From alex@conostix.com Mon May 27 10:28:20 2002
The sourcecode definitely has now been published so it is covered by the GPL. For this reason, the author grants royalty free use by anybody. He cannot earn money from this idea.
BTW: Red Hat in general is not very GPL friendly...
Are you sure of that ? I think RedHat is one of the only GNU/Linux vendor that take into account the GNU General Public License. Every part of code done by RedHat seems to be under the GNU General Publice License. (from the installer to the tmpwatch command ;-)
Let us call it this way:
They are definitely _not_ _going_ the Open Source / Free Software way:
- They are Open Source -> Yes
- The software they create benefits from OSS/FS development paradigms -> NO
The main improvements with OSS/FS is (intended to be) the fact that other OSS/FS development efforts can/will be used to enhance a specific program.
If RH insists in not integrating other OSS/FS parts, they are definitely not a OSS/FS company but only just another company that makes Source available.
Jörg
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 schilling@fokus.gmd.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix
On Tue, 2002-05-28 at 14:29, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Let us call it this way:
They are definitely _not_ _going_ the Open Source / Free Software way:
They are Open Source -> Yes
The software they create benefits from OSS/FS development paradigms -> NO
I disagree with you sorry, but I think it is the other way.
Open Source Movement has put all the emphasis into promoting the collaborative superior force and all other merely technical merits of the so called Open Source, when RedHat do not accept changes in their own tree they simply choose not to exploit one of the supposed advantages of Open Source however they still fulfill both OS definition and FS definition.
Do the software they create benefits from OSS development paradigm? maybe be not, but I do not care about OSS, we do not speak of OSS on this list.
The main improvements with OSS/FS is (intended to be) the fact that other OSS/FS development efforts can/will be used to enhance a specific program.
The main OSS goal maybe effort sharing, but the main goal of FS is not a technical one, the main goal of FS is _user_ freedom! This is the root of the difference between the two movement and the reason why they are different even if they share many things.
If RH insists in not integrating other OSS/FS parts, they are definitely not a OSS/FS company but only just another company that makes Source available.
No they are an FS company that take in high account both technical and legal maintainability of their own software in my opinion.
You are still free to distribute a package with your own modification without any problem. They do not only offer the source code, but also offer you the freedom to do what you want with it. Who are you to dictate the terms a company or an individual must accept patches?
That said, I would prefer any company to adopt a policy to accept good patches without requiring copyright assignment but that's their own choice, I would not like to see anyone dictate it.
Simo.
On Tue, 28 May 2002 14:29:43 +0200 (CEST), Joerg Schilling said:
- They are Open Source -> Yes
A lot of companies claim to be Open Source; the question is whether they are a Free Software company. Although they develop FS I don't think that they are. However, they contribute a lot of work to Free Software and the GNU project in particular.
- The software they create benefits from OSS/FS development paradigms -> NO
I don't know this paradigma. I am pretty sure that I don't need to reiterate on this list what makes up free software. The development model is definitive not a criterium for that.
If RH insists in not integrating other OSS/FS parts, they are definitely not a OSS/FS company but only just another company that makes Source available.
It is an undeniable fact that Cygnus used to be the first FS company but they did not participate in the "Bazaar" model. A FS developer is free to decide what other code he is willing to integrate in the software he distributes. There are a lot of reasons not to include random code by contributors. The most important one is to keep the license legally enforceable. This requires legal paper exchange with the contributor and possible with his employer. When this is not possible it is often easier to have the emploees write it from scratch.
I don't like this situation but this is what the current copyright legislation requires us to do.
Salam-Shalom,
Werner
On Tue, 28 May 2002, Joerg Schilling wrote:
From alex@conostix.com Mon May 27 10:28:20 2002
The sourcecode definitely has now been published so it is covered by the GPL. For this reason, the author grants royalty free use by anybody. He cannot earn money from this idea.
BTW: Red Hat in general is not very GPL friendly...
Are you sure of that ? I think RedHat is one of the only GNU/Linux vendor that take into account the GNU General Public License. Every part of code done by RedHat seems to be under the GNU General Publice License. (from the installer to the tmpwatch command ;-)
Let us call it this way:
They are definitely _not_ _going_ the Open Source / Free Software way:
- They are Open Source -> Yes
Maybe. But I don't use the term "Open Source".
- The software they create benefits from OSS/FS development paradigms -> NO
I don't agree with you with this point. If you take the developers for the Linux Kernel, a part of the developer has been paid by RedHat Inc. (Take for example Dave Miller or Alan Cox, look around people.redhat.com) All made modification made into the kernel tree are back for the community. (benefits from OSS/FS developement paradigms)
Check out http://sources.redhat.com/ and see the support from RedHat for some big GNU project. Maybe you are using some of these tools for your excellent cdrecord or sdd ? It isn't a benefit for the Free Software community ?
The main improvements with OSS/FS is (intended to be) the fact that other OSS/FS development efforts can/will be used to enhance a specific program.
If RH insists in not integrating other OSS/FS parts, they are definitely not a OSS/FS company but only just another company that makes Source available.
I think the Cygwin case is a special case. They make a bundle of tools and they can add what they want into their official packaging... But I think you could add your tools into it without via the official packaging. Maybe we can contact RedHat for clarification ? (for the Cygwin issue and also the patent issue)
Just ideas
adulau
Jörg
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 schilling@fokus.gmd.de (work) chars I am J"org Schilling URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix