Linux is not open source, says Microsoft

Tech World ^ | 05 May 2004 | Rodney Gedda

[justlurking]

You're one sick puppy. And you can take your accusations of me being a liar and shove them right up your ---.

I'll interpret that as an acknowledgement that my accusation was right on the mark.

[Golden Eagle]

Take it however you want. Fact remains, your thought process is whacked out, and you've done nothing but argue needlessly on a point you now admit you knew all along I was right about.

That makes you a lying, decietful, unreasonable jerk. So I don't care how you take it, what matters is your foolishness has been completely exposed, for the record, again.

[Golden Eagle]

Here's a reprint of the whole article, for those that may not have seen it. Quite obviously, my position is completely based on statements by the Red Hat VP, in that their current Linux product is not free to be installed and run without purchasing a support agreement for each copy. This is very clearly the Red Hat policy, despite the listed complaints from Red Hat customers cited in the article, and the repeated flip flops, distortions and insults spewed from poster justlurking and others in this thread.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/10/HNredhatbalk_1.html

Red Hat users balk at Enterprise Linux licensing

By Robert McMillan, IDG News Service November 10, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO - Linux may be a free operating system, but the days of free copying may be numbered for Red Hat Inc. customers who, as of this spring, will no longer be able to receive support from Red Hat without purchasing a support license for every version of Red Hat's server software that they run.

The Raleigh, North Carolina, company sent a letter to its customers last week announcing that, effective April 30, 2004, it would cease maintenance of its other Linux product, Red Hat Linux 9. As of that date, Red Hat Enterprise Linux will be the only version of the server software available for purchase.

But Red Hat Enterprise Linux, which was designed as a more business-friendly successor to the traditional Red Hat Linux, comes with a different support contract than Red Hat Linux 9, one that some users say is in conflict with the spirit of Linux's software license: the GPL (GNU General Public License).

While the GPL lets users freely make as many copies of Linux as they like, Red Hat's services agreement compels customers to pay an annual per-system licensing fee in order to receive bug fixes, patches and technical support. The agreement also prohibits the unauthorized copying of Red Hat Enterprise Linux and grants Red Hat permission to conduct on-site software audits for a year after the support contract expires.

This new license model has some users up in arms. "I'm hearing more than a little discontentment from the open source community about Red Hat's approach to support and requiring limitations that are far more stringent than the GPL," said Dan Kusnetzky, an analyst with the IDC industry research firm based in Framingham.

Users are unhappy because, with the end of Red Hat Linux 9, they will no longer have the option of purchasing incident-based support plans that place no restrictions on the number of copies they can make. With Red Hat Enterprise Linux, customers must either pay the per-system fee, or seek support from somewhere else.

Red Hat says that its new licensing model makes support costs more predictable, but some users see it as a step backward.

"It's kind of odd that the most advanced operating system that we've got is using the worst financial model from the 1970s," said George Johnsen, the chief animation and technical officer with Threshold Digital Research Labs, a digital animation firm.

Johnsen, who is building a Linux-based image rendering facility in Threshold's Santa Monica, California, offices, compared Red Hat's licensing to the mainframe licensing model, saying that it was cumbersome and failed to take into account the economics of large scale computer users.

Johnsen is typical of a growing class of Linux users: customers who purchase a large number of identically configured commodity systems to process large amounts of data in areas such as petroleum exploration or scientific research, or to run a widely used "network edge" application like a Web or file and print server.

While many enterprise customers are content to pay the per-system licensing that accompanies Red Hat Enterprise Linux -- fees that run between $179 and $18,000 per system -- some customers, especially those who cluster together a large number of computers, are balking at adopting the fees.

For Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which has been paying Red Hat's professional services group a flat rate for on-site support of Red Hat Linux, the switch to the Enterprise Linux pricing model is daunting. "The base price for Enterprise Linux is $179 per system, " said Robin Goldstone, the group leader of Lawrence Livermore's Production Linux Group. "We have 4,000 nodes worth right now. That's almost $800,000."

Because the $179 Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS Basic Edition license does not include technical support, Lawrence Livermore would have to pay even more money if it wanted the same level of technical support it currently receives with Red Hat 9, Goldstone said.

A number of other high performance computing installations are balking at Red Hat's Enterprise Linux support plan, according to Pete Beckman, the director of engineering for Argonne National Labs TeraGrid project. In fact, a number of high performance computing users are planning to hold a meeting at next week's SC2003 supercomputing conference in Phoenix to discuss problems they are having with Enterprise Linux licensing.

