Red Hat Acquires Data-Cleaning Company Permabit (fortune.com)

An anonymous reader quotes Fortune: Business software company Red Hat said on Monday that it is acquiring the technology assets of Permabit, a small company that specializes in cleaning up corporate data to make storage more efficient and data access faster. Terms of the deal were not disclosed but a Red Hat spokesman said 16 people from Permabit will be joining that company...

While the conventional wisdom is that data storage is cheap, it is not free. And with companies turning to more expensive flash storage, it saves money to remove redundant data, said Richard Fichera, vice president and principal analyst at Forrester Research... Red Hat, which sells a version of the Linux operating system used by many Fortune 500 companies, also offers its own storage software. And, it wants to become a more formidable challenger in data storage, a goal that can be furthered by buying Permabit's technology, Fichera said.
Slashdot reader See Attached points out that this week Red Hat also released RHEL 7.4, which introduces support for Network Bound Disk Encryption (NBDE) and system protection against intrusive USB devices.

Comments

I am still waiting for a credible...

[bogaboga]

...Microsoft Office Suite replacement.

By "credible", I mean a suite that will: -

... allow "Business Logic" to be programmed into it

...one that will be a beauty to look at (by default)

... one that will be fast as well.

Think of it as a suite that will have a Visual Basic equivalent.

Short of that, I am uninterested, unfortunately.

Re:I am still waiting for a credible...

[Zero__Kelvin]

Keep waiting for Office to be those things my friend!

Re: I am still waiting for a credible...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just waiting for the first Spermabit joke.

Re:I am still waiting for a credible...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was just thinking exactly that, yes. Nothing redmond produces is fast, or beautiful, or particularly easily or well-programmable. Most of the time someone else will have done it better. Their software is typically only very barely usable, and dangerous for the user to boot. VBA being a prime example.

If you want fast, lose the GUI and certainly the GUI-ified WYSIWYG. Without that, most small businesses needs might be served by something with the power of a Z80. Maybe even an actual Z80, with WordStar, dBase, VisiCalc, and so on. Just get some nice solid state storage and you're golden. Personally I'd still sooner pick some Unix with all that CLI power and some very nifty programs, but anyway.

In fact, some businesses still run peachy fine on paper and typewriters, at a profit, even. And the only reason this will have to change is because of external factors, IOW, other people's unthinking assumptions. Which is a pity, because, you know, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Back on topic: Credible office software does exist, even if you insist on WYSIWYG. Open/LibreOffice might count, but there are other options, including commercial ones. "SoftMaker Office" being one, go check it out. (Full disclosure: No relation whatsoever. Competition is good, hmkay.)

Re:I am still waiting for a credible...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny, but also sad at the same time.
They've absolutely bastardized Office. Worse, for the sake of idiots!
Not just Office, but many development tools across the board.

The dumbification of tech reached business well before it reached the consumers.
The saddest part is they never made the entry-level of the products easier AND allow advanced users to get things done. They brought EVERYONE down to the level of beginners and idiots.
Services and software that babysits advanced users pisses me off to no end. This is why I refuse to use them now.

Re:I am still waiting for a credible...

[Anonymous Coward]

well, i keep waiting for a credible desktop environment. one with simple things windows users have enjoyed for decades but bickering projects and factions have been never been able to provide in linux. simple things, like automatically and without user interaction or thought, remembering window positions from one use of an application to the next. without even that, linux is fucking unusable as a desktop system.

Re:I am still waiting for a credible...

[Anonymous Coward]

How much are you willing to spend for such a replacement? Not much? Just like everyone else. Not much money in it.

Re:I am still waiting for a credible...

[Anonymous Coward]

Look no more: https://www.wps.com/

It's compatible with Office document formats, .docx, .doc, .xlsx, .xls, .pptx, .ppt and a few other formats. It works on Linux as well as Windows (and Android and iOS). However, it only handles Office document formats. There is a free version which is a taster for the business version. Both include the "Business logic" you seek.

Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Zero__Kelvin]

Somebody needs to explain to Fortune that Red Hat doesn't sell Linux; they sell support and services. It is not legal to sell Linux. (See also CentOS)

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[r1348]

When you sell software, you sell a licence to use it, not the code itself. This licence might include support (that's what Red Hat does).
It's perfectly legal to sell a licence to a Linux distro, as long as you comply with the GPL.
CentOS repackages most of RHEL, but they need to remove any Red Hat branding. Other that that, they're perfectly in scope with the requirements of GPL (and all the other FOSS licences present in the software collection).

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Zero__Kelvin]

You can't sell the GPL. It is certainly NOT legal to sell rights to any entity already granted by the GPL. That is THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT of the GPL. They offer their distribution for free, with a SUPPORT contract. You are free to redistribute ALL code, even if you don't have and have never purchased a SUPPORT contract. You can't redistribute their logos, etc. or other non-derivative copyrighted material, like knowledge base articles, etc. which is where CentOS comes from. They DO NOT sell GPL code, nor do they sell the GPL license.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Zocalo]

"Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer." — Richard Stallman (original author of the GPL). You seriously ought to go and read up on that, because you are badly misinformed about what the GPL actually aims to do and lets you do with code licensed under it. GNU.org has a whole bunch of pages on it, including an explicit statement that you can indeed sell code licensed under the GPL, so you could start there.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Zero__Kelvin]

You can offer non-derivative works under dual license (e.g. Nokia with qt ). Linux is not developed in house from scratch by Red Hat. I'm afraid it is you that has no clue my friend.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

It's true that Red Hat sells support. But I don't believe it's true to say you can't sell Linux. The GPL only stipulates that if you 'give' someone software built with GPL licensed source that you must give them a copy of the source as well, if they ask for it.

IANAL though, YMMV. But in 25+ years of working with FOSS I've never heard any of the lawyers say that Linux can't be sold.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Open source developers are just a bunch of chumps. You can take their stuff, sell it with your branding on it, and never give them a cent.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Zocalo]

From the GPL FAQ:

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

Note the word "everyone" - that includes Red Hat (amongst others). Here's a more detailed piece on the matter, where they even state that they "encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can." (my emphasis)

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Zero__Kelvin]

They only say "give" and don't mention sell, because with derivative works "give" is the only option, as I said: "Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. “All third parties” means absolutely everyone—but this does not require you to do anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version".

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[ShanghaiBill]

Open source developers are just a bunch of chumps.

Not really. If Linus had closed sourced Linux back in 1991, approximately this many people would use it today: 0.

Instead, by making it free, he has made $150 Million.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Zero__Kelvin]

Did you intentionally leave out the preceeding answer to try to sound smart? "Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. “All third parties” means absolutely everyone—but this does not require you to do anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version." If Red Hat creates something from scratch they can sell it, but nobody can take their work and re-sell it. This is why NOBODY can sell Linux.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

If what you said was true, then the LibreOffice/OpenOffice and Firefox people would have more than just Trademark Law to go after the people who repackage that software and charge for it.

There's _no_ restriction on charging _any_ price you like for software covered licensed by the GPL. The only monetary thing the GPL restricts is charging an _unreasonable_ fee for access to the licensed program's source code.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

"Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer."
Richard Stallman

Luckily, you have only embarrassed yourself on slashdot.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

> If Red Hat creates something from scratch they can sell it, but nobody can take their work and re-sell it.

You're _dreadfully_ confused.

Every thing that the GPL permits (and obligates) the original author of a program to do, it permits (and obligates) recipients of the program to do. The GPL permits the original author of a program to sell the compiled program at any price. Likewise, recipients of that program are permitted to sell that program at any price.

However, the GPL doesn't override Trademark Law! So -for instance- while the GPL permits the recipient of a copy of Firefox to sell the Firefox program for any price he chooses, one must get permission from the holder of the Firefox and the Firefox logo trademarks to call the software one is selling "Firefox" and to use the Firefox logo when you sell it.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[drinkypoo]

If Red Hat creates something from scratch they can sell it, but nobody can take their work and re-sell it. This is why NOBODY can sell Linux.

If Red Hat creates something from scratch and wants people to use it, they'll license it under the GPL. Any software licensed with the GPL can be sold for any amount of money you can charge, so long as you're not misrepresenting it. That means you can't claim to hold the copyright, and you can't use someone else's trademarks without their permission.

This is why anyone can sell Linux. If nobody could sell Linux, then it would be illegal to buy a Linux CD, but you can buy a Linux CD all day.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

You are mistaken.

E.g. see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/g...

Where it says: The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software.

If you still believe you can not sell software licensed under the GPL then I suggest you consult with your lawyer.

And please stop posting misinformation about things you can and can't do with GPL licensed software.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

You just completely contradicted yourself.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Zero__Kelvin]

I haven't embarrassed myself, because I never said the reason has anything to do with Stallman or his philosophy. The issue is a legal one, not a philosophical one.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Zero__Kelvin]

I NEVER said that. I said you can't sell Linux. You can certainly write your own OS and sell that if you want to do that.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Zero__Kelvin]

Stop thinking you understand what you just proved you don't. In the case you describe you are charging for the cost of the CD including the cost of labor to create the CD, packaging and distribution, including shipping costs.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't sell what you dont hold the copyright to .. that's called copyright infringement. That is why the GPL is literally called "copyleft". You can distribute, but not SELL derivative works.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

damn, he's a rich bastard......... and he deserves every penny of it lol.
ty linus.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

> You can't sell what you dont hold the copyright to...

You can _absolutely_ sell what you don't hold the copyright to... when the copyright holder grants you permission to do so!

Funnily enough, by licensing software under the GPL, the copyright holder _grants you a right to sell his software_.

I mean, think about a world in which what you said was true. If you _couldn't_ sell things for which you didn't hold the copyright, then _no_ book publisher would be able to sell a book whose copyright was held by its author.

Use your damn brain.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

> In the case you describe you are charging for the cost of the CD including the cost of labor to create the CD, packaging and distribution, including shipping costs.

If the CD is provided in response to a request for the source code of a GPL-licensed program made by the recipient of said program, then yes, the GPL limits what you may charge for that CD.

If -however- the CD is provided merely to convey the compiled program (or the program + source, as long as the source is _also_ available for a reasonable fee), then the GPL imposes _no_ limits on what you may charge for the CD, or why you are charging.

The GPL ensures the availability of source code for a program. The GPL doesn't concern itself with how much you charge for that program. Why would it? As long as the source is available, the goals of the GPL have been met.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Zero__Kelvin sez:

It is not legal to sell Linux. (See also CentOS)

Good lord, he's not just a total idiot in the systemd arena!

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[aardvarkjoe]

I NEVER said that. I said you can't sell Linux.

And if you'd read the link he pointed you to, you'd understand that your statement is completely false. Somehow I trust the FSF's interpretation of the GPL over yours.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Zero__Kelvin]

Again, you can't create A DERIVATIVE WORK and sell it, which is the case we are talking about here, because: "Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. “All third parties” means absolutely everyone—but this does not require you to do anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version. " Good luck learning about the GPL!

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

The FSF is referring to ORIGINAL works there. You need to Learn about derivative works and how that works so you can stop making yourself look foolish.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

centos # cat /etc/redhat-release

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Kjella]

Note the word "everyone" - that includes Red Hat (amongst others). Here's a more detailed piece on the matter, where they even state that they "encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can." (my emphasis)

You damn well better charge as much as you can, as the first copy you sell might be your last. Since everyone you sell it to can turn around and give it to everyone for free and you can't stop them. Heck, if Bruce Perens wins against grsecurity you can't even stop selling it to those who do. The FSF knows this right is a joke. The FSF doesn't care that it's a joke. Making money on the COTS model is wrong, as RMS has stated repeatedly. If you want to make money, the GPL doesn't restrict your ability to shoot yourself in the foot. You can sell it for as much as you like, as long as you're trying to sell sand in Sahara.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[F.Ultra]

No he didn't, there is a difference between charging for the binaries and charging for the source code.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[F.Ultra]

Yes you can, you can create a derivative and sell it all you want as long as you give out the complete source code (i.e including your changes) to all of your customers that ask for it, you don't have to give it to any one else but any one of your customers can freely distribute the sources to whoever they choose which is why companies like Red Hat doesn't bother with restricting the source to customers only.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[F.Ultra]

And the legal issue is that you are allowed to sell copies of other peoples GPL software including your derivative works of said software, as long as you abide by the license (i.e the GPL).

