The "2005 Readers' Choice Awards" voting is in progress at Linux Journal, and CentOS is Nominated in the "distribution:" category. So ... all you guys and gals who think CentOS is the best thing ever, get over to: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8266 and vote for CentOS :) ------------------------------- Also, since write ins are allowed on the e-mailed ballot, if you don't have a favorite for the "web hosting service:" category, might I suggest you pick your favorite from the hosting companies on our website who donate servers to the CentOS project: http://www.centos.org/mirrors/ (one hosting company who is making a server donation now, but it isn't quite setup yet ... and isn't on the donor list just yet is: http://www.eurovps.com/ ) ------------------------------- This is the first round of voting, which ends June 27th and then there will be a final ballot. Make sure to send in the e-mail ballot in plain text ... and not HTML. Thanks, Johnny Hughes -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050602/646b4fce/attachment-0004.sig>
On Thursday 02 June 2005 07:35, Johnny Hughes wrote:> So ... all you guys and gals who think CentOS is the best thing ever, > get over to: > > http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8266 > > and vote for CentOS :)Don't you think in that case one should vote for RHEL? Giving credit where credit is due...
From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com>> If your favorite choice is accepting a contract that imposes limits on > where you can install free software that itself has a license that says > additional restrictions cannot be imposed, then by all means pick RHEL.Or SuSE Linux Enterprise Server, Novell Linux Desktop, etc... And there are plenty of other distros that prevent redistribution for reasons for select packages, trademarks, etc... Red Hat is not the only one, although I don't always see people recognizing this. It's just like the age-old IBM v. Microsoft problem. People seem to stand by one or the other, not realizing the other is no better. ;-> And there are more choices ou there than deciding to hate 1 of 2. Les, we get it. You don't like Red Hat. As someone who lacks tact myself, I'm fairly good at noticing others with the same problem. ;-> And even *I* said vote CentOS if you prefer it. This vote doesn't look like about awarding credit. Of course, if you like SLAs, even if you normally can't afford them, then I'd vote RHEL (or SLES/NLD). -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org
From: Simon Perreault <nomis80 at lqt.ca>> I think you will agree that the difference between RHEL and Fedora > is greater than the one between CentOS and RHEL, enough for RHEL > to be a different distro from Fedora.As was Red Hat Linux (RHL) before it became Fedora Core (FC). Of course, all Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) packages start out as RHL/FC packages, and there is that 1:1 relationship. If you like Fedora Core, vote Fedora Core. If you like CentOS, vote CentOS. If you like RHEL w/SLAs, I'd vote RHEL (but that's just my viewpoint). But as I said, I think people will over-analyze things to death. People won't know about CentOS unless people vote for it, so if it's your favorite, just do so. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org
From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com>> That's a rather different case. The MS software doesn't start with a > license that ensures your right to copy it except in the case where > you impose additional restrictions.You are asserting things the GPL does not guarantee. Rights to additional IP is one of them. You do not need the Red Hat trademarks for the software to function. So they can be legally bundled with GPL software. This is not a Red Hat-only issue. But it is one that Red Hat got into real trouble with for failing to enforce their trademarks prior with Cobalt, Sun, etc... -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org
From: Lamar Owen <lowen at pari.edu>> Red Hat didn't go the SuSE route though and not freely license their > installer; Anaconda is GPL, but YaST was not, thus you couldn't even > do with SuSE what is being done now with RHEL.Until Novell bought SuSE and started GPL'ing things, correct. Of course, Novell already has enough of its own, proprietary** software so SuSE's hold was chump change. [ **NOTE: Unlike many people, I don't consider "proprietary" software to be inheritly bad. I'm also careful not to call some software from Microsoft "proprietary," because much of their software doesn't even qualify as "proprietary" because they lack even "proprietary" standards. ] Something should also be said about Red Hat only producing GPL software -- be it new developments of their own creation (and copyright), as well as supporting only projects that are GPL except in rare cases. Other than maybe Murdock's Progeny, I don't know of another, major commercial Linux vendor who produces 100% GPL software. To make a comparison, Red Hat completely blows IBM out-of-the-water in GPL donations -- both man-hours as well as company buy-outs -- let alone it makes no difference to include "GPL compatible" -- which no IBM "Open Source" license is. And as you've said me say before, even Sun roasts IBM on GPL donations as well.> As a great example, PostgreSQL is a BSD-licensed package. Red Hat > has made significant contributions to the PostgreSQL community (one > by providing full-time PostgreSQL employment for Tom Lane, a Core > PostgreSQL developer, two by paying for several enhancements and > backported bugfixes):It should be noted that PostgreSQL is one of the few, existing projects that Red Hat is supporting that was not licensed GPL. Red Hat really avoids working on things that aren't GPL.> Red Hat is not required by the terms of the BSD license to return > ANYTHING to the PostgreSQL community, nor are they required to > make their version of PostgreSQL, Red Hat Database (now known as > PostgreSQL, Red Hat Edition) source code available to anyone. But > they did make it available.While Red Hat isn't the only major commercial software company that "just gets it." They are the only major commercial Linux company that has a major distro that does. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org
