Hi Centos Users
Its _really_ nonsense to release RHEL version on file sharing networks. The only reason why RHEL is so popular on torrent trackers is the lack of knowledge about Centos :-)
Conclusion: we should do more marketing :-)
cheers Simon
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Simon Jolle sjolle urandomdev@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Centos Users
Its _really_ nonsense to release RHEL version on file sharing networks. The only reason why RHEL is so popular on torrent trackers is the lack of knowledge about Centos :-)
Conclusion: we should do more marketing :-)
If somebody's downloading an illegal version of RHEL, you have to ask yourself, do you really think they would've made a big contribution to CentOS if they knew about it?
Why would you download an illegal version of RHEL? I see no point in that...
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Michael Semcheski mhsemcheski@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Simon Jolle sjolle urandomdev@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Centos Users
Its _really_ nonsense to release RHEL version on file sharing networks. The only reason why RHEL is so popular on torrent trackers is the lack of knowledge about Centos :-)
Conclusion: we should do more marketing :-)
If somebody's downloading an illegal version of RHEL, you have to ask yourself, do you really think they would've made a big contribution to CentOS if they knew about it?
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 07:50:26 +0100 Niki Kovacs contact@kikinovak.net wrote:
Mag Gam a écrit :
Why would you download an illegal version of RHEL? I see no
There is no illegal version of RHEL. When you buy from RH, you are not buying RHEL, but support and updates for the particular version of RHEL that you paid for. Its the same for Novell and SuSE.
Now, RH artwork [the hat...] and names are copyrighted, but that's it. You can legally download the full source code, which is what the CentOS team did. The CentOS team provides the support [through this mailing list] and the updates for free.
point in that... Maybe there's also illegal customer support on these filesharing networks :oD
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008, centos@911networks.com wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 07:50:26 +0100 Niki Kovacs contact@kikinovak.net wrote:
Mag Gam a écrit :
Why would you download an illegal version of RHEL? I see no
There is no illegal version of RHEL. When you buy from RH, you are not buying RHEL, but support and updates for the particular version of RHEL that you paid for. Its the same for Novell and SuSE.
In fact, it is even cooler. You buy the service regardless of the version. That means that you can migrate from RHEL3 to RHEL4 with the exact same entitlement.
centos@911networks.com wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 07:50:26 +0100 Niki Kovacs contact@kikinovak.net wrote:
Mag Gam a écrit :
Why would you download an illegal version of RHEL? I see no
There is no illegal version of RHEL. When you buy from RH, you are not buying RHEL, but support and updates for the particular version of RHEL that you paid for. Its the same for Novell and SuSE.
This is not technically true ... but close :D
You can not redistribute the redhat-logos or redhat-artwork binary packages to others unless you are selling your media. You also can not distribute those 2 source or binary RPMS without editing and removing the logos / trademark related things in them. Since the ISOs in question on the Bittorrent sites distribute those files, they are illegal per Red Hat's trademark policies.
Now USING the RHEL discs (not distributing them to others, but installing on your own equipment) is a totally different story (and much more restrictive). You may not install any RHEL packages that are provided by Red Hat on ANY machines that you have not purchased an entitlement for. That means on test machines, production machines, whatever. No entitlement, no install allowed. It does not matter whether you want "Support" or not.
Red Hat has the right to audit your equipment for up to 1 year after your last license expires for compliance.
Now, RH artwork [the hat...] and names are copyrighted, but that's it. You can legally download the full source code, which is what the CentOS team did. The CentOS team provides the support [through this mailing list] and the updates for free.
CentOS does provide everything you need to run an enterprise OS meeting all the upstream redistribution requirements, yes.
Johnny Hughes wrote:
You can not redistribute the redhat-logos or redhat-artwork binary packages to others unless you are selling your media. You also can not distribute those 2 source or binary RPMS without editing and removing the logos / trademark related things in them. Since the ISOs in question on the Bittorrent sites distribute those files, they are illegal per Red Hat's trademark policies.
Now USING the RHEL discs (not distributing them to others, but installing on your own equipment) is a totally different story (and much more restrictive). You may not install any RHEL packages that are provided by Red Hat on ANY machines that you have not purchased an entitlement for. That means on test machines, production machines, whatever. No entitlement, no install allowed. It does not matter whether you want "Support" or not.
Red Hat has the right to audit your equipment for up to 1 year after your last license expires for compliance.
wow, that goes way beyond what I thought. Can you point to an authoritative reference for this? I'd like to hit some guys over the head with it at work, they install RHEL4 all over the place without contracts (or updates), it drives me nuts, I keep saying "USE CENTOS" and its like 'oh, vendor XYZ says they only support RHEL', and my arguing that they aren't paying for any support doesn't seem to matter.
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:29:54PM -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
You can not redistribute the redhat-logos or redhat-artwork binary packages to others unless you are selling your media. You also can not distribute those 2 source or binary RPMS without editing and removing the logos / trademark related things in them. Since the ISOs in question on the Bittorrent sites distribute those files, they are illegal per Red Hat's trademark policies.
Now USING the RHEL discs (not distributing them to others, but installing on your own equipment) is a totally different story (and much more restrictive). You may not install any RHEL packages that are provided by Red Hat on ANY machines that you have not purchased an entitlement for. That means on test machines, production machines, whatever. No entitlement, no install allowed. It does not matter whether you want "Support" or not.
