Discuss June 2005

discuss@lists.centos.org

197 participants
362 discussions

Re: [CentOS] Vote For CentOS :)
by me＠prestoncrawford.com 02 Jun '05

02 Jun '05

-------- Original Message -------- > From: "Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith(a)ieee.org>" <thebs413(a)earthlink.net> > Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 2:31 PM > To: CentOS mailing list <centos(a)centos.org>, centos(a)centos.org > Subject: Re: [CentOS] Vote For CentOS :) > > From: me(a)prestoncrawford.com > > I'm not confused. I think the point is (and this has seemingly > > been a persistent issue since the RHEL rebuilds appeared on the > > scene) > > Blame US Trademark Law then. I blame it for a lot already, thanks. :-) > > that Red Hat puts licensing restrictions on GPL software. > > Red Hat does not put any restriction on your use of their trademarks > internally. But due to US Trademark Law, Red Hat cannot let you This is what I don't get, though? What's the difference between internal and external? I know, I know, it's all about the trademarked logos, names, etc. But at the end of the day, the source code is still the source code. And it's still GPL. So they have to provide (assuming they're distributing a GPL product) if you ask for it, regardless of whether it's internal to your company, external, whatever. Once they've distributed GPL-based software, they have to offer the source. Period. They can ask that you not include the trademarks, but that aside, they can't tell you that since it's "internal" it can't be redistributed. That's not my understanding of the GPL when it comes to source. > publicly redistribute anything "Red Hat(R)" in a way that would allow > a judge to rule Red Hat allows free redistribution of their trademark > without a license. Understood. But their trademark is different from the other 99.99999% of the distribution, which is Open Source code. > Furthermore, please point me to the section where the GPL says I > have the right to binaries and other package distributions of GPL > software? It only says I have a right to any GPL source code, and I never said anyone had the right to binaries. I'm simply confused as to how you can put licensing restrictions on source code simply because it's "internal". That is the issue in question, I believe. > any required source code (which is then also GPL) for the software > to function under no other terms than GPL. > > > And that strikes many of us as odd. > > What is odd to me is that people see this as a Red Hat-only issue. > Not only is Trademark Law really a PITA for Red Hat, but Trademark > Laws in other countries -- notably Germany -- is why SuSE's hand > has been forced even more. Agreed. > [ E.g., does anyone remember the KIllustrator name change? > It wasn't Adobe's doing at all! ] > > And most don't stop to read the GPL, and what it's real terms are. > > If I sell GPL software, I do _not_ have to put the source code on > my site. In fact, Red Hat could choose to _only_ distribute the > GPL source code on CDs or -- better yet, do what SuSE does -- > and say the GPL source code is available in Fedora Core. They could not do the latter as far as I understand it. Because Fedora Core is not the source code (letter for letter) of RHEL. So they HAVE to make the RHEL source code available somehow. Even if it's "pay us for the CDs". > Let me say that again, Red Hat doesn't even need to offer SRPMS. > They could just plunk out the "raw" source code, or just point to > Fedora Core -- or maybe just the few SRPMS (like the kernel) that > differ -- and make it 100x more difficult for distros like CentOS to > exist! I agree. What I don't agree with is this idea that once the SRPMS are out there in the wild that somehow Red Hat can put restrictions on the distribution of the source. They just can't, as far as I understand the GPL. Once the source has been made available to SOMEONE, regardless of whether it's internal, external, whatever, it can be passed on. > Red Hat doesn't play such games. They put out source packages > for _both_ Fedora Core _and_ RHEL -- so there are no questions. That's good that they stick "closer" to the letter. I'm not so sure they're following it completely, though. Preston

1 0

Re: [CentOS] Vote For CentOS :)
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 02 Jun '05

02 Jun '05

From: me(a)prestoncrawford.com > I'm not confused. I think the point is (and this has seemingly > been a persistent issue since the RHEL rebuilds appeared on the > scene) Blame US Trademark Law then. > that Red Hat puts licensing restrictions on GPL software. Red Hat does not put any restriction on your use of their trademarks internally. But due to US Trademark Law, Red Hat cannot let you publicly redistribute anything "Red Hat(R)" in a way that would allow a judge to rule Red Hat allows free redistribution of their trademark without a license. Furthermore, please point me to the section where the GPL says I have the right to binaries and other package distributions of GPL software? It only says I have a right to any GPL source code, and any required source code (which is then also GPL) for the software to function under no other terms than GPL. > And that strikes many of us as odd. What is odd to me is that people see this as a Red Hat-only issue. Not only is Trademark Law really a PITA for Red Hat, but Trademark Laws in other countries -- notably Germany -- is why SuSE's hand has been forced even more. [ E.g., does anyone remember the KIllustrator name change? It wasn't Adobe's doing at all! ] And most don't stop to read the GPL, and what it's real terms are. If I sell GPL software, I do _not_ have to put the source code on my site. In fact, Red Hat could choose to _only_ distribute the GPL source code on CDs or -- better yet, do what SuSE does -- and say the GPL source code is available in Fedora Core. Let me say that again, Red Hat doesn't even need to offer SRPMS. They could just plunk out the "raw" source code, or just point to Fedora Core -- or maybe just the few SRPMS (like the kernel) that differ -- and make it 100x more difficult for distros like CentOS to exist! That's _exactly_ what SuSE does with SuSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES). And many other distros are similar -- they have their "redistributable" source packages for their "redistributable" version, and then _none_ for their non-redistributable version. Red Hat doesn't play such games. They put out source packages for _both_ Fedora Core _and_ RHEL -- so there are no questions. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

