Re:What, no editorial?
on
Red Hat Recap
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The bitter truth, though is that the title of the second document makes it appear to be the services agreement, but it is in fact nothing more than an addendum to the EULA. From that document:
"BY USING OR PURCHASING RED HAT LINUX ADVANCED SERVER OR SERVICES, CUSTOMER SIGNIFIES ITS ASSENT TO THIS AGREEMENT." (emphasis added)
The second document is not, by any reading, just a service agreement. In it, the user of RHAL software agrees to be subject to audit and monetary penalties for violation of the agreement even in the absence of a services contract.
If you use RHEL, you've agreed to both documents.
Re:What, no editorial?
on
Red Hat Recap
·
· Score: 1
Re:What, no editorial?
on
Red Hat Recap
·
· Score: 1, Informative
That is not accurate. They also place restrictions on what you can do with the GPL'd software. For one, they disallow you to install one copy on multiple machines. Rather, you must pay for five copies if you intend to run five copies. This is independent from the service agreement.
Read the EULA. It's all there.
Re:What, no editorial?
on
Red Hat Recap
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
But no, they are not. The GPL expressly prohibits their ability to place additional restrictions on the software. They do not seem deterred by this, however.
Read the EULA. Read the license. Tell me how they don't violate the GPL.
What, no editorial?
on
Red Hat Recap
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I'm disappointed in michael. I would have expected more invective. When I pointed
this out last June he took the opportunity to taint the article with
inflammatory and inaccurate editorial making it sound like I didn't know what I
was talking about. Now I guess I've been vindicated by Forbes and the article
gets no such coloring from the slashdot editors.
How can we accept Red Hat's per-seat pricing and overbearing EULAs that allow them to audit user sites for
license compliance? Why does Red Hat get a free pass from the community and from the FSF for constricting
our freedom as badly as Microsoft ever has?
Rick Carey speaks the truth. Red Hat is no more a "Free" choice than Microsoft is.
Were you running dnetc on the laptop?
We've recovered a few pieces of stolen computer equipment over the years when the theives plugged the boxes back in to the net and the installed client
software sent back completed work.
Sorry to hear about the theft. I can only imagine how awful it feels.
It's hardly a strawman. It's a direct response to the original poster's statement: "Just use the GPL, if you think it's to protective, use the lesser, that is why it's there."
As to the rest, I've responded to your points elsewhere in this thread.
The discussion right here on the page you are reading clearly demonstrates that in the minds of many people XFree86 should not have this freedom. I see more people who are distressed because XFree has chosen a license which is not the GPL than I see people who are distressed over the actual terms of the Xfree86 license. It seems that that choosing a non-GPL license is an untenable and damnable offense in the eyes of some who are now calling for the prejudicial abandonment of XFree86 for strictly dogmatic reasons.
It's one thing to not accept a license because headstands are uncomfortable. It's an entirely different and worse thing to denounce a developer for choosing a license that isn't the one you favor. I see far more of the latter going on here than I see the former.
Finally, The GPL does demand more than your vague perception of it appears to encompass. However, that's not really relevant to my point.
The GPL is much more encumbered than the XFree license. Who are you to say which emcumberments should be allowed and which are "stupid"?
Either you believe that programmers should be free to license their code as they see fit, or you don't. It's not Freedom if the community is going to deny the legitimacy of licenses that RMS didn't write.
This is, in effect, nothing more than saying "Everyone can get along just great if only you people would just agree with me."
RMS designed the GPL to be hard to work with. It seems a bit myopic to now act all surprised that it is working as designed and to try to blame everyone else for its inflexible nature.
That the GPL can't coexist with other licenses was a design goal of the GPL. It's unreasonable to be upset with deverlopers using other licenses for this fact which is beyond their control.
I also disagree, but with the other point. "listening to music" is vague and could mean many things. If you've only got a couple hundred songs and you just listen to them all then perhaps there's little meaningful distinction between players.
Put 5000 songs into a player, with good ID3 tags/metadata, and all of a sudden the user interface becomes much more critical. How quickly can you navigate to a particular track or a particular album that you are in the mood to listen to. How easy is it to set up playlists so that you can listen to songs appropriate to your mood?
I had an Archos player before my iPod and it failed miserably in this regard. For any sort of listening beyond simply "hear music" it was frustrating and obtuse to operate. The iPod's interface is phenominal and allows the user to quickly navigate to specific tracks, albums, artists, genres, or playlists with ease.
If you don't care what you're listening to, just buy a radio. If you care what you're hearing, buy the player that is usable.
The industry is not "self-destructing". It's being ruined by the pirates who want everything for nothing and care not for the consequences of their selfishness.
Re:Less support for WMA the better
on
No WMA for HP iPod
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
How is the key DRM when DRM has nothing to do with the example we're discussing? There's no DRM on WMA files produced from your own CDs. Try reading the posts instead of just injecting your knee-jerk reaction based on one or two keywords.
The guy we're disucssing, the windows user who ripped all his CDs to WMA, just has a pile of files which sound better than they would have had he chosen MP3.
Earthlink does block port 25 outbound for dialup. I use earthlink dialup when I travel and I've had to set up a mail server on an alternate port for exactly this reason.
Reasonable on dialup, if you ask me, but I'm glad to see they don't hamper broadband in the same manner.
Such errors are pardon parcel with people who learn the language through speech and not through reading. I could of made that same mistake had I not encountered the phrase in print before hearing it. Sadly, people who don't read just can't cut the muster. I'd just assume watch a movie instead of read a book.
Yes, this is absolutely true. GIMP was around when d.net started and they're still going strong today. There was also Rocke Verser's DESCHALL group which had a head start on distributed.net by a couple months, but they shut down when they completed the RSA Labs DES challenge.
