Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Sells RMS Linux
Chilli writes "I just stumbled over RMS Linux on RedHat's web site. It includes only free (as in freedom) software and at least $1 is donated to the FSF for every sold package. This is super cool, I think, and I probably have to buy one just because it is so cool. I think, this finally proves that - as far as this is possible for a company - RedHat cares about the community. (The URL is to RedHat's secure commerce server, I hope it manages the /. effect, but I didn't find another URL - so, this is maybe not really official yet, but what's on the Web, is on the Web.)"
trebly overloaded :)
/
RMS -> Root Mean Square (in electronics)
root->
mean-> mean to anyone not doing Free Software
square-> either mean*mean or geek, depending on your POV
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
- They can't include Qt 1.x because it's non-free.
- They can't include KDE stable because it won't run without Qt 1.x.
- There's no point in including Qt 2.x as few if any packages use it yet
Basicly, Qt 2 would be a waste of space until stable versions of KDE start using it.Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
Ahh, but with the RMS version, every time you type "Linux", a daemon corrects it to "GNU/Linux". A similar patch modifies incoming email.
:)
I would expect that the potential profit on that represents $3, and sending $1 of that to the FSF actually is reasonably generous.
The notion that they're changing anything that has been established for the last 30 years is pretty silly; there has been evolution of locations chosen to "put stuff" throughout the history of UNIX.
The usual criticisms of this come from the perspective that RHAT tends to use SysV-isms as opposed to BSD-isms.
And criticizing RHAT for not following HOWTOs that are not likely being maintained and which probably also don't match the other distributions seems to me to be a cheap shot. HOWTOs tended to be written for Slackware, and many are quite horribly out of date. Feel free to criticize the HOWTO Trainwreck; that would be an interesting Slashdot thread...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
You'd think that if they were going to boost their credentials with the letters RMS they might have done the guy a favour and called it
RMS GNU/Linux
But then that would dilute the (de facto)Linux brand, and confuse the customers. After all, Linux is the cool late 90's phenomenon, while GNU is long-haired 1970's programmers.
Linux brand = Nice young man who works for All-American pioneers Transmeta, and who is taking on big bad Bill. Cool new OS that is surfing the Internet wave to steal a march on NT. Neat word with an 'x' and the end.
GNU brand = Old guy with long hair who doesn't work for anybody and hangs around at some university. Some wierd programs with two and three letter names. Named his movement after a smelly animal from Africa.
I rather like the idea of these two things being combined. But image is everything......
-----
I know there are differences in the open/free software community, but what exactly is the *technical* difference? And what is the *philosophical* difference?
Good question. Warning: like everyone here, I'm biased, so I'm going to make a longer post which hopefully will be less offensive than a less thought-out post by me would be. Please pardon (and correct!) any offensive, incorrect statements or stereotypes. My bias is towards Open Source.
The technical difference is partly that the Free Software definition is more specific, and partly that the Free Software community has grown around the GPL (so Free Software projects tend to use the GPL).
The philoosophical difference is related -- the Free Software definition is much narrower partially because they're more idealistic (hence the more specific requirements for freedom) and partially because they're more pragmatic (hence the stronger restrictions in the most commonly used license, the GPL).
The Free Software movement practices the theory that freedom must be assured with law (GPL) as well as action.
The Open Source community, on the other hand, has at its core the theory that freedom cannot be assured by law in all cases, but must always be fought for in person.
As I mentioned, though, the Open Source definition is a lot less specific, so outside of the core of the Open Source community people often hold wildly varying theories. The only one universally accepted is that free/open source software development is more efficient than proprietary software development.
This particular belief is part of the friction between the Free Software and Open Source communities, with FS people posting violent diatribes against the pragmatism of OSS, and OSS people posting equally violent rebuttals claiming their love for freedom.
It's important to recognise that the heart of the OSS movement has the same goals as the Free Software movement.
And the good news -- as far as I can see, they're both winning.
-Billy
You miss the fact that the person asking had requested info on the difference between Free Software and Open Source Software.
_Both_ models have freedom at their heart. Neither one is right to attack the other by claiming otherwise.
So although your post is entirely right, it misses the point by failing to name the differences between the two camps.
-Billy
I guess this is the "good old red hat" version. Has only true GPL stuff in it. This is good cause I wouldn't buy a $80 version of RH.