But Beckman says that the reluctance to adopt Red Hat Enterprise Linux's licensing terms is not only about cost. Users are also confused about what kind of software copying is permitted under the nine-page Red Hat Advanced Server and Services Agreement that accompanies the product.

"People don't quite understand the licensing restrictions," he said. "Someone has to come up with the document that explains what you can and can't do with the software you purchased."

While Red Hat says the GPL gives customers the right to freely copy Red Hat Enterprise Linux, it also says it considers unauthorized copying to be a violation of its service contract -- something that could lead to a breach of contract lawsuit, according to Bryan Sims, Red Hat's vice president and associate legal counsel.

"If you copy the Red Hat Enterprise Linux software we expect you to pay for the subscription because of the services you are receiving on those copies," wrote Sims in an e-mail interview.

Red Hat and companies like Suse Linux AG, which was recently purchased by Novell Inc. and has a similar enterprise Linux licensing model, are pushing these per system licensing plans because, as the software industry has proved, they're highly profitable, said IDC analyst Dan Kusnetzky. But, he adds, it's unclear whether or not the Linux community, which has had a hand in developing the software, will go along. "You could make the case that pushing for the per-node kind of license is premature in this market," he said.

Red Hat's spokeswoman Leigh Day demurred. "Customers have seen this as a rational model. Not only are you getting technology, but you're getting maintenance and support," she said.

Some users agree, especially those who are migrating from more expensive RISC based systems running the AIX or Solaris versions of Unix. Employment services company Adecco SA is looking at running a database of half a million payroll accounts on Itanium 2 systems running Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3.0. Though the company has not completed its evaluation, IT Director Joe Pagliaccio said that Red Hat's software licensing is a reasonable expense.

"We're running it on not that many servers," Pagliaccio said. "Because of the criticality of what we're doing and because we're saving so much money, the amount you pay really isn't that significant," he said.

But customers like Pagliaccio -- those looking to run Linux on a small number of processors for mission critical database applications -- do not represent the majority of Linux users right now, according to Kusnetzky. In large companies Linux is mainly used for highly replicated infrastructure applications like Web or file and print servers, he said.

For those customers who are pushing back on the pricing model, Red Hat is beginning to show some flexibility. The company is developing new 8-processor support licenses that designed to have a more appealing price for high performance computing users, according to Day. She could not say when such a product offering would be available.

It will take more than that to win over customers like Argonne National Labs' Pete Beckman, however. He would like to see Red Hat produce a plain English document that explains what users can and cannot copy under the Enterprise Linux support license, and he would like to see a price structure that better accommodates the needs of his class of user.

Beckman believes he is not alone with his concerns. "I don’t know of any site that has lots of processors that plans on buying a per processor license," he said.

[N3WBI3]

The following is directly from redhats site...

So what is Red Hat Enterprise Linux? And how is it different than the Red Hat Linux you already know and love?

First understand that Red Hat Enterprise Linux is built for organizations using Linux to handle critical computing tasks and run vital applications. Red Hat Linux and Red Hat Professional are built for individuals and small businesses.

So if you use Red Hat Linux as a productivity desktop, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is not for you.

Here's the difference. It's a classic match up: cutting-edge vs. tried-and-true. In one corner you have the two editions of Red Hat Linux. These operating systems plug you directly into the constant innovation of open source technology. New versions come about every six months. This makes them perfect for power users who want the very latest technology or small businesses that can handle the risks of rapidly adopting new technology.

And in the other corner you have Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Red Hat Enterprise Linux takes technology from Red Hat Linux, adds enterprise performance and availability enhancements, and comes certified by top software and hardware vendors. Red Hat Enterprise Linux also has a longer release cycle, 12-18 months. This helps IT managers lock down their systems on a single, stable release.

Now there's an important point we need to cover.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is sold through a one-year subscription and it does have a licensing agreement. But before you mention the "p"-word ("proprietary"), understand that the code is open and protected by the GPL license. It's not proprietary. We're licensing the services, not the software. The source code files can be downloaded by anyone, and you still have the right to use the software after the license and services expire.

You're simply paying for the value Red Hat adds: The enterprise enhancements, the ISV and IHV certification, the support services included with the product, and the security and software updates through Red Hat Enterprise Network.