I'm not confused. I think the point is (and this has seemingly been a persistent issue since the RHEL rebuilds appeared on the scene) that Red Hat puts licensing restrictions on GPL software. And that strikes many of us as odd. Preston ---------------------------------------- From: Simon Perreault <nomis80 at lqt.ca> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 2:13 PM To: CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Vote For CentOS :) On Thursday 02 June 2005 16:01, Les Mikesell wrote:> What kind of restriction would be excluded by the GPL if not ones that > restrict copying, installing on additional machines, or redistribution?Nobody's restricting anyone to do that with RHEL. Is anybody else as confused as I am? _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS at centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050602/1436974b/attachment-0004.html>
From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com>> Let me ask again... What could possibly impose a restriction if you > don't the consider the penalties of contract breakage to be a > restriction?I think one point that is being missed is that one licenses the subscription and any services the license it entitles one to, and not the software. So if one breaks the contract, one is not breaking the contract on the software, but the license for those entitlements to the subscription/services. As far as the trademarks and art goes, Red Hat doesn't care as long as you are not redistributing them to other entities. That was the whole reason for the several revisions and clarifications of the "Red Hat(R)" trademark prior and the eventual switch to _only_ allow redistribution of the "Fedora(TM)" trademark by other parties.> Since RH does permit source redistribution regardlessDon't confuse external with internal redistribution. When you redistribute Red Hat Enterprise Linux internally, you are not publicly distributing "Red Hat(R)" without a license. The GPL itself actually works very similar. You can mix GPL and non-GPL code freely, as long as you don't publicly redistribute it. This is how corporations modify GPL software all-the-time without releasing the source code of their modifcations. In my standard license terminology for corporate legal departments, I call this "Sourceware" (Open Source, Proprietary Standard). It is GPL code that has been modified with proprietary code, so it can never be redistributed. Because under the terms of the GPL, if it is redistributed, then any and all modifications to the source will have to be as well. I can copy anything "Red Hat(R)" to my hearts content as long as I don't publicly redistribute it. Because I'm not redistributing their trademark without a license.> and hence the existence of projects like Centos, they are not > strictly breaking the GPL here, but if that contract isn't a > restriction I'd like someone to explain what would be in the > sense excluded by the GPL.The contract doesn't cover the software. And regardless of a contract or not, you do _not_ have rights to redistribute "Red Hat(R)" any more than "Mandrake(R)," "SuSE(R)," "Novell(R)," etc... Red Hat tried to clarify its trademark guidelines on "Red Hat(R)" several times to allow for Cheapbytes and other, 100% unmodified redistribution. But eventually the entire issue came to a head, and US Trademark Common Law is rather non-forgiving on Red Hat's past history of allowing its trademark to be freely redistributed. The reason why GPL is enforceable is because it doesn't take away copyright. In the same regard, the GPL does not take away any other rights to IP. Now should any copyright clarify that he/she will not allow any trademark or other IP restrictions on redistribution of their GPL, then pretty much _every_ commercial distro is going to be SOL.> I'm not a particular fan of the GPL. I just don't see how it works > to distribute GPL'd stuff along with a contract that imposes additional > restrictions and penalties for breaking them.Because the contract does not tell you what you can and can't do with GPL software. It only specifies what you can do with things bundled with that GPL software -- namely the trademarks. Since the trademarks are not required for the software to function, there is no violation of the GPL terms. _Furthermore_, if you read the GPL carefully, it _never_ says what limits you can and can't place on _binaries_. It only says _source_. It says you must provide the source to anyone you redistribute the software to (in whatever form that software may be). This is Stallman's "Moral Delima" at its finest. Several GPL products exist where the vendor does _not_ provide you with the binary redistribution for free, or even the source for that matter, but the source is included with the binary distribution -- "for a nominal fee." This is one of the reasons why people fear the GPL 3.0 license might change some minor things that will affect them majorly. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org
