Lilux-info November 2004

lilux-info@lilux.lu

30 participants
50 discussions

by Steve Clement

Sorry for the zipped PDf but I can't be bothered :) STEve C -- ION Network Solutions Steve Clement Unix System Administrator 209, rue des Romains L-8041 Bertrange Tel: +352 261 276-2 Fax: +352 261 276-9 mailto:steve@ion.lu http://www.ion.lu

19 years, 5 months

Re: [gnu.org #215383] Re: [Lilux-info] RedHat conditions of use

by novalis＠fsf.org via RT

That's what I was asking for. Here's the relevant piece: 1. The Software. Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Red Hat Applications (the "Software") are either a modular operating system or application consisting of hundreds of software components. The end user license agreement for each component is located in the component's source code. With the exception of certain image files identified in Section 2 below, the license terms for the components permit Customer to copy, modify, and redistribute the component, in both source code and binary code forms. This agreement does not limit Customer's rights under, or grant Customer rights that supersede, the license terms of any particular component. On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 01:58 -0500, \"Brent Frère\" @ bfrere . net via RT wrote: > I'm not understanding your sentence (lack of english knowledge for > sure), but if you are asking for the exact text provided by RedHat, you > can find it here and in attachement: > http://home.bfrere.net/EMEASubscriptionAgreementEng.pdf > > novalis(a)fsf.org via RT wrote: > > >Can someone show me some language here? > > > > -- -Dave Turner GPL Compliance Engineer Support my work: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=novalis&p=FSF

19 years, 5 months

Re: [Lilux-info] RedHat conditions of use

by Brent Frère

Patrick Kaell <sparc(a)kayoon.net> wrote: > Patrick Useldinger wrote: > > Maybe this acticle makes is clearer: > > http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/11/18/1540233 > > Thanks for the link. But I have already read this article. The problem > is that there also exist articles which claim the opposite. And the > "White Box Enterprise Linux" effort would not make much sense if there > were not any restrictions on the binaries. > > Greetings, Patrick Kaell Indeed, the problem is that RedHat imposes restrictive conditions on copying or running copies of its "softwares" (you can understand it as their binaries). But if RedHat publish the exact sources of all the software and patches on their ftp server, how could they disctinct a host running a copy of RedHat binaries with a host running the compiled sources found on their web site and published under the GPL ??? Or RedHat DOES NOT publish the exact sources matching their binaries, and then they ALSO violate the GPL !!! So, trying to understand those conditions as applying on the binaries only does not lead to a solution. The problem remains here that RedHat has the right to put conditions on the use of their SERVICES (such as RedHat Network) but in NO CASE on the GPLed software ! (Just as reminder, my point here is not to find a way to run RedHat software for 0, but to make sure if I advice the use of RH Linux, I advice legal software. I also wish to know if the Sun's statement "RedHat Linux is proprietary OS" is right or not). -- -- Brent Frère Private e-mail: Brent(a)BFrere.net Postal address: 5, rue de Mamer L-8280 Kehlen Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg European Union Mobile: +352-021/29.05.98 Fax: +352-26.30.05.96 Home: +352-307.341 URL: http://BFrere.net

19 years, 5 months

FOSS on the luxembourish market questionnaire. Reminder !

by Brent Frère

I really need it by Friday ! Please answer the questionnaire ASAP and return it to me ! Thank you. -- -- Brent Frère Private e-mail: Brent(a)BFrere.net Postal address: 5, rue de Mamer L-8280 Kehlen Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg European Union Mobile: +352-021/29.05.98 Fax: +352-26.30.05.96 Home: +352-307.341 URL: http://BFrere.net

19 years, 5 months

Re: [gnu.org #215383] Re: [Lilux-info] RedHat conditions of use

by \"Brent Frère\" ＠ bfrere . net via RT

This transaction appears to have no content I'm not understanding your sentence (lack of english knowledge for sure), but if you are asking for the exact text provided by RedHat, you can find it here and in attachement: http://home.bfrere.net/EMEASubscriptionAgreementEng.pdf novalis(a)fsf.org via RT wrote: >Can someone show me some language here? > > -- Brent Frère Private e-mail: Brent(a)BFrere.net Postal address: 5, rue de Mamer L-8280 Kehlen Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg European Union Mobile: +352-021/29.05.98 Fax: +352-26.30.05.96 Home: +352-307.341 URL: http://BFrere.net If you have problem with my digital signature, please install the appropriate au thority certificate by browsing https://www.cacert.org/certs/root.crt.