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

> You damn well better charge as much as you can, as the first copy you sell might be your last.

That's fine. It doesn't change the fact that the GPL doesn't prevent you (or the recipients of your GPL-licensed software) from selling that software for any price whatsoever.

Which is kinda the point that Zero_Kelvin is intentionally missing.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Zero__Kelvin]

Read it again and think this time. If you create and distribute a derivative work I already have a license to use it. You can't sell me rights I already have.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Go download the Firefox source code. Now use that source code to run Firefox.

What's that? You have to turn that source code into a runnable executable before you can run it? There's an essential distinction between a program's executable binary and its source code?

NOOOO! YOU LIE!

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[F.Ultra]

Still does not prevent you from charging for the prebuilt binaries. Yes you have all the right in the world to download the sources of my derivative works if they are published somewhere (note that if none of my customers have decided to utilize their rights under the GPL then you have no sources to download!), but that fact does not prevent me from selling you prebuilt binaries of said sources.

It might sound strange that people would pay for something that they can get for free, but that is besides the point since you are falsely believing that this is somehow illegal under the GPL when it's not.

If you still don't believe my the go right ahead and create a class action lawsuit against Red Hat because they do exactly this, here: https://www.redhat.com/en/stor... you can buy a copy of Red Hat Enterprise Linux for $349 completely without their support (it's a "self-support" version).

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[LostMyBeaver]

hmmm.... I'm curious... if you're zero kelvin... then does that mean your completely stuck in just one place... if so.. how do you move your fingers to type... or is it something that affects only portions of your brain stem but still allows free motion of your finger and mouth without input from your brain.

Damn... that was rude and uncalled for, but I've always loved picking on handles/aliases/pseudonyms/nicknames, etc... You might feel bad for my friend Aslak that to me sounds like Ass-Lock which I then associate with butt-plug. Thank you for allowing me the privilege of being abusive to you in the opening of my response to what you wrote. It was meant with nothing but the nicest intent... truly.

I'm going to make the assumption that RedHat has lawyers who are proficient with the terms of the GPL and how it works. Also, I'll assume that RedHat which has classically tried to present themselves as the champions of the GPL.. know a lot more about this than you or I do. So... while I may be wrong about a few things... let's try this.

Look at the link to RedHat's evaluation faq : https://access.redhat.com/articles/1377933

Now... RedHat is absolutely 100% open source compliant. It would devastate their business if they ever tried to violate the GPL. But here, it is basically saying :
  1) You can (if you provide a lot of information about yourself) download a trial version of RHEL. After 30-90 days... you are required to buy it.
  2) If you don't buy it... we will stick lawyers on you

Now... RedHat complies with the GPL by making 100% of their code and patches and updates available as source. This means it's free for absolutely everyone to use however they will.

The compiled and ready for use version of RHEL however IS A PAID COMMERCIAL PRODUCT and is not to be used by anyone that hasn't paid!!!! Oh and if you pay, you get support to!

Of course, there is CentOS and Fedora. CentOS being a 100% copy of RHEL without the support package or callback to Redhat's servers. But really, let's be honest... RHEL is a commercial product and they ARE selling a PRODUCT WITH SERVICES... not strictly services for a product.

I'll guess you're a developer because you clearly suffered the same misunderstanding I had 10 years back.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Zero__Kelvin]

I don't believe you because you are wrong, and you actually just proved my point. You don't seem to understand that the $349 doesn't buy the software, it gives access to their tools and copyrighted errata, documentation, etc. If you can't understand this, stop misinforming people and wasting people's time trying to disprove the simple logic that you can't sell someone rights they already have.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Zero__Kelvin]

I never said they are doing anything wrong. In fact I love Red Hat. You are right that they know what they are doing. It is YOU that does not. Off you go now ...

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

> ...you can't sell someone rights they already have.

Ah-hah! This is your key misunderstanding! Pay attention, this will be illuminating.

