This thread is really upsetting me. I will try to go through each of the comments that I feel need to be commented on below. My answers may not be complettely correct by I believe them to be more on track than some of the discussion already in the thread. I'm open to any additional comments that anyone has.
--- - "How does Red Hat feel about programs like BitTorrent as a primary method of distribution?" If your willing to use BitTorrent to avoid paying $60 then you would probably also be willing to wait a week to avoid paying $60. Even if BitTorrent became the most popular (or "primary") method of distribution, it still does not become an "offical" channel. There are several RHN customers that will not use an unoffical BitTorrent and may not even be willing to use an FTP mirror. If you want to demand an offical method of access, Red Hat provides RHN. If your willing to get it via unoffical methods then that is good too. --- - "I'm interested in why this person posted as an Anonymous Coward." It was posted by someone connecting from 24.199.20.58. Given the time stamps that hotmail added, it probably would be possible to track down the Road Runner account that was used. If the post felt they needed a method of hiding their identity, they did a poor job of accomplishing it. The URL points to a web page which contains email addresses. The BitTorrent method of getting the ISOs are provided by people that are not at all anonymous. --- - "Repeat after me: The Red Hat Linux 9 distribution is distributable under the GNU Public License." What did you do with the real Ed Wilts?!?! His posts have historically been fairly techincally correct. This statement is so awful for so many reasons. No one should EVER refer to the "GNU Public License." If you write software and publish it under a license of that title then it is **legally unclear** what the licensing terms are. Repeat after me: GNU **GENERAL** Public License as written by the Free Software Foundation. Also, RH9 provides some 1,402 packages of which only 928 are covered by GPL or LGPL conditions (about 66%). The majority of licenses are considered to be Free Software licenses but not all of them are GPL compatible. Then there is redhat-logos on CD 1 and anaconda-images on CD 2 which are "All rights reserved" as the licensing condition. If Red Hat chooses, they can force people to have to master new ISOs of CD 1 and 2 without those two RPMs before redistributing them. For example, if someone is doing something shady on eBay by implying to sell offical RH9 boxset CDs which are actually burns then RH can use the resticted license of the first two ISOs to take legal action. --- - "The license is open - there is absolutely nothing wrong with distributing as many copies as you want." Would the real Ed Wilts please stand up?? There is no "THE" license for RH9. There is around 27 different styles of licenses used in the RH9 software. If you mean to imply that the GPL is "the" license then please avoid pulling an ESR by referring to it as "open." The correct term is Free as in freedom or free speech. There is definately can be something wrong with distributing as many binary only copies as you want of GPL software. The reason that "http://207.44.142.96/redhat9.torrent"; is legal under then GPL is because of "http://207.44.142.96/redhat9src.torrent"; is offered. If you distribute just the content of the first link (the binary only RPMs) without at least *offering* the content of the second link then you are violating the GPL. That is what is different between the OSI "open" defination and the FSF "Free" defination: Free Software should retain it modifablity/freedom. It would be nice if more people at Red Hat/Dell kept that in mind. --- - "I will refrain from using such boot-leg sites. I would encourage others to do the same." That is your choice, but "boot-leg" is the wrong term to use. It is implied that Red Hat is encouraging the redistribution of these images. Also, the primary author/copyright holder to the largest percentage of the distribution is not Red Hat but rather the Free Software Foundation which *definately* encourages redistribution provided the source code is offered. If you conserned about making sure the main copyright holder gets fair compensation then you might want to consider becoming an Associate Member or Corporate Patron of the Free Software Foundation. More information is at http://www.fsf.org/ The donation is tax deductible and helps to improve *ALL* GNU/Linux based distributions, not just Red Hat. --- - "You cannot really 'bootleg' software that is freely distributed under the GPL." Again, bootleg would be the wrong term but if you mean that you can not violate the license then your wrong--all you need to do to violate the GPL when distributing is to only provide the binaries without offering availablity of the source code. Once you with-hold the source code, it is no longer Free Software in spirit since it is no longer modifiable in the preferred form (source code) for performing modification. --- - "How do we KNOW [the posted md5sums] are really the OFFICAL ones?" Not only can you check the md5 for the ISOs, you can check the GPG signatures on each of the RPM packages. Mount the CDs, and run rpm -K /mnt/cdrom/RedHat/RPMS/*.rpm Assuming you don't have an older gnupg package with the known detach signature verification bug, it should be computationally infeasable to produce fake gpg signatures on the RPM packages. However, it would be nice if there was a Red Hat GPG signed list of ISO md5sums since the rpm checksig does not include checking the non-RPM files on the CDs. But I am confident that the BitTorrent ISOs and the previously posted md5sums are not an April fools joke. I'm also confident that the termination of support for Linux kernel v2.2 based RH 6.2 and RH 7.0 is also not an April fools joke. And finally, I am confident that RFC 3514 is an April fools joke. --- - "I thought that Linux was 'free.' How can you boot-leg something with no price?" GNU/Linux packages tend to be covered by the GPL or LGPL which means they are Free as in "free speech." Speech tends to be openly modifiable. I can choose to add my own opinion when presenting something you said. The intent of the GPL or LGPL is not to achieve "free" as in "free beer" or $0. Free Software definately can have a price since it has value. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
