Re: RH and GNOME
> >> >Here's an experiment for the masses.. go to www.redhat.com and find
> >> >information, within a few clicks, that RedHat is available for free
> >> >download. Heck, find Linux referred to as a free operating system anywhere
> >> >on the front page!
> >
> >And that's not telling you how to download and install RedHat the
> >distribution, or that said distribution is free. That's like saying you
> >should go to www.tucows.com to download Windows 95.
>
> To be blunt, you didn't ask about installation instructions. You
> asked to find information, within a few clicks, that RedHat is
> available for free download. I think I demonstrated that.
I disagree as to that you demonstrated within a few clicks that RedHat is
available for free download. You can download dozens of .deb's, but you
haven't just downloaded Debian. You've just downloaded dozens of .deb's.
RedHat is more than the sum of its RPMs. Downloading packages isn't
downloading an installable system.
> As to the fact that the distribution is free, someone else has
> already posted the two-click route to that information. I feel no
> need to require Redhat to put its package index in the same location
> as its company philosophy.
That bears no relevence to the current point, which is that the RedHat
site does _not_ contain the information that RedHat Linux can be freely
downloaded, which moves to my next point...
> And as to Tucows, the analogy is completely inappropriate, since
> there is no "Windows 95 distribution" in the way that there are Linux
> distributions.
... Distribution isn't what we're talking about here.. the packages don't
comprise the distribution. There is a core, which you must install before
you can install the packages. Ergo, installing windows 95. The packages
are just-so-many-pieces of software, like you would find on tucows.com --
Which is my argument. The analogy is utterly appropriate.
My point is, it doesn't say on that page that RedHat is freely
downloadable, just that packages for RedHat are.
> >> Employers control what you do with their products, on their equipment,
> >> on their time or in their name. They do not have any right to what you
> >> do on your own time on your own equipment in your own name.
> >
> >The non-compete agreement I signed when I agreed to work for a large
> >company in Virginia had a clause such as this -- Anything created by me
> >during term of their employment was considered to be their intellectual
> >property. That is not an uncommon clause.
> Either way, though, none of this applies to something being
> developed for the GPL, unless Redhat wants to contest its rights in a
> court to make GPLd software proprietary on the grounds that one of the
> developers was an employee at some point. Even if they found a court
> sufficiently ill-informed or crazy enough to go along with that, I
> think it might create sufficient ill-will in the Linux community to
> kill them dead. Nobody likes a backstabber.
I might mention that you were the one who mentioned employee ownership of
intellectual property in the first place. RedHat is hiring developers to
work -for them- and produce software -for them-. The legalities of this
are questionable.
> Okay, I just reread that last sentence, and it's telling me that I
> need to go to bed. I've been sick for the last two days, and writing
> in here has been a good excuse to avoid dealing with the fact that I'm
> consequently two days backlogged in my own work.
>
> Can we stop the Redhat bashing now, please?
I haven't seen anyone bash RedHat.
RedHat bashing would be something along the lines of:
RedHat sucks. RedHat is the microsoft of Linux. RedHat is a two-bit
distribution that can't stand one-bit of competition.
Or other stupid, silly things. The point brought about and merely STATED
-- That RedHat is a commercial company -- is absolutely true, whether or
not they release free software. It's not RedHat bashing.
I guess what it boils down to is ethics. RedHat follows the capitalist
software company ethic that companies such as Microsoft, Lotus, Corel,
Adobe, etc use, while Debian follows the socialist(...) ethic - An
idealist ethic that perhaps couldn't work in society but works wonderfully
in the free software community - that is used by such entities as the FSF,
Linus, etc.
-Kysh
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: