Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat License Challenged
An anonymous reader writes: "David McNett has noticed an apparent discrepancy between the Red Hat Linux EULA and the GPL. He has written an open letter to the FSF asking for their opinion on the matter. Does Red Hat have the right to "audit your facilities and records" to ensure compliance with their license?" McNett misreads the Red Hat documents. Their contract is for the various services, not the software, and for the services they are entitled to demand whatever concessions they think the market will bear.
You work, you write, we package, we distribute, we profit, you continue to work, you get some scraps for your trouble
...to RedmondHat
Dude, where's my Karma?
I've said it before, I'll say it again - RedHat is trying to become the Microsoft of the Linux world.
Lets review, shall we? Onerous licensing terms, they give nothing back to the community, and they are continually threatening other distros with lawsuits.
No, I'll be sticking with Debian, thanks.
The forum admins on this site are not "editors". The term "editor" imples some sort of professionalism. The term "janitors" that gets thrown around here is more apropos. This site is, and always will be, a venting ground for zealots of various flavors and will always be runned by non-professionals.
not the software, and for the services they are entitled to demand whatever concessions they think the market will bear
Remember, be carefull now, that at one time, this is what was said about Software Licenses.
at one time people thought, "who cares what the software license is, its their copyright, they can make any changes that the 'market will bear'" -- this lead to the GNU Revolution you are presently seeing. Most people would have prefered it was unnecessary, to wrestle back control of Computer Software from profiteers in order that an open dialogue amoungst programmers, technologists, researchers and users could take place... all comprimised by myopic Free Market Zealots.
Let profit makers comprimise your rights today, and others will do it tomorrow. RedHat, IBM, AT&T whomever -- they will stretch the bounds *together* until all Licenses are so onerous that you'll think you were living in a Corporate State. Sound ridiculous? Witness what the RIAA/MPAA/BSA/??? does in order to control their IP via "Optional Licenses" -- basically your option is "live in a dark cave" or "accept your A$$ pucking slave". Just remember what RMS did as a response to a closed source printer driver will not always work... the computer world is managing to wrestle control from powerfull corporations this time, but *in the future* this will not always work. Not every 'industry' or 'situation' is equal. Music might do it (destroy the RIAA), but will TV? Movies? Books?
Bottom line: Shame on RedHat -- no For-Profit entity has any right whatsoever to demand sight audits or any other. If you want to have a adversarial(sp?) relationship with the world, keep right at it...
The GPL is no good, it's has political goals, using "free" software to achieve them.
If you want truely free software use the BSD license or something similiar. GPL is not free no matter what RMS says.
You don't like it? Then fucking leave, bitch.
>If your not moving Forward, your moving Backward.
If my not moving forward is/has what?
If my not moving backward is/has what?
Please learn english before posting to an english speaking site, ok?
The EULA probably isn't legally binding unless you actually sign something anyway. And if you don't, just go crazy crossing stuff out before you open the package. You can cross things out on a contract, initial them, and then sign it. If the person receiving the contract doesn't care enough to check and possibly reject the contract, too bad for them. So cross out what you don't like, and initial it. Cross out the part about returning the software if you don't agree to all the terms (wouldn't want to agree to that!). Then open the package. Voila! Companies are skating by with these EULA's expressly because they *don't* require a signature. If they did, people would pay attention to the contents and be outraged by it. Then companies try to make out like they have all the power they would have if you had signed it. B.S.