Discuss

discuss@lists.centos.org

5 participants
34752 discussions

Reboots
by Prasad Pillarisetti 02 Jun '05

02 Jun '05

***Do you perform downtimes just for the purpose of rebooting the systems? ***Is there a recommended interval Linux system should be rebooted?

9 17

Re: Vote For CentOS :) -- assumptions based on branding ...
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 02 Jun '05

02 Jun '05

From: me(a)prestoncrawford.com > 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. From: "Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith(a)ieee.org>" > Every RHEL package as a 1:1 version to Fedora, typically Fedora > Core, possibly Fedora Development (as it seems MySQL 4 was). > This is fact. Nothing goes into RHEL without going through > Rawhide/Development first -- if not into Fedora Core. > If you read Red Hat's own development and lists, packages that > have "EL" are typically subsets of the FC version. Most of the > time, it's due to locale -- Red Hat strips out unsupported locale. > In other cases, there might be supersets, like the kernel. In those > rare cases, yes, Red Hat needs to redistribute those source changes. BTW, assumptions such as yours is entirely based on "branding." It's a common thing that people do, and goes to the heart of the trademark matter, as well as gross mis-representation and lack of attention to detail by many. People assume something is "Red Hat(R) Linux" because the "Red Hat(R)" trademark is on it. They assume it is completely different if the trademark is not. It doesn't matter if completely modified packages for an architecture Red Hat never supported, and the packages are even completely SRPM _incompatible_, people believed it was still "Red Hat(R) Linux." Ironically, people assume "Fedora(TM) Core" has nothing to do with "Red Hat(R) Enterprise Linux" -- or is at least completely different in its relationship with RHEL than "Red Hat(R) Linux" was -- merely because of the "branding." In training courses, I've taken people completely through an entire rebuild of core packages, down to version, of Fedora Core and Red Hat Enterprise Linux, as well as SuSE Linux and SuSE Linux Enterprise Server, and it's amazing to see that FC and RHEL differ far less than SL and SLES. If the RPM version is the same for a package of Fedora Core and Red Hat Enterprise Linux, they _are_ the same from the standpoint of GPL source code. Things that are modified have "EL" attached to the version, and in many cases, it's actually a locale subset consideration for RHEL. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

