Binary RHEL Updates available free ! - Redhat

This is a discussion on Binary RHEL Updates available free ! - Redhat ; Ok, this is a repost because for some reason my previous post never made it to the groups, I have had none of my messages posted through google in the last week make it to usenet so I am reposting ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Binary RHEL Updates available free !

  1. Binary RHEL Updates available free !

    Ok, this is a repost because for some reason my previous post never made it
    to the groups, I have had none of my messages posted through google in the
    last week make it to usenet so I am reposting this in a somewhat altered and
    abbreviated form.

    I have all the updates for RHEL 3 AS and ES in binary form , I am interested
    in giving these to someone that has sufficient bandwith to mirror them for
    public use, either via FTP, or via an opensource up2date server I have it
    running under now, as well if someone wanted to make a yum repository that
    would be great too.

    Please do not contact me asking for these for your personal use , I do not
    have the bandwidth to give anyone access to these other than 1 or 2 uploads
    to a permanent mirror, That is why I would like someone with sufficent pipe
    to mirror these for public use. If you want these find somewhere that would
    be willing to provide a public repository for them and contact me

    I would like to only have to upload these to 1 or 2 main mirrors and have
    them downloaded to other mirrors from these initial 2.

    There are over 850 megs of current updates, Like I said I would love to have
    a school, lug, ISP whatever mirror these for public access.

    If you are interested in running the up2date server, it needs a dedicated IP
    for SSL and it requires an Apache restart every time new updates are added.
    Its written in Python it can be seen at http://current.tigris.org , it has
    been patched by me to work with RHEL 3 (it dosent by default) I will provide
    the source tree for that as well.

    The bad news, they updates are a mess in orginization, they would need to be
    orginized a little better if they are going to be made available via FTP, as
    there are 3 different kernel (maybe more) versions in the archive, the
    update server I use automatially only offers the latest version of each
    package , thats why its such a mess, Ive never had to clean it up.

    Ok, for all of you that are going to sa oh no you cant do that blah blah
    blah, I suggest you read section 1 of Appendix 1 of the RH license page at
    http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_...=United+States
    specifically where it says "Section 2 below, the license terms for the
    components permit Customer to copy, modify, and redistribute the component,
    in both source code and binary code forms. This agreement does not limit
    Customer's rights under, or grant Customer rights that supersede, the
    license terms of any particular component." BEYOND that I have actually
    checkedd the licenses of each package available for update and there are
    NONE whose license prohibits redistribution, if you would like a list of
    these email me and I will be more than happy to send you an itemized
    breakdown by package as well as license totals for the entire archive.



    Cheers All

    Chris



  2. Re: Binary RHEL Updates available free !

    "Chris Wertman" wrote in message
    news:Wkaoc.2169$OE3.1078@fe1.columbus.rr.com

    > I have all the updates for RHEL 3 AS and ES in binary form , I am
    > interested in giving these to someone that has sufficient bandwith to
    > mirror them for public use, either via FTP, or via an opensource
    > up2date server I have it running under now, as well if someone wanted
    > to make a yum repository that would be great too.


    Sorry man, Open Source is what it's all about.

    Nobody knows what your binaries contain.


    --
    use hotmail for email replies

  3. Re: Binary RHEL Updates available free !

    "Chris Wertman" wrote in message
    news:Wkaoc.2169$OE3.1078@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
    > Ok, this is a repost because for some reason my previous post never made

    it
    > to the groups, I have had none of my messages posted through google in the
    > last week make it to usenet so I am reposting this in a somewhat altered

    and
    > abbreviated form.
    >
    > I have all the updates for RHEL 3 AS and ES in binary form , I am

    interested
    > in giving these to someone that has sufficient bandwith to mirror them for
    > public use,


    Thanks, but I'd rather get mine from http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/

    Jonathan






  4. Re: Binary RHEL Updates available free !

    "Chris Wertman" wrote in message news:...
    [snip]
    > I have all the updates for RHEL 3 AS and ES in binary form , I am interested
    > in giving these to someone that has sufficient bandwith to mirror them for
    > public use, either via FTP, or via an opensource up2date server I have it
    > running under now, as well if someone wanted to make a yum repository that
    > would be great too.

