Am Sam, 2003-08-02 um 04.06 schrieb Stephen Smoogen: > On Fri, 2003-08-01 at 19:46, Tim Kossack wrote: > > Am Fre, 2003-08-01 um 21.51 schrieb FÃliciano Matias: > > > Le ven 01/08/2003 Ã 17:53, Tim Kossack a Ãcrit : > > > > 3. red hat's (legal) position regarding shipping xmms without the > > > > mp3-plug is understandable, > > > > > > Mandrake license : > > > http://ftp.club-internet.fr/pub/linux/Mandrake/9.1/i586/LICENSE.txt > > > Warning: Free Software may not necessarily be patent free, and some Free > > > Software included may be covered by patents in your country. For example, the > > > MP3 decoders included may require a licence for further usage (see > > > http://www.mp3licensing.com for more details). If you are unsure if a patent > > > may be applicable to you, check your local laws. > > > > > > Keep in mind that Mandrake is a French company and patent software don't > > > apply in France. > > > > so patent violations can't get inforced in france, am i getting you > > right? i would be surprised if it's the same in germany, nevertheless > > suse sontains at least an mp3-decoder by default (but they might have > > payed for it-if suse can do it, why not red hat?!). > > It might be different in Germany as it is the German company Fraunhofer > Institute that owns the patent. More than likely SuSE has some sort of > license with Fraunhofer or hasnt been given a cease and desist. Either > way, Red Hat Linux is a 'Free' product in payment and source so Red Hat > the company isnt going to make money so paying would be a big money > loss. sorry to be so stubborn, but i would really be interested why red hat seems to have given up making money with non-corporate endusers while other distros seems to see a market there, ahving first successes? > > despite all this, my question was if it would be legally feasable to > > enable xmms (or whatever program) to get the plug automatically from the > > net after rhl is installed on the users pc. > > It is debatable depending on the country and the 'anti-piracy/patent' > laws. Some have even said it might be prosecutable on possibly knowing > about a crime and not doing anything about it. > > > > > > > > 4. rh9.x should ship with flash-, java- and whatever plug-in already > > > > installed in browsers > > > > > > Check the license of RHL : > > > http://ftp.rhnet.is/pub/redhat/linux/9/en/os/i386/EULA > > > > > > It's free OS. With java and/or flash we loose this GREAT benefit. > > > To gain this benefit we (and you) need to make some efforts (download > > > java, flash...). > > > > so red hat would have to pay money for distributing java-, flash-plugin? > > because i as an enduser get those for free (because those companies are > > interested in establishing their standards), i thought that it would be > > the same for vendors. > > > > Nope. In the past, Sun charges a fee for companies to ship Java. It is > part of controlling the standard. > > > > > especially to prevent companies like lindows > > > > > > > > > > Is Lindows a free OS ? Where can i download it ? > > > > no, but imo rhl needs not to be free, they might sell it with their new > > Well Red Hat Linux (Community not Enterprise) will be a 'Free' OS both > in price and rights. see above and below > > magazine having those plugs installed. also, again, there's a good > > chance people might subscribe to rhn if they find rhl up to their > > everydays tasks, if they get stucked even to play mp3s, the likely > > The number of people who would pay for RHN for getting the ability to > play mp3's would be the same number who only rip CD's that they own and > dont trade them to other people.. Lets just say its not a lot. that's not what i meant. i meant that in order to get people buying support (rhn) from red hat, they need to see that it's worth it, means those plugs (as well as the other points i mentioned) should get adressed and should be already installed. no fully functional product, no customers, no market. > > race before it really started. maybe they have already in abandoning the > > classic boxed retailchannel! > > the number of people who buy boxed sets through retail are 1/10,000 of > the people who run linux. I doubt very much that any Linux vendor has > made enough off of box sets in the last years to pay for the bandwidth > that the FTP servers use. I think Mandrake made 10x more money off of > their online club than they did through retail. Remember that if a box > set were to cost 40 Euro, the shipping company sees about 8 Euro of that > through the various sales channels, and the cost of manufacturing is > about 7 Euros. ok, but that doesn't mean that red hat couldn't make money with support (and/or one version without the goodies for free, one to download with the goodies for some $), or club (mandrake) or store (lindows) etc.. in order to convince people getting support etc...(see above). but obviously red hat seems to have given up making money on endusers, and rhl is-as you say-simply a communityproduct for geeks (like you and me), providing them in turn with manpower, ideas and bugfixing. what a pity-imo, they def. should try making more of it!