Red Hat has the right to audit your equipment for up to 1 year after your last license expires for compliance.
wow, that goes way beyond what I thought. Can you point to an authoritative reference for this? I'd like to hit some guys over the head with it at work, they install RHEL4 all over the place without contracts (or updates), it drives me nuts, I keep saying "USE CENTOS" and its like 'oh, vendor XYZ says they only support RHEL', and my arguing that they aren't paying for any support doesn't seem to matter.
What we need is a case that's been taken to court and a verdict given. :) I've long tried to get an answer from RH as to whether or not I can reinstall their media on other machines just "without" buying an entitlement (after all you can continue using RH after the 30 demo expires).
I've never gotten an answer from RH on this, and I have heard solid interpretations of their EULA from both sides.
I try real hard to make sure all copies of RHEL are licensed at my $DAYJOB, but I know RH isn't overly anal about it either.
Ray
Ray Van Dolson wrote:
You can not redistribute the redhat-logos or redhat-artwork binary packages to others unless you are selling your media. You also can not distribute those 2 source or binary RPMS without editing and removing the logos / trademark related things in them. Since the ISOs in question on the Bittorrent sites distribute those files, they are illegal per Red Hat's trademark policies.
Now USING the RHEL discs (not distributing them to others, but installing on your own equipment) is a totally different story (and much more restrictive). You may not install any RHEL packages that are provided by Red Hat on ANY machines that you have not purchased an entitlement for. That means on test machines, production machines, whatever. No entitlement, no install allowed. It does not matter whether you want "Support" or not.
Red Hat has the right to audit your equipment for up to 1 year after your last license expires for compliance.
wow, that goes way beyond what I thought. Can you point to an authoritative reference for this? I'd like to hit some guys over the head with it at work, they install RHEL4 all over the place without contracts (or updates), it drives me nuts, I keep saying "USE CENTOS" and its like 'oh, vendor XYZ says they only support RHEL', and my arguing that they aren't paying for any support doesn't seem to matter.
What we need is a case that's been taken to court and a verdict given. :) I've long tried to get an answer from RH as to whether or not I can reinstall their media on other machines just "without" buying an entitlement (after all you can continue using RH after the 30 demo expires).
It doesn't matter much whether they enforce that or not. As soon as a security vulnerability is discovered that you can't get the update to fix you are pretty much fried anyway. Personally, I wouldn't want an old RHEL4 with no updates on my network.
The other thing people need to consider about most licensed software is that you really need to triple the price that you'd expect when you are considering it, because if you need to keep something running all the time you will need a primary and backup system plus a test install where you can experiment with changes.
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
What we need is a case that's been taken to court and a verdict given. :)
umm -- Istrongly disagree.
There are services sold by people called 'lawyers' whom sell authoritative analysis, guidance, and answers they'll stand behind as a professional to questions like this; all a court case would do is settle one set of facts as interpreted to their license document, and open the door to the next one. It also carries the explicit transaction costs of prosecuting such a suit, and the 'softer' potential reputational damage in a skitterish FOSS community.
I've long tried to get an answer from RH as to whether or not I can reinstall their media on other machines just "without" buying an entitlement (after all you can continue using RH after the 30 demo expires).
I've never gotten an answer from RH on this, and I have heard solid interpretations of their EULA from both sides.
Nor should an answer reasonably be expected in such a circumstance. RHT has a legal duty to answer and account to its stockholders; I assume this provides them with plenty of incentive not to offer free legal advice on how to 'game' that license, even putting to one side prohibitions on unlicensed practice of law.
-- Russ herrold
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 04:01:13PM -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
What we need is a case that's been taken to court and a verdict given. :)
umm -- Istrongly disagree.
There are services sold by people called 'lawyers' whom sell authoritative analysis, guidance, and answers they'll stand behind as a professional to questions like this; all a court case would do is settle one set of facts as interpreted to their license document, and open the door to the next one. It also carries the explicit transaction costs of prosecuting such a suit, and the 'softer' potential reputational damage in a skitterish FOSS community.
It would certainly set a precedent which definitely carries a lot of weight in subsequent similar cases.
And you assume too much about my or other's motives. I think it's a fair question even in an academic sense whether or not we should or should not be allowed to redistribute RHEL. However, probably a prickly topic so perhaps best not discussed here. :)
I am happy to pay for all copies of RHEL and am fortunate to work at a company that can afford to. RH does great work for the community.
I've long tried to get an answer from RH as to whether or not I can reinstall their media on other machines just "without" buying an entitlement (after all you can continue using RH after the 30 demo expires).
I've never gotten an answer from RH on this, and I have heard solid interpretations of their EULA from both sides.
Nor should an answer reasonably be expected in such a circumstance. RHT has a legal duty to answer and account to its stockholders; I assume this provides them with plenty of incentive not to offer free legal advice on how to 'game' that license, even putting to one side prohibitions on unlicensed practice of law.
-- Russ herrold
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Ray Van Dolson rayvd@bludgeon.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 04:01:13PM -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
What we need is a case that's been taken to court and a verdict given. :)
umm -- Istrongly disagree.
There are services sold by people called 'lawyers' whom sell authoritative analysis, guidance, and answers they'll stand behind as a professional to questions like this; all a court case would do is settle one set of facts as interpreted to their license document, and open the door to the next one. It also carries the explicit transaction costs of prosecuting such a suit, and the 'softer' potential reputational damage in a skitterish FOSS community.
It would certainly set a precedent which definitely carries a lot of weight in subsequent similar cases.
