Fwd: Possible GPL violation by Red Hat/Dell alliance

[rek2 at linuxbusca.com (GNU/Linux :-))]

I was not the guy that forwarded that email to the list,(but I did
forward it to my group) not that I saw nothing wrong with it, but I was
just writing my opinion of what redhat can one day become(maybe
not)after reading that guys email and checking the website, and for and
opinion you don't need fact's, do you need fact's for your favorite
color? no you just like that color.
I have never sayd that redhat is doing anything against the GPL, I just
said that I don't like the positition they take for some issues and
that I wont be surprised if they actually one day do, I think I have
freedom of speech to actually say what I think, you like it or not.
and I still disagree with RedHaT in some politics they have, I don't
care what you have to say to make them look good.
Maybe because:

"Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist"

ReK2




On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 21:40, Paul Iadonisi wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 14:22, rek2 wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > To be positive here. I am not saying that I hate redhat ,I rather Redhat
> > 100 times that other non-gnu/linux/BSD OS, just that I rather use other
> > distro for different rearons, RedHat have done good things also for the
> > community, I am just saying that they may not be like that forever they
> > are a company :-) and like you say they don't have to give back to the
> > community if they don't want to as long they don't break the GPL. 
> 
>   Oh, but they do.  And in a large way.  See below.
> 
> > They already have software that is only available under their
> > profesional edition(like the clustering monitors I saw at the
> 
>   Have you ever purchased or been somewhere that has purchased the
> professional edition?  If so, you would see that the three install CDs +
> two source CDs are identical to the personal edition.  Bit for bit.
>   If you are talking about the additional CDs in the professional
> edition, note that these are mostly third party applications usually in
> demo versions only.  Red Hat has been moving toward an even more
> free-software based distribution than they have in the past.  Netscape
> 4.x was the last non-free piece that was eliminated in 8.0.  Now,
> probably the worse license that remains is the one for pine (which
> really isn't that bad, just not as free as most of the rest of the
> distribution.)
> 
> > conference). what about us the guys that are not corporate, and want to
> > run it at home? I guess we need to use other distro then :-)
> 
>   Specifics, please.  I've posted a number of rebuttals of Red Hat's
> supposed bad behavior on other lists in the past, so I'm going to try to
> keep this short.  (Not that you said they have behaved badly, though.)
>   I do find this thread, and even the original post, completely
> speculative.  There are also some assumptions made in the original post
> that I find quite bothersome.  (I am aware that it was forwarded from
> another list.)
>   Let me say, to start, that I am a FANATICAL supporter of the GPL and
> am the first to criticize anyone willfully violating the license.  But I
> have found most accusations against Red Hat to be unfounded.  Even in
> this case.  I find it particularly specious that the Red Hat KDE/Gnome
> Bluecurve issue has been brought up when the KDE project itself has a
> spotty history with their linking of GPLed code QPL and pre-QPL QT
> toolkits, which was arguably a violation of the GPL and the reason Red
> Hat did not include KDE initially.  Note that I find the KDE project
> quite laudable today, just that those developers screaming foul is a bit
> out of place considering KDE's history.
>   If the original post is accurate, then I'd say that Mark Webbink is
> correct in saying that Dell is responsible to provide the GPLed source. 
> If it is unmodified (unlikely), they only need to provide links to the
> original (which, if I read correctly, they do not, anyhow).
>   The bottom line is that unless you are making out a check to Red Hat,
> Inc for the server you buy from Dell, you probably have no legal grounds
> to bring Red Hat to task for violating the GPL.  Dell is the vendor. 
> Even when it comes to the shadowman logo.  It is not Red Hat's
> responsibility to police all violations of the GPL and see that the are
> brought into line except when it comes to their own code.  And if Dell
> is not subsequently modifying code that Red Hat has a copyright on, then
> there probably isn't a lot they can do, anyhow.  All unmodified Red Hat
> copyrighted code is available at Red Hat's site and I highly doubt that
> it isn't painfully obvious in many places in the actual OS install.
>   And intent is nine tenths of the law, so to speak.  Red Hat's history
> of providing source (and even GPLing!) previously unreleased code is
> exemplary and I challenge anyone to provide specific intent on the part
> of Red Hat to violate the GPL.  And except for cases where they *could
> not legally* GPL code (such as CCVS) since there were IP rights that
> they did not own or prior contracts that prohibited it, all of software
> released that is Red Hat authored code has been GPLed (witness Source
> Navigator for but one example).
>   I am not trying to convince you that you should use Red Hat.  But I
> will say that I agree with Robert Krawitz that your statements about
> them are unfair, to say the least.  I will keep an open mind and
> probably watch the web site mentioned in the original post, but I can
> almost guess how this is going to turn out.  Another 'Red Hat is the
> Microsoft of Linux' BS site.  I'll bet it just turns out to be a problem
> of logistics -- not a blatant violation in need of 'community action.' 
> A simple meeting with Eben Moglen or Brad Kuhn will take place and the
> issue will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.
>   Oh, and if you think you can't continue the development of Red Hat
> Linux (albeit, under a different name -- big freakin' deal), take a look
> at Aurora Linux at http://www.auroralinux.org/ for info on a Sparc Linux
> distribution based on Red Hat 7.3.  Also witness Mandrake and probably
> at least a few other distros that began with a snapshot (or released
> version) of Red Hat in the beginning.  I hardly think that if Red Hat
> were to go bankrupt tomorrow or was purchased by Microsoft that the
> distribution would die.  There are plenty of developers out there who
> will ensure it's continuance (like, yours truly...well, sort of...I
> haven't coded in a while, but I know there are other ways I can -- and
> would -- contribute).  And those developers include some of Red Hat's
> *own* employees.
> 
> Non-disclaimer:
>   I AM a Red Hat stockholder, but only *because* I believe in the
> company and its principles.  I would defend the company (at least today)
> even if I wasn't a stockholder.
> -- 
> -Paul Iadonisi
>  Senior System Administrator
>  Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
>  Ever see a penguin fly?  --  Try Linux.
>  GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://www.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss