On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 07:49 -0700, Christopher A. Williams wrote: > On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 08:15 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 06:33, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > > An outsider would almost think that fedora management really > > doesn't want it to be a usable product that might compete > > with some other distribution. > > I'm a future VMware Certified Professional (should be in about a month) > and a lead for my company in the Virtualization space. As someone also > fairly active in the Fedora community, I'm inclined to think the *best* > mix that satisfies everyone's needs here is to see if VMware would be > willing to put together and support a FC5T2 and later VM. Anyone care to > submit a sample VM to VMware and see if they bite? See the VMware > Virtual Machine Center http://www.vmware.com/vmtn/vm/ for details. > > There's a Red Hat VM there now, as well as 2 FC4 VMs (minimal install > with and without selinux) and a number of VMs for other distros and OSes > available in their "Community" section. They also use Ubuntu as a base > for their free VMware Browser appliance. What's interesting is that the > *source* for the VM is available (a.k.a. the Ubuntu CD and all of the > components). The VM itself is most certainly proprietary though (by > Raul's definition) since it can only be played using the VMware Player. > > Now this does bring a new issue to mind - because something GPL is being > distributed inside a proprietary piece of technology, is the whole now a > derivative product, thus making the virtualization technology also > subject to the GPL? In other words, does distributing a Linux distro in > a VM force you to also distribute the VM as GPL? I don't believe this to > be the case - but it could be a grey area... > ---- isn't the entire discussion of Fedora VM image distribution best had on the fedora-developers list? Craig