From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com>> Of course. What does an SLA have to do with restricting copying or > redistribution?Because you're paying for services, not a product.> What kind of restriction would be excluded by the GPL if not ones that > restrict copying, installing on additional machines, or redistribution?Public redistribution of the _binaries_ is prohibited because of the trademarks. There is _no_ term in the GPL that mandates that anyone provide you with binaries or otherwise packaged software that is "ready-to-use." This is the GPL. At the same time, as long as the additives are not required for the software to function, Red Hat, SuSE, Novell, Mandrake, etc... are free to bundle whatever art, trademarks, etc... with the software, even the source code. The GPL still only guarantees you the right to _source_ code redistribution without restriction. If you want to play the trademark card, then you're going _outlaw_ pretty much _every_ major commercial company from producing GPL software. And Red Hat is the least of our concerns. ;-> -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org
From: me at prestoncrawford.com> I'm not confused. I think the point is (and this has seemingly > been a persistent issue since the RHEL rebuilds appeared on the > scene)Blame US Trademark Law then.> that Red Hat puts licensing restrictions on GPL software.Red Hat does not put any restriction on your use of their trademarks internally. But due to US Trademark Law, Red Hat cannot let you publicly redistribute anything "Red Hat(R)" in a way that would allow a judge to rule Red Hat allows free redistribution of their trademark without a license. Furthermore, please point me to the section where the GPL says I have the right to binaries and other package distributions of GPL software? It only says I have a right to any GPL source code, and any required source code (which is then also GPL) for the software to function under no other terms than GPL.> And that strikes many of us as odd.What is odd to me is that people see this as a Red Hat-only issue. Not only is Trademark Law really a PITA for Red Hat, but Trademark Laws in other countries -- notably Germany -- is why SuSE's hand has been forced even more. [ E.g., does anyone remember the KIllustrator name change? It wasn't Adobe's doing at all! ] And most don't stop to read the GPL, and what it's real terms are. If I sell GPL software, I do _not_ have to put the source code on my site. In fact, Red Hat could choose to _only_ distribute the GPL source code on CDs or -- better yet, do what SuSE does -- and say the GPL source code is available in Fedora Core. Let me say that again, Red Hat doesn't even need to offer SRPMS. They could just plunk out the "raw" source code, or just point to Fedora Core -- or maybe just the few SRPMS (like the kernel) that differ -- and make it 100x more difficult for distros like CentOS to exist! That's _exactly_ what SuSE does with SuSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES). And many other distros are similar -- they have their "redistributable" source packages for their "redistributable" version, and then _none_ for their non-redistributable version. Red Hat doesn't play such games. They put out source packages for _both_ Fedora Core _and_ RHEL -- so there are no questions. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org
-------- Original Message --------> From: "Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith at ieee.org>" <thebs413 at earthlink.net> > Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 2:31 PM > To: CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org>, centos at centos.org > Subject: Re: [CentOS] Vote For CentOS :) > > From: me at prestoncrawford.com > > I'm not confused. I think the point is (and this has seemingly > > been a persistent issue since the RHEL rebuilds appeared on the > > scene) > > Blame US Trademark Law then.I blame it for a lot already, thanks. :-)> > that Red Hat puts licensing restrictions on GPL software. > > Red Hat does not put any restriction on your use of their trademarks > internally. But due to US Trademark Law, Red Hat cannot let youThis is what I don't get, though? What's the difference between internal and external? I know, I know, it's all about the trademarked logos, names, etc. But at the end of the day, the source code is still the source code. And it's still GPL. So they have to provide (assuming they're distributing a GPL product) if you ask for it, regardless of whether it's internal to your company, external, whatever. Once they've distributed GPL-based software, they have to offer the source. Period. They can ask that you not include the trademarks, but that aside, they can't tell you that since it's "internal" it can't be redistributed. That's not my understanding of the GPL when it comes to source.> publicly redistribute anything "Red Hat(R)" in a way that would allow > a judge to rule Red Hat allows free redistribution of their trademark > without a license.Understood. But their trademark is different from the other 99.99999% of the distribution, which is Open Source code.> Furthermore, please point me to the section where the GPL says I > have the right to binaries and other package distributions of GPL > software? It only says I have a right to any GPL source code, andI never said anyone had the right to binaries. I'm simply confused as to how you can put licensing restrictions on source code simply because it's "internal". That is the issue in question, I believe.