Selling someone a binary licensed under the terms of the GPL does not give them any more rights than they were already entitled to under the terms of the GPL.

That is to say, as long as there is _one_ person in the entire world that has purchased a copy of that binary and has acquired the source code for it, then one that wishes to purchase that software can -instead- get the source code (regardless of any trademark issues) or binary (barring any trademark issues) gratis from the initial purchaser.

This is all true.

However.

What this does NOT mean is that the GPL prevents you from charging _any_ price you wish for access to the binaries of the software.

_ANYONE_ can charge _any_ price they wish for access to binaries of software covered under the GPL. What they may _not_ do is either charge unreasonable fees for access to the source code for those binaries _or_ restrict any of the rights and obligations granted to and imposed upon them by the GPL.

To reiterate: When your software is licensed under the GPL, you can charge anyone you wish any price you wish for a license to your software. By the same token, you MUST permit them to charge anyone _they_ wish any price _they_ wish (including $0) for a license to "your" software.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Zero__Kelvin]

You keep mixing terms. Buy the software. Buy a license to run the software. They aren't the same thing. I do agree with you that GPLv3 was written to stop the abuse of GPLv2 that you describe.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

> They aren't the same thing.

In the US they are exactly the same thing.

> I do agree with you that GPLv3 was written to stop the abuse of GPLv2 that you describe.

lolno, moron.

Anyone who has a license to a piece of GPL'd software can sell that software at any price. It's one of the freedoms that the GPL (both versions of it) _guarantees_.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fuck up moron. The minute you said ownership of source code and a license to use a program are the same thing you showed what a phenomenally clueless Douchebag you are.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Zero__Kelvin]

You might be the most clueless moron in this thread. Good Job!

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, ask yourself this:

I integrate a library licensed under the GPL (either version2 or 3) into my software. I wish to sell my software that is also licensed under the GPL. Am I permitted to sell this software? Remember that is a combination of one work of which I hold the copyright and one work whose copyright I do not hold.

If your answer is "Yes, obviously." then what -in your view- does the recipient of a GPL'd work that he did not originally author have to do to be able to sell that GPL'd work that he received?

If your answer is "Obviously not." then how does your opinion square with the FSF's strident assertion that you can sell a work licensed under the GPL?

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why NOBODY can sell Linux.

Sometimes you are incredibly stupid, Zero__Kelvin. This is one of those times.

And Kjella in the next comment is not much better, either.

Both of you should know better.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[ls671]

Damn... that was rude and uncalled for, but I've always loved picking on handles/aliases/pseudonyms/nicknames, etc...

OK then "LostMyBeaver", what happened? Did you shave your pussy?

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

However, the GPL doesn't override Trademark Law! So -for instance- while the GPL permits the recipient of a copy of Firefox to sell the Firefox program for any price he chooses, one must get permission from the holder of the Firefox and the Firefox logo trademarks to call the software one is selling "Firefox" and to use the Firefox logo when you sell it.

But wait, we've already learnt that unrelated laws affect the terms of the GPL if they influence a clause of the GPL, even indirectly. In this case, peppering the work with trademarks and saying "oops you can't redistribute because of our trademarks!" is clearly a breach of the GPL, in a far clearer way than if you held an employment contract that said "oops you can't redistribute because we won't work for you any more!" - in the latter case you can still redistribute, in the former you cannot.

I expect Bruce Perens to be pulling out his megaphone and making a royal pronouncement regarding Firefox, Redhat et al any day now.

Any day.

Hello?

Well, I guess who you know matters more than what you do after all.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Zero__Kelvin]

There is something called the LGPL that libraries use to solve this issue (but the L stands for "lesser", not "library" as one might first assume). So ask YOURSELF this, why do they need an LGPL if I am wrong?

Re: Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

So where do I get CentOS 7.4 today, without having to wait until they have rebuilt it in September or so?

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

> why do they need an LGPL if I am wrong?

I guess you've never read the LGPL. The motivation for the lesser license is right in the text of the license:

"
We call this license the "Lesser" General Public License because it does Less to protect the user's freedom than the ordinary General Public License. It also provides other free software developers Less of an advantage over competing non-free programs. These disadvantages are the reason we use the ordinary General Public License for many libraries. However, the Lesser license provides advantages in certain special circumstances.

