Subject: Re: OSI enforcement?
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:11:18 -0800

Quoting Tzeng, Nigel H. (Nigel.Tzeng@jhuapl.edu):

> I thought it was relevant because Donovan's claim is that because open
> source provides free solutions that you can't make money (except from
> nice people) on it where you disagree saying that you can because Red
> Hat does.

You have not bothered to correctly read what I said -- _nor_ what Donovan
said originally.  

In the first place, Donovan's claim concerned specifically copylefted
software, not open source as a whole.  He asserted:  "Practically
speaking [copyleft licensing] means you cannot sell your work (or at
least, can't sell it more than once)."

I said that not only does Red Hat, Inc. sell copylefted codebases
continually, but also that, e.g., the gcc binary RPM from RHEL5 Update 1 
Server Edition is not in practice available for free (or even more cheaply) 
except from that company -- that others have the _right_ to sell or give
away that file, but in practice do not.

(You can confirm this for yourself, if you doubt what I say.  I await
your timely refutation, and continue to not see it posted.)

> My position was it's somewhere in the middle.

Yes, after failing to understand Donovan's assertion, and then failing
to understand my counterexample, you then made some digression about Sun
Microsystems, etc.

And I rather suspect everyone here already knows a whole lot more about
the role of CentOS and other such distributions towards the enterprise
OS market than you're likely to tell us.