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
FSF says "free as in freedom, not price" and clearly states that they wish to be paid. See:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.ht ml
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.ht ml
http://www.gnu.org/help/help.html#helpgnu
I'm frankly getting a bit tired of these posts that don't make any sense, just filled with a bunch of anti-corporate buzzwords, (and yet someone out there keeps moderating them up? Those same people will probably moderate this one way down. Fire away boys, I got karma to burn...)
You seem to be worried about Red Hat not "caring" about the Linux community. *smirk* Look, Bob Young, AFAIK, is still in charge of Red Hat, and he seems committed, no, he seems to "care" about the Linux community. His gang has put out a commercially successful Linux distro, while staying true to the ideals of the Free software and Open Source movements. He still calling the shots. So what makes you people worry that Red Hat doesn't care?
I mean, even if Red Hat *didn't* care, it's still in their interest to promote Linux and Free Software. If no one trusts or uses Free Software, no one is going to buy their product, and their stock holders will be pretty upset.
Look, Red Hat is one of the good guys! They have contributed to GNOME, KDE, XFree86, now the FSF and they release all their software as GPL. Can you say that about Suse? Caldera? (dare I say it...) Debian? (calm down, I'm only pointing out that they give out more money than Debian. Its a Good Thing, don't diss them for it!)
Now, Red Hat isn't a perfect distro, but the folks who blindly critisize it must have some sort of agendas, as I see it. Probably affiliated with a competitor (Suse, Caldera, Debian, MS...) Please don't listen to them (and for cripes sakes stop moderating them up!) If certain members of the Linux community keep tearing down any organization that is successful in promoting Linux and Free Software to a wider audience, then the push to "world domination" will surely fail.
Sure, but that still leaves the question why they didn't include Qt2.
Qt2 is under the QPL (see www.troll.no), which is a DFSG-free / Open Source license. Qt is best known for being the library upon which KDE is built, but it is a useful library for GUI development in and of itself.
No you can charge what you like for GPLed software as long as you don't put any restrictions on what the people you sell it to do with it (it other words you could sell a Linux CD for £10000 but then someone can just copy it and give it away).
This means that companies like cheapbytes realise that they can't charge very much for the software otherwise someone will just undercut them.
--
Ahh, but with the RMS version, every time you type "GNU/Linux", a daemon corrects it to "GNU/Linux". A similar patch modifies incoming email.
How in the world did you manage to stumble over RMS Linux? Yes, the direct URL worked, but I couldn't find a way to get there from starting at the main page.
Did I miss something?
I want all of the power and none of the responsibility.
Agreed, technically Open Source is the same as Free software when it comes to licenses (though I'm not sure about where the APSL fits in), and the DFSG is great for when you don't want to be so restrictive as GPL only.
:)
The freedom aspect is indeed very important, and Open Source downplays it. However, what bothers me most is what I see as (mainly) hypocracy in the Open Source movement. The two main arguments for the adoption of the term Open Source are:
(a) executives, marketroids, etc are all scared off by the term free software, and
(b) the term free software is ambigious (speech vs. beer).
I only have a problem with people trying to attract business when it compromises on morals, such as (a) does.
As for (b), well, as is pointed out in http://www.gnu.org/phi losophy/free-software-for-freedom.html, the term Open Source is worse because the obvious connotation (and let's face it, this is the one that counts, that Joe Public is going to directly or indirectly use) is that you can see the term, which is completely different from the actual meaning, which is the OSD, and quite similar to free software.
Hmmmm, I think I might hop off my soapbox now...
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
/* Rant on */
Man oh man. The more I read comments posted here the more I realize that some people just assume that no matter what Redhat does, it must be evil and wrong. Okay so yeah, they may not be the One True Free Software Champions(t)--they are a business! They have a commitment to be profitable for their shareholders.
We see a lot of so called reasons Redhat is evil, mostly summed up by:
1. They are a business
2. Their distro is more expensive
3. They might be the Microsoft of Linux
4. People think their distro is no good.
Sorry, but none of these are valid reasons to trample on Redhat. They have a history of releasing their work to the community that a number of people think is outweight by the fact they are successful.
But I'll tell you the real reason people like to slam Redhat:
*It is in style and undergroud!*
Suprised? Don't be. People like to slam Redhat becase it is a popular sentiment these days. It makes them feel good and a part of the One True Underground Linux Community(t). Blah.
Use the right distro for the right job people. And stop trying to be a part of the *cool underground*.
/* Rant off */
This sig is false.
Red Hat's only concern and obligation is to maximize stock value. If it does not maximize stock value it opens itself up to shareholder suits.
On the other hand, let's say that it pisses off and antagonizes the entire Free Software Community. What can they do about it? How can they prevent Red Hat from using their software without destroying the very Freedom they claim to espouse? It has no obligation to "do right" by the free software community because the free software community has no recourse if Red Hat screws them over. What is the FSF going to do, include a clause in the GPL saying, "Except for Red Hat, they are dirty cheating scum and they can't use our software no matter what"?
The Free Software Community would bitch and moan. How effective has their bitching and moaning been against Microsoft's business? Maybe a few negative stories would get published but then investors would realize that other than possibly bad PR from disgruntled socialists the Red Hat business model is exactly the same as the day they first threw money at them.
I fail to see how Red Hat has an obligation to the free software community. Perhaps you could elaborate?
It's apparent you're still confused. You said "the differences between Open Source and Free Software (as in GNU licensed according ot the Free Software movement)". I'm sorry, but "GPL" is not the definition of "Free". Software licensed under the BSD, MIT(X), Artistic, MPL, QPL, and many other licenses are also free. Sofware does not have to be under a GNU license in order to be free.
The FSF definition of Free Software, and the OSI definition of Open Source Software, ARE THE SAME! The OSI definition goes into more detail, but every example of Open Source Software is also Free Software, and vice versa.
Philosophically, RMS and the FSF see Free Software as a political freedom (aka free speech), whereas the Open Source Initiative concentrates on the practical and pragmatic. Saying that Open Source is wrong is stupid. It's like saying any newspaper that doesn't have "free" in its name is ignoring freedom of the press.
Of course, many people see the "Free" (or "Libre") of "Free Software" as referring to something other than a political liberty. They see the "freedoms" issued by a license as synonymous with "permissions." The deeper issues that RMS refers to aren't emphasized because, when one goes searching for them with an unfettered mind, they simply don't exist.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Redhat has always hated KDE. Their actions speak for themselves. First they declared KDE "illegal" (Matt Welsh's word, not mine). Then they fund, promote and actively support KDE's competitor, but do not give one penny to Harmony. Then when the market expresses its dislike of the non-KDE policy by switching to Mandrake or SuSE, they finally include KDE. But this KDE is broken, and the distro still requires the use of Gnome. And they still have the whitepaper declaring KDE illegal up on their site! (they finally removed it after dozens of emails pointed out their hypocracy. Perhaps the Gnome FAQ should remove their link to it as well :-)) Finally, still wanting to cater to the rabid anti-KDE crowd, they issue a new release that specifically mentions the lack of KDE in its advertisements. But Redhat must still believe in choice, because we now have a choice between a KDE-free distro for $25 and a distro with KDE included for $80.
Not only does Redhat want to be the market leader, apparently they also want to be the moral arbiters of the Linux community. Bob Young says he wants to be the "Heinz" of the Linux world. Sorry, Bob. I prefer "Hunts".
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
If this distro were pure GPL only, it would be unusable! Do you even know what the GPL is? Take out all non-GPL programs. You have no X!!! Which means no Gnome!!! No Mozilla, Apache, etc. Take out impure forms of the GPL and you have no Perl (double licensed), or even the Linux kernel (expceptions)!
This is not a showcase of GPL-only stuff. It is merely the showcase of Redhat's panderings to the vocal GNU minority.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I'll ignore the fact that RMS (Richard, not Redhat) considers the QPL to be free, and concentrate one a misreading of the QPL. The license says in effect, "if you use our open source library, your application must also be open source." This clause prohibits closed "public" beta testing, ala Corel.
Looking at the first paragraph of section 6, subsection c only applies to applications that are "distributed". This clause merely guarantees that all modifications can be returned to the initial developers.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
These are your opinions only. You are free, of course, to consider people who disagree with your diatriabes to be ignorant buffoons with no concept of the truth. However, I am also free to think the same of you, particularly when you say that even RMS doesn't understand what Free Software is.
You may find that the QPL doesn't meet your needs of utility, but it is every bit as free as the GPL. Of course the QPL has restrictions on the how you can modify the source code. So does the GPL! If you don't believe in intellectual property, then the software that you possess is yours and yours alone, and neither Richard Stallman nor Erik Eng have anything to say about what you do with it. If there is no IP, then violate the GPL to your hearts content!
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
If Open Source Software is almost, but not quite, the same as Free Software, then what exactly is the objective difference? Notice I said "objective" and not "subjective". I already understand that Free Software is morally superior to Open Source, but is there any difference for a FSF-agnostic?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
The obvious connotation of "Open Source" is that the source code is open! This may not be a 100% accurate connotation, but accurate enough compared to the obvious connotation that "Free Software" is gratis!
But I have serious problems with the following statement. Perhaps you merely worded it incorrectly.
"I only have a problem with people trying to attract business when it compromises on morals, such as (a) does."
Any code of moral behavior that one ascribes to is a religion (or at least religious like). You might not call it a religion, but that does not change the fact. To insist that one ascribe to certain FSF philosphies in order to be moral is to elevate the FSF to the status of a religion. I'm sorry, I cannot and will not do this.
When I use the term "Open Source" I am compromising nothing. To suggest that I am immoral in doing so is extremely offensive.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
But I can indeed mix QPL and "truely free" software! I can mix BSD and QPL, X and QPL, Artistic and QPL. It gets problematic when I try to mix it with an exclusive license like GPL, but that's only because the GPL is incompatible with anything other than itself. But this can still be done! Just take a look at KDE(GPL) and QT(QPL).
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I'm going to do just that. When my next paycheck comes through the door next week, I'll ask the FSF to get $29,95 from my credit card.
Apologies in advance, as this HAS been done to death already, BUT:
;)
Could someone please explain in simple terms why QT is not seen as 'free'? (as in speech)
Didn't it get the seal of approval a while back, with the new QT2.0 licence?
Now, a cynical type might believe that RedHat not including KDE and QT is not *entirely* ideologically based...
Paul
Qt 2.x would NOT be a waste of space. It's an extremely simple-to-use toolkit, which has tons of widgets and *excellent* documentation.
;)
(This could easily spark off YAFW - yet another flame war - so i'll stop here
debian is free of course, but the latest stable version is quite old ... if you use the unstable one you end up in a destroyed packaging system, should i reinstall now?
...
i liked debian a lot, but has to keep pace with the commercial world, so a striped down redhat may sound interesting
The GPL is primarly concerned with free as in freedom not price, but it does refer to the latter also, as they can have a knock on effect.
The GPL does allow you to charge for the distribution of the program ("You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.") That is, I can legally sell any GPL program for $100,000. (Getting someone to buy it is another matter, and in any case, they can redistrubute it for free themselves)
What you may be thinking of is the charge for the distribution of the source. On distribution of the source, the GPL states you must offer "for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code".
The GPL is extremely well thought out, that it included this. Consider a situation of the GPL without this clause: Company takes GPL program. Company modified program. Company sells program. You ask for source. Company says, that costs $100,000,000. Without this explicit mention of cost, it would be possible to "close-source" GPL products in this way. You may be legally allowed to change/distribute the source, but if you can't access the source in the first place, you're toast.
--
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
I agree. For all the complaining /.er here. If you havn't donate >=29.95 to FSF, SHUT UP and stop being a smartipants. Everyone can count and know how much RedHat is getting. We don't need you to remind us.
If nothing else, this is still the coolest commercial linux distribution package. It's cooler than OpenLinux, cooler than SuSE, miles cooler then Corel and that "Deluxe Linux 6.0" from the QUE® and Sams, (whose distributor's name is very small and hidden behide a blue hat) Okay, tell me a cooler commercial package, with the exception of that VA linux/Debian package.
It's time to give pressure to the vendors to label a hugh $1, $2 sign on the box that declear the donation amount.
CY
I must say that this post is self-contradictory. It basically says, since Red Hat is now a publicly traded company, that it has necessarily become weasely and will milk the Linux community for everything it's worth. The post then suggests that RHAT's only concern -- no, it's obligation -- is maximizing stock value, and so if you trust RH to do good deeds, you're simply a sucker.
