Who Pays For Open Source Software?

0

http://lunduke.com –

From the same guy as "Why 100% Free SOftware Destroys Linux": "There are many fantastic Open Source projects out there. But just how do they get the funding they need to continue and expand development?"

Full story »
MrSnippity's picture
Created by MrSnippity 15 years 32 weeks ago – Made popular 15 years 32 weeks ago
Category: End User   Tags:

Similar stories

Why “Open Source” misses the point of Free Software 16 years 6 weeks ago
Breaking Barriers: using free and open source software for development 16 years 16 weeks ago
Why "Free Software" is better than "Open Source" 16 years 38 weeks ago
Mozilla Drumbeat Aims to Expand Web Participation 14 years 38 weeks ago
Ubuntu87's picture

Ubuntu87

15 years 32 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago

0

RHEL, proprietary? I don't think so..

Well, if RHEL is proprietary, then how come its page at Wikipedia clearly states that it's Free Software/Open Source? And even if what's written in Wikipedia is wrong, then how come nobody bothered to correct it??

With all due respect, but the author of this blog seems to have a huge heap misconceptions and misunderstandings of what FLOSS philosophy is really about.

Please allow me to vote against it.

aboutblank's picture

aboutblank

15 years 32 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago

0

RHEL is not completely free

The argument showing the proprietary nature of RHEL is as follows:

  1. Proprietary: used, made, or marketed by one having the exclusive legal right <a proprietary process>
  2. Red Hat possesses exclusive legal rights to Red Hat Enterprise Linux, namely the exclusive legal right to distribute RHEL in binary form
  3. Red Hat possesses exclusive legal right to pass along the ISV certifications associated with the RHEL binary distribution.
  4. If you want to run any of the RHEL-certified applications and receive support from the ISV, you have little choice but to buy RHEL from Red Hat on whatever terms it specifies.

http://ianmurdock.com/2004/07/20/red-hat-enterprise-linux-is-proprietary/

I don't fully understand the logic being used to demonstrate how RHEL is proprietary software, but I have a different understanding of proprietary software.

  1. A computer program is free for a user if it completely respects the users' freedom
  2. A computer program is a proprietary computer program if it doesn't completely respect all of the users' freedom.

As far as I'm aware, the majority of Red Hat's RHEL offerings are mostly acceptable as it is mostly composed of free software. However, there are numerous instances to show that RHEL contains user subjugating software or endorsements to install user subjugating software. On this ground, I would never recommend RHEL for as long as it endorses proprietary software.

Ubuntu87's picture

Ubuntu87

15 years 32 weeks 13 hours 7 min ago

0

I agree, but..

I agree with you, but, as far as I understand, is that RHEL (as the name implies) is dedicated mainly to the enterprise, like projects, corporations.. etc etc.

And, we all know that a corporation is not like a normal house.
In other words, they have a huge business model, they have huge plans, goals, projects... etc. And in order to apply any sort of Information Technology, it has to be completely supported, and it has to follow certain standards that make it safe and reliable for the use in a corporation, and in huge and complicated projects.

So that's probably the explanation for why Red Hat looks so much like proprietary software. Ya know, downloading the Ubuntu .iso file, burning it on a cd and installing it can work for me and you, but large corporations will take this as one of those Dilbert comics, right?

Best karma users

  1. andolasoft's picture
    andolasoft
  2. fred's picture
    fred
  3. nilarimogard's picture
    nilarimogard