On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Matt Wilson wrote:
>Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 09:55:43 -0400
>From: Matt Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: RedHat linux development
>
>s/RedHat/Red Hat/g
;o)
I'm used to typing your directory names on the
CDROM.
/redhat/redhat-6.1/RedHat/redhat/RedHat/redHAT/RPMS
Or something like that... ;o) <grin>
>> On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Matt Wilson wrote:
>> >Red Hat did not develop Red Baron. It was developed by Spyglass
>> >(Spyglass Moasic anyone? :)
>>
>> Hmmm. I wasn't aware of that at all. I ran it once, said YIKES,
>> and then dumped it... ;o) No offense guys.. I dove for
>> netscape immediately and never looked back.
>
>Right, but remember that during this time:
>
>(1) Netscape was charging a per-copy license fee for redistribution
> that Red Hat could not afford.
Yes, very true.
>(2) Someone at Netscape decided that signing an exclusive "you have
> first rights to All Things Linux" agreement with Caldera was a
> good idea.
Hmm. I didn't know that.
>Red Hat knew that a GUI browser was important. That's the best that
>could be come up with at the time... :|
And a necessity for sure. An OS without a browser is
like... .... um.. DOS.
;o)
>> >Still, even then no code for it was written or maintained by us.
>>
>> Sure... <grin> nobody wants to admit to it eh? ;o)
>>
>> Some programs are just best kept in /dev/null... ;o)
>
>Yup, and it's landed there - I can't find a copy anywhere anymore.
Heheh.. yeah, I went looking for a copy a while back just for
nostalgic purposes, and I couldn't locate one anywhere.
>> Does redhat produce or contribute to any software at all that
>> is commercial and closed source, or uses a license that doesn't
>> comply to FSF/OpenSource guidelines?
>
>The policy is that all software written by us should be written using
>a Open Source compliant license. There was some non Open Source
>development going on at Cygnus, but all of that is changing now that
>the merger has been finished.
REALLY?? That is FANTASTIC to hear! Does this mean that we may
see some or all of the Cygnus stuff such as GNUPro toolkit
available under GPL for free? If you cannot comment on this
right now, I completely understand and will wait for the
/. announcement if need be. ;o)
>> That is more what I was interested in... just for curiousity
>> sake. Considering the amount of work RedHat does for the world
>> of open source software, and in particular GPL/LGPL software,
>> should they decide to release something under a license that was
>> not as open, I'd consider it acceptable. I suspect that that
>> won't be the case though, but would certainly respect it if it
>> happened.
>
>Well, there is one thing that we develop, but because of license
>restrictions we can't release the source. It's Secure Web Server.
Right. I guessed that one too.
>There's just no way we can do it. Our hands are tied. We can't
>afford to not have a secure web server. Hopefully things will change
>in that regard Real Soon Now.
Yeah, that is completely understandable as well. Until GPL
alternatives are on par with what you've got now, it doesn't make
sense to shoot yourself in the foot. Judging by the way redhat
has been towards free software all along, one must extrapolate
that the 'mission' is to have everything free software - or "open
source" for the catch phrase of the day..
I think in this respect, RedHat is a big leader of change indeed!
>> Yep, I remember. As soon as electric eyes was functional, it
>> replaced xv. I added xv back in on my setup because 'ee' didn't
>> do everything xv did, but I like the fact that RedHat has been
>> cleaning the distribution to be open-source pure. Once Netscape
>> is gone (if ever) and replaced by Mozilla, etc.. (if that
>> happens) then we'll be completely Open Source, no?
>
>I do believe so. We try to be careful with what goes in the "core
>distribution" of Red Hat Linux. We want you to be able to share your
>CD with your neighbor, make a copy, etc without worrying about it.
Right. I inquired with Mr. Shumanfang (sp?) a while back about
releasing my own customized redhat CD's, and he let me know the
legalities of doing so. It was much more simpler than I had
hoped. This makes life so much easier for everyone using
RedHat's products IMHO, and is a major deciding factor over other
competing products indeed.
>Similarly, we want you to be able to develop sofware using the
>development tools and libraries in the core distribution and not have
>to worry about "am I voloating a license?" That is, LGPL style
>library licenses (except for the relinking provision part - ugh) are
>preferred for that sort of stuff.
Right. My own personal preference is to write GPL software. I
do have some commercial ideas as well though, and so it is nice
to know what you can and can't do without having to jump through
hoops or hire 50 lawyers, etc..
>> Yet another reason for people to choose RH over other competing
>> products. If I were to have to write my own installer, I'd
>> probably not bother.. ;o) Thanks guys! ;o)
>
>No problem. :P
;o)
>> Kickstart is wonderful as hell also. Makes automating customized
>> installs a breeze.
>
>The rawhide installer has the ability to insert Python scripting in
>kickstart files now, as well as a %pre for people who want to script
>some fdisk magic before staring the install process... :P
Cool! Any chance of adding perl support? ;o) Since you guys
are using Python a lot, I'm feeling that it is going to be around
for quite a while... Grrr.. Yet another scripting language to
have to learn.. ;o)
Well, thanks for your info Matt,
Take care,
TTYL
--
Mike A. Harris Linux advocate
Computer Consultant GNU advocate
Capslock Consulting Open Source advocate
I've overclocked my keyboard interface. It's quite messy dipping my
hands into the mineral oil, but *MAN* is my keyboard ever fast now!
- Anonymous Coward
_______________________________________________
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