Here's a quick review of what makes Red Hat Enterprise Linux unique:

* Kernel performance enhancements - We worked with Oracle and other enterprise software vendors to ensure mission-critical environments will benefit from kernel features that improve performance of SMP systems, large memory systems, and systems with SCSI and Fibre Channel storage.

* Failover clustering - Red Hat Cluster Manager permits near-continuous application availability (for many applications, from databases to file and print servers) regardless of hardware or software failures. (Available on Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS)

* Load-balancing clustering - Leverages the open source LVS project. Red Hat Enterprise Linux features the ability to distribute IP-based traffic and network service requests across a farm of computers. This improves availability and scalability. (Available on Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS)

* Java support - Inclusion of a JDK/JRE integrated into the OS.

* Longer release cycles - In the enterprise, stability is everything. Red Hat Enterprise Linux exposes customers to fewer upgrades.

* ISV certification - We worked with key enterprise software vendors to develop Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It is the Red Hat platform those vendors certify their applications with.

* Subscription - Red Hat Enterprise Linux is purchased by subscription, and it entitles you to support and software updates through Red Hat Enterprise Network.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux brings all the technical innovation, stability, and performance of Red Hat Linux--in a package designed for the enterprise.

---

The section in bold *clearly* indicates that the source code in the distrobution can be downloaded by anybody, and that use of RHEL does not require the services (you may use it past the service date).

[N3WBI3]

BTW, I actually have experience purchasing and using Redhat Linux (and have it in writing that I can install it as much as I wish so long as I do not make use of their services...

In addition I am allowd to download the source updates (which they provide) to keep the systems current. I ran like that for six months before I decided to pay the 300$ for 5 development subscriptions (fot the phone support which blows anything MS offers away).

[Golden Eagle]

have it in writing that I can install it as much as I wish so long as I do not make use of their services...

Sorry, but I don't immediately believe what Linux people say, their statements being too often incorrect or fabricated. According to quotes from the Red Hat VP, and their currently posted license agreement, all posted above and underlined several times, you are required to purchase support for each new install of the full product.

If you have something different, then scan it and put it up for all to see. Otherwise, I'm absolutely skeptical it actually exists. If anything exists it's probably along the lines of what you ORIGINALLY said, that you have to leave out certain parts so that it doesn't qualify as RHEL anymore. That or something that only applies to your specific operation, especially if it's small. So let's see it, along with a point of contact. Thanks.

[N3WBI3]

I have on the thread posted the link to redhats site where they say that you afre free to use the source...

As for not believeing somebody were you not the one who said if you wanted oracle on linux you had to use redhat?

[Golden Eagle]

But you'll violate your service agreement if you don't register each copy of RHEL for service.

Yes, not too long ago, Oracle only ran on Red Hat, but now there are apparently others. There are still other apps that are only certified for RH, which makes the point I was trying to make anyway, that being you CAN be locked into a particular version depending on your requirements. "Linux" is a VERY gerneral term, things aren't always one in the same, especially in regards to compatibility between the different versions. There are even 2 seperate "desktop engines" or "windows managers" just to have any hope of being compatible with everything "Linux". A lot of these supposed Linux experts don't even understand a lot of the actual binary compatibility issues between the different versions, a reason why it's widescale acceptance is unlikely, at least anytime soon.

[N3WBI3]

No youll violate if you use the binary files distrobuted on the disk, not the source... why is this so ahrd for you to understand..

[justlurking]

Take it however you want. Fact remains, your thought process is whacked out, and you've done nothing but argue needlessly on a point you now admit you knew all along I was right about.

After I corrected you (twice), you finally took a position that was correct. But, the discussion has only been prolonged by your claim that you took that position in the first place. All one has to do is look back through the entire thread and track the string of postings between you and I. It will rapidly become clear that the problem is yours.

If you disagree, then you shouldn't have any problem demonstrating to the audience that you are correct. But, you have yet to take that challenge, and knowingly repeat a claim that cannot be substantiated. That's a deliberately false statement -- i.e. a lie.

That makes you a lying, decietful, unreasonable jerk. So I don't care how you take it, what matters is your foolishness has been completely exposed, for the record, again.

If anyone takes a few moments to look back through your postings to just this thread, they will see your pattern of out-of-context citations, changing positions, and deliberately false statements. They'll also observe your repeated personal attacks, and only have to follow the clues I gave you to quickly realize that you fabricated them out of thin air.

