<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18828"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=576152818-04032011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>I'm curious what it means to end-users. How does this change
the game for me - RedHat customer?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=576152818-04032011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=576152818-04032011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>I'm under assumption, this also explains why latest RHEL
release notes disclose the bug numbers with slight description of what was
discovered but when you try to open the BZ id, it tells you that you dont have
permissions - essentially hiding all the details. This is probably a way of
showing a middle finger to Oracle but unintentianlly also to everyone
else.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=576152818-04032011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=576152818-04032011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>I think they could have addressed this issue with new
licensing clause that would forbid Oracle like usage and
possible permit community release - like CentOS. Come to think about it -
CentOS also steals a large piece of "would be financial gain" pie - there
are countless commercial CentOS users outthere. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=576152818-04032011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=576152818-04032011><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>This may be a good business decision which is understandable -
but its bad for open source community in general that relies on
RHEL.</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> rhelv6-list-bounces@redhat.com
[mailto:rhelv6-list-bounces@redhat.com] <B>On Behalf Of
</B>solarflow99<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, March 04, 2011 1:14 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Red
Hat Enterprise Linux 6 (Santiago) discussion mailing-list<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
[rhelv6-list] RHEL6 kernel 2.6.32-71.14.1.el6.x86_64
panic...<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>It makes sense to me, I wouldn't want to see Oracle keep stealing
away and profiting from FOSS, they've got almost everything cornered
already.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Matthias Saou <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:thias@spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net">thias@spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net</A>></SPAN>
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>Hi,<BR><BR>I guess this is also related :<BR><A
href="http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/03/04/1550231/Red-Hat-Stops-Shipping-Kernel-Changes-as-Patches"
target=_blank>http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/03/04/1550231/Red-Hat-Stops-Shipping-Kernel-Changes-as-Patches</A><BR><BR>So
they want to bother Oracle? I can understand that. But right now<BR>what I see
is that it also bothers me, a faithful customer. So this is<BR>a slippery
slope...<BR><BR>Matthias<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BODY></HTML>