I would say that quite the opposite is true. Because Red Hat has an obligation to its shareholders, it has an obligation to preserve and continually improve its relationship with the Linux and free-software communities. Red Hat has an obligation to genuinely contribute and genuinely do good works. Don't forget that most of RHAT's stock value derives from what the investment community considers a unique business model, one founded on free software and on a genuine partnership with the free software community.
If Red Hat were to start hosing down the free software community with a stream of weasily tactics, it would poison the genuine partnership and in doing so irreparably damage one of the foundations of its business model. It wouldn't take too long for the investment community to figure out that Red Hat considered its own business model to be a lie, and investors would drop the stock like a white-hot anvil.
Hence, Red Hat is obligated to do right by the Linux and free software communities.
Some of Red Hat's new hires, being brought in from the outside world, might overlook this important fact. And so, some Dumb Things will happen. This RMS distro might be one of them, but I don't think so. I think that the RMS distro was intended to be a good thing, and that some members of the Linux community have been overly harsh in their criticism of Red Hat.
In summary,
Cheers,
Tom
Easy, automatic testing for Perl.
More bluntly:
Get it? If investors wanted to buy into a company whose business model was based on bullying and weaselry, they would have bought MSFT. RHAT investors, on the other hand, expect Red Hat to be a good member of the communities because without those communities (and their respect), RHAT's business model won't fly. (Read Red Hat's pre-IPO SEC filing to see how dependent they are on the free-software commnunities.)
Cheers,
Tom
Easy, automatic testing for Perl.
One good step to avoid corporate anthropomorphism would be to remove their status as individuals with rights under the law. I think this encourages the anthropomorphic tendency.
What you say about RedHat's obligation to shareholders is true, but it needs to be tempered a little. If you read their SEC filing you'll see that they know they depend on the goodwill of the free development community for their very existence. Thus a move that makes economic sense in the short term, but pisses off developers, is not really in the shareholder's interest. Likewise acts of goodwill could actually improve their position in the longer term, even if it makes for a short term loss. How else could Microsoft have justified giving away IE to it's shareholders? Anyone with a share of stock want to try suing Microsoft over this? In the long term it wasn't so stupid, was it?
BTW, I think this legal pressure for short term gain is very harmful. Corporations make products that frequently have hidden costs. For example cars entail a high rate of accidents, expensive road maintenance, and environmental degradation. These must be paid by society, but they don't show up on the balance sheet of the corporation. Naturally, there is a tendency by corporations to do their accounting in such a way that maximizes how good the balance sheet looks, and as a result products actually become *more expensive* to society as a whole in the interests of making the corporation look more profitable to it's shareholders.
We don't need to force corporations to act in the public interest, but it would be very nice if we could give them an exception under the shareholder laws that made moves in the general public interest defensible.
I know there are differences in the open/free software community, but what exactly is the *technical* difference? And what is the *philosophical* difference?
.plan file vs. Steve Job's speeches for an example).
For instance, id software is technically not open, but philosophically, they are extremely friendly to programmers and developers. OTOH, the open source ppl have supported Apple and other biz leaders, who don't give a shit philosophically about the programming community. (read John Carmack's
Since there seems to be a splintering of opinions on this - what exactly are the technical & philosophical differences among the various factions of the free/open source software community?
Another question - if there were a company (like id) which is extremely friendly to programmers and tries its best to release source code, yet keeps its latest product proprietary for business reasons, would that win your support? What about the opposite - an open source co. which is unfriendly to developers?
(By way of background - id released the DOOM source code, and Carmack has said he was developing quake II for multiple platforms for the sheer joy of programming. He said something like - There may be only 10 people playing it using linux on SPARC, but we still want to do it because it's good programming. I was REALLY impressed by that statement. id's software is never open/free for the latest release, and they try to open it after some years, when it's obsolete in terms of market value. However, nobody doubts that they are the programmer's programming company.)
The donation to FSF is an extra bonus from most people's point of view I imagine. They're also getting the software (and support).
Its probably also seen as a form of proof that Red Hat are serious about open source. Although I must say that seemed fairly obvious anyway.
Redhat donating to the FSF, isn't that sort of like saying that microsoft donates money to it's software developers?
MS press release:
"Bill Gates anounced today that from now on we'll not only be paying our consumer support staff, salespeople and marketing department. We'll also be donating $1,- to our programmers' pension fund for each copy of windows sold."
