On Fri, 20 Jun 2014, Mark Stodola wrote:
> On 06/20/2014 08:55 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jun 2014, Lamar Owen wrote:
>>
>> > On 06/20/2014 03:55 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
>> > >
>> > > It may have become a legal question now that the SRPMs are no longer
>> > > available from ftp.redhat.com. That in itself is an unwelcome change.
>> >
>> > It is an unfortunate change, yes, but I prefer to give Red Hat the
>> > benefit of the doubt as far as motivations go, since they could close
>> > it up completely like SuSE has with SLES and SLED (OpenSuSE is SuSE's
>> > Fedora, so it doesn't count). And SuSE is completely within its
>> > rights under GPL to do how they are doing; this is not a jab against
>> > SuSE, since SuSE has also done and is doing a lot of great work for
>> > open source. (Of course, since I haven't looked for publicly posted
>> > source for SLES in a while, they may have posted it since I last
>> > looked and I just don't know about it.)
>>
>> I am glad you agree that Red Hat now moving closer to what SuSE is doing
>> is unfortunate and not welcomed by the community(*).
>>
>> (*) Where community in my definition excludes people on Red Hat's
>> payroll ;-)
>
> Although this discussion seems interesting, I see the same points being
> reiterated. I don't see how any of this is going to change anything though.
> RedHat and CentOS are moving forward whether we like it or not and the SL
> development team are doing what they can within those constraints. If one
> needs all that integrity and vetting of the source, go fork over the money
> for a license.
I have a license, don't worry. I am a Red Hat customer. But of course, one
license will not do. You need a bunch of entitlements to get access to all
channels. And on a yearly basis too. HA, RHSCL, ...
For only accessing the SRPMs and rebuilding it adds up quickly.
--
-- dag wieers, [log in to unmask], http://dag.wieers.com/
-- dagit linux solutions, [log in to unmask], http://dagit.net/
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
|
