rick at linuxmafia.com
Thu Jan 10 00:30:16 UTC 2008
Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu):
> Except that you assert that the legally equivalent binary that is made
> available via CentOS is not exactly the same set of bits and therefore
> is disqualified as a replacement in your scenario.
> Which is picking really tiny nits.
Not to many enterprise users. Try telling them that CentOS is exactly
the same as RHEL without the latter's bundled support, except compiled
in a vaguely similar manner in a vaguely similar build environment, and
you will be thrown out of the corner office onto your ear -- and that
includes situations where the company has _no_ desire to ever invoke
So, the correct answer to "Where can I get RHEL5 Update 1 Server
Edition's gcc binary RPM for less than Red Hat, Inc. charges?" turns out
to be "Well, in practice you probably can't, but you can have something
very similar for free that you should regard as for most practical
purposes functionally the same."
> Except you can. There's a reason that CentOS ranks above RHEL on
> distrowatch and google search trends.
There's a reason Red Hat continues to sell copies at full retail even to
firms that have no desire to use its support services.
> I am also unsure of your point.
My point is that "copylefted commercial software is something only
stupid people pay for, unless they're paying for bundled services"
(paraphrased) is factually inaccurate.
More information about the License-discuss