    [snip]
    > Ok, for all of you that are going to sa oh no you cant do that blah blah
    > blah, I suggest you read section 1 of Appendix 1 of the RH license page at
    > http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_...=United+States
    > specifically where it says "Section 2 below, the license terms for the
    > components permit Customer to copy, modify, and redistribute the component,
    > in both source code and binary code forms. This agreement does not limit
    > Customer's rights under, or grant Customer rights that supersede, the
    > license terms of any particular component." BEYOND that I have actually
    > checkedd the licenses of each package available for update and there are
    > NONE whose license prohibits redistribution, if you would like a list of
    > these email me and I will be more than happy to send you an itemized
    > breakdown by package as well as license totals for the entire archive.
    > Cheers All
    >
    > Chris


    A while back -- several months? -- someone else (or you?) was
    inquiring about the legalities, etc., of redistributing binary copies
    of RHEL.

    I'll repeat that _unless_ you remove trademaked items (logos, strings,
    etc) you cannot "safely" redistribute binaries. RH has had to
    enforce it's trademarks to keep CD redistributions ( eg., cheapbytes)
    from floating around. At least you have double checked the license of
    each module.

    [A quote from the wise http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/howto.html :]
    Filing off the serial numbers....

    Ok, you have a home rolled RHEL. But you can't redistribute RHEL
    without incurring the wrath of Red Hat's trademark lawyers so now
    begins the fun part. The EULA only says you must change the
    redhat-logos and anaconda-images packages. Yea, right. I know I didn't
    want to put up ISO images with RedHat's name all over it on a server
    in the reach of US law.
    [end quote]

    2 or 3 other projects already do this -- it is not easy to remove
    every applicable trademark -- and binaries are of questionable utility
    except for those whose arch/setup is like yours. Are you prepared to
    maintain them?

    BTW, you (or whoever hosts your files) _are_ (almost certainly)
    liable to make the source code available for download also, since that
    is how you're "distributing" the binaries. It's part of the GPL,
    iirc.

    You might make a better contribution hooking up with another project
    -- like whiteboxlinux as Jonathan pointed out. Their devel list is
    here:
    http://beau.org/mailman/listinfo/whitebox-devel

    regards,
    prg
    email above disabled

  5. Re: Binary RHEL Updates available free !

    "Chris Wertman" wrote in message news:...
    [snip]
    > I have all the updates for RHEL 3 AS and ES in binary form , I am interested
    > in giving these to someone that has sufficient bandwith to mirror them for
    > public use, either via FTP, or via an opensource up2date server I have it
    > running under now, as well if someone wanted to make a yum repository that
    > would be great too.

    [snip]
    > Ok, for all of you that are going to sa oh no you cant do that blah blah
    > blah, I suggest you read section 1 of Appendix 1 of the RH license page at
    > http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_...=United+States
    > specifically where it says "Section 2 below, the license terms for the
    > components permit Customer to copy, modify, and redistribute the component,
    > in both source code and binary code forms. This agreement does not limit
    > Customer's rights under, or grant Customer rights that supersede, the
    > license terms of any particular component." BEYOND that I have actually
    > checkedd the licenses of each package available for update and there are
    > NONE whose license prohibits redistribution, if you would like a list of
    > these email me and I will be more than happy to send you an itemized
    > breakdown by package as well as license totals for the entire archive.
    > Cheers All
    >
    > Chris


    A while back -- several months? -- someone else (or you?) was
    inquiring about the legalities, etc., of redistributing binary copies
    of RHEL.

    I'll repeat that _unless_ you remove trademaked items (logos, strings,
    etc) you cannot "safely" redistribute binaries. RH has had to
    enforce it's trademarks to keep CD redistributions ( eg., cheapbytes)
    from floating around. At least you have double checked the license of
    each module.

    [A quote from the wise http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/howto.html :]
    Filing off the serial numbers....

    Ok, you have a home rolled RHEL. But you can't redistribute RHEL
    without incurring the wrath of Red Hat's trademark lawyers so now
    begins the fun part. The EULA only says you must change the
    redhat-logos and anaconda-images packages. Yea, right. I know I didn't
    want to put up ISO images with RedHat's name all over it on a server
    in the reach of US law.
    [end quote]

    2 or 3 other projects already do this -- it is not easy to remove
    every applicable trademark -- and binaries are of questionable utility
    except for those whose arch/setup is like yours. Are you prepared to
    maintain them?