For example, on rare occasions, there may be a special need to encourage the widest possible use of a certain library, so that it becomes a de-facto standard. To achieve this, non-free programs must be allowed to use the library. A more frequent case is that a free library does the same job as widely used non-free libraries. In this case, there is little to gain by limiting the free library to free software only, so we use the Lesser General Public License.

In other cases, permission to use a particular library in non-free programs enables a greater number of people to use a large body of free software. For example, permission to use the GNU C Library in non-free programs enables many more people to use the whole GNU operating system, as well as its variant, the GNU/Linux operating system.

Although the Lesser General Public License is Less protective of the users' freedom, it does ensure that the user of a program that is linked with the Library has the freedom and the wherewithal to run that program using a modified version of the Library.
"

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Zero__Kelvin]

I really don't have time to help you with your reading comprehension skills today. CentOS, which is RHEL minus the branding, is 100% legal. Res ipso loquitur.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Res ips_a_ loquitur.

Your Latin is rusty, as well as off-topic. You probably wanted to use "quod erat demonstrandum".

> CentOS, which is RHEL minus the branding, is 100% legal.

Just as it's 100% legal to charge any fee one wishes for access to the CentOS binaries.

In the context of the various GPLs, "free" means "Freedom", rather than "gratis". Clear that confusion and your mistake becomes obvious.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Your stupidity speaks for itself.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[F.Ultra]

Since you talk about selling people rights that they already have I guess that this thinking is what makes you so confused. No one is talking about selling any rights, we are talking about selling copies of software, nothing else. I can put Debian on a CD and sell it to you for money, I cannot sell you any rights or licenses but I sure can sell you that specific CD with Debian on it for money and there is nothing in the GPL that forbids this. Why is this so hard for you to understand when even the FSF themselves says that this is perfectly legal (they even have it as an item on their FAQ for the GPL for heavens sake).

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[F.Ultra]

No one is talking about "buying a license to run the software" but you, all of the rest of us are only talking about "buy the software". And this is perfectly fine in GPLv3 as well since it's no abuse what so ever (trying to sell a license to it would however be a clear abuse).

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[F.Ultra]

The LGPL was created so that pieces of software (usually libraries) could have it's own source code licensed as GPL but still allow linking without forcing the derived works to be also GPL. So this is still only a licensing issue and not a "charge money" issue, the AC above are completely free to charge money for his derivative works regardless of if the library he used where GPL or LGPL. The only difference is that if the library where LGPL then he would not have to GPL his own code.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[F.Ultra]

Of course it's legal, no one have argued otherwise. But you can still put CentOS on DVD:s and sell them for money from your local Wallmart. You might not get many purchases since most people interested in CentOS probably knows that they can download it for free from the Internet but you are still allowed legally to sell it for money. What you cannot do is claim that people who download CentOS for free is somehow infringing your copyright or any other such nonsense.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[F.Ultra]

And btw their errata and documentation used to be completely free, they only put it behind a paywall when Oracle started to sell support for Red Hat systems and used Red Hats own errata and documentation to do so. So a few years back you would only get the install media for RHEL for the $349 and nothing else, note that this is not a license to use RHEL. Mention this since you keep thinking that we are talking about selling licenses and not actual software.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Zero__Kelvin]

No. You are the one who doesn't get it, even though you actually said it: You are selling *the CD*, not the software. You don't own the bits. You can't sell the bits. You do own the physical medium, which is what you can charge money for. Off you go now ...

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[LostMyBeaver]

Didn't say I was better at choosing names

And i was actually referring to a cheesy line from a cheesy movie where two idiots hunting in hats with antlers argue over the hats and then look up to realize their prey was gone. It actually would make Canadian Bacon or Teen Movie look high class.

BTW... I was tempted as I'm allergic to cat hair, but the kids wouldn't let me

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

> You don't own the bits.

You do.

> You can't sell the bits.

You can. The right to sell a work covered by the GPL is one of the many things that sets it apart from closed-source licenses.