They don't need me to explain it to them: the evidence is there for everyone to see. I don't have to resort to "proof by repeated assertion".

Of course, none of this is news to most of the people that follow this subject matter in this forum -- your reputation precedes you. But everytime you resort to the same behavior, you earn the disrespect of a few new readers.

[Golden Eagle]

No youll violate if you use the binary files distrobuted on the disk, not the source... why is this so ahrd for you to understand..

No I understand perfectly, which is exactly why your use of source would be such a poor choice, it's not even compiled and ready to go. Assuming you're even trying to be legal in the first place, everyone on this thread has such an attitute of "entitlement".

[Golden Eagle]

If you disagree, then you shouldn't have any problem demonstrating to the audience that you are correct.

LOL, it's already been demonstrated, repeatedly, and even admitted by you as correct. Why you're still arguing with yourself about it I have no idea.

[N3WBI3]

which is exactly why your use of source would be such a poor choice

Thanks for admitting that the source is open (even though you feel that it is too hard to use the source). This whole thing began when you said Redhat does not provide and OSS (open source software) solution. Now you admit it is open source but feel it is too hard to use (which it is not but that is not the point).

yea typing the following is a real pain:

configure; make; make install

Now here is where it gets useful, as a systems engineer I can use the source to build my own system and apply that to others (either via a ghost, or building my own RPM's).

As for the 'attitude of entitlement'.. I am more than happy to pay for software, every version of Linux we have in production is purchased through Redhat because I get my values worth out of it. I used to build my own test systems from the source but redhat now offers development system support for about 60$ per server per year.

Overall I have signed off on more than fifteen thousand dollars in Redhat software in the past four months (6 production systems and 15 development systems). The redhat developer support makes anything Microsoft offers look like a joke, this is where Linux saves you money, not so much in production as it does in test and development.

[Golden Eagle]

I used to build my own test systems from the source but redhat now offers development system support for about 60$ per server per year.

Exactly, it's cheaper to license than to go through all the bs, which you admit is not worth it. Plus if you read the agreement they expect you license each copy you want support on. I've even heard posters on Slashdot who call Red Hat "the Microsoft of Linux" to say you to have have all your RHEL clients on license if you have one on license, straight from Red Hat. But with customers like this, squeezing them, Red Hat's going to have a tough time getting their market share any larger than it is.

[N3WBI3]

It is *now* cheaper to license because of the developer entitlements. When I want to test a new configuration for a source control server im not going to shell out 500$ to do it. I will pay 60$ and then the 500$ for production.

That being said my company is not a small business, we have te resources to drop 10K on a minutes notice. But in a small shop where the expense of keeping a prod (1 server), stage (1 server), test (2 servers), and dev (2 servers) environments are beyond the IT budget using a self built image for stage, test, and dev can save you between 3 and 10 thousnad dollars, and because they are all the same build applying patches is a matter of building *one* rpm (an hour of work).

So are you conceeding the Redhat is OSS?

[Golden Eagle]

So are you conceeding the Redhat is OSS?

No, according to RH's license and their VP you can't freely install it without buying support. At least according to that article I referenced, and I haven't seen anything from anyone higher than that VP disputing what he said.

[Golden Eagle]

Since Red Hat seems to be MIA on providing any other statements on this, here is what the FSF has to say about it, including Richard Stallman himself at the very bottom:

http://www.slacker.com/~nugget/stuff/fsf-exchange.txt

FSF: Red Hat's license does not say "You may not copy software released under the GNU GPL," but rather "You may copy software released under the GNU GPL, but if you do, we will terminate your support contract and take other action."

Stallman: As I understand the Red Hat EULA, it only requires you to pay for support in accord with the number of machines you run it on.

Straight from the horse's mouth: you run it, you should be paying. Some of you guys must be bigger freeloaders than even he is, LOL.

[N3WBI3]

Except stallman is referring to the binary code when he says 'the number of machines you run it on' not the source code..

BTW waht part of me saying I pay redhat for all their sofware makes me a free loader?

[N3WBI3]

An informal interview is less binding than the statement from redhats site that I have posted four times to this thread... You want to ignore it than be ignorant about it...

[Golden Eagle]

Except stallman is referring to the binary code when he says 'the number of machines you run it on' not the source code..

Depends on what the meaning of 'is' is, right?