Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The FBI Paid OpenBSD Developers For Backdoors?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
    On the contrary, this is perfectly reasonable. You only need to provide the source code upon request. It's usually simpler to put it on a website, but you *don't* have to do this - you could conceivably send it by snail mail and still be compliant.
    There are some limitations here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#section6

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
      Trademarks have nothing to do with license. You cannot use the Red Hat or Firefox trademarks. You are free to use their source code.
      I never said trademarks are bound to license. You said that RedHat and Novell are selling code - I responded that they are not and showed two things you need to do in order to get and use their code for no charge. Replace logos to unmark their solution as authentic and do not use official mirrors, for that requires their stuff being payed in order to fix the code - what centos does and is legal. And you will obviously get no support as well, since it is also part of the subscription.

      Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
      On the contrary, this is perfectly reasonable. You only need to provide the source code upon request. It's usually simpler to put it on a website, but you *don't* have to do this - you could conceivably send it by snail mail and still be compliant.
      Yes, you need to provide true source code. But if only source is free and everything else is closed it is refering to - (3). It is not an opensource solution.

      Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
      Many (if not most) commercial users will be happy to buy the software from you, if they consider it valuable enough. If a company wished to install Ubuntu to 10000 computers, they will probably buy it from Canonical with a support contract, because that is actually *cheaper* than downloading from the web without any support at all.
      This does not relate to the situation. Canonical is not selling a copies - it sells a medium it is burned upon. You can purchase them from them at raw price, burn yourself or download as you see fit. This has nothing to do with media-bond closed source proprietary software sold as a product. Read MS EULA for example, part refering to what makes "a copy" legitimate.
      If you wish support from them, (additional to 10,000 copies) that would be commercial and cost money. Similar if you ask them to implement a solution for you(integrate the system), that would also be actual human work and cost money.
      If a company would ask such volume, they would purchase integration and support sevice and just dd one copy around the machines.

      I think I have put it nicely seperated and clear, yet you have fun mixing different parts and asking me to separate your salad

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Remco View Post
        There are some limitations here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html#section6
        That's only the restrictions for GPL3. Older GPL's do not have such strict conditions (such has a networkable server).

        Comment


        • #94
          And BTW, you can sell "free software", even in the eyes of the FSF. Thus where the whole "free as in speech, not as in beer" phrase came about. Now if it is viable or not, that is an entirely different matter, however "free software" does not mean "free as in no money".

          http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by deanjo View Post
            That's only the restrictions for GPL3. Older GPL's do not have such strict conditions (such has a networkable server).
            A networkable server is not a strict condition in the up to date GPL either. Conveying the software according to 6a and 6b with option 1 are acceptable, too.

            Comment


            • #96
              You said that RedHat and Novell are selling code - I responded that they are not and showed two things you need to do in order to get and use their code for no charge
              Sorry, but this doesn't make sense:
              1. I say that RedHat and Novell are selling code
              2. You argue that they are not
              3. You then say that you need to do extra things in order to get their code for no charge

              How does this work? According to #3, you need to pay in order to use their code, which implies #1: that they sell code (among other things, such as support). Yet with #2 you say that they don't.

              Huh?

              I have always considered Red Hat as selling a package (source code, support and/or training). Ditto for Canonical. Yes, you can also get the source code for free, it's there - but as a company that may not make sense from an economic standpoint.

              Bah, sleepy.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Remco View Post
                A networkable server is not a strict condition in the up to date GPL either. Conveying the software according to 6a and 6b with option 1 are acceptable, too.
                True, but as there is no hard definition of what defines "for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source" it is dependant on the originating party as to what "reasonable" is.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                  Bah, sleepy.
                  Yes get some sleep and don't worry about it... He's not called crazycheese for nothing and he can only manage to persuade other like minded dairy products...

                  Btw I have a theory that in fact the only 'true' opensource is code you've sold to mircosoft for less than its value so they can make everyone buy it when purchasing a pc. The source code of course available to all, encripted and sealed in a microsoft vault never to be seen or fixed properly ever again. Do you care to bother disagreeing with me in the morning?

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                    Sorry, but this doesn't make sense:
                    1. I say that RedHat and Novell are selling code
                    2. You argue that they are not
                    3. You then say that you need to do extra things in order to get their code for no charge

                    How does this work? According to #3, you need to pay in order to use their code, which implies #1: that they sell code (among other things, such as support). Yet with #2 you say that they don't.

                    Huh?

                    I have always considered Red Hat as selling a package (source code, support and/or training). Ditto for Canonical. Yes, you can also get the source code for free, it's there - but as a company that may not make sense from an economic standpoint.

                    Bah, sleepy.
                    I'm really not sure what point you're making. All of RHEL's code is available for free, and built versions are easily available from others like CentOS. Red Hat is selling a package, but compilation/source is probably the least important part of that package when that's already available. It's hardly basis for claiming they're selling code.

                    ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                      I have always considered Red Hat as selling a package (source code, support and/or training). Ditto for Canonical. Yes, you can also get the source code for free, it's there - but as a company that may not make sense from an economic standpoint.

                      Bah, sleepy.
                      They sell security updates and the use of your hardware. The software is free

                      Comment


                      • @ModplanMan & yogi_berra, I give up. Just head to gnu.org, it explains everything: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html and http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....eGPLAllowMoney

                        Originally posted by gnu.org
                        The word “free” has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to freedom or to price. When we speak of “free software”, we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of “free speech”, not “free beer”.)
                        Yes, Red Hat sells free software. They've built a thriving business around this.

                        Comment


                        • And in case that's not clear enough, the words of the CEO of Red Hat, himself:

                          Originally posted by Jim Whitehurst
                          Red Hat makes money, I often say, specifically by selling free software.
                          He then goes on to explain what the real value of free software is. Check out the article, it is an interesting read.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                            Red Hat sells free software. They've built a thriving business around this.
                            Much as I hate to disagree with their CEO, what Red Hat really sell is support for that software. You can get most of it from CentOS, but if you don't want to risk having to wait for a security fix to make it from Red Hat to CentOS then you pay Red Hat for support instead.

                            I've seriously considered paying the $80 a year or whatever it is Red Hat charge now to replace CentOS on my telecommuting PC just because of the occasional long delays in getting security fixes; most of them are out within a day or two, but sometimes it's taken weeks.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by movieman View Post
                              Much as I hate to disagree with their CEO, what Red Hat really sell is support for that software. You can get most of it from CentOS, but if you don't want to risk having to wait for a security fix to make it from Red Hat to CentOS then you pay Red Hat for support instead.

                              I've seriously considered paying the $80 a year or whatever it is Red Hat charge now to replace CentOS on my telecommuting PC just because of the occasional long delays in getting security fixes; most of them are out within a day or two, but sometimes it's taken weeks.
                              Red Hat tells you to shut your machine off when your subscription runs out. The "evil" Oracle doesn't even do that.

                              Oh @ BlackStar if you think I have a problem with a company making money from selling software, you are an idiot, I have a problem with the business model of extorting money from security updates.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
                                Red Hat tells you to shut your machine off when your subscription runs out. The "evil" Oracle doesn't even do that.

                                Oh @ BlackStar if you think I have a problem with a company making money from selling software, you are an idiot, I have a problem with the business model of extorting money from security updates.
                                No. They give you an open source VirtualBox with missing features.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X