Comments on: Red Hat Does Well, But Why Does It Suddenly Need Licensing? http://techrights.org/2007/09/26/red-hat-licensing/ Free Software Sentry – watching and reporting maneuvers of those threatened by software freedom Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:00:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: ig http://techrights.org/2007/09/26/red-hat-licensing/comment-page-1/#comment-2133 ig Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:33:40 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2007/09/26/red-hat-licensing/#comment-2133 I'd still rather see Microsoft getting paid for codecs in a Linux desktop than see them getting paid for a full copy of Windows (and Office). If we have to take baby steps to get away from Microsoft -- the regime that has caused more damage to the universe than anyone in recorded history -- so be it. I’d still rather see Microsoft getting paid for codecs in a Linux desktop than see them getting paid for a full copy of Windows (and Office). If we have to take baby steps to get away from Microsoft — the regime that has caused more damage to the universe than anyone in recorded history — so be it.

]]> By: Someone http://techrights.org/2007/09/26/red-hat-licensing/comment-page-1/#comment-2131 Someone Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:47:20 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2007/09/26/red-hat-licensing/#comment-2131 Buying codecs from Microsoft is not nice, but when Novell made a Deal With The Devil they sold their soul, it seems that for Red Hat's Deal With The Devil Red Hat is paying with cash. I don't think we'll see boycot Red Hat over this. And as for why, legally Microsoft dose own "patents" WMV and WMA, who else will Red Hat legally get a copy from. Buying codecs from Microsoft is not nice, but when Novell made a Deal With The Devil they sold their soul, it seems that for Red Hat’s Deal With The Devil Red Hat is paying with cash.

I don’t think we’ll see boycot Red Hat over this. And as for why, legally Microsoft dose own “patents” WMV and WMA, who else will Red Hat legally get a copy from.

]]> By: Roy Schestowitz http://techrights.org/2007/09/26/red-hat-licensing/comment-page-1/#comment-2130 Roy Schestowitz Thu, 27 Sep 2007 06:04:37 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2007/09/26/red-hat-licensing/#comment-2130 Sander, This was mentioned about a month ago by SJVN. They needed to sort out some issues with codecs. Let me try to find you the link... OK, got it: http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS4294334547.html Sander,

This was mentioned about a month ago by SJVN. They needed to sort out some issues with codecs. Let me try to find you the link…

OK, got it: http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS4294334547.html

]]> By: Sander Marechal http://techrights.org/2007/09/26/red-hat-licensing/comment-page-1/#comment-2129 Sander Marechal Thu, 27 Sep 2007 05:23:17 +0000 http://boycottnovell.com/2007/09/26/red-hat-licensing/#comment-2129 Who says the licensing issues that Red Hat is sorting out are proprietary codec licenses? For all we know, it could be some GPL2/GPL3 thing. Or a BSD/GPL thing (much like the spat about wifi drivers on kerneltrap). Or maybe Red Hat is including some piece of open source code who's license is a bit ambiguous or unclear (happens all the time with other distro's as well. Just look at the Debian legal mailing lists). Who says the licensing issues that Red Hat is sorting out are proprietary codec licenses? For all we know, it could be some GPL2/GPL3 thing. Or a BSD/GPL thing (much like the spat about wifi drivers on kerneltrap). Or maybe Red Hat is including some piece of open source code who’s license is a bit ambiguous or unclear (happens all the time with other distro’s as well. Just look at the Debian legal mailing lists).

]]>