It can or can-not. It depends greatly on how large the case is, and what the judgement says. In most cases, judgements are restricted to small sections of a disagreement and do not have large precedent bearing items. And in many cases where the plaintiff wins in a contractual dispute, it is worded in a way that the defendant could actually argue the case is closed for all other similar cases. Remember, in a case between 2 lawyers and a judge you can end up with at least 6 different ways to read the decision in the next case.
And in this case, the precedents of hundreds years of contractual law would have to be overturned. The GPL license covers source code access. The RHEL license covers binary access without restricting your rights towards source code.
And you assume too much about my or other's motives. I think it's a fair question even in an academic sense whether or not we should or should not be allowed to redistribute RHEL. However, probably a prickly topic so perhaps best not discussed here. :)
Its fair question, but can only answered for the individual asking it by a licensed attorney under contract to that individual. And then that advice would still only be accurate if a court decided in the favor of the lawyers opinion in case the individual took it to court. And then that court decision would only be considered precedent if it was written that way. And that would only count if it was upheld on appeal. And even then it might only matter in some particular time, place, and placing of a comma on one particular version of a contract. Everything else is a debating exercise :(.
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
And in this case, the precedents of hundreds years of contractual law would have to be overturned. The GPL license covers source code access. The RHEL license covers binary access without restricting your rights towards source code.
I don't recall any distinction between what you can do with binaries and source mentioned in the GPL beyond the requirement that sources must be made available too. And section 6 (of GPLv2) states explictly that "You may not impose any further restrictions...". Of course not all of RHEL is covered by the GPL.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
And in this case, the precedents of hundreds years of contractual law would have to be overturned. The GPL license covers source code access. The RHEL license covers binary access without restricting your rights towards source code.
I don't recall any distinction between what you can do with binaries and source mentioned in the GPL beyond the requirement that sources must be made available too. And section 6 (of GPLv2) states explictly that "You may not impose any further restrictions...". Of course not all of RHEL is covered by the GPL.
They are not imposing any restrictions on the software ... you have signed an agreement that as long as you are entitled to get updates from RHN that you will not do those things (it is an if/then statement). It is a contract, no one is forcing you to sign it. If you do sign it, then you are obligated to to meet the requirements in it.
If you don't like the conditions, then cancel the subscription and you can use their software without updates.
Red Hat is a great open source company, it is because of the way they distribute their source code that CentOS can exist.
Where is the SUSE Enterprise or Mandrive Enterprise clones ... there are none. Where are the SUSE SRPMS ... not easy to get for the general public. Mandriva ... same thing.
Johnny Hughes wrote:
And in this case, the precedents of hundreds years of contractual law would have to be overturned. The GPL license covers source code access. The RHEL license covers binary access without restricting your rights towards source code.
I don't recall any distinction between what you can do with binaries and source mentioned in the GPL beyond the requirement that sources must be made available too. And section 6 (of GPLv2) states explictly that "You may not impose any further restrictions...". Of course not all of RHEL is covered by the GPL.
They are not imposing any restrictions on the software ... you have signed an agreement that as long as you are entitled to get updates from RHN that you will not do those things (it is an if/then statement).
But those things involve restrictions on the software.
It is a contract, no one is forcing you to sign it. If you do sign it, then you are obligated to to meet the requirements in it.
If you don't like the conditions, then cancel the subscription and you can use their software without updates.
It's not a matter of liking it or not, I just don't understand how someone can distribute software with a license that says as a condition of redistribution you can't impose further restrictions along with a required contract that imposes further restrictions - regardless of a tie-in with a subscription.
Red Hat is a great open source company, it is because of the way they distribute their source code that CentOS can exist.
No argument there, but restrictions are restrictions.
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
And in this case, the precedents of hundreds years of contractual law would have to be overturned. The GPL license covers source code access. The RHEL license covers binary access without restricting your rights towards source code.
I don't recall any distinction between what you can do with binaries and source mentioned in the GPL beyond the requirement that sources must be made available too. And section 6 (of GPLv2) states explictly that "You may not impose any further restrictions...". Of course not all of RHEL is covered by the GPL.
They are not imposing any restrictions on the software ... you have signed an agreement that as long as you are entitled to get updates from RHN that you will not do those things (it is an if/then statement).
But those things involve restrictions on the software.
I think the problem is that what is thought in these arguments to be a restriction on the software is not considered a legal restriction on the software.
RMS and the FSF has said this is not a restriction on the software.. it is a restriction upon you for getting a compilation and update service from Red Hat. You are free to give the source code to whoever you want. Your compilation/update service is not covered under the GPL and can restrict you as long as Red Hat gives you access to the software.
It is a contract, no one is forcing you to sign it. If you do sign it, then you are obligated to to meet the requirements in it.
If you don't like the conditions, then cancel the subscription and you can use their software without updates.
It's not a matter of liking it or not, I just don't understand how someone can distribute software with a license that says as a condition of redistribution you can't impose further restrictions along with a required contract that imposes further restrictions - regardless of a tie-in with a subscription.
Red Hat is a great open source company, it is because of the way they distribute their source code that CentOS can exist.
No argument there, but restrictions are restrictions.
No they aren't. In law, it all comes down to fine points that do not make sense in 'colloquial' language. It comes down to the classic stupid line of "it depends upon your definition of 'is'" It really does come down to what the license defines software to be, what it defines restrictions are, etc. And if the license does not clearly define it because it is using an existing precedent.. then it is dependant on that precedent where it is, when it is, etc.
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
RMS and the FSF has said this is not a restriction on the software.. it is a restriction upon you for getting a compilation and update service from Red Hat.
