways I can -- and
> would -- contribute).  And those developers include some of Red Hat's
> *own* employees.
> 
> Non-disclaimer:
>   I AM a Red Hat stockholder, but only *because* I believe in the
> company and its principles.  I would defend the company (at least today)
> even if I wasn't a stockholder.
> -- 
> -Paul Iadonisi
>  Senior System Administrator
>  Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
>  Ever see a penguin fly?  --  Try Linux.
>  GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://www.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss