> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:45:15 -0600 > From: "Andrew L. Gould" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Miguel Lopes Santos Ramos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: BSD Mall : to hell > > 1. The developers who place their work under the BSD, MIT, and GPL* > licenses allow for their work to be used in commercial products. If > they don't mind, why should you.
If I see one person on a public place getting money from another just because the first is "smarter" and the other is more believing, I mind, even though it's not my money. In this specific case, I mind if the enrichment of RedHat is greater than that of those who provide most of the value in RedHat's product. > 2. Yes, Red Hat is a for-profit entity. In fact, the "E" in Red Hat EL > stands for "Enterprise". You, as an individual, are not the targetted > market for that product. Well, you find it on consumer stores, side by side with Windows XP. > 3. Red Hat has, historically, been a good player in the open source > community. In fact, their operating system **is** available for free. > If you don't want to pay for Red Hat EL, then download White Box Linux, > or CentOS, both of which are free rebuilds of Red Hat EL -- RH logos > have been stripped out, etc. Red Hat is okay with this. It's a pitty that there isn't a notice on this consumer stores saying that White Box Linux, being the same thing, is available for download at no charge. Don't you think there's someone playing the smart guy in this story? > Now, enough about a Linux vendor, let's get back to focusing on FreeBSD > Advocacy. > > Andrew Agree. And I'm sorry I argued so much. Miguel _______________________________________________ freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