But once you have retrieved the compiled package through a subscription, it is governed under the GPL, right? And the GPL does not allow for such restrictions.
-- Daniel
Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
RMS and the FSF has said this is not a restriction on the software.. it is a restriction upon you for getting a compilation and update service from Red Hat.
But once you have retrieved the compiled package through a subscription, it is governed under the GPL, right? And the GPL does not allow for such restrictions.
Not at all ...
You have signed an agreement as to how you will use the software ON YOUR machines as long as you obtain software from RHN without paying Red Hat for each installation. There is NO RESTRICTION that you may not charge for each copy of GPL software .. it is specifically allowed. And in this case, you have signed an agreement on exactly HOW you compensate them for the use of their software.
The issue is NOT how you use the software at all ... the issue is HOW MUCH YOU WILL PAY RED HAT WHILE YOU DO USE THE SOFTWARE.
You are free to use the software on as many machines as you want, just like debain or CentOS or OpenSUSE.
The only thing is, if you use software provided by Red Hat (via RHN), you have signed an agreement that you will pay them a subscription fee on that computer.
So, yes, you can use the software ... you just must pay them.
NOW, if you modify the software and meet their terms for Redistribution (with regards to the packages that they require changing) ... and if you did not get the software from RHN, but instead from their public FTP server (the sources) and rebuilt the packages, then you would not need to pay them.
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
RMS and the FSF has said this is not a restriction on the software.. it is a restriction upon you for getting a compilation and update service from Red Hat.
But once you have retrieved the compiled package through a subscription, it is governed under the GPL, right? And the GPL does not allow for such restrictions.
Not at all ...
You have signed an agreement as to how you will use the software ON YOUR machines as long as you obtain software from RHN without paying Red Hat for each installation. There is NO RESTRICTION that you may not charge for each copy of GPL software .. it is specifically allowed.
True, but the copy that you retrieved is governed by the GPL, which gives users certain rights that can not be taken away by additional contracts (which would void the rights to distribute the software). The GPL is very explicit about this, and those licensing restrictions are imposed by the author of the software, and as far as I understand Red Hat can not modify the licensing terms of others with contracts. They can only do that for some non-GPL licensed software, and their own software/artwork.
-- Daniel
Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
RMS and the FSF has said this is not a restriction on the software.. it is a restriction upon you for getting a compilation and update service from Red Hat.
But once you have retrieved the compiled package through a subscription, it is governed under the GPL, right? And the GPL does not allow for such restrictions.
Not at all ...
You have signed an agreement as to how you will use the software ON YOUR machines as long as you obtain software from RHN without paying Red Hat for each installation. There is NO RESTRICTION that you may not charge for each copy of GPL software .. it is specifically allowed.
True, but the copy that you retrieved is governed by the GPL, which gives users certain rights that can not be taken away by additional contracts (which would void the rights to distribute the software). The GPL is very explicit about this, and those licensing restrictions are imposed by the author of the software, and as far as I understand Red Hat can not modify the licensing terms of others with contracts. They can only do that for some non-GPL licensed software, and their own software/artwork.
The FSF has said RHEL meets the requirements if the GPL. Also this is from the FSF FAQ on the GPL: === Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?
Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary. === If I use a piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, am I allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then distribute and sell that new program commercially?
You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the GPL.
These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you received in a program of your own. =============================================================
But they are not taking away any rights, you may distribute (the GPL portions) however you want. You may use it however you want. They are just charging for each copy.
You also brought up the redhat-logos rpm, with is NOT GPL. That particular RPM is required for system operation and they certainly can charge for each copy of that rpm that is run.
Of course, just using CentOS (or Scientific Linux, WBEL) will free you up from that payment issue anyway :D
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
But they are not taking away any rights, you may distribute (the GPL portions) however you want. You may use it however you want. They are just charging for each copy.
Yes. But we never disagreed on that. But if you retrieve a copy of GPL'ed software from RHN, you are allowed to redistribute it according the terms of the GPL.
You also brought up the redhat-logos rpm, with is NOT GPL. That particular RPM is required for system operation and they certainly can charge for each copy of that rpm that is run.
True, as I have stated in my previous e-mail.
Of course, just using CentOS (or Scientific Linux, WBEL) will free you up from that payment issue anyway :D
Yes :). Making RHEL piracy kinda pointless ;).
-- Daniel
yOn Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
But they are not taking away any rights, you may distribute (the GPL portions) however you want. You may use it however you want. They are just charging for each copy.
Yes. But we never disagreed on that. But if you retrieve a copy of GPL'ed software from RHN, you are allowed to redistribute it according the terms of the GPL.
Right, and because of that I think it is perfectly technically possible to redistribute the existing binaries with the Red Hat trademark removed. That would be almost the same as what CentOS is doing, except that you have exactly the same binaries and libraries.
(However, for some packages that is going to be very hard to do)
The GPL allows that, but Red Hat can break your contract to retrieve these binary updates in the future, so you are kinda stuck.
FWIW if you are in a position that you need RHEL (and CentOS is not a replacement) then you most likely also need the support (read: fixing bugs) from Red Hat, or support from your application vendor, or a guaranteed certified OS. If all that is important, the price is not the problem.
Some of these points are being made in the business presentation on the wiki at:
http://wiki.centos.org/Events/Presentations
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 6:09 AM, Daniel de Kok me@danieldk.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
RMS and the FSF has said this is not a restriction on the software.. it is a restriction upon you for getting a compilation and update service from Red Hat.