> any required source code (which is then also GPL) for the software > to function under no other terms than GPL. > > > And that strikes many of us as odd. > > What is odd to me is that people see this as a Red Hat-only issue. > Not only is Trademark Law really a PITA for Red Hat, but Trademark > Laws in other countries -- notably Germany -- is why SuSE's hand > has been forced even more.Agreed.> [ E.g., does anyone remember the KIllustrator name change? > It wasn't Adobe's doing at all! ] > > And most don't stop to read the GPL, and what it's real terms are. > > If I sell GPL software, I do _not_ have to put the source code on > my site. In fact, Red Hat could choose to _only_ distribute the > GPL source code on CDs or -- better yet, do what SuSE does -- > and say the GPL source code is available in Fedora Core.They could not do the latter as far as I understand it. Because Fedora Core is not the source code (letter for letter) of RHEL. So they HAVE to make the RHEL source code available somehow. Even if it's "pay us for the CDs".> Let me say that again, Red Hat doesn't even need to offer SRPMS. > They could just plunk out the "raw" source code, or just point to > Fedora Core -- or maybe just the few SRPMS (like the kernel) that > differ -- and make it 100x more difficult for distros like CentOS to > exist!I agree. What I don't agree with is this idea that once the SRPMS are out there in the wild that somehow Red Hat can put restrictions on the distribution of the source. They just can't, as far as I understand the GPL. Once the source has been made available to SOMEONE, regardless of whether it's internal, external, whatever, it can be passed on.> Red Hat doesn't play such games. They put out source packages > for _both_ Fedora Core _and_ RHEL -- so there are no questions.That's good that they stick "closer" to the letter. I'm not so sure they're following it completely, though. Preston
From: me at prestoncrawford.com> I blame it for a lot already, thanks. :-)In reality, there are good reason for it. E.g., people who had Cobalt systems assumed they were running Red Hat Linux. They were not, just running a heavily modified version. So when people tried to patch and update, they got upset with Red Hat. When the reality was that the distro should have _never_ had Red Hat's name on it. This was just one example. I still hear non-sense from Cobalt users on this. It's funny to see them come full circle on the logic.> This is what I don't get, though? What's the difference between internal > and external?Whatever the lawyers can prove it is. ;-> In a nutshell, there is no "cheat sheet" to respecting IP -- be it copyrighted GPL, trademarked IP or patents. You must document before you distribute. If you are using something like GPL, trademarks, etc... "internally" -- you must guarantee they won't be redistributed to guarantee you won't be distributing something without a license. That's all. No different than any other software. The GPL does not trump copyright or any other IP law, although copyright holders are free to clarify what is and isn't allowed.> I know, I know, it's all about the trademarked logos, names, etc. > But at the end of the day, the source code is still the source code.And we have Red Hat to thank for a lot of it too.> And it's still GPL. So they have to provide (assuming they're distributing > a GPL product) if you ask for it, regardless of whether it's internal to your > company, external, whatever.Whomever you distribute it to is the only one you are required to give the source code to. And you can't put any restrictions on that source code, or anything required for it to work. If I do something within my company, my company isn't going to consider it redistribution. My company is aware that I am using something under circumstances that are not public. So there is no need to abide by the GPL license in how I use it, and no need for a trademark license either. But once I start redistributing that outside the entity I work for, then that's when the legal issues mount. If I am redistributing additional code with the GPL software that modifies it in a way that it works differently, then the original copyright holder, under the granted terms of the GPL, says I have to offer the source code of those modifications under the same terms, without restriction. If I don't, then I am distributing the copyright holder's work without a license, and he is due damages. Same deal with trademark. Once I start redistributing Red Hat's trademark publicly, I am doing so without a license. And they are due damages. Lack of Red Hat's trademark and artwork does not prevent the GPL software from being used the same as with it. That's the difference. Red Hat -- like other distros -- are merely branding their work, into a packaged unit.> Once they've distributed GPL-based software, they have to offer the > source. Period.Yes, and they do. They could claim that Fedora Core SRPMS are everything, except for maybe the kernel and a few other SRPMS. That's what other distros do. Most commercial distros have 2 versions: 1 redistributable, 1 non. The commercial distros then only redistribute the source packages for the redistributable version, and not for the non. Red Hat is one of the very few that do for _both_, so things like CentOS can exist. And it depends on who you redistributed it to. That's why I used the term "publicly" redistributed. Because unlike the MPL1.0 (or is the opposite, and 1.1?) and many GPL-incompatible licenses, the GPL does _not_ require you to return any modifications to the copyright holders _unless_ you redistribute it. The MPL and most off-shoots _do_. GPL gives you the right to do what the heck you want with it -- even merge it with proprietary source code. But if you redistribute that modification outside of our own, internal uses, then that's when it becomes an issue.