The interesting question is then if it's acceptable that Red Hat takes free software, packages it into binary packages and then restricts the distribution of the binary packages. For most licenses that's probably OK, but at least with GPL-style licenses that may or may not be true. I'm sure they have lawyers that have already looked at this and determined that they can, but in that case I would say that this is probably a flaw in the GPL. You may run into trademark issues with modified binaries, but unmodified binaries are of course unmodified so that may not necessarily be the case.
The strongest case Ubuntu has in my opinion is to state that the Ubuntu repositories in their binary form are only available to Carnonical authorized distibutions. The servers are theirs and they can dictate any terms of service they wish. Carnonical/Ubuntu still has to provide source per the GPL but not free binaries and bandwidth.
That's not at all how Ubuntu is distributed. Canonical maintains a handful of servers but the vast majority is handled by universities and companies around the world that donates storage in their FTP pools to Ubuntu.
I don't know if you can replace the native display server, but you can get somewhat closer to what you want by installing XQuartz and running it in full-screen mode.
One of the areas where the licensing of gcc have been very successful is within embedded hardware. Gcc has gained a high reputation within this field which has lead to adoption by several vendors of embedded systems. These firms are not known for their generosity or cooperability, so without the GPL it is unlikely that the changes they needed had been contributed back upstream. This is of course only speculation, but I would say that the GPL has overall been advantages to gcc.
They compensate by charging a lot for them. A Sparc server usually goes for about 10x the price for the equivalent x86 server. I guess some people really want it.
What they're doing wrong is that they're suing somebody for doing EXACTLY what they do with their rebranded Red Hat distro.
Except that Oracle downloads the publicly available source files from Red Hat and rebuilds them. This is not the case here. Oracle does not provide source code for their patches, only the binaries.
Yes, Red Hat is FOSS so it's fair game whereas the proprietary Oracle stuff is not
So it's not exactly the same then.
but that doesn't make it any less hypocritical or Oracle any less vile.
It sounds like all Oracle is doing is following the license.
Because that's how Oracle makes money. Solaris itself is a free download, but that's only for the install media. The patches is what they charge for. If they would have to give away the patches for free then that would mean a big loss for them.
It does not affect Illumos since it is based on the open source release of Solaris. The article is about a company redistributing the binary patches to Solaris provided by Oracle.
According to the article this "support minion" basically just distributed Oracle's binary patches which you usually need a support contract in order to download from Oracle's web site. They didn't actually do anything of their own.
But it's not about patents. It's about copyright. Oracle provides binaries to their support contract customers. That doesn't mean that the customers are entitled to redistribute those binaries.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the fact that it's illegal is a bit of an obstacle.
Not sure about the exact fraction, but as far as I know most of Android is under the Apache license which is not copyleft.
The interesting question is then if it's acceptable that Red Hat takes free software, packages it into binary packages and then restricts the distribution of the binary packages. For most licenses that's probably OK, but at least with GPL-style licenses that may or may not be true. I'm sure they have lawyers that have already looked at this and determined that they can, but in that case I would say that this is probably a flaw in the GPL. You may run into trademark issues with modified binaries, but unmodified binaries are of course unmodified so that may not necessarily be the case.
The strongest case Ubuntu has in my opinion is to state that the Ubuntu repositories in their binary form are only available to Carnonical authorized distibutions. The servers are theirs and they can dictate any terms of service they wish. Carnonical/Ubuntu still has to provide source per the GPL but not free binaries and bandwidth.
That's not at all how Ubuntu is distributed. Canonical maintains a handful of servers but the vast majority is handled by universities and companies around the world that donates storage in their FTP pools to Ubuntu.
Really? Wikipedia says otherwise.
The operating system is open. The apps you use and is dependent on is not. Smart move there Google.
I don't know if you can replace the native display server, but you can get somewhat closer to what you want by installing XQuartz and running it in full-screen mode.
One of the areas where the licensing of gcc have been very successful is within embedded hardware. Gcc has gained a high reputation within this field which has lead to adoption by several vendors of embedded systems. These firms are not known for their generosity or cooperability, so without the GPL it is unlikely that the changes they needed had been contributed back upstream. This is of course only speculation, but I would say that the GPL has overall been advantages to gcc.
Well, just getting both camps into the same room from time to time would be an improvement.
The question is who is running the fundraising. It's Wikipedia US that runs the fundraising, all the Finns did was translate the message.
Not everyone here hate paywalls. But those who do will be much more vocal than those who don't.
Which is the only thing a company should do.
No. Not really. That's just the lower bound.
I don't know how much you know about software development but how do you think that file ended up existing in the first place?
Their support contracts.
That was my point exactly.
They compensate by charging a lot for them. A Sparc server usually goes for about 10x the price for the equivalent x86 server. I guess some people really want it.
How is it misbehaving to stop another company from redistributing your proprietary binary blobs that you have copyright to?
Not at all. The reason why customers are not fleeing to other vendors is that Oracle actually does a good job.
What they're doing wrong is that they're suing somebody for doing EXACTLY what they do with their rebranded Red Hat distro.
Except that Oracle downloads the publicly available source files from Red Hat and rebuilds them.
This is not the case here. Oracle does not provide source code for their patches, only the binaries.
Yes, Red Hat is FOSS so it's fair game whereas the proprietary Oracle stuff is not
So it's not exactly the same then.
but that doesn't make it any less hypocritical or Oracle any less vile.
It sounds like all Oracle is doing is following the license.
Because that's how Oracle makes money. Solaris itself is a free download, but that's only for the install media. The patches is what they charge for. If they would have to give away the patches for free then that would mean a big loss for them.
I don't think this includes software, or Microsoft will face some legal battles in Europe after April 8.
It does not affect Illumos since it is based on the open source release of Solaris. The article is about a company redistributing the binary patches to Solaris provided by Oracle.
According to the article this "support minion" basically just distributed Oracle's binary patches which you usually need a support contract in order to download from Oracle's web site. They didn't actually do anything of their own.
But it's not about patents. It's about copyright. Oracle provides binaries to their support contract customers. That doesn't mean that the customers are entitled to redistribute those binaries.