But once you have retrieved the compiled package through a subscription, it is governed under the GPL, right? And the GPL does not allow for such restrictions.
Not at all ...
You have signed an agreement as to how you will use the software ON YOUR machines as long as you obtain software from RHN without paying Red Hat for each installation. There is NO RESTRICTION that you may not charge for each copy of GPL software .. it is specifically allowed.
True, but the copy that you retrieved is governed by the GPL, which gives users certain rights that can not be taken away by additional contracts (which would void the rights to distribute the software). The GPL is very explicit about this, and those licensing restrictions are imposed by the author of the software, and as far as I understand Red Hat can not modify the licensing terms of others with contracts. They can only do that for some non-GPL licensed software, and their own software/artwork.
You can argue this as much as you want... and if you pay enough money to some lawyer they will agree with you on that. However, most lawyers including the ones at the FSF do not agree. The purchaser got into a service contract with Red Hat that Red Hat would offer the purchaser compiled versions of the product. That contract also says that they will pay Red Hat for every copy of the compiled executable installed. They can give that executable to someone else, but they are supposed to pay Red Hat for those copies also. These are not seen as restrictions of rights on the user by the FSF because you have the main thing the FSF wants you to have: The Source Code. And the contract does not restrict your rights to edit, recompile, or redistribute the source code. It even doesn't restrict you from redistributing the binaries. You just promised you would pay for every copy which is not considered a 'legal' restriction on your rights.
If you do not pay them, they have the right to require you to remove those executables because you broke your contract with them. Again as far as contractual law and the FSF faq's.. this is NOT an abridgment of the rights that the GPL gives you and thus legal/
However, as with all things dealing with legal: GET A LAWYER!!!!!!!! This is not binding legal advice. I am not a lawyer, do not want to be a lawyer, and while my explanations were given to me by non-RH lawyers several years ago.. I may have forgotten important pieces not worded it in a way that is legally sound etc.
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 02:17 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
They are not imposing any restrictions on the software ... you have signed an agreement that as long as you are entitled to get updates from RHN that you will not do those things (it is an if/then statement).
But those things involve restrictions on the software.
I think the problem is that what is thought in these arguments to be a restriction on the software is not considered a legal restriction on the software.
I think you guys are going about it the wrong way. You're so focused on the *contents* of the packages that you're missing the packages *themselves*. Could the signing of the packages be considered a "work", and therefore distribution of said signed packages be a violation of copyright law?
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 02:17 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
They are not imposing any restrictions on the software ... you have signed an agreement that as long as you are entitled to get updates from RHN that you will not do those things (it is an if/then statement).
But those things involve restrictions on the software.
I think the problem is that what is thought in these arguments to be a restriction on the software is not considered a legal restriction on the software.
I think you guys are going about it the wrong way. You're so focused on the *contents* of the packages that you're missing the packages *themselves*. Could the signing of the packages be considered a "work", and therefore distribution of said signed packages be a violation of copyright law?
Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source code unless it is specifically licensed differently.
So, distributing the RPMS (the GPL ones) would probably be OK.
Using them is also OK, so long as you PAY Red Hat on every machine where you use things that cam from RHN.
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 07:02 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
I think you guys are going about it the wrong way. You're so focused on the *contents* of the packages that you're missing the packages *themselves*. Could the signing of the packages be considered a "work", and therefore distribution of said signed packages be a violation of copyright law?
Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source code unless it is specifically licensed differently.
I'm not talking about the spec file metadata, I'm talking about the signature that's applied to the package itself.
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams ivazqueznet@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not talking about the spec file metadata, I'm talking about the signature that's applied to the package itself.
A signature is just a special digest of the contents. I don't see how that could be licensed differently.
-- Daniel
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 13:46 +0100, Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams ivazqueznet@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not talking about the spec file metadata, I'm talking about the signature that's applied to the package itself.
A signature is just a special digest of the contents. I don't see how that could be licensed differently.
And a painting of a landscape is just a special digest (or interpretation, if you prefer) of a landscape. It falls under copyright law, regardless of what laws the canvas or paint are required to follow.
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams ivazqueznet@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 13:46 +0100, Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams ivazqueznet@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not talking about the spec file metadata, I'm talking about the signature that's applied to the package itself.
A signature is just a special digest of the contents. I don't see how that could be licensed differently.
And a painting of a landscape is just a special digest (or interpretation, if you prefer) of a landscape. It falls under copyright law, regardless of what laws the canvas or paint are required to follow.
That's a flawed analogy. Virtually, all jurisdictions require work to be original to qualify for copyright. Painting a landscape requires effort, and originality, mechanically making a digest with encryption software doesn't.
Anyway, let's not continue with *this* slippery slope. The next guy will proclaim that downloading software and recompressing it with bzip2 constitutes a new work ;).
-- Daniel
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 14:25 +0100, Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams ivazqueznet@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 13:46 +0100, Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams ivazqueznet@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not talking about the spec file metadata, I'm talking about the signature that's applied to the package itself.
A signature is just a special digest of the contents. I don't see how that could be licensed differently.
And a painting of a landscape is just a special digest (or interpretation, if you prefer) of a landscape. It falls under copyright law, regardless of what laws the canvas or paint are required to follow.
That's a flawed analogy. Virtually, all jurisdictions require work to be original to qualify for copyright.
How is a rpm package signature not "original"? It's dependent on a number of factors, not all of which are publicly accessible (e.g., the private signing key), and some of which are variable (e.g., the build time).