> They can ask that you not include the trademarks,On a "public" redistribution. What is done internally is not a violation of Trademark Law. I'm not mis-representing some product or service I redistribute as "Red Hat(R)" by merely using it. So there is no redistribution of the trademark without a license.> but that aside, they can't tell you that since it's "internal" it can't be > redistributed.Huh? I think you are confused on what I meant by internal/external. If you use it internally and don't redistribute it, then you are free to install RHEL on as many systems as you want. You can even have a field day and put "Red Hat sucks" all over their trademark. Unless Red Hat can prove that you are misappropriating their trademarks _publicly_ -- their mark in the trade -- then they can't prevent you from installing it on as many systems as you want, and doing what they heck you want. At least on the GPL/LGPL portions. MPL, IBM CPL/IPL, Sun SCSL/etc... will differ.> That's not my understanding of the GPL when it comes to source.GPL source code has nothing to do with this. The GPL source code does not require the Red Hat(R) trademarks to operate. You can freely bundle anything you want with GPL as long as it's not required to work. So for all intents and purposes, there is nothing wrong with bundling GPL source code with Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, etc... I can even take the SRPMS, rebuild them, and install them on my systems, with_out_ removing the Red Hat trademark. But if I'm providing services for others -- at cost or not -- with Red Hat's trademark, then it gets a bit more messy. Why? Because Red Hat can claim I'm mis-appropriating their trademark. That's what got Red Hat into trouble before. They let everyone freely use the Red Hat(R) trademark, and it came back to bit them when they tried to get select vendors (Cobalt, Sun, etc...) to stop leaving it on massively modified versions. It was killing the value of their trademark, because people were assumed something was Red Hat Linux when it was nothing of the sort. But that's when Sun barked back and used Trademark Common Law against Red Hat. Hence why Fedora(TM) became a reality. The other aspects to Fedora Core were already established in Red Hat Linux in years prior.> Understood. But their trademark is different from the other > 99.99999% of the distribution, which is Open Source code.The trademark is bundled with the GPL code, but it is not required for it to operate.> I never said anyone had the right to binaries. I'm simply confused > as to how you can put licensing restrictions on source code simply > because it's "internal". That is the issue in question, I believe.There is _no_ "licensing restrictions" because it is "internal." You can use Red Hat trademarks as you see fit as long as you are _not_ proliferating their "mark" in the "trade." The latter is "external"/"public" redistribution. Which is where you can get into legal trouble.> They could not do the latter as far as I understand it. Because > Fedora Core is not the source code (letter for letter) of RHEL.Every RHEL package as a 1:1 version to Fedora, typically Fedora Core, possibly Fedora Development (as it seems MySQL 4 was). This is fact. Nothing goes into RHEL without going through Rawhide/Development first -- if not into Fedora Core. If you read Red Hat's own development and lists, packages that have "EL" are typically subsets of the FC version. Most of the time, it's due to locale -- Red Hat strips out unsupported locale. In other cases, there might be supersets, like the kernel. In those rare cases, yes, Red Hat needs to redistribute those source changes.> So they HAVE to make the RHEL source code available somehow. > Even if it's "pay us for the CDs".Nope. Not at all. As long as the package is the same between Fedora Core and RHEL, no need. One of these days I'm going to finish a book on Red Hat Configuration Management and show an _exact_ lineage of a RHEL release built on Fedora Core. Trust me on this, I've built Fedora Core systems that were _exact_ package equivalents to RHEL -- with the only real exception being the kernel. I typically had to "hold back" on versions from what was "current" in Fedora Core, as well as align up the Fedora Core version to RHEL. But they are 1:1 -- versions are everything. SuSE does the same thing for SuSE Linux v. SuSE Linux Enterprise Server. They don't redistribute a lot of the latter. Xandros is the same on many of its details, etc...> I agree. What I don't agree with is this idea that once the SRPMS > are out there in the wild that somehow Red Hat can put restrictions > on the distribution of the source.There is no redistribution restriction on the source. But there are redistribution on the trademarks if you rebuild from source.> They just can't, as far as I understand the GPL.If you outlaw any bundling with GPL code, then you're going to outlaw 99.999% of the GPL distribution in existance.> Once the source has been made available to SOMEONE, regardless > of whether it's internal, external, whatever, it can be passed on.Yes, without any IP that are not required for the software to function anyway.> That's good that they stick "closer" to the letter. I'm not so sure > they're following it completely, though.They are. Ask the FSF. Too many people put Red Hat under the microscope when there are other distros are doing far, far less "community friendly." It's a double-standard I quite tire of. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org
