On 6/3/2011 10:12 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> That's not what I said. I said Red Hat's redistribution restriction
>> created the need for Ubunutu. And that the community that is now
>> dependent on RH-rebuilds might be better served by a dist
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:15 PM, wrote:
> I'm having some problems with the way the conversation is going. RedHat
> *was* a company; to me, the RHEL was aimed as a wedge, to get into
> corporate America. For that matter, who started offering their distro of
> RHEL around then? Why, the same compa
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> That's not what I said. I said Red Hat's redistribution restriction
> created the need for Ubunutu. And that the community that is now
> dependent on RH-rebuilds might be better served by a distribution that
> does not restrict redistribution
On 6/3/2011 2:15 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
>> So what? Red Hat created a community by beeing free in both senses, and
> then decided to go commercial at some point. And that hurt the feelings
> of some minor number of hard-nosed community members. Is that what you
> are talking about?
>>
>> I w
On 6/3/2011 1:28 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Friday, June 03, 2011 11:21:35 AM Les Mikesell wrote:
>> I'm talking about what would be
>> more in the best interest of the community that they attracted by
>> permitting redistribution of the collated works - and then cut off.
>
> It's in the best inter
Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> On Friday 03 June 2011 16:21:35 Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On 6/3/2011 8:57 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> So what? Red Hat created a community by beeing free in both senses, and
then decided to go commercial at some point. And that hurt the feelings
of some minor number of hard-nose
On 6/3/2011 1:17 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
>
>> I'm not really talking about what Red Hat does - and I'm not against
>> selling restricted software in general. I'm talking about what would be
>> more in the best interest of the community that they attracted by
>> permitting redistribution of the
On Friday, June 03, 2011 11:21:35 AM Les Mikesell wrote:
> I'm talking about what would be
> more in the best interest of the community that they attracted by
> permitting redistribution of the collated works - and then cut off.
It's in the best interest of the community to have Red Hat in a fin
On Friday 03 June 2011 16:21:35 Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 6/3/2011 8:57 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> >
> > Red Hat deserves credit for still provided the source RPM's in buildable
> > form even for those parts of the distribution that are not GPL licensed.
> > They are not required by license to do tha
On 6/3/2011 8:57 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Friday, June 03, 2011 09:06:28 AM Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Yes, RedHat deserves the credit for denying access to the binaries of open
>> source work, even to the community responsible for it even existing.
> [snip]
>> But when you say that, keep in mind tha
On Thursday, June 02, 2011 08:03:34 PM Rob Kampen wrote:
> My look at the website shows only i386 versions - this is a long way
> away from a replacement or alternative to CentOS.
Also, it likely would be a subset, and not the full distribution. This has
already been done, and released, as Fram
On Friday, June 03, 2011 09:06:28 AM Les Mikesell wrote:
> Yes, RedHat deserves the credit for denying access to the binaries of open
> source work, even to the community responsible for it even existing.
[snip]
> But when you say that, keep in mind that the 'original packages' part is the
> pack
> Yes, RedHat deserves the credit for denying access to the binaries of open
> source work, even to the community responsible for it even existing.
Since I just made a point about the upstream projects, let me
respectfully disagree with your statement : free software is about
freedom not free lunc
On 6/3/11 2:41 AM, Steven Crothers wrote:
>
> If you want to get into the nitty gritty of it, the ONLY group of
> people who deserve ANY credit at all are the Redhat folks. So saying a
> product that is released off Redhat's coattails is competing with
> another product that is ALSO running off Red
> If you want to get into the nitty gritty of it, the ONLY group of
> people who deserve ANY credit at all are the Redhat folks. So saying a
> product that is released off Redhat's coattails is competing with
> another product that is ALSO running off Redhat's coattails is absurd.
Maybe a little t
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Ian Murray wrote:
> Thanks for the link. It makes interesting listening because there are claims
> that they tried to engage with the CentOS devs to offer support and
> resourcing,
> but that relationship was not forthcoming... so they intend to build (as I see
> i
On 6/2/11 7:03 PM, Rob Kampen wrote:
> Ian Murray wrote:
>>
>>> This week's FLOSS Weekly interview is about ClearOS (audio/video at
>>> http://twit.tv/floss168). Apparently they have taken the CentOS developer's
>>> frequently given advice to go away and do it yourself and will have a
>>> 'ClearOS
Ian Murray wrote:
This week's FLOSS Weekly interview is about ClearOS (audio/video at
http://twit.tv/floss168). Apparently they have taken the CentOS
developer's frequently given advice to go away and do it yourself and
will have a 'ClearOS core' release that is their own rebuild from
>
> This week's FLOSS Weekly interview is about ClearOS (audio/video at
> http://twit.tv/floss168). Apparently they have taken the CentOS
> developer's frequently given advice to go away and do it yourself and
> will have a 'ClearOS core' release that is their own rebuild from Red
> Hat s
19 matches
Mail list logo