    BTW, you (or whoever hosts your files) _are_ (almost certainly)
    liable to make the source code available for download also, since that
    is how you're "distributing" the binaries. It's part of the GPL,
    iirc.

    You might make a better contribution hooking up with another project
    -- like whiteboxlinux as Jonathan pointed out. Their devel list is
    here:
    http://beau.org/mailman/listinfo/whitebox-devel

    regards,
    prg
    email above disabled

  6. Re: Binary RHEL Updates available free !

    I apologize for any breech in Usenet ettiqute but I am going to answer or
    should I say respond to several peoples posts in one posting

    > I'll repeat that _unless_ you remove trademaked items (logos, strings,
    > etc) you cannot "safely" redistribute binaries. At least you have double

    checked the license of
    > each module.


    RedHat CANNOT take say EMACS and put a RH logo on it and say ...OHhh noooo
    you cant redistibute that Its got our Trademark on it....The GPL and many
    other "free" licenses specifically prohibit this type of run around. I dont
    care if it is a RH trademark or not, they CANNOT simply by putting their
    logo/trademark on a GPL package deny redistibution of that package because
    it contains their logo, nor can they require it be removed for
    redistribution in binary or source form, it that were the case I could add
    trademarked image files to the kernel, start my own fork and say you cant
    redistribute this unless you go pull all my trademarks out. RH can feel free
    to add their logo and trademark in a branding effort to any GPL package they
    want , but they cannot limit redisribution of that package because of that
    trademark, if you dont belive me on this one I suggest you take it up with
    the good folks over at GNU.or , or the respective liscence maintainer for a
    package other than GPL. I have actually talked with the folks at gnu.org and
    can tell you there is no way by adding a trademark to a GPL package you can
    tie it up.

    NOW all that said, they can however , and do , add 2 pacakges,
    anaconda-images and redhat-logos to their binary installation distribution
    that are not GPL, and do contain their Trademarks, they can do anything they
    want to limit the distribution of those packages, and rightly so, but the
    updates , and thats all I have , do NOT include those 2 files.

    >The EULA only says you must change the
    > redhat-logos and anaconda-images packages. Yea, right. I know I didn't
    > want to put up ISO images with RedHat's name all over it on a server
    > in the reach of US law.
    > [end quote]


    Actually I think hes being a bit paranoid and thats his option to do so, the
    "license" explicitly states the ONLY exception to redistribution of Binaries
    are those 2 specific files, that is moot anyhow as they are not part of any
    update released so far. Redhat "says" that because , it TRUE ! If he wants
    to belive something other than they say thats his choice, think about it
    they say one thing but in court somewhere they are going to try to prove
    that youre really not allowed to "we were just saying that" no RH wouldnt do
    that

    > and binaries are of questionable utility
    > except for those whose arch/setup is like yours. Are you prepared to
    > maintain them?


    Yes, and I have been since day 1 of RHEL 3 release, its takes a bit of
    effort but I require it as I run it on several machines, so I thought why
    not share all this effort with others, isnt that one of the many prinicples
    of Open Source ? And note these are only the updates to keep a system
    current and secure.

    > BTW, you (or whoever hosts your files) _are_ (almost certainly)
    > liable to make the source code available for download also, since that
    > is how you're "distributing" the binaries. It's part of the GPL,
    > iirc.


    Quite correct , but I do not need to make them available for download, if
    someone request via snail mail as is all that is required under the GPL I
    will be happy to burn them to a CD and mail them at the person who requested
    thems expense, although I cant imagine why when they could very easily go to
    RH or one of many mirrors that serves up the source.

    > You might make a better contribution hooking up with another project
    > -- like whiteboxlinux as Jonathan pointed out. Their devel list is
    > here:
    > http://beau.org/mailman/listinfo/whitebox-devel


    Whitebox is slow to add updates and Jonathan took forever and a year to get
    to update 1 , IF theyve even as of yet completed it, he was offered help by
    countless others including myself on the list when everyone was screaming
    for the updates, he didnt even respond for many many days.

    The speed at which updates are released for WBL , was horrible.

    I run production servers and cannot afford even a 24 hr lapse from update to
    patch, yes my update tree is that current, every day it is checked and any
    new updates are added, and recompiled if need be. I don not have nor am I
    offering an archive of anything other than the updates that have been
    published so far

    Someone said "Sorry man, Open Source is what it's all about. Nobody knows
    what your binaries contain."

    I agree and understand you point , to a point, there are the MD5 checksums
    however ensure the packages are kosher, and as well, try and sit down and
    compile all the RH packages, dependencies etc. Then say nobody want them, I
    do have about 50 people who use my update server but it is maxed out when
    new updates are released, and like I said before why not share all the time
    and effort I put into building this archive, after all "Open Source is what
    it's all about"

    >"Thanks, but I'd rather get mine from http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/"

    Well sure and I tried it to as an alternative to future RHEL installs, but
    the lack of timley updates as well as many bugs with tagging etc was a
    serious problem with WBL, and there is NOTHING that prohibits redistribution
    of the RH updates, as long as I dont offer anaconda-images or redhat-logos
    packages and I think tis about the third time Ive said it , they are not
    part of any update as of yet.

    Cheers all

    Chris




  7. Re: Binary RHEL Updates available free !

    "Chris Wertman" wrote in message news:...

    [forgive the top post]

    I imagine that others were like me and erroneously assumed that you
    offered the updates _in addition _ to the base distro.

    Just to let you know that I know full well what sort of effort you've
    put into this ongoing project, and anyone who uses or even knows
    about your efforts should give you a thumbs-up in my view -- sharing
    in the best intended sense.

    But you must admit, that _if_ you can fruitfully _combine_ your
    efforts with that of others, then even more will benefit.

    Re: legal repercussions -- I imagine you're assessment is fairly close
    (in practical terms). Problem arises in that ultimately it's not your
    assessment alone that matters if you get one of those not-so-thrilling
    letters from the Law Firm of X. Just need to be aware of the (small?)
    potential risks and your willingne$$ to accept them. Given the full
    distro release and the institutional ties that whitebox has, you can
    better understand that the "paranoia" is likely from benefactors who
    wish not to take such risks. Likely the same can be said of some
    smaller, commercial and institutional end users. Trademark law is not
    like copyright -- it must be defended by the holder or he risks losing
    his claim. Though at the moment I don't see RH making an issue of it,
    they also can't ignore it. But I would think that "updates only"
    would make your exposure practically nil.

    For my part, please don't take my comments as meant as anything more
    than a "double check" -- your efforts are appreciated and applauded by
    me. I'll keep your predicament in mind in case I run into anything
    useful.

    Hope you find some storage and bandwidth,
    prg
    email above disabled

    > I apologize for any breech in Usenet ettiqute but I am going to answer or
    > should I say respond to several peoples posts in one posting
    >
    > > I'll repeat that _unless_ you remove trademaked items (logos, strings,
    > > etc) you cannot "safely" redistribute binaries. At least you have double

    > checked the license of
    > > each module.

    >
    > RedHat CANNOT take say EMACS and put a RH logo on it and say ...OHhh noooo
    > you cant redistibute that Its got our Trademark on it....The GPL and many
    > other "free" licenses specifically prohibit this type of run around. I dont
    > care if it is a RH trademark or not, they CANNOT simply by putting their
    > logo/trademark on a GPL package deny redistibution of that package because
    > it contains their logo, nor can they require it be removed for
    > redistribution in binary or source form, it that were the case I could add
    > trademarked image files to the kernel, start my own fork and say you cant
    > redistribute this unless you go pull all my trademarks out. RH can feel free
    > to add their logo and trademark in a branding effort to any GPL package they
    > want , but they cannot limit redisribution of that package because of that
    > trademark, if you dont belive me on this one I suggest you take it up with
    > the good folks over at GNU.or , or the respective liscence maintainer for a
    > package other than GPL. I have actually talked with the folks at gnu.org and
    > can tell you there is no way by adding a trademark to a GPL package you can
    > tie it up.
    >
    > NOW all that said, they can however , and do , add 2 pacakges,
    > anaconda-images and redhat-logos to their binary installation distribution
    > that are not GPL, and do contain their Trademarks, they can do anything they
    > want to limit the distribution of those packages, and rightly so, but the
    > updates , and thats all I have , do NOT include those 2 files.
    >
    > >The EULA only says you must change the
    > > redhat-logos and anaconda-images packages. Yea, right. I know I didn't
    > > want to put up ISO images with RedHat's name all over it on a server
    > > in the reach of US law.
    > > [end quote]

