On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 14:41 -0600, Christofer C. Bell wrote: > On 2/23/06, Craig White <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > there are some things that you aren't considering... > > > > 1 - Red Hat isn't required to put all their SRPM's on the net - free for > > download, they only need to provide the SRPM's to purchasers and that > > could be via other methods...it's simply the method that they are > > choosing. > > Thanks, Craig, for your insight. This here is something I'll have to > give some thought to, and could very well change my opinion. In > essence, by doing this, Red Hat Software is saying, "here's our source > code. If you want to rebuild RHEL, knock yourselves out." This is > the only counterpoint I've seen posted here that I feel has some > weight worth considering. ---- Now stacking on this thought - Red Hat actually does derive benefits from putting the source code out and people 're-packaging' or 're-spinning'... - more users, identify, report and sometimes offer bug fixes - more users who are hell bent on using 'Free as in beer' Linux distributions that become familiar with the 'Red Hat' way as opposed to other distribution. - larger user base of overall packaging methodology motivates 'proprietary' software vendors to develop packaging for RHEL packaging. Craig
