<HTML dir=ltr><HEAD><TITLE>Re: OSI enforcement?</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=unicode">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16587" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText31327 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>></B>Rick Moen [mailto:rick@linuxmafia.com] wrote:<BR></FONT><FONT size=2><BR>>[gcc binary RPM in RHEL5 Update 1 Server Edition:]<BR><BR>>> The original question is whether you can make money selling it, and<BR>>> having an independently compiled version available freely makes that<BR>>> difficult if not impossible.<BR><BR>>I cannot help noticing that you've just ducked the question that<BR>>challenged your assertion. The relevance is that Red Hat, Inc. chooses<BR>>to make its binary package of gcc available only in particular ways,<BR>>that nobody else in general happens to choose to make that binary<BR>>available (though they are legally entitled to), and that the covering<BR>>licence's copyleft forcing clause cannot avail you to force provision of<BR>>a copy (because it gives you only access to the preferred form _if_ you<BR>>have a lawful copy of a binary or other non-preferred form).<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>Except that you assert that the legally equivalent binary that is made </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>available via CentOS </FONT><FONT size=2>is not exactly the same set of bits and therefore </FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>is disqualified as a replacement in your scenario.</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT size=2>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Which is picking really tiny nits.</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>>So, it turns out to be incorrect to assert, as you did, that you can<BR>>inevitably acquire copylefted product for free -- or even for less than<BR>>its producer charges.<BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Whether that is actually true or not in the generic sense, in the case</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>of Red Hat vs CentOS it is true from a functional perspective.</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR>>> At that point you are relying on the kindness of people willing to pay you<BR>>> anyways or the stupidity of people who can't find a free version.<BR><BR>>You know, your continuing to repeat this _isn't_ making it true. Neither<BR>>of us is stupid, but I doubt either of us is likely to find that gcc<BR>>binary RPM for free. Get the point?<BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Except you can. There's a reason that CentOS ranks above RHEL</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>on distrowatch and google search trends. </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>There are advantages for RHEL over CentOS but it would be in terms</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>of support rather than bits on your computer. </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>I am also unsure of your point. It seems a reasonable point that without </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Linux and the BSDs the unix market would still be priced stratospherically </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>because there would be no free alternatives (even given the downward </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>pricing pressure of Windows on the unix market). Therefore a free product, </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>if functionally identical to your own, certainly does place an upper limit </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>in what you can charge even for a premium product like RHEL.</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>I sure as heck remember what I was paying for Solaris, HPUX, AIX, etc</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>in the 80s. Heck, just the CDE desktop cost as much then as some versions </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>of RHEL does today. Or Solaris today.</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>So I agree in part with what Donovan says but I wouldn't quite go as far...</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Nigel</DIV></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>