Re: [CentOS] Vote For CentOS :)
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 02 Jun '05

02 Jun '05

From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com> > Let me ask again... What could possibly impose a restriction if you > don't the consider the penalties of contract breakage to be a > restriction? I think one point that is being missed is that one licenses the subscription and any services the license it entitles one to, and not the software. So if one breaks the contract, one is not breaking the contract on the software, but the license for those entitlements to the subscription/services. As far as the trademarks and art goes, Red Hat doesn't care as long as you are not redistributing them to other entities. That was the whole reason for the several revisions and clarifications of the "Red Hat(R)" trademark prior and the eventual switch to _only_ allow redistribution of the "Fedora(TM)" trademark by other parties. > Since RH does permit source redistribution regardless Don't confuse external with internal redistribution. When you redistribute Red Hat Enterprise Linux internally, you are not publicly distributing "Red Hat(R)" without a license. The GPL itself actually works very similar. You can mix GPL and non-GPL code freely, as long as you don't publicly redistribute it. This is how corporations modify GPL software all-the-time without releasing the source code of their modifcations. In my standard license terminology for corporate legal departments, I call this "Sourceware" (Open Source, Proprietary Standard). It is GPL code that has been modified with proprietary code, so it can never be redistributed. Because under the terms of the GPL, if it is redistributed, then any and all modifications to the source will have to be as well. I can copy anything "Red Hat(R)" to my hearts content as long as I don't publicly redistribute it. Because I'm not redistributing their trademark without a license. > and hence the existence of projects like Centos, they are not > strictly breaking the GPL here, but if that contract isn't a > restriction I'd like someone to explain what would be in the > sense excluded by the GPL. The contract doesn't cover the software. And regardless of a contract or not, you do _not_ have rights to redistribute "Red Hat(R)" any more than "Mandrake(R)," "SuSE(R)," "Novell(R)," etc... Red Hat tried to clarify its trademark guidelines on "Red Hat(R)" several times to allow for Cheapbytes and other, 100% unmodified redistribution. But eventually the entire issue came to a head, and US Trademark Common Law is rather non-forgiving on Red Hat's past history of allowing its trademark to be freely redistributed. The reason why GPL is enforceable is because it doesn't take away copyright. In the same regard, the GPL does not take away any other rights to IP. Now should any copyright clarify that he/she will not allow any trademark or other IP restrictions on redistribution of their GPL, then pretty much _every_ commercial distro is going to be SOL. > I'm not a particular fan of the GPL. I just don't see how it works > to distribute GPL'd stuff along with a contract that imposes additional > restrictions and penalties for breaking them. Because the contract does not tell you what you can and can't do with GPL software. It only specifies what you can do with things bundled with that GPL software -- namely the trademarks. Since the trademarks are not required for the software to function, there is no violation of the GPL terms. _Furthermore_, if you read the GPL carefully, it _never_ says what limits you can and can't place on _binaries_. It only says _source_. It says you must provide the source to anyone you redistribute the software to (in whatever form that software may be). This is Stallman's "Moral Delima" at its finest. Several GPL products exist where the vendor does _not_ provide you with the binary redistribution for free, or even the source for that matter, but the source is included with the binary distribution -- "for a nominal fee." This is one of the reasons why people fear the GPL 3.0 license might change some minor things that will affect them majorly. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

Re: [CentOS] Vote For CentOS :)
by me＠prestoncrawford.com 02 Jun '05

02 Jun '05

I'm not confused. I think the point is (and this has seemingly been a persistent issue since the RHEL rebuilds appeared on the scene) that Red Hat puts licensing restrictions on GPL software. And that strikes many of us as odd. Preston ---------------------------------------- From: Simon Perreault <nomis80(a)lqt.ca> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 2:13 PM To: CentOS mailing list <centos(a)centos.org> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Vote For CentOS :) On Thursday 02 June 2005 16:01, Les Mikesell wrote: > What kind of restriction would be excluded by the GPL if not ones that > restrict copying, installing on additional machines, or redistribution? Nobody's restricting anyone to do that with RHEL. Is anybody else as confused as I am? _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

