nate wrote:
Ben Russo said:
The "BINARY" RPM's are only available through RHN, and even if you have a Redhat AS RHN subscription with which to download them, they are (IANAL) "copyrighted" or licensed or something so you are not allowed to redistribute them.
I just checked my system and you are right about he openssl srpm,yes but note on that errata site, the SOURCE rpms are not available
except through RHN. Checking updates.redhat.com(via ftp) reveals they
do have source rpms though a brief check revealed no trace of
the most current openssl source rpm(openssl-0.9.6b-30.7.src.rpm),
the most recent is openssl-0.9.6b-28.src.rpm ..maybe they plan to
update it. looks like it may just be openssl, several other of
the errata seem to have current SRPMS on updates.redhat.com(file/samba
among them).
I haven't noticed any others, I'll have to check.
Since Openssl is not a GPL program I am not sure that RedHat even has to release
their modified code. It is probably just a mistake on their part, I don't think there are
any sinister reasons for it.
True, but I know of several people that are doing the same thing that I am,RedHat *HAS* to do this for all the software packages that come from Open
Source Licenses.
They don't have a choice.
they do have a choice. Since they are not distributing binaries
to the public they have no obligation to distribute source to the
public. They only have an obligation to provide source for those
that recieve the binaries, they seem to go above & beyond that
requirement, when they don't have to(which is nice). Even more,
redhat doesn't have to provide the source to anyone unless that
person requests it. But again they go above & beyond the basic
requirement and make it public. which is cool .. my understanding
is the GPL only kicks in when the software is distributed, and
only applies to those that the software is being distributed to.
But the recipient of the software can then turn around and give
the source to whoever(under the terms of the GPL).
and all of us have RHAS licenses as well. If it comes down to it, I'm sure that
we could set up our own mirror for SRPMs of packages whose licenses
allow redistribution.
from the GPL: "For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."
and this: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic
==== If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?
No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public. ====
nat
I agree with everything that you are saying, and although these cynical positions could
be taken by RedHat, I *think* that RedHat will continue to make the SRPM's available publicly
simply because to do otherwise will seriously alienate the community of users and developers,
I think the openssl SRPM is probably just a slip on their part. I will have to ask them about it.
If they don't then they will quickly loose my support, and I *DO* support them.
I am an RHCE, my company recently purchased 25 enterprise subscriptions to RHN
at my urging, and we are considering making the move to RH Enterprise ES right now.
I have no problem with RedHat making money, and I will BUY licenses for servers
where the cost is justified. I have made a point about going out and buying at least one
boxed set of every version of RedHat that has come out since RedHat 6.2
However, I feel not one single tiny iota of guilt about
using RedHat Advanced Server SRPM's the way that I am on my home servers and
on any server that doesn't need "Mission Critical" support for 3rd party software or
hardware vendor certified compatability.
RedHat has gotten to where they are with the grace and generosity of the Open Source developer community
and the FSF and GNU projects and the good graces of hundreds of thousands of programmers.
The spirit with which much of that software was released was one in which the receivers of
the gift were urged (heck...required) to pass on their kharmic fortune. blah blah blah
you get the idea.... :-) (besides mixing legal and philosophical arguments is getting way OT)
Anyway, I have contributed (in some very small ways) here and there, with my Syslog-NG
to database HOWTO, and a Web-Kiosk HOWTO (from the mid '90's) and with my
sporadic contributions to the graciously hosted public mailing lists. I have from time to
time done some debugging and bug reporting and participated a few times at community
LUG groups, and I have helped two local schools set up computer and network equipment for
free.
I wish that I had the resources to do more. If I ever get independently wealthy I will. :-) (let's hope!)
At all of these locations I have extolled the virtues of that very generous and
good natured company RedHat. I hope they don't get greedy.
-Ben.
-- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