Painting a landscape requires effort, and originality, mechanically making a digest with encryption software doesn't.
Nor does pushing the button on a digital camera, and yet Flickr is filled with the results of that non-effort. You don't need to be a lawyer to see that anyone challenging the license of that non-effort would likely be laughed out of court.
Anyway, let's not continue with *this* slippery slope. The next guy will proclaim that downloading software and recompressing it with bzip2 constitutes a new work ;).
Or a derivative of the original work. But adding a signature to an already-created package does not make the signature a derivative of the contents of the package.
(Once again, IANAL)
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 09:36 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
But adding a signature to an already-created package does not make the signature a derivative of the contents of the package.
Argh, no, it could.
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 08:57 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
On Sun, 2008-03-23 at 13:46 +0100, Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams ivazqueznet@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not talking about the spec file metadata, I'm talking about the signature that's applied to the package itself.
A signature is just a special digest of the contents. I don't see how that could be licensed differently.
And a painting of a landscape is just a special digest (or interpretation, if you prefer) of a landscape. It falls under copyright law, regardless of what laws the canvas or paint are required to follow.
Before anyone tears this apart *too* hard, I would like to apologize for misrepresenting myself. I am not a lawyer, therefore I should have said that this was only my opinion.
Johnny Hughes wrote:
copyright law?
Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source code unless it is specifically licensed differently.
So, distributing the RPMS (the GPL ones) would probably be OK.
Using them is also OK, so long as you PAY Red Hat on every machine where you use things that cam from RHN.
By why is adding a restriction to enforce that OK, unless it only applies to the non-GPL'd portions?
Les Mikesell wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
copyright law?
Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source code unless it is specifically licensed differently.
So, distributing the RPMS (the GPL ones) would probably be OK.
Using them is also OK, so long as you PAY Red Hat on every machine where you use things that cam from RHN.
By why is adding a restriction to enforce that OK, unless it only applies to the non-GPL'd portions?
It is not a restriction, it is a agreement ... if you want to download the file from them, you agree to pay for it every place you use it.
If you don't want to do that, then you need to get your linux from some place else.
Johnny Hughes wrote:
copyright law?
Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source code unless it is specifically licensed differently.
So, distributing the RPMS (the GPL ones) would probably be OK.
Using them is also OK, so long as you PAY Red Hat on every machine where you use things that cam from RHN.
By why is adding a restriction to enforce that OK, unless it only applies to the non-GPL'd portions?
It is not a restriction, it is a agreement ... if you want to download the file from them, you agree to pay for it every place you use it.
Agreeing to a restriction doesn't make it any less of a restriction, and it isn't the end user's agreement that matters, it is the one doing the software redistribution that can't add restrictions.
If you don't want to do that, then you need to get your linux from some place else.
I thought if you didn't follow the terms of the GPL you couldn't redistribute at all.
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
copyright law?
Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source code unless it is specifically licensed differently.
So, distributing the RPMS (the GPL ones) would probably be OK.
Using them is also OK, so long as you PAY Red Hat on every machine where you use things that cam from RHN.
By why is adding a restriction to enforce that OK, unless it only applies to the non-GPL'd portions?
It is not a restriction, it is a agreement ... if you want to download the file from them, you agree to pay for it every place you use it.
Agreeing to a restriction doesn't make it any less of a restriction, and it isn't the end user's agreement that matters, it is the one doing the software redistribution that can't add restrictions.
Agreements and restrictions have separate legal definitions. You really need to get a lawyer to explain this clearly to you, as it is one of those items where it looks like they are saying 1+1=0 and 1-1=2, but they aren't.
Beyond that, we will just have to disagree.
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
copyright law?
Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source code unless it is specifically licensed differently.
So, distributing the RPMS (the GPL ones) would probably be OK.
Using them is also OK, so long as you PAY Red Hat on every machine where you use things that cam from RHN.
By why is adding a restriction to enforce that OK, unless it only applies to the non-GPL'd portions?
It is not a restriction, it is a agreement ... if you want to download the file from them, you agree to pay for it every place you use it.
Agreeing to a restriction doesn't make it any less of a restriction, and it isn't the end user's agreement that matters, it is the one doing the software redistribution that can't add restrictions.
Agreements and restrictions have separate legal definitions. You really need to get a lawyer to explain this clearly to you, as it is one of those items where it looks like they are saying 1+1=0 and 1-1=2, but they aren't.
They may seem like two different things, but they aren't if one is required as a condition of the other. I'm sure a lawyer could be paid to take either side on this issue if you felt like paying a lawyer.
On Sunday 23 March 2008 20:36:25 Les Mikesell wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
copyright law?
Well ... the general consensus is that is not the case, and that the SPEC file is covered under the same license as the rest of the source code unless it is specifically licensed differently.
So, distributing the RPMS (the GPL ones) would probably be OK.
Using them is also OK, so long as you PAY Red Hat on every machine where you use things that cam from RHN.
By why is adding a restriction to enforce that OK, unless it only applies to the non-GPL'd portions?
It is not a restriction, it is a agreement ... if you want to download the file from them, you agree to pay for it every place you use it.
Agreeing to a restriction doesn't make it any less of a restriction, and it isn't the end user's agreement that matters, it is the one doing the software redistribution that can't add restrictions.
Agreements and restrictions have separate legal definitions. You really need to get a lawyer to explain this clearly to you, as it is one of those items where it looks like they are saying 1+1=0 and 1-1=2, but they aren't.