    >
    > Actually I think hes being a bit paranoid and thats his option to do so, the
    > "license" explicitly states the ONLY exception to redistribution of Binaries
    > are those 2 specific files, that is moot anyhow as they are not part of any
    > update released so far. Redhat "says" that because , it TRUE ! If he wants
    > to belive something other than they say thats his choice, think about it
    > they say one thing but in court somewhere they are going to try to prove
    > that youre really not allowed to "we were just saying that" no RH wouldnt do
    > that
    >
    > > and binaries are of questionable utility
    > > except for those whose arch/setup is like yours. Are you prepared to
    > > maintain them?

    >
    > Yes, and I have been since day 1 of RHEL 3 release, its takes a bit of
    > effort but I require it as I run it on several machines, so I thought why
    > not share all this effort with others, isnt that one of the many prinicples
    > of Open Source ? And note these are only the updates to keep a system
    > current and secure.
    >
    > > BTW, you (or whoever hosts your files) _are_ (almost certainly)
    > > liable to make the source code available for download also, since that
    > > is how you're "distributing" the binaries. It's part of the GPL,
    > > iirc.

    >
    > Quite correct , but I do not need to make them available for download, if
    > someone request via snail mail as is all that is required under the GPL I
    > will be happy to burn them to a CD and mail them at the person who requested
    > thems expense, although I cant imagine why when they could very easily go to
    > RH or one of many mirrors that serves up the source.
    >
    > > You might make a better contribution hooking up with another project
    > > -- like whiteboxlinux as Jonathan pointed out. Their devel list is
    > > here:
    > > http://beau.org/mailman/listinfo/whitebox-devel

    >
    > Whitebox is slow to add updates and Jonathan took forever and a year to get
    > to update 1 , IF theyve even as of yet completed it, he was offered help by
    > countless others including myself on the list when everyone was screaming
    > for the updates, he didnt even respond for many many days.
    >
    > The speed at which updates are released for WBL , was horrible.
    >
    > I run production servers and cannot afford even a 24 hr lapse from update to
    > patch, yes my update tree is that current, every day it is checked and any
    > new updates are added, and recompiled if need be. I don not have nor am I
    > offering an archive of anything other than the updates that have been
    > published so far
    >
    > Someone said "Sorry man, Open Source is what it's all about. Nobody knows
    > what your binaries contain."
    >
    > I agree and understand you point , to a point, there are the MD5 checksums
    > however ensure the packages are kosher, and as well, try and sit down and
    > compile all the RH packages, dependencies etc. Then say nobody want them, I
    > do have about 50 people who use my update server but it is maxed out when
    > new updates are released, and like I said before why not share all the time
    > and effort I put into building this archive, after all "Open Source is what
    > it's all about"
    >
    > >"Thanks, but I'd rather get mine from http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/"

    > Well sure and I tried it to as an alternative to future RHEL installs, but
    > the lack of timley updates as well as many bugs with tagging etc was a
    > serious problem with WBL, and there is NOTHING that prohibits redistribution
    > of the RH updates, as long as I dont offer anaconda-images or redhat-logos
    > packages and I think tis about the third time Ive said it , they are not
    > part of any update as of yet.
    >
    > Cheers all
    >
    > Chris


  8. Re: Binary RHEL Updates available free !


    "Chris Wertman" wrote in message
    news:whQoc.5739$th.2873@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
    > I apologize for any breech in Usenet ettiqute but I am going to answer or
    > should I say respond to several peoples posts in one posting
    >
    > > I'll repeat that _unless_ you remove trademaked items (logos, strings,
    > > etc) you cannot "safely" redistribute binaries. At least you have

    double
    > checked the license of
    > > each module.

