[ILUG] email sent to politicians about Mary Hannafin'sdecisionnotto use open source

[Gavin McCullagh]

On Tue, 04 May 2004, Paul Jakma wrote:

> > This is an example of a Linux which is not free of charge.
> 
> Linux has never been free of charge. The GPL is not about ensuring
> software stays "free of charge".

This is the point I was trying to make.  There is no requirement that linux
be free-of-charge.

> > RHEL could easily (not sure if they actually do it) add
> > non-redistributable things.  These could not be placed in Whitebox
> > Linux and the products would clearly be different.
> 
> Yes, it's amazing that RedHat in their infinitely evil ways havn't
> thought of that.

Okay, RHEL has been clearly shown by many now to be a _really_ badly chosen
example.  I wasn't criticising Redhat (though it seems now to have sounded
that way).  I was trying to illustrate that such a not free of charge linux
can be made and as such there's no requirement that linux is free.

> The GPL however does undermine any business model premised upon the
> sale of software alone. RedHat's business model is support, not
> licensing/sale of software.

I'll concede that it's very tough to run a business selling the software
alone.  I guess on that basis Conor's correct.

Gavin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://mail.linux.ie/pipermail/ilug/attachments/20040504/a241422c/attachment.pgp