-------- Original Message --------> From: Alex White <prata at kuei-jin.org> > Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 5:45 PM > To: CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org> > Subject: Re: [CentOS] Vote For CentOS :) > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Johnny Hughes wrote: > | > | No ... not at all. RedHat does not spend any time making sure > that the > | people who use CentOS can get free updates. > | > | They did not put together a world wide mirror network for free that > | everyone can use to get free enterprise level software. > | > | I am sick and tired of people minimizing the work that the CentOS > | Developement Team does. > | > | If you don't want to use CentOS, then don't use it ... but it is not > | easy to maintain a distro based on RHEL ... (or anything else for that > | matter). > | > | So, no, if you like and use CentOS, you should vote for CentOS. > | > | A couple hundred thousand people use it ... and hopefully they > | appreciate the amount of work it takes to maintain. > > Johnny, > > I certainly appreciate all of the work that has gone into CentOS. > I've not done that ballot just yet, but I will certainly be casting > my vote for CentOS. > > Thanks Johnny for the work.I appreciate it as well. In fact I plan on donating one of these days when I get the money. And I'm definitely recommending it to all my friends/family who use Linux. Yes, Red Hat creates RHEL. But by that logic shouldn't the credit be given to each contributor to each individual project that goes into a distro? Red Hat doesn't create mySQL, do they? Or Apache? How about Firefox? Is that Red Hat's baby? Point is, if you keep on saying "give credit where credit is due" you have to pass it down the line to the individual developers, testers, bug-fixers, etc. for the thousands of projects that go into RHEL. Not to mention all the brave Fedora users. So in the end, all things being equal and considering the above, my vote goes for CentOS. Preston
From: Simon Perreault <nomis80 at lqt.ca>> I think you will agree with me that the amount of work Red Hat put on CentOS > (by way of RHEL) is much more significant than the work put on CentOS by > CentOS volunteers. That is not to say that the work of CentOS volunteers is > not to be appreciated. Don't get all worked up for nothing.And I think some of us agree with you. But as I said before, we're all standing on the shoulders of others. In general, I don't like "distro contests" because there's just so much overlap. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org
From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com>> As pointed out many times before on this list, RedHat is a great > company, and they do a lot of things for the OSS community ... but they > are not the "owners" of the code that CentOS uses. They get almost all > the items they publish from somewhere else. They are required, > therefore, to make their source code public.But Red Hat does release pretty much even anything "original" as GPL as well.> They take that requirement seriously, and they do an outstanding job > of publishing their source code openly. They should be commended for > that. I do it every chance I get :)And I personally appreciated your objectivity, alongside your dedication to the project. It's hard to find such a combo. Many people who put sweat into something are a bit eccentric. You are one who truly stands on the shoulders of others while lifting those above you far more than most. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org
From: Simon Perreault <nomis80 at lqt.ca>> It does not give added value over RHEL in the distro itself.Be careful with that statement. ;-> Also remember that CentOS is more than just the RHEL distro. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org
From: Robert <kerplop at sbcglobal.net>> You noticed that statement, too, huh?Yes. That's why I now sound like a broken record: We _all_ stand on the shoulders of others No one should be considered more important than anyone else, at least when it comes to GPL software and redistribution. The great thing about any GPL project is that if you don't like them, the project, etc... you can choose another. Unfortunately, too many people think you must comment negatively on the original, or the fork. There is all this "versus" and "absolutes" non-sense that drives me wild.> That begs the questions: > Why am I here then? > Why are you (not you, BS) here then?I don't claim to be innocent. But other than stupidly engaging on the "GPL license/trademarks" stuff, I maintain a 100% _technical_ focus in my commentary. I could care less about credit, brandnames, marketing, etc...> Why are we running CentOS? From dictionary.com: 3. Worth > in usefulness or importance to the possessor; utility or merit: > the value of an education.I think people get confused on "value." Yes, if RHEL wasn't available in SRPM form, or didn't exist, then CentOS probably wouldn't exist (at least as we know it). And sure, without CentOS, RHEL would still go on. But that doesn't mean CentOS doesn't have value. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org