FC4 or FC5

[Ed Greshko]

jdow wrote:
> From: "Michael H. Warfield" <mhw at WittsEnd.com>
> 
> " It's a license.  And you are a troll."
> 
> That's your call to make. I am simply stating why *I* will not
> develop open source software unless somebody somewhere pays the
> full freight for my work time.

I don't get it....

You want to develop software, then sell it to make money...but you
complain that you have to pay someone else for their time/effort to
write the tools (Qt) that you are going to use to make your money?

You also have written in this list that you don't have time to write bug
reports...yet you have time to complain on mailing lists.

FYI, companies like Red Hat *do not* charge for the "Enterprise"
software they distribute.  They charge you for supporting the software
they distribute.  You can't legally use their distribution without the
purchase of a software maintenance agreement.

When you file a bug with Red Hat they get it fixed.  They submit the
fixes to the upstream maintainers.  It the maintainer's choice to
include it or not include it in their standard release.  If not, Red Hat
will still maintain and patch their distributed version.  The folks at
Red Hat will incorporate changes from later releases into their
Enterprise products.

That is what you are paying for...not the software bits.  You can't
download the RHEL binaries....but you can download the SRPMS and you are
very free/welcome to recompile them ala CentOS.  Red Hat is fulfilling
their responsibility as an open source member.  Something that you seem
not to want to ascribe/aspire to.

That's fine....  We should all note that your email headers do show:

X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869

So, we know where your heart is....

But you are right about one thing.  It is probably unfair to label you a
Troll.  Unfair to the Trolls that is....