Novell/progeny to take up redhat legacy services

[ChuckW]

>> Legal shmegal!! I think you've been brainwashed by the proprietary
>> software storm troopers.
>
> No, instead you were brainwashed by the everything in life is free and
> legal storm troopers.

I never said time was free. Just the opposite. Perhaps you have been
selectively reading the posts here? I've said that before...


>> The software is GPL'd,
>
> Not all of it.

Where "the" is defined as all of the GPL'd software (which I said below).


>> Redhat cannot take your rights to redistribute away from you. Once you
>> have *1* copy of the code,
>> you can do whatever you want with it and there's not a darn thing RedHat
>> can do to you.
>
> This only applies to the source code that is open source.

I agree, which I said below. It's one short command to turn the source
code into the same RPMS that RedHat delivers with the service.



>> Huh? How's that. Did RedHat suddenly find a way to get around the GPL?
>> If so, please enlighten me...
>
> No, but it seems you *think* you found a way around the law.

How's that? My concern is that people are seeing RedHat software in the
same light as Microsoft software. RedHat software is not what they're
selling. They're selling *SERVICES*.



>> You have to remember that in buying RHEL 2.1/3.0/etc you are paying for
>> a service, *not the code*.
>
> No, you are indeed paying for the code along with the service.  And any
> reasonable media costs, etc.  But you are not paying for the source code.

Yes, a reasonable media cost. But even RedHat publically states that what
you are paying for is the service (and by extension all of the incredible
work it supports in the backend).


>> Knowing all of that, if you still choose to pay RedHat the full ticket
>> price, I commend you! RedHat deserves every penny of it. Just make sure
>> that you are paying for the right reasons.
>
> And please make sure you are not acting illegally out of a misconception
> of what GPL covers.

I believe you failed to make that point.



>> (*) RedHat has publically stated more than once that *ALL* of their code
>> has been and always will be open sourced ( specifically GPL'd).
>
> No, they have not.  In fact, they have stated the opposite.  Not all of it
> is GPL'd.  And some of it is subject to copyright and trademark law.

Perhaps you have been living in a hole? They have said this time and time
again. What you are probably confusing is that they have also publically
stated that they have no qualms about *INCLUDING* closed source software
in their distribution. They themselves respect the force of the OSS
community and will make all of their *OWN* code GPL'd. Please also note
that this has nothing to do with their logos and trademarks.


> What they stated was that they will always provide access to all their
> source code.  They never said it was all open sourced or GPL'd.

I disagree.


As a side note, I can't help but feel like you selectively read this post
and made your judgement after reading the first line. Am I wrong?

-Chuck