> I'm not saying it _will_ be done, I'm just saying it _could_ be done. > Just because a program is GPL doesn't mean it has to be free of cost.
The problem is that that limitation of the Service Agreement might be of bad faith in light of the spirit of the license of the software they're redistributing.
Bullshit.
Red Hat already provides SRPMS for the entire RHEL codebase (if not, there are only tiny exceptions, otherwise WBEL et al. could not exist). They do, however, want to provide paid-for support and paid-for errata updates to make a living. Since there are a bunch of people out there who will go to great lengths to avoid paying for something (regardless of that something's fair value or how much it costs the other to produce it), Red Hat writes their service agreement in such a way as to make life a little more difficult for those people.
As far as I'm concerned, "bad faith" is some jackass insisting that a commercial company dedicate millions of dollars to write better software, and then not satisfied with the fact that said commercial company distributes their sources publicly and gratis, insists that they provide their finished product for $0.00 or be branded "the next Microsoft" because "the outside world is slavery" (your quote).
You don't like Red Hat? Please, by all means, go use someone else's product. You have that choice, especially since all that software /is/ GPL. But quit spouting neo-Marxist propaganda at the rest of us. Those who agree with you already agree with you... those who don't, won't.
Un... freaking... believable.
-- Rodolfo J. Paiz rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.simpaticus.com
