On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 14:13, Steve Meyers wrote: > On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 13:34, Michael L Torrie wrote: > > My point was that to be ethical, only paid subscribers should be > > downloading the isos period, from whatever source. Anyway. > > It could be argued that it is unethical for RedHat to try to limit early > access to paid subscribers. Remember the Corel Linux beta fiasco?
Far as I'm concerned it's a question of legality. Is it legal to distribute the ISOs now? Far as I've heard, yet it is. Redhat's a very smart company and has repeatedly demonstrated that they understand the community and know how to thrive in it. So what's the purpose of the "early access"? My guess is to limit bandwidth usage. Redhat is probably getting slammed right now, they just wanted to make sure the bodies blocking the door have paid admission before DOSing them. If Redhat had cared about limiting access to the ISO itself, they could have done things like copyright the image and explicitly release the copyright after a week. If they don't care, I don't either. It's not unethical to use someone else's bandwidth to get ahold of something they're freely sharing. In fact, I'd say it's more ethical--Redhat doesn't have to pick up the bill for anything more than the first image. -- Stuart Jansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> #define FALSE 0 /* This is the naked Truth */ #define TRUE 1 /* and this is the Light */ -- mailto.c
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
