The FBI Paid OpenBSD Developers For Backdoors?

[yogi_berra]

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.

[movieman]

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.

[BlackStar]

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

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.

[BlackStar]

@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

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.

[yogi_berra]

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

[ModplanMan]

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/

[Nevertime]

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?

[deanjo]

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.

[BlackStar]

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.

[Remco]

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.