As long as no one can answer those questions I think its totally unfair to make comparisons the way you do. You are comparing a product which you know (cd at cheapbytes) with something you don't.
Oh; 2nd detail; $1 to FSF should be at least one dollar. $6 for making the cd's. How much for shipping? I live in Europe and would also like a copy...
IMHO a lot of people seem to keep forgetting that RedHat is a company and as such they have 1 major goal which is to make money. And if you can make that money but are still making sure others can also profit, which makes them different from Microsoft I might add, I think it is a very positive move indeed.
I get this eery feeling that a lot of people think this idea is bad simply because its RedHat who's doing it. IMVHO offcourse.
Now I, and I presume others, wouldn't mind having a similar check-off box on my RedHat online purchase order form. It would be an easy way for me to slip a few extra dollars to the Cause, without antagonizing my wife too much:)
Of course, I could be wrong .. I might be the only one interested in this. Am I?
If it's good for the community if one company does it, isn't it better for the community if all the companies do it?
I propose that if you're making money selling FSF software, if it makes you do a little dance when you look at your bank statement, then you should be giving some back.
I also think that if you're making a lot of $$$ because you have highly trained, skilled employees, you should make a donation to a local school.
Helping those that are helping you is likely to provide tangible rewards in the future. Might make you feel good, too.
if you wanna help fsf buy their books, those are at least as good as oreilly ones i just ordered my second book from fsf.... http://www.fsf.org/order/order-europe.html
Let me get this straight: $1 to FSF, maybe $6 for making the CD's... That's leave 22.95 for Red Hat. I think that's a bit of a price gouge. but I don't think a software that is largely based on GPL or Free Distribution (Netscape for example) should be sold for as much as $70 when all they do is press some CD's and copy the Linux Doc website and call it a book.
I think what Red Hat has done for Linux is a good thing, but I am very aware and concerned about the tendency for Red Hat distributions to no longer comply with the File Hierarchy that has been established for the last ~30 years. If you don't believe me - take the Linux HOWTO's and start comparing them to the Red Hat 6.0 installation - things are moving around on us.
This will eventually mean that unless you are very good at Linux you cannot install anything that does not come packaged from RedHat. I don't like that implication, free software or not, it's no longer free.
They can come up with all the cool marketing schemes they want to, but I am not going to get any software that claims to support the FSF (and back it with money) and then put a spin on their software installations such that I cannot install anything someone elses binary packages and have it come close to working - and only because they libraries and files are not where they traditionally are supposed to be.
At this rate RedHat will start looking like RedMond
Legal? Yes, absolutely. I wouldn't argue with that a bit, and I'm sure there's some legal bits requiring that officers maximize stock value at all costs.
Moral? *rofl* Nonsense! This silly notion has justified so many repugnant outrages, from the Nestle baby formula, to the same jerky behavior that routinely gets Apple raked over the coals on Slashdot, to most things Microsoft has ever done worth being outraged about. There are no moral rules written into corporate law. If you think that working for a corporation automatically gives you the obligation to ignore your own morality and that of the world at large, and extort, abuse, lie, and harm in the name of being good to the corporation, then please don't ever work for a corporation, OK?
- That's not very much caring
- If RHAT expects to get some goodwill from the community for that $1, then a $1 contribution does not forcibly represent that they care about the FSF; it merely represents that they care to get some goodwill.
There's also some "flip side" considerations:Although if there turn out to be $30 RMS Linux boxes on store shelves, this probably means that RHAT is contributing about 10% of their revenues, which suggests that the small percentage is more meaningful than the 3.3% figure would imply.
In other words, $1 may be all that it's safe to contribute on a $30 "product."
It strikes me as a good thing that after the "product line redesign" of the last six months, they have chosen to redeploy the "FSF contribution" in a way that makes it more obvious that it is such.
Money isn't the most valuable thing that one can contribute to free software; the most valuable thing is in fact free software.
And the RHAT sponsorship of GNOME development as well as XFree86 (via Precision Insight) thus represents substantial contributions of software.
I'm quite certain that RHAT spent considerably more money last year on developers producing free software than the (publicly available, if you ask them) amount the FSF spent on "program expenses" (that is the category where "transforming money into software" lies).
The long and short of this all is that:
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Software product as defined by the FSF, this four CD set does not contain Netscape, Qt, KDE, and several additional non-open-source packages which are available in other Linux products.