    >
    > RedHat CANNOT take say EMACS and put a RH logo on it and say ...OHhh

    noooo
    > you cant redistibute that Its got our Trademark on it....The GPL and many
    > other "free" licenses specifically prohibit this type of run around. I

    dont
    > care if it is a RH trademark or not, they CANNOT simply by putting their
    > logo/trademark on a GPL package deny redistibution of that package because
    > it contains their logo, nor can they require it be removed for
    > redistribution in binary or source form, it that were the case I could add
    > trademarked image files to the kernel, start my own fork and say you cant
    > redistribute this unless you go pull all my trademarks out. RH can feel

    free
    > to add their logo and trademark in a branding effort to any GPL package

    they
    > want , but they cannot limit redisribution of that package because of that
    > trademark, if you dont belive me on this one I suggest you take it up with
    > the good folks over at GNU.or , or the respective liscence maintainer for

    a
    > package other than GPL. I have actually talked with the folks at gnu.org

    and
    > can tell you there is no way by adding a trademark to a GPL package you

    can
    > tie it up.
    >
    > NOW all that said, they can however , and do , add 2 pacakges,
    > anaconda-images and redhat-logos to their binary installation distribution
    > that are not GPL, and do contain their Trademarks, they can do anything

    they
    > want to limit the distribution of those packages, and rightly so, but the
    > updates , and thats all I have , do NOT include those 2 files.
    >
    > >The EULA only says you must change the
    > > redhat-logos and anaconda-images packages. Yea, right. I know I didn't
    > > want to put up ISO images with RedHat's name all over it on a server
    > > in the reach of US law.
    > > [end quote]

    >
    > Actually I think hes being a bit paranoid and thats his option to do so,

    the
    > "license" explicitly states the ONLY exception to redistribution of

    Binaries
    > are those 2 specific files, that is moot anyhow as they are not part of

    any
    > update released so far. Redhat "says" that because , it TRUE ! If he wants
    > to belive something other than they say thats his choice, think about it
    > they say one thing but in court somewhere they are going to try to prove
    > that youre really not allowed to "we were just saying that" no RH wouldnt

    do
    > that
    >
    > > and binaries are of questionable utility
    > > except for those whose arch/setup is like yours. Are you prepared to
    > > maintain them?

    >
    > Yes, and I have been since day 1 of RHEL 3 release, its takes a bit of
    > effort but I require it as I run it on several machines, so I thought why
    > not share all this effort with others, isnt that one of the many

    prinicples
    > of Open Source ? And note these are only the updates to keep a system
    > current and secure.
    >
    > > BTW, you (or whoever hosts your files) _are_ (almost certainly)
    > > liable to make the source code available for download also, since that
    > > is how you're "distributing" the binaries. It's part of the GPL,
    > > iirc.

    >
    > Quite correct , but I do not need to make them available for download, if
    > someone request via snail mail as is all that is required under the GPL I
    > will be happy to burn them to a CD and mail them at the person who

    requested
    > thems expense, although I cant imagine why when they could very easily go

    to
    > RH or one of many mirrors that serves up the source.
    >
    > > You might make a better contribution hooking up with another project
    > > -- like whiteboxlinux as Jonathan pointed out. Their devel list is
    > > here:
    > > http://beau.org/mailman/listinfo/whitebox-devel

    >
    > Whitebox is slow to add updates and Jonathan took forever and a year to

    get
    > to update 1 , IF theyve even as of yet completed it, he was offered help

    by
    > countless others including myself on the list when everyone was screaming
    > for the updates, he didnt even respond for many many days.
    >
    > The speed at which updates are released for WBL , was horrible.
    >
    > I run production servers and cannot afford even a 24 hr lapse from update

    to
    > patch, yes my update tree is that current, every day it is checked and any
    > new updates are added, and recompiled if need be. I don not have nor am I
    > offering an archive of anything other than the updates that have been
    > published so far
    >
    > Someone said "Sorry man, Open Source is what it's all about. Nobody knows
    > what your binaries contain."
    >
    > I agree and understand you point , to a point, there are the MD5 checksums
    > however ensure the packages are kosher, and as well, try and sit down and
    > compile all the RH packages, dependencies etc. Then say nobody want them,

