At the US border

[david thornton]

My experience has been that often "business people" think that if they 
are not paying for it , it's not professional. It's about having a 
throat to choke. They hire me cause they want to be able to ring my neck 
when it doesn't work. They want me to use redhat so that when it breaks 
I can ring redhat's neck.

They WANT Redhat. They need to know when I can't fix it I can call the 
monther-ship. Funny thing is , redhat support is worse than useless. 
Which is typical for most first "support groups" which is a modern 
"broken thing"

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4101280286098310645&q=broken

Bah,
David

Simon wrote:

> I would have thought that removing the other freedoms is a 
> prerequisite to forcing people to pay licensing fees.  I agree that 
> fees aren't a nice thing, but it is completely legal to sell GPL 
> licensed software that you don't own the copyright for, as long as you 
> license it under the GPL.  You could almost say it's pointless to do 
> this, but RHEL is a prominent example of it actually being done, and 
> CentOS is an example of why it may be pointless (I know, the money 
> buys support too).  So, I could correct myself to "not just free of 
> cost" instead of not free of cost, but one must recognize that freedom 
> of speech and being cost free are two different things, and it's valid 
> to refer to one by itself.  Then again, I also support freedom from 
> licensing fees, I don't much like them either.
>
> On another note, some IT establishments seem to enjoy paying fees if 
> it buys them assurance of 24/7 support.  However, said establishments 
> probably also enjoy paying various other fees as well, that's my 
> impression.  And by enjoy, I mean not feeling nauseous about spending 
> tens of thousands of dollars on individual software licenses.
>
> On 9/30/06, *Christopher Browne* <cbbrowne-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org 
> <mailto:cbbrowne-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org>> wrote:
>
>     On 9/29/06, Simon <simon80-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org <mailto:simon80-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org>>
>     wrote:
>     > I worry about alienating myself if I say something about "free as in
>     > freedom", but I think the most sane sounding thing to say, if
>     you want
>     > to clarify, is that you meant free to use, modify, and share,
>     not free
>     > of cost.
>
>     This morning, Chris De Bona pointed out the important point that "free
>     of charge" is, in fact, one of the vital aspects.
>
>     One of the relevant freedoms is "freedom from licensing fees," and
>     whenever people run up the flagpole the "free as in speech, not free
>     as in beer," they *are* contradicting that.
>
>     There are a multiplicity of freedoms involved, and one of them *is*
>     freedom from people sending you  licensing bills.
>
>

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists