Re: [Gnu-arch-users] fedora core 2 will include subversion (and not gnu arch)

[Robin Green]

On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 07:37:46PM -0800, Tom Lord wrote:
>     > Why don't /you/ act, if you care about tla in Fedora?  Perhaps make
>     > your own rpm .spec file - I've seen ones for more complicated packages
>     > that fit entirely on one screen - and see if you can convince Red Hat
>     > to include your package.
> 
> and: why bother?

Because Red Hat is one of the most significant Linux distributors in 
the English-speaking world. (And Fedora feeds into Red Hat's other
distros.)

It's a no-brainer. If no-one else does, I will submit an arch spec
to fedora.us as a first step.

> Red Hat has no _legitimate_ claim to being leaders in the free
> software movement.

Yes they do. They are *more* purist than Debian on including
proprietary and legally-dodgy software (although less purist
about the GNU "Free" Documentation License, AFAIK). They have always
released _a_ distro that respects user's freedoms, unlike certain
other Linux distributors. That used to be Red Hat Linux,
now it's Fedora Core.

What has changed is that they have offered large corporate users
a choice of buying support contracts in return for waiving their
right to modify the distro (or redistribute it or its associated
updates in binary form).

OK, so this is against the spirit of the GPL, but not the letter.
But even if you view them as selling proprietary software and
giving away a Free distro, it's undeniable that the money made
from selling their "supported" distros feeds back (in part) into
developing Linux (in both senses: the kernel and the userspace
stuff).

I think that's a pretty cool business model. It's one of the few
sustainable, successful business models for funding core Linux
development, so let's not knock it out of a misguided sense of
ethics which is insufficiently pragmatic.

If the terms of the "supported" distros strike you as ethically
wrong, OK. But remember Red Hat are offering organisations a choice
between Fedora and their "supported" distros. A free choice!
Fedora comes with no unethical strings attached, no price tag. If
organisations still choose a RH "supported" distro, that must be
because they feel that it offers something to them which is
better than Fedora. Obviously.

And it's not features because Fedora is in general going to be
more technologically advanced than RH's "supported" distros.

Red Hat could already change their policy. They obviously
feel that the market would not bear the increased costs and
they would lose profits.

So are you saying they are mistaken, and a change in policy
would generate the same or greater amount of profit? Or are 
you saying they should buck their fidiciuary responsibilities
and increase freedoms their highest paying customers,
at the cost of loss of profits?

(I sound like such a capitalist here, and I'm not, I'm actually
a socialist - but I'm just trying to be a realist in this post.)

If you feel you have a better business model *for RH* which better
balances the need to make profits for investors, freedoms for all
users, and the ability to invest AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE in the
development of free software - please, out with it.

Personally, I look to the long term and see Red Hat's investment
as a good thing. Linux still needs work to break new ground
and spread freedom to more people. By restricting freedoms of a 
few unfortunate people working at some Fortune 500 companies etc
(people who would probably be restricted by anal managers and/or
by having to use Windows ANYWAY if it weren't for Red Hat!)
Red Hat is actually making more money which will ultimately
serve to spread free software to more people. Ends justify the
means, etc.

That's my theory, anyway.

Lastly, one question for you, Tom. Are MySQL unethical because
they dual-license and thereby profit from proprietary software?
(Actual full-brown, scary EULA proprietary software. Not Free
Software constrained by a support contract, which you can always
opt out of by e.g. cancelling the support contract if you really
want to. Yes, you can, because if you weren't able to, the FSF
would raise hell about it.)

If MySQL are not unethical, what is the relevant difference
between them and Red Hat?
-- 
Robin

pgp9Zj70Zzpt4.pgp
Description: PGP signature