19 years, 5 months

Re: [gnu.org #215383] Re: [Lilux-info] RedHat conditions of use

by \"Brent Frère\" ＠ bfrere . net via RT

19 years, 5 months

Re: [gnu.org #215383] Re: [Lilux-info] RedHat conditions of use

by novalis＠fsf.org via RT

On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 06:55 -0500, \"Brent Frère\" @ bfrere . net via RT wrote: > This transaction appears to have no content > Patrick Kaell wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I know, this topic is a bit old now. But does anybody have news about > > this? I mean, does the GPL also protect the binaries or only the > > source code? > > > > I have read in some newsgroups that you have the rights to install > > RHEL binaries on as many machines as you want. But RedHat is > > misleading you about this on their website. In other words: People who > > are not aware of their rights will pay?! Is this the business model? A > > model based on deception? > > > > I will be glad if anybody here would have more details. It is very > > difficult to find someting just by googling. > > > > Greeting, Patrick Kaell > > I think you're right. If they publish ALL the source code of even > modified version of GPLed software under GPL as they claim, they are GPL > compliant. > But they ARE misleading intentionally customers. More than just a > commercial lie, they write in black on white in their conditions of use: > you ARE NOT allowed to install the software on supplementary hosts > without paying RHN recurring fees, your are NOT allowed to keep your > system running AFTER the end of your subscription, they even described > the kind of checks you must accept they do at your premises to ensure > you comply with those conditions. > > So I think RedHat is enfringing GPL. Can someone show me some language here? -- -Dave Turner GPL Compliance Engineer Support my work: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=novalis&p=FSF

19 years, 5 months

FOSS on the luxembourisch market questionnaire. Please read it !

by Brent Frère

Dear all, A big IT company established in Luxembourg asks me very tricky questions about the best way for it to embrace the FOSS (Free/OpenSource) movement in the Luxembourg's market. To give them good advices, I would appreciate you to answer the following questions by e-mail reply. No names will be forwarded. You know I'm honest. If you know IT managers in Luxembourg not on this mailing-list, please forward them the questionnaire. Thank you. I need it very soon. I'm interested also in feelings of peoples that DON'T have decisional impact or even are NOT in the IT business. Thank you. Most questions accepts only one answer. Just please put a 'x' in front of the chosen answer, this way: 1) Do you agree answering this questionnaire ? x a) Yes b) No =================================================================== 1) What is the size of your company in Luxembourg ? a) 0-5 b) 6-15 c) 16-50 d) 51-250 e) 251 and more 2) What is the importance of IT in your company's business ? a) Critical b) Very important c) Important d) Useful e) Low impact f) No impact g) Other: ..................... 3) What impact do you have on your company IT purchase politic ? a) decider b) adviser c) influencer d) no impact 4) Do you know what is free software, OpenSource, Linux, GPL or GNU ? a) Yes b) No c) Other: .......................... 5) What company in this list looks to you the most friendly with FOSS movement ? a) Bull b) Dell c) Fujitsu-Siemens d) HP e) IBM f) Novell g) SCO h) SUN i) None 6) What IT company do you feel performed the strongest effort in supporting FOSS solutions in the last few years ? a) Bull b) Dell c) Fujitsu-Siemens d) HP e) IBM f) Novell g) SCO h) SUN i) None j) Other: ............ 7) What company do you feel being the most able to support professional deployment of FOSS solutions, such as Linux, Samba or Apache in Luxembourg ? a) Bull b) Dell c) Fujitsu-Siemens d) HP e) IBM f) Novell g) SCO h) SUN i) None j) Other: ............ 8) What company provides the best high-end hardware for a professional deployment of FOSS-based servers ? a) Bull b) Dell c) Fujitsu-Siemens d) HP e) IBM f) SUN g) None h) Other: ............ 9) What company provides the best mid-range hardware for a professional deployement of FOSS-based servers ? (PME market) a) Bull b) Dell c) Fujitsu-Siemens d) HP e) IBM f) SUN g) None h) Other: ............ 10) What companies (multiple choices possible) sounds to you as having dual-speech when speaking about FOSS v. proprietary software ? a) Bull b) Dell c) Fujitsu-Siemens d) HP e) IBM f) Novell g) SCO h) SUN i) None j) Other: ............ 11) Do you think migrating from proprietary software to FOSS implies migrating from a traditional IT company to purely FOSS provider, at software level ? In other words, when replacing a proprietary domain controller by Samba, it is normal to get the Samba (and the underlying OS) from FOSS-only companies or from the Internet ? a) Yes b) No c) Other: ............. d) No opinion 12) Do you think migrating from proprietary software to FOSS implies migrating from a traditional IT company to purely FOSS provider, at hardware level also ? In other words, when a new Linux server is installed, it sound normal to run it on white product PC box. a) Yes b) No c) Other: ............. d) No opinion 13) Do you think those companies have a future in FOSS market ? (select all that apply) a) Bull b) Dell c) Fujitsu-Siemens d) HP e) IBM f) Novell g) SCO h) SUN i) None j) Other: ............ 14) Which companies in this list have their own desktop solution ready for deployment ? a) Bull b) Dell c) Fujitsu-Siemens d) HP e) IBM f) Novell g) SCO h) SUN i) None j) Other: ............ Suggestions and remarks: Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Brent Frère

19 years, 5 months

RedHat conditions of use

by Brent Frère

19 years, 5 months

Virgin et Linux

by Fred

trop forts... http://www.virginmega.fr/ que faire contre ca ??

19 years, 5 months

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

Lilux-info November 2004