Seti came well over a year later.
For d.net, at least, our first assigned block was in early March 1997.
Slashdot Mirror
"BY USING OR PURCHASING RED HAT LINUX ADVANCED SERVER OR SERVICES, CUSTOMER SIGNIFIES ITS ASSENT TO THIS AGREEMENT." (emphasis added)
The second document is not, by any reading, just a service agreement. In it, the user of RHAL software agrees to be subject to audit and monetary penalties for violation of the agreement even in the absence of a services contract.
If you use RHEL, you've agreed to both documents.
I did exactly that in June, and it's linked in the post at the top of this thread. Here it is again: http://www.livejournal.com/users/nugget/42813.html
That is not accurate. They also place restrictions on what you can do with the GPL'd software. For one, they disallow you to install one copy on multiple machines. Rather, you must pay for five copies if you intend to run five copies. This is independent from the service agreement.
Read the EULA. It's all there.
But no, they are not. The GPL expressly prohibits their ability to place additional restrictions on the software. They do not seem deterred by this, however.
Read the EULA. Read the license. Tell me how they don't violate the GPL.
How can we accept Red Hat's per-seat pricing and overbearing EULAs that allow them to audit user sites for license compliance? Why does Red Hat get a free pass from the community and from the FSF for constricting our freedom as badly as Microsoft ever has?
Rick Carey speaks the truth. Red Hat is no more a "Free" choice than Microsoft is.
Sorry to hear about the theft. I can only imagine how awful it feels.
We were talking about you, not me.
Congratulations. You've just invented Freenet.
As to the rest, I've responded to your points elsewhere in this thread.
The discussion right here on the page you are reading clearly demonstrates that in the minds of many people XFree86 should not have this freedom. I see more people who are distressed because XFree has chosen a license which is not the GPL than I see people who are distressed over the actual terms of the Xfree86 license. It seems that that choosing a non-GPL license is an untenable and damnable offense in the eyes of some who are now calling for the prejudicial abandonment of XFree86 for strictly dogmatic reasons.
It's one thing to not accept a license because headstands are uncomfortable. It's an entirely different and worse thing to denounce a developer for choosing a license that isn't the one you favor. I see far more of the latter going on here than I see the former.
Finally, The GPL does demand more than your vague perception of it appears to encompass. However, that's not really relevant to my point.
The GPL is much more encumbered than the XFree license. Who are you to say which emcumberments should be allowed and which are "stupid"?
Either you believe that programmers should be free to license their code as they see fit, or you don't. It's not Freedom if the community is going to deny the legitimacy of licenses that RMS didn't write.
RMS designed the GPL to be hard to work with. It seems a bit myopic to now act all surprised that it is working as designed and to try to blame everyone else for its inflexible nature.
That the GPL can't coexist with other licenses was a design goal of the GPL. It's unreasonable to be upset with deverlopers using other licenses for this fact which is beyond their control.
Did you actually have a point to make or were you just planning to rely on that exclamation mark to act as the foundation of your argument?
Uh, all of them. What are you doing, using telnet?
Start method is rexec
Oh, I see. Even worse.
Which very large bank is this? I would like to make sure my money isn't there. I prefer banks which take security seriously.
This pic says it all
I also disagree, but with the other point. "listening to music" is vague and could mean many things. If you've only got a couple hundred songs and you just listen to them all then perhaps there's little meaningful distinction between players.
Put 5000 songs into a player, with good ID3 tags/metadata, and all of a sudden the user interface becomes much more critical. How quickly can you navigate to a particular track or a particular album that you are in the mood to listen to. How easy is it to set up playlists so that you can listen to songs appropriate to your mood?
I had an Archos player before my iPod and it failed miserably in this regard. For any sort of listening beyond simply "hear music" it was frustrating and obtuse to operate. The iPod's interface is phenominal and allows the user to quickly navigate to specific tracks, albums, artists, genres, or playlists with ease.
If you don't care what you're listening to, just buy a radio. If you care what you're hearing, buy the player that is usable.
EISA was so awful. A classic example of "sounds like a great idea on paper" that proved, in reality, to be way worse than what it hoped to replace.
The industry is not "self-destructing". It's being ruined by the pirates who want everything for nothing and care not for the consequences of their selfishness.
Well I guess that makes me an idiot then.
:)
So who modded me insightful?
How is the key DRM when DRM has nothing to do with the example we're discussing? There's no DRM on WMA files produced from your own CDs. Try reading the posts instead of just injecting your knee-jerk reaction based on one or two keywords.
The guy we're disucssing, the windows user who ripped all his CDs to WMA, just has a pile of files which sound better than they would have had he chosen MP3.
Earthlink does block port 25 outbound for dialup. I use earthlink dialup when I travel and I've had to set up a mail server on an alternate port for exactly this reason.
Reasonable on dialup, if you ask me, but I'm glad to see they don't hamper broadband in the same manner.
Such errors are pardon parcel with people who learn the language through speech and not through reading. I could of made that same mistake had I not encountered the phrase in print before hearing it. Sadly, people who don't read just can't cut the muster. I'd just assume watch a movie instead of read a book.
After all, do we really want to go back to this? "Remember me? I'm the kid who had to do a report on space"
Yes, this is absolutely true. GIMP was around when d.net started and they're still going strong today. There was also Rocke Verser's DESCHALL group which had a head start on distributed.net by a couple months, but they shut down when they completed the RSA Labs DES challenge.
Seti came well over a year later.
For d.net, at least, our first assigned block was in early March 1997.
http://www.distributed.net/history.html.en
As near as I can tell, your point can be rephrased as follows:
"I've never read the article you're talking about, but you have to admit that your interpretation might be inaccurate."
While this is technically true, it's laughable at best and quite content-free.