Interesting implication there, eh? Qt and KDE aren't Open Source, says the article.
Based on the amount I've been coding with the excellent open source Libnet library as of late, having a library I can work with and perhaps release updated features for is critical to my personal experience of open source code. Since, as far as I can tell, there's a very strong "look, maybe even touch, but don't share in a convenient manner" aspect to the QPL, for the way I've been using Open Source Products, I probably have to agree with Redhat on this one.
Your Mileage May Vary, of course.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
No. Read it properly - it says they're not free. There's a difference between free and open-source (at least in connotation, despite what ESR says), and you appear to have missed that distinction. As http://www.gnu.org/phi losophy/free-software-for-freedom.html says,
``Open source software'' describes a category of software licenses, almost but not quite the same as ``free software.''
Qt 1.x is not free (Qt 2.x is, AFAIK). It may be open source, but it is not truly free. AFAIK, KDE is, but as has already pointed out, it's useless without Qt and Qt 2.x won't do.
The goal of RMS Linux is like Debian, to be a 100% free distro, not open source. If you want open source, just go for the regular Redhat.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
What am I missing? Why not just donate to the FSF directly? Using RH as a middle-man seems a pretty round-about way of giving support..
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Isn't debian already 100% Free? I know for a fact that if you buy debian money goes to the FSF. It's cool that RedHat is doing this, but I kind of wonder what the point is since there already is a distro that does this.
From Red Hat:
>To qualify as an exclusively Free Software
>product as defined by the FSF, this four CD set >does not contain Netscape, Qt, KDE, and several
>additional non-open-source packages which are >available in other Linux products.
Note that Red Hat here does NOT distinguish Qt 1.x (old license) from Qt 2.x. Qt 2.x IS "free" according to FSF guidelines (and RMS himself) and should have been included. By being unclear and fuzzy on this issue, Red Hat is playing the usual politics of division, something I thought they had grown out of. Qt 2.x as a toolkit is independent of KDE and can be used outside of that context (just as Gtk is independent of GNOME and even of the GIMP). Red Hat knows this quite well; leaving it out is clearly an attempt to discourage the use of this particular "free software" in any context.
Some have said that this is a "hackers" distribution. Well in that case, then those interested in hacking KDE 2.0 (which uses the FSF-free Qt) could have benefitted from the inclusion of both the latest KDE sources as well as Qt! Or Red Hat could have included the sources of the present KDE official version (also DSFG-free) so that hackers could work on compiling it with Qt 2.0. Doing so would have gone some way in showing that this is not merely an anti-Qt/KDE distribution.
Note that Red Hat did not call this a "GPL-only" distribution. So one cannot claim that since Qt 2.x is non-GPL that this is the reason it was not included. This is clearly a pathetic attempt to throw a bone to all the KDE haters out there. Those who do not like KDE should also see this and not let their sentiments be played with so casually. Red Hat would have been more honest to simply call this thing a "non-KDE, non-Qt distribution" instead of falsely and shamelessly hiding behind the DFSG and RMS (who himself agrees that Qt 2.x is free!).
I used to be a big Red Hat fan. With each childish stunt like this, my opinion of them is being continuously revised downward. I hope that KDE lovers, haters, as well as neutral parties will all see through this divisive political stunt.
RMS Linux costs $29.95 and FSF will be paid at least $1. (Of course, this prevents us from interpreting it as exactly $1.)
We are supposed to buy this as it is "cool" and gets FSF a dollar! Works to 3.3% of the proceeds... tell you what, buy linux at $2/$3 from cheapbytes and donate $27 to FSF. This will show that *we* care for FSF.
RMS -- it used to mean Richard M. Stallman... over time, marketing and morphing will ensure that RMS stands for Red hat Means Source! To deprieve a man of his name is not cool, it is cruel.
Yes, very cynical indeed... but very true, unfortunately. While I also believe that there are people at RedHat who believe in what they're doing, they are in many selling linux down the river. It is extremely difficult to maintain your integrity while selling it (your integrity, that is).
For too many newcomers to linux, RedHat == Linux. Is this a good thing? Well, no. But, perhaps more importantly, is this a bad thing? Well, not necessarily. But maybe.