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

02 Jun '05

From: me(a)prestoncrawford.com > I blame it for a lot already, thanks. :-) In reality, there are good reason for it. E.g., people who had Cobalt systems assumed they were running Red Hat Linux. They were not, just running a heavily modified version. So when people tried to patch and update, they got upset with Red Hat. When the reality was that the distro should have _never_ had Red Hat's name on it. This was just one example. I still hear non-sense from Cobalt users on this. It's funny to see them come full circle on the logic. > This is what I don't get, though? What's the difference between internal > and external? Whatever the lawyers can prove it is. ;-> In a nutshell, there is no "cheat sheet" to respecting IP -- be it copyrighted GPL, trademarked IP or patents. You must document before you distribute. If you are using something like GPL, trademarks, etc... "internally" -- you must guarantee they won't be redistributed to guarantee you won't be distributing something without a license. That's all. No different than any other software. The GPL does not trump copyright or any other IP law, although copyright holders are free to clarify what is and isn't allowed. > 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 we have Red Hat to thank for a lot of it too. > 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. Whomever you distribute it to is the only one you are required to give the source code to. And you can't put any restrictions on that source code, or anything required for it to work. If I do something within my company, my company isn't going to consider it redistribution. My company is aware that I am using something under circumstances that are not public. So there is no need to abide by the GPL license in how I use it, and no need for a trademark license either. But once I start redistributing that outside the entity I work for, then that's when the legal issues mount. If I am redistributing additional code with the GPL software that modifies it in a way that it works differently, then the original copyright holder, under the granted terms of the GPL, says I have to offer the source code of those modifications under the same terms, without restriction. If I don't, then I am distributing the copyright holder's work without a license, and he is due damages. Same deal with trademark. Once I start redistributing Red Hat's trademark publicly, I am doing so without a license. And they are due damages. Lack of Red Hat's trademark and artwork does not prevent the GPL software from being used the same as with it. That's the difference. Red Hat -- like other distros -- are merely branding their work, into a packaged unit. > Once they've distributed GPL-based software, they have to offer the > source. Period. Yes, and they do. They could claim that Fedora Core SRPMS are everything, except for maybe the kernel and a few other SRPMS. That's what other distros do. Most commercial distros have 2 versions: 1 redistributable, 1 non. The commercial distros then only redistribute the source packages for the redistributable version, and not for the non. Red Hat is one of the very few that do for _both_, so things like CentOS can exist. And it depends on who you redistributed it to. That's why I used the term "publicly" redistributed. Because unlike the MPL1.0 (or is the opposite, and 1.1?) and many GPL-incompatible licenses, the GPL does _not_ require you to return any modifications to the copyright holders _unless_ you redistribute it. The MPL and most off-shoots _do_. GPL gives you the right to do what the heck you want with it -- even merge it with proprietary source code. But if you redistribute that modification outside of our own, internal uses, then that's when it becomes an issue. > They can ask that you not include the trademarks, On a "public" redistribution. What is done internally is not a violation of Trademark Law. I'm not mis-representing some product or service I redistribute as "Red Hat(R)" by merely using it. So there is no redistribution of the trademark without a license. > but that aside, they can't tell you that since it's "internal" it can't be > redistributed. Huh? I think you are confused on what I meant by internal/external. If you use it internally and don't redistribute it, then you are free to install RHEL on as many systems as you want. You can even have a field day and put "Red Hat sucks" all over their trademark. Unless Red Hat can prove that you are misappropriating their trademarks _publicly_ -- their mark in the trade -- then they can't prevent you from installing it on as many systems as you want, and doing what they heck you want. At least on the GPL/LGPL portions. MPL, IBM CPL/IPL, Sun SCSL/etc... will differ. > That's not my understanding of the GPL when it comes to source. GPL source code has nothing to do with this. The GPL source code does not require the Red Hat(R) trademarks to operate. You can freely bundle anything you want with GPL as long as it's not required to work. So for all intents and purposes, there is nothing wrong with bundling GPL source code with Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, etc... I can even take the SRPMS, rebuild them, and install them on my systems, with_out_ removing the Red Hat trademark. But if I'm providing services for others -- at cost or not -- with Red Hat's trademark, then it gets a bit more messy. Why? Because Red Hat can claim I'm mis-appropriating their trademark. That's what got Red Hat into trouble before. They let everyone freely use the Red Hat(R) trademark, and it came back to bit them when they tried to get select vendors (Cobalt, Sun, etc...) to stop leaving it on massively modified versions. It was killing the value of their trademark, because people were assumed something was Red Hat Linux when it was nothing of the sort. But that's when Sun barked back and used Trademark Common Law against Red Hat. Hence why Fedora(TM) became a reality. The other aspects to Fedora Core were already established in Red Hat Linux in years prior. > Understood. But their trademark is different from the other > 99.99999% of the distribution, which is Open Source code. The trademark is bundled with the GPL code, but it is not required for it to operate. > 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. There is _no_ "licensing restrictions" because it is "internal." You can use Red Hat trademarks as you see fit as long as you are _not_ proliferating their "mark" in the "trade." The latter is "external"/"public" redistribution. Which is where you can get into legal trouble. > 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. Every RHEL package as a 1:1 version to Fedora, typically Fedora Core, possibly Fedora Development (as it seems MySQL 4 was). This is fact. Nothing goes into RHEL without going through Rawhide/Development first -- if not into Fedora Core. If you read Red Hat's own development and lists, packages that have "EL" are typically subsets of the FC version. Most of the time, it's due to locale -- Red Hat strips out unsupported locale. In other cases, there might be supersets, like the kernel. In those rare cases, yes, Red Hat needs to redistribute those source changes. > So they HAVE to make the RHEL source code available somehow. > Even if it's "pay us for the CDs". Nope. Not at all. As long as the package is the same between Fedora Core and RHEL, no need. One of these days I'm going to finish a book on Red Hat Configuration Management and show an _exact_ lineage of a RHEL release built on Fedora Core. Trust me on this, I've built Fedora Core systems that were _exact_ package equivalents to RHEL -- with the only real exception being the kernel. I typically had to "hold back" on versions from what was "current" in Fedora Core, as well as align up the Fedora Core version to RHEL. But they are 1:1 -- versions are everything. SuSE does the same thing for SuSE Linux v. SuSE Linux Enterprise Server. They don't redistribute a lot of the latter. Xandros is the same on many of its details, etc... > 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. There is no redistribution restriction on the source. But there are redistribution on the trademarks if you rebuild from source. > They just can't, as far as I understand the GPL. If you outlaw any bundling with GPL code, then you're going to outlaw 99.999% of the GPL distribution in existance. > Once the source has been made available to SOMEONE, regardless > of whether it's internal, external, whatever, it can be passed on. Yes, without any IP that are not required for the software to function anyway. > That's good that they stick "closer" to the letter. I'm not so sure > they're following it completely, though. They are. Ask the FSF. Too many people put Red Hat under the microscope when there are other distros are doing far, far less "community friendly." It's a double-standard I quite tire of. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

CentOS 4 in Virtual PC for Mac 7.0.1
by T'Krin 02 Jun '05

02 Jun '05

Hey all. Has anyone been able to successfully install CentOS 4 in Virtual PC on the Mac? I have tried numerous times in both gui and text install mode w/ and w/o package customization and minimum and everything install. The install dies just when packages are beginning to be installed or very shortly thereafter. I don't get a full screen of errors to share as they pass by the screen too far and end w/ a message saying the installation has died unexpectedly. Any ideas? Thanks, ~Dan

4 5

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

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