It's true that you don't have a _copyright_ interest in the _original_ source code, so you're not free to _relicense_ the source code as you see fit. However, you're totally free to sell or resell any work covered by the GPL at any price you choose.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Zero__Kelvin]

Again, not DERIVATIVE works. By now dumbfuck.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

> ...not DERIVATIVE works

Anyone can sell a work licensed under the GPL, derivative or original.

If it worked the way you claim it does, GPL'd programs that linked against GPL'd libraries could _not_ be sold if the author of the program linking against the lib didn't hold the copyright to the lib. Third-party authors that made major changes to a GPL'd project would be unable to sell their modifications to that work unless they rewrote the _entire_ project. The only person who _could_ sell a GPL'd work would be the original copyright holder.

Your interpretation is obviously bogus and nonsensical.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[F.Ultra]

I think that you are stuck in a mindset where you still think that we argue that you can sell rights to a software when we only talk about charging money for access to the actual bits. Looks like you are stuck in the mindset of how Microsoft and Apple sells their software (i.e the sell only a usage license). I can put the download link to my CD behind a paywall and still charge money for it. There is nothing in the GPL that prevents this and FSF have never once moved to even indicate that they would want to prevent this. Thanks to the GPL I have distribution rights for the bits and it does not matter that my form of distribution includes payment.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

> I expect Bruce Perens to be pulling out his megaphone and making a royal pronouncement regarding Firefox, Redhat et al any day now. ... Well, I guess who you know matters more than what you do after all.

Not even RMS would find Mozilla or RedHat's stance on this offensive. Trademark law is very important and useful.

What Mozilla cannot do is include trademarked content that is _essential_ for the program to function and still have that content protected by trademark law. (See Sega v. Accolade for US precedent on the matter.)

Hell, here's the FSF's official stance on the matter:

> While the Firefox source code from the Mozilla project is free software, ... their trademark license imposes requirements for the distribution of modified versions that make it inconvenient to exercise freedom 3.

from: https://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/

"[T]heir trademark license ... make[s] it inconvenient to exercise freedom 3." _Inconvenient_. Not "unreasonably difficult". Not "impossible". And it's the _FSF_ saying this! If there were _any_ problem with what Mozilla or RedHat were doing, you _know_ the FSF would be screaming about it for the rest of eternity.

Re:Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm shocked, _shocked_! to hear that Zero_Kelvin doesn't have any coherent response. :rolleyes:

Some alternate uses

[BarbaraHudson]

"Data cleaning" - remove all redundant data, so that you only have to bitbleach ONE file.

copy stuff onto 5/10 tb drives..

[Anonymous Coward]

cheaper than 125meg hdd was 30+ yrs. ago.. thin them out is not hypergenius work? no hostage agreement online disappearance heartbreak required... not to mention some stuff should not be left online ever...

Careful With That Ax Eugene...

[Anonymous Coward]

...You Might Wipe Yourself Out

Data cleaning?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Once a week, whether it needs it or not.

I likes me my data to be good and clean.

Permabit does compression and deduplication. And that's what we call it in the storage biz.

will be Open Source with Red Hat Patent Promise?

[tech-law-ny]

https://www.redhat.com/en/abou... says "Red Hat plans to open source Permabit's technology." This may mean that Red Hat's https://www.redhat.com/en/abou... Patent Promise will apply. Possibly Red Hat will announce whether they will hold all of the patents on the Permabit technology, or whether any third-party patents remain relevant.

Re:Fuck off Red Hat and take your systemd with you

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're not using Debian, Ubuntu, or SuSE either then, I gather?

What does that leave you with? Devuan? Mint? I don't really keep up with who is and who isn't using systemd.

In times of profound change
The learners inherit the Earth
And the learned find themselves beautifully
equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists
-- Al Rogers

or

In times of drastic change
it is the learners who inherit the future.
The learned usually find themselves equipped
to live in a world that no longer exists.
– Eric Hoffer

Re:Fuck off Red Hat and take your systemd with you

[KiloByte]

So you're not using Debian

No one keeps you from using a sane init (and the whole bunch of daemons that systemd craps over) on Debian. Just in case you'd wonder why Red Hat used to be the dominant distribution a decade ago but is not any more.