They may seem like two different things, but they aren't if one is required as a condition of the other. I'm sure a lawyer could be paid to take either side on this issue if you felt like paying a lawyer.
Putting the legal argument to one side for a minute, I personally would not use a file shared copy of RH or Cent OS as I would not trust it to be secure. Who knows what sort of key loggers or back doors have been inserted into the install routine. Some of the list members would know how to check but the majority of people who use these file sharing sites to down load dubious software, me included, would not. Most of the time, unless I'm in a hurry, I use the bit torrent networks to down load the Linux distro's I use and play around with and I always leave them on my hard drive to share when I have finished down loading them.
My 2 Pence worth!
John
Let's not forget one fundamental fact - can you easily download RHEL from Redhat's site? If yes, then it was meant to be publicly distributed. If no, it was not, and such copies should not be trusted.
My philosophy - if you cannot obtain a copy of what you want from the original vendor/provider, or authorized redistributor, then the copy obtained simply cannot be trusted.
Scott
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Ray Van Dolson rayvd@bludgeon.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:29:54PM -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
You can not redistribute the redhat-logos or redhat-artwork binary packages to others unless you are selling your media. You also can not distribute those 2 source or binary RPMS without editing and removing the logos / trademark related things in them. Since the ISOs in question on the Bittorrent sites distribute those files, they are illegal per Red Hat's trademark policies.
Actually there are cases already in place on this. Just not ones that Red Hat has been part of but other organizations with similar laws and licenses. Like most cases, most people don't want to talk to pay a lawyer who is going to do the research.. they want someone else to do so.. and then they will only consider it authoritative when they read it in USA Today or Wikipedia.
The GPL covers source code. It covers binaries in the format that if you buy the binary, you have the right to request the source code the binary was compiled from. Red Hat supplies that. The GPL does not say anything of the restrictions you have on that binary. Those are covered in the contract between you and Red Hat. What Red Hat can not do is restrict you from giving that source code to other entities. The difference between binary and source was deliberate on the part of the FSF, and has been used by Cygnus and Stalhman himself well before Red Hat came on the scene.
What we need is a case that's been taken to court and a verdict given. :) I've long tried to get an answer from RH as to whether or not I can reinstall their media on other machines just "without" buying an entitlement (after all you can continue using RH after the 30 demo expires).
You are asking for legal advice from a company you are doing business with. If Red Hat answered that question as most people phrase it they would end up in all kinds of problems. Get a lawyer, have them look the contract, the case law, and how it applies to you. [The way lawyers really make the money is that they can only give advice on how it affects you.. not how it affects people in general etc.. even a court's decision may only apply on the 2 parties of the contract and not all people who have similar contracts]
Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 12:29:54PM -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
You can not redistribute the redhat-logos or redhat-artwork binary packages to others unless you are selling your media. You also can not distribute those 2 source or binary RPMS without editing and removing the logos / trademark related things in them. Since the ISOs in question on the Bittorrent sites distribute those files, they are illegal per Red Hat's trademark policies.
Now USING the RHEL discs (not distributing them to others, but installing on your own equipment) is a totally different story (and much more restrictive). You may not install any RHEL packages that are provided by Red Hat on ANY machines that you have not purchased an entitlement for. That means on test machines, production machines, whatever. No entitlement, no install allowed. It does not matter whether you want "Support" or not.
Red Hat has the right to audit your equipment for up to 1 year after your last license expires for compliance.
wow, that goes way beyond what I thought. Can you point to an authoritative reference for this? I'd like to hit some guys over the head with it at work, they install RHEL4 all over the place without contracts (or updates), it drives me nuts, I keep saying "USE CENTOS" and its like 'oh, vendor XYZ says they only support RHEL', and my arguing that they aren't paying for any support doesn't seem to matter.
What we need is a case that's been taken to court and a verdict given. :) I've long tried to get an answer from RH as to whether or not I can reinstall their media on other machines just "without" buying an entitlement (after all you can continue using RH after the 30 demo expires).
I've never gotten an answer from RH on this, and I have heard solid interpretations of their EULA from both sides.
I try real hard to make sure all copies of RHEL are licensed at my $DAYJOB, but I know RH isn't overly anal about it either.
The License Agreement is VERY CLEAR ... there is no room for misinterpretation:
http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html
"This Agreement establishes the terms and conditions under which Red Hat will provide Software and Services to Client. "Software" means Red Hat Enterprise Linux and other software programs branded by Red Hat and/or its affiliates including all modifications, additions or further developments thereto delivered by Red Hat."
"For Subscription Services, Client agrees to pay Red Hat for each Installed System. An "Installed System" means a system on which Client installs or executes all or a portion of the Software, which may be, without limitation, a server, work station, virtual machine, blade, node, partition, or engine, as applicable."
"Client will promptly notify Red Hat if the number of Installed Systems exceeds the number of Installed Systems for which Client has paid the applicable fee. In its notice, Client will include both the number of additional Installed Systems and the date(s) on which such Installed Systems were put into use. Red Hat will invoice Client for the applicable Services for such Installed Systems on a pro-rata basis and Client will pay for such Services in accordance with this Agreement."
"During the term of this Agreement and for one (1) year thereafter, Red Hat or its designated agent may inspect and review Client's facilities and records in order to verify Client's compliance with this Agreement. Any such inspection and review will take place only during Client's normal business hours and upon no less than ten (10) days prior written notice from Red Hat. Red Hat will give Client written notice of any non-compliance, including the number of underreported Installed Systems, and Client will have fifteen (15) days from the date of such notice to make payment to Red Hat for the applicable Services provided to the underreported Installed Systems. If Client had underreported the number of Installed Systems by more than five percent (5%), Client will also pay Red Hat for the cost of such inspection." =================================================================
The rest is available for review at the linked address ... but it is very clear that if you have any RHEL subscriptions, then you must pay for them all.