    I
    > do have about 50 people who use my update server but it is maxed out when
    > new updates are released, and like I said before why not share all the

    time
    > and effort I put into building this archive, after all "Open Source is

    what
    > it's all about"
    >
    > >"Thanks, but I'd rather get mine from http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/"

    > Well sure and I tried it to as an alternative to future RHEL installs, but
    > the lack of timley updates as well as many bugs with tagging etc was a
    > serious problem with WBL, and there is NOTHING that prohibits

    redistribution
    > of the RH updates, as long as I dont offer anaconda-images or redhat-logos
    > packages and I think tis about the third time Ive said it , they are not
    > part of any update as of yet.
    >
    > Cheers all
    >
    > Chris


    I agree with your assertion that RH is not right in controlling their
    distributions and it is wrong regardless of whether it technically violates
    the GPL.
    The preamble of the GPL says "When we speak of free software, we are
    referring to freedom, not price"

    I have to wonder why, when your services are so "mission critical", you
    don't incur the extra expense and purchase a RedHat product, which includes
    updates doesn't it. Is it really that expensive?


    I use Whitebox for a home server and don't see the need to constantly update
    my system and recompile on a daily basis. In fact I know some Unix,
    Netware, and Windows Engineers that would tell you it's a bad idea.

    But Hey, I don't know anything. I'm new to all this typing commands stuff.



  9. Re: Binary RHEL Updates available free !

    Loyd a écrit :

    > The preamble of the GPL says "When we speak of free
    > software, we are referring to freedom, not price"


    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

    With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee
    in order to use the software. They can copy the program from a
    friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has
    network access. Or several users can join together, split the
    price of one CD-ROM, then each in turn can install the software.
    A high CD-ROM price is not a major obstacle when the software is
    free.


    http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

    3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on
    it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the
    terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of
    the following:


    --
    But if that doesn't work for you, I would not consider it a great loss
    for the world if your products were not produced. They contribute
    something to the world if they are free software, but otherwise not.
    --Richard Stallman

  10. Re: Binary RHEL Updates available free !

    In article , Loyd wrote:
    >
    > I have to wonder why, when your services are so "mission critical", you
    > don't incur the extra expense and purchase a RedHat product, which includes
    > updates doesn't it. Is it really that expensive?


    Yes, it _is_ really that expensive.

    The RHL versions I bought for my Alpha machine cost $40 to
    $100 each. RHL 8.0 for X86 cost about $40, IIRC. The
    "priority" update subscription for RHL 8.0 and 9 was running
    $5 per month.

    Now, Red Hat is charging hundreds of dollars _per_ machine
    _per_ year. Even Professional Workstation includes an
    "agreement" requiring the buyer to pay Red Hat extra _per_
    machine. At $100 per copy at Office Depot, the OS for each
    machine would cost as much in 6 to 9 years as the hardware
    that constitutes my three home machines. Oh, and with
    Professional Workstation, I would have to "agree" to let Big
    Brother Red Hat _audit_ my home to ensure I hadn't installed
    the OS on any machines I hadn't paid them for.

    This for a distribution that is almost entirely under GPL or
    similar OSS license?

    Another posting in this thread pointed out the GPL requires
    Red Hat to allow me (if I obtain GPLed software from them)
    to copy (which would seem to include installing on multiple
    machines) said GPLed software. If I understand correctly,
    _only_ thing not covered by GPL or similar, free as in
    freedom, license are Red Hat's trademarked images.

    Even if the one-machine-per-copy and audit-on-demand
    shrinkwrap license is ultimately found to be unenforceable,
    I can't afford the risk of having to do battle with the
    legal department of a publicly owned corporation. That
    would _really_ be expensive.

    I considered Fedora, but I would prefer to stay with a
    distro supported by a real business, with employees doing QA
    and update generation on company time. That's what I had
    with Red Hat 9 until about two weeks ago when Red Hat fully
    implemented their abandonment of the home and small office
    segment.

    As for me and my house, we are going with Mandrake 10.0
    Official Download edition, obtained through Mandrake Club at
    about $66 per year, fully redistributable, no limit on
    number of machines.

    Robert Riches
    spamtrap42@verizon.net
    (Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

+ Reply to Thread