Martin C. Messer wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-06-17 at 10:31, Ronan Heffernan wrote:
>
>>Ian C. Blenke wrote:
>>
>>>Linux is Linux. Unlike the various flavors of Unix, most every Linux
>>>distribution "acts" like every other. The primary differences are only
>>>in the packaging and init scripts (and the config files those init
>>>scripts read).
>>>
>>>Once you understand how to use and create tarballs, RPMs, and DEBs,
>>>you've mastered the packages.
>>>
>>
>>That is my point. Do not say, "You have to use RedHat, because there is
>>no local support for anything else." Instead, technology decision
>>makers should say, "Linux is Linux, and it doesn't really matter which
>>distro you use for a project. There is a smidge of difference; it is a
>>matter of taste." If we choose to *rely* on RedHat-proprietary, non-GPL
>>extensions, then we are granting RedHat monopoly power over us. We
>>should make a determined effort to avoid vendor lock-in!
>
>
> I understand the point you are making, but to clarify, there are no Red
> Hat proprietary, non-GPL extensions in Red Hat Linux. The only non-GPL
> thing still shipped is Netscape Communicator, though it is already
> deprecated and on its way out. I don't expect it to make the next cut.
>
Since this is the case, can I assume that I am legally entitled to burn
a thousand copies of a Red Hat distro and give them away? Doesn't the
GPL give me the right to distribute everything on the Red Hat discs
(except Netscape)? Are you telling me that I am allowed to pre-install
Red Hat on PCs that I build and sell as long as I don't use your
trademarks in my advertising? I would love to see this point clarified.
The issue of non-GPL code is actually not at the heart of my argument
anyway (yeah, I know, I put it in there). The danger as I see it is
that companies might equate Linux solely with Red Hat. I hope that the
future brings Red Hat wild success and profitability, but not market
dominance.
--ronan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 12:48:50 EDT