Maurizio Lemmo - Tannoiser ha scritto:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/19/1055828414057.html
Parrebbe che redhat advanced server violi la GPL.
Per nulla carino. Per nulla.
Per andare un pò più a fondo sulla questione, conviene visitare
il forum originale:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/nugget/42813.html
e il commento più interessante secondo me è questo:
> I think you're forgetting that that license agreement wasn't written
> for techies. It was written for PHBs to whom the concept of "we can
> install as many copies as we want, regardless of licenses" is totally
> alien and makes them very uncomfortable. The license is written in
> terms the PHBs like: you can install as many copies as you have
> licenses for, if you want more copies you buy more licenses. Since
> RHAS contains more than just GPL'd software (services, updates,
> support, non-GPL'd software are also included in what you're buying),
> they're entirely entitled to sell the whole thing under the terms
> they've written. They're just giving the PHBs what they want.
> If you want, you can go in, extract just the GPL'd software parts,
> roll your own ISOs and ignore the RHAS license from that point on. In
> fact, if you read the EULA, it specifically says you should review the
> GPL terms and that nothing in the RHAS license limits your rights
> under the GPL. Techies are expected to be smart enough to read that as
> the loophole big enough to drive a semi rig through that it's meant to
> be, while still keeping it in language that won't short-circuit a
> PHB's brain with concepts that just don't exist in their world.
Dal mio punto di vista, finchè RedHat rilascia sotto GPL il codice va
bene: non posso biasimarli perchè si sforzano di farsi pagare.
Davide Bolcioni
--
There is no place like /home.
|