A year ago, we were saying that everything and anything that puts the name Linux out there into the popular media and "technical" press is a Good Thing -- there's no such thing as bad publicity. But, as one poster mentioned, RedHat is rapidly becoming the Microsoft of Linux -- in the sense of being the most well-known and arguably the most popular (meaning RedHat is the version that non-technical people know and are most familiar with). An example: I was talking with a tech support guy who worked at one of the major universities here in Boston (ahem, Harvard, ahem), and he mentioned that they were starting to use Linux on some of their servers. Great, I said; which distribution? He looked at me as if I had asked him the stupidest question in the world, and said "6.0, of course."
To sum up -- while RedHat has done a great job of positioning Linux as a "corporate" solution, they have done it by becoming a Corporation themselves. And, as the previous poster wrote, as a corporation, they have more to worry about now -- shareholders, stock prices, turning a profit, and positioning themselves as a viable company. To assume that these guys can still maintain the kind of commitment to the Linux community, the FSF, and individual programmers/Linux users like me is perhaps a little naive. This is not your father's RedHat.
darren
(darren)
Just goes to show what a treacherous business selling distributions can be.
Heh, RMS probably will not like his namesake distribution because it's not being presented as GNU/Linux.
This is your change I'd say; proof RedHat wrong and put your money where your mouth is.
If you won't; fine. But then I would suggest you'd better shut up about the amount of money at all since you are then very busy proving that the idea of buying cheap & donating heavily does not work and that you're simply bashing.
I'd expect major donations to FSF after reading all the comments but I would not wager my money for it. Unfortunatly I might add.
I have seen in several postings here some confusion about the differences between Open Source and Free Software (as in GNU licensed according ot the Free Software movement).
r eedom.html for
:-)
I too mixed these two definitions up in an article I wrote a while back about GIFs. However I got a mail from RMS who put me straight about which is which. I'll leave the general population to argue about which is best etc, but here's a snippet from the mail I received from RMS:
------------------------
The Open Source movement is a different group, started in 1998. We and they do similar activites, but we do them for completely different philosophical reasons. The Open Source movement aims to get support from business, by mentioning only practical advantages, and never talking about deeper issues. The Free Software movement says that freedom and community are important in themselves.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-f
more explanation.
-----------------------------
Seems like a bit of a "Bite Me!" comment to me, but it explains why QT, Netscape et al are not included in this Free Software version of Red Hat.
Hope it helps clear up some confusion.
(and RMS - if you are reading this, does this atone for my earlier confusion?
A little planning goes a long way...
at least $1 is donated to the FSF for every sold package.
When you're examining the apportioning of the pie, look at how much the other parties are getting as well as how much the FSF is getting. I think you'll find that $1 is not that big of a share.
This is super cool, I think, and I probably have to buy one just because it is so cool.
Sorry to sound cynical, but this just means you've been suckered by their publicity ploy.
I think, this finally proves that - as far as this is possible for a company - RedHat cares about the community.
People need to realize that Red Hat is now a PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANY. This means all of the normal PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANY APPURTENANCES, such as a Board of Directors, SEC filings, PR departments, marketing consultants, branding consultants, market research managers and liasons, and many, many other gears of the corporate machine. It is now a very naive belief to feel that Red Hat, as a corporation, "cares" about anything or anyone other than the value of their stock. In fact, it is now the legal and moral obligation of all officers of Red Hat to do everything in their power to maximize that value.
It is truly a mistake in perception to attribute human behavioural characteristics such as "caring" to a corporate machine. A group of people in an organization with a purpose will behave differently than any individual. My favorite example of this is two forces of civil war soldiers charging each other. No sane individual would contemplate running at a group of armed enemy soldiers who are hell bent on shooting you. But as a group, you are under an extremely complex set of psychological motives, manipulations, and pressures, and it is historical fact many soldiers died in exactly such circumstances.
Now, there may very well be INDIVIDUALS at Red Hat who "care about the community." I believe this is true. But rest assured that every action taken by the CORPORATION is carefully weighed and executed based on its short and long run potential impact on that all-powerful share price, and you should keep this in mind as you evaluate a company's behaviour. Remember that shareholders are more than ready to BRING SUIT against officers of a public company who engage in actions motivated by objectives other than that share price that seem to hurt the company.
Judging by the reactions here, it was a good move for Red Hat though.
You were warned. ^_^
Crusade against lame software! votezone.com