How one could read that any other way is beyond me.
Thanks, Johnny Hughes
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
=================================================================
The rest is available for review at the linked address ... but it is very clear that if you have any RHEL subscriptions, then you must pay for them all.
How one could read that any other way is beyond me.
The usual idea is that because its "Free" Software you can't restrict it in anyway... and that the 'Freedom' trumps any other license or agreement. And I will bet that if you have enough money, there will be lawyers who will come up with ways to argue that is a valid interpretation.. and will argue it over and over again as long as you have money.
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
The usual idea is that because its "Free" Software you can't restrict it in anyway... and that the 'Freedom' trumps any other license or agreement. And I will bet that if you have enough money, there will be lawyers who will come up with ways to argue that is a valid interpretation.. and will argue it over and over again as long as you have money.
I find it funny how people love to complain because companies like RedHat and SuSE/Novell have found a way to make a business out of a free product. There is nothing forcing you to use their distro. And if you do like their distro that much and don't want to pay, there are free alternatives to the commercial products like CentOS, WBEL and OpenSuSE. Heck there are more free distro's than paid ones. Or if you are jealous of those companies making all the money off a free product and are so inclined why don't you create your own commercial Linux distro. There is nothing that they are doing that violates the GPL, if they did, I'm sure that they would have all kinds of legal trouble.
Instead of complaining, people should be grateful for the hard work that they do bringing features, fixes, drivers, which are released for free, and by getting hardware vendors involved in bring linux compatibility to their products. I can still remember back in 1995 trying to get support from a hardware vendor who refused to provide drivers for linux or even offer any assistance.
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 1:15 AM, Matt Shields mattboston@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
The usual idea is that because its "Free" Software you can't restrict it in anyway... and that the 'Freedom' trumps any other license or agreement. And I will bet that if you have enough money, there will be lawyers who will come up with ways to argue that is a valid interpretation.. and will argue it over and over again as long as you have money.
I find it funny how people love to complain because companies like RedHat and SuSE/Novell have found a way to make a business out of a free product. There is nothing forcing you to use their distro.
That's fine. But I think no one here has problems with that. I think the discussion is rather how it is played by the rules of the GPL. That's a good and fair question.
-- Daniel
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
=================================================================
The rest is available for review at the linked address ... but it is very clear that if you have any RHEL subscriptions, then you must pay for them all.
How one could read that any other way is beyond me.
The usual idea is that because its "Free" Software you can't restrict it in anyway... and that the 'Freedom' trumps any other license or agreement. And I will bet that if you have enough money, there will be lawyers who will come up with ways to argue that is a valid interpretation.. and will argue it over and over again as long as you have money.
If you enter into a legally binding contract, then you waive your rights as specified in the contract. I mean, it is not against the law to by parts from Jim's hardware store ... but if John promises to give you a 30% discount if you sign an exclusivity deal that he provides all your parts, and then you still buy parts from Jim, you are violating the contract. If the contract that you signed specifies a penalty for violation, then you will incur the penalty.
If you don't like the contract, use SUSE or Ubuntu or Fedora or CentOS or any number of other distros ...
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
=================================================================
The rest is available for review at the linked address ... but it is very clear that if you have any RHEL subscriptions, then you must pay for them all.
How one could read that any other way is beyond me.
The usual idea is that because its "Free" Software you can't restrict it in anyway... and that the 'Freedom' trumps any other license or agreement. And I will bet that if you have enough money, there will be lawyers who will come up with ways to argue that is a valid interpretation.. and will argue it over and over again as long as you have money.
My wording of the above was poor. I in no way think that those people have a valid argument. I have just heard the argument enough times to recite it on the whole, you can't impose additional restrictions blah blah blah, without them understanding the fine 'line' of what that means or where it is enforced.
If you enter into a legally binding contract, then you waive your rights as specified in the contract. I mean, it is not against the law to by parts from Jim's hardware store ... but if John promises to give you a 30% discount if you sign an exclusivity deal that he provides all your parts, and then you still buy parts from Jim, you are violating the contract. If the contract that you signed specifies a penalty for violation, then you will incur the penalty.
If you don't like the contract, use SUSE or Ubuntu or Fedora or CentOS or any number of other distros ...
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 2:31 AM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
If you enter into a legally binding contract, then you waive your rights as specified in the contract.
IANAL I don't think that is possible. According to the GPLv2:
"4. You may not copy, modify, *sublicense*, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. *Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.* [...]"
"6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. *You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein*. [...]"
(Emphasis added.)
The GPL is very explicit that no further restrictions can be imposed on sources or binaries. So, I guess the Red Hat license as quoted by Johnny would void their rights to distribute the affected GPL software. As such, I can only conclude that the quoted Red Hat license applies to some non-GPL packages.
-- Daniel
-
centos＠911networks.com -
Dag Wieers -
Daniel de Kok -
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams -
John Bowden -
John R Pierce -
Johnny Hughes -
Les Mikesell -
Mag Gam -
Matt Shields -
Michael Semcheski -
Niki Kovacs -
R P Herrold -
Ray Van Dolson -
Scott R. Ehrlich -
Simon Jolle sjolle -
Stephen John Smoogen