1 0

Re: Reboots -- run-levels 2-5 vary wildly ...
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 02 Jun '05

02 Jun '05

From: Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob(a)suespammers.org> > rcS.d is not a runlevel. It is the equivalent of rc.sysinit on other > distributions/flavors or, should I say, and expansion of that idea. Correct, that's why I said "before" the run-levels at boot. But you still need to know about it. > 0 - Halt > 1 - Single User > 2 - Multi User (No NFS) > 3 - Multi User > 4 - Reserved > 5 - Multi User (Graphical, originaly XDM) > 6 - Reboot > The processes started at each runlevel will differ, of course. > Not all machines will run httpd on run levels 2, 3 and 5. But > none should run it at run levels 0, 1 or 6. This are the Fedora-based distro run-levels. Level 2-5 actually _differ_ on many UNIX/Linux platforms. E.g., _many_ use 3 _not_ 5 for X11. The only consistency seems to be 0, 1 and 6 -- although many distros differ on a "maintanence" run-level between 0 and 1. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

2 1

Re: [CentOS] Vote For CentOS :)
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 02 Jun '05

02 Jun '05

From: Lamar Owen <lowen(a)pari.edu> > Red Hat didn't go the SuSE route though and not freely license their > installer; Anaconda is GPL, but YaST was not, thus you couldn't even > do with SuSE what is being done now with RHEL. Until Novell bought SuSE and started GPL'ing things, correct. Of course, Novell already has enough of its own, proprietary** software so SuSE's hold was chump change. [ **NOTE: Unlike many people, I don't consider "proprietary" software to be inheritly bad. I'm also careful not to call some software from Microsoft "proprietary," because much of their software doesn't even qualify as "proprietary" because they lack even "proprietary" standards. ] Something should also be said about Red Hat only producing GPL software -- be it new developments of their own creation (and copyright), as well as supporting only projects that are GPL except in rare cases. Other than maybe Murdock's Progeny, I don't know of another, major commercial Linux vendor who produces 100% GPL software. To make a comparison, Red Hat completely blows IBM out-of-the-water in GPL donations -- both man-hours as well as company buy-outs -- let alone it makes no difference to include "GPL compatible" -- which no IBM "Open Source" license is. And as you've said me say before, even Sun roasts IBM on GPL donations as well. > As a great example, PostgreSQL is a BSD-licensed package. Red Hat > has made significant contributions to the PostgreSQL community (one > by providing full-time PostgreSQL employment for Tom Lane, a Core > PostgreSQL developer, two by paying for several enhancements and > backported bugfixes): It should be noted that PostgreSQL is one of the few, existing projects that Red Hat is supporting that was not licensed GPL. Red Hat really avoids working on things that aren't GPL. > Red Hat is not required by the terms of the BSD license to return > ANYTHING to the PostgreSQL community, nor are they required to > make their version of PostgreSQL, Red Hat Database (now known as > PostgreSQL, Red Hat Edition) source code available to anyone. But > they did make it available. While Red Hat isn't the only major commercial software company that "just gets it." They are the only major commercial Linux company that has a major distro that does. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

Re: [CentOS] Reboots
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 02 Jun '05

02 Jun '05

From: Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob(a)suespammers.org> > Also, run-levels are standarized, and should be the same on all unix-like > platforms. ??? Debian and Solaris run-levels differ from Red Hat. And some distros, like Solaris and SuSe, also have a "rcS.d" directory that runs in addition to, and before, the run-level. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

2 1

Re: [CentOS] Reboots
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 02 Jun '05

02 Jun '05

From: Ken Godee <ken(a)perfect-image.com> > The "POST" routine can give you early warnings of pending > hardware failures that might go un-noticed until complete > failure otherwise. In such cases where that is a worry, I'm going to want to deploy real-time hardware management instead. It's worth the extra few bucks. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

Re: [CentOS] Reboots
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 02 Jun '05

02 Jun '05

From: Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob(a)suespammers.org> > That, my friend, is very much true. > Depending on the kind of server you are running (mumber of different > processes), a reboot will be much easier. Did that myself a few times. As far as examining running processes, one should have _good_ operational procedures and practices to track what is and isn't running on your system. If you can, stick with Sys-V start/kill init scripts for everything, and document anything that can't be (as well as why). I don't like to rely on reboots to do such things. In fact, when building a new, standard system configuration, I like to shunt to "init 1" and back to "init 3" (run-levels assume distro is Fedora-based) several times to ensure that all my start/kill init scripts are proper. That way I can stop and start user-space services piecemeal and completely. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

2 2

How many supported DNS IP addresses maybe configured in /etc/resolv.conf ?
by Prasad Pillarisetti 02 Jun '05

02 Jun '05

How many supported DNS IP addresses maybe configured in /etc/resolv.conf ? Is it only 3, or can I configure more?

3 2

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss June 2005