David Jericho wrote:
I have no objection to paying for software, and I believe Red Hat is worth decent money. Having said that, a yearly subscription is hostile, not to mention a licensing agreement that is hostile and untrusting, followed by a pricing structure that appears to be the sum process of taking the USD value and applying an exchange rate. I know of admins who are requesting things like site licenses, money in hand, and are getting brushed off by sales reps.I don't think RedHat's license is "hostile" in any way. It is just legaleeze. Sure it is confusing and complex, but the GPL is too, that doesn't mean it is hostile.
This excerpt is straight from the RHAS 2.1 license:
------BEGIN EXCERPT from http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_2-1.html?country=United+States&;
Most of the Linux Programs are licensed pursuant to a Linux EULA that permits Customer to copy, modify, and redistribute the software, in both source code and binary code forms. With the exception of certain image files identified below, the remaining Linux Programs are freeware or have been placed in the public domain. Customer must review these Linux EULAs carefully, in order to understand its rights and to realize the maximum benefits available with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Nothing herein limits Customer's rights under, or grants Customer rights that supersede, the terms of any applicable Linux EULA. Red Hat may provide Red Hat Enterprise Linux or other software or content by means of Red Hat Network or Red Hat Enterprise Network. Each software component has its own applicable EULA and all content is provided subject to its own licensing terms.
...
Red Hat Enterprise Linux itself is a collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. Subject to the trademark use limitations set forth below, Red Hat grants Customer a license in this collective work pursuant to the GNU General Public License.
------ END EXCERPT from http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_2-1.html?country=United+States&;
Attitudes like "If you can't afford it, it mustn't be a real task" only shows lack of understanding what business in the real world is like. I cannot rationally burn up the annual salary for a junior programmer on recurring subscription licenses for 10 development boxes that may sit unused for a month at a time.
The sad thing I have to admit, is as a sane, professional, and rational admin who has my, my users, and my employers interests at heart, 64-bit Sun hardware and Solaris looks to be an attractive proposition. At least it's not a bottomless money pit for services I won't use.
Do your research.... ------BEGIN EXCERPT FROM http://www.redhat.com/advice/ask_shadowman_apr02.html
*Shadowman says:*
Like the Red Hat Linux products before it, Advanced Server contains software from a variety of sources. The majority of it is open source (using a variety of licenses, including the GPL), with a few packages consisting of "redistributable" content.
This means that, like the Red Hat Linux products before it, the sources for the software comprising Advanced Server will be available to anyone wanting a copy. And -- as always -- any code written by Red Hat is GPL'ed, with the sources being freely available.
However, unlike the Red Hat Linux products before it, we will not be making ISO images freely available for Advanced server. However, if you are a "1337 haxx0r d00d" with "m4d ski11z" (or even a mildly interested sysadmin with a year or two of Linux experience), and you want to roll your own, go for it. Shadowman recommends that you might consider reviewing our trademark policies (http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/) before doing something like going into business selling it on eBay, however. Since Java technology is part of Advanced Server, if you "roll your own", you'll have to acquire a JRE/JDK yourself.
------END EXCERPT FROM http://www.redhat.com/advice/ask_shadowman_apr02.html
