http://www.linux-me.org/index.php?option=news&task=viewarticle&sid=36

"MicroSoft" rings a bell?

peace

Salamo 3alaikom,

Redhat definitely is not the MicroSoft of the Linux community. The True Microsoft buys companies and steals their work and claim it is the company' s own work. This is thieft. Redhat on the other doesn't do that. It shares the source with Sistina. There is quite a difference between both situations. Those who think that way don't get what is the Opensource initiative.

Salam.

even that don`t make redhat micrsoft clone

no one can be microsoft clone i don`t think some one can be as ***** as microsoft buying comp or script is not crime oneofone every time u show ur hate to redhat it open source man

Originally posted by OneOfOne
"MicroSoft" rings a bell?

peace

come on!
companies Acquiring other companies is standard business practice, not unique to M$.

I don't know how you define theft ya Habdin, but I prefer to follow RMS's advice and avoiding talking about code as property since it only confuses manners.

however if you accept that code is property (it has to be property in order for theft to make any sense) then surely it can be sold (not just licensed).
why is buying the ownership of the code theft???!!!!

>The True Microsoft buys companies and steals their work

this statement reads like, the True Microsoft buys land and steels its trees.
what did you think they buy companies for??
where did you think the value of the company came from??

> It shares the source with Sistina

RedHat owns Sustina and it can claim sistina's code as its own, not diferrent from M$ and not different from Novel and not different from any other aqusition any company makes.

BTW I have a big problem with code being treated as property and I have a big problem with mega-corps, and the trends of mergers between large companies and aquisition of small companies.
however I realise this is not unique to one company or another and I don't think it automaticaly makes a company evil.

cheers,
Alaa

>> RedHat owns Sustina and it can claim sistina's code as its own

When a software company buy another software company it mainly buy the software and the code not it can claim the code, code belongs to whoever hold the company. Not sure what you mean here.


>> BTW I have a big problem with code being treated as property

All the software under GPL has owner, so also what is the problem you see here ? The code is there, yet it has to belong to someone, someone has to maintain and release patches and update and enhance it. I think this goes to all of the Linux software regardless.

>> however I realise this is not unique to one company or another and I don't think it automaticaly makes a company evil.


Sure it does not make the company evil ! It is not like M$ which buy a competetor and shut-them-off.

Linux need a virtualization file system and SAN support, the product in discussion was closed source, and Red Hat is putting it open source and will enhance and get it to be an Enterprise level of software, so how that makes it evil ?

We are missing a big thing here. Linux (with all the distros) can not be compared to M$ because all the distros no matter what they do, they have the source for the others, and if you look closely to the packages and kernel you will find all the distros's programmers contribute, and once one distro has new thing it soon starts to move to the others distros.

BTW .. In Paris in my way to Cairo ; )

FACT: there is no charity company
--
so why do I like RH and hate M$ ?
1) because M$ monopoly
2) over pricing
3) eula
4) BSOD
5) security
6) lose of mony (virus BUG ... etc)
....

>> RedHat owns Sustina and it can claim sistina's code as its own

>When a software company buy another software company it mainly buy the
>software and the code not it can claim the code, code belongs to whoever
>hold the company. Not sure what you mean here.

yes and when you buy something you can claim it as your own right??
what is the problem here, I said the bought the company code included and thats the normal way it works.



>> BTW I have a big problem with code being treated as property

>All the software under GPL has owner, so also what is the problem you see
>here ? The code is there, yet it has to belong to someone, someone has to
>maintain and release patches and update and enhance it. I think this goes
>to all of the Linux software regardless.

the creators of the GPL have a big problem with code being trated as property, they wrote the GPL to modify the system a bit.

check Why Software Should Not Have Owners @ http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/why-free.html


cheers,
Alaa

this may be of interest to those who fear RedHat may turn into the M$ of the GNU/Linux world.

today RedHat anounced that they're going to do the right thing and transfer ownership of their embedded realtime operating system eCos (which they're no longer interested in) to the Free Software Foundation.

http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2004/press_eCosFSF.html

thank you RedHat keep up the good work.

cheers,
Alaa

"(which they're no longer interested in)"
I didnt get ur point or the need to mention so.

Seems that u didnt notice that eCos was and will be always a GPLed OS????!!!!!

What makes differnece here either RedHat is interested or not? do u care for RedHat interests or community's?

I don't know what is wrong with you people.

I'm praising redhat here.

yes I know ecos was GPLd (had patents but was royalty free).

what I meant is redhat is no longer interested in maintaining ecos which is what the press release says BTW

>Red Hat ceased serving as the role of maintainer of eCos in Spring

so they're going to do the right thing and transfer ownership to a trusted entity.

>"(which they're no longer interested in)"
>I didnt get ur point or the need to mention so.

my point was to clarify why they feel the need for transfering ownership.

>seems that u didnt notice that eCos was and will be always a GPLed OS???
>?!!!!!

where the hell did I imply that it was not???


>What makes differnece here either RedHat is interested or not? do u care
>for RedHat interests or community's?

this is soooo sick
what did you think I was saying??

Originally posted by alaa
I don't know what is wrong with you people
You people ? Sir CALM DOWN.

( Hands an ANGER MANAGEMENT (http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/angermanagement) pill to alaa )

Good Movie

cheers,
Maher

Why did u see that RedHat's move 'a no more interest into eCos'?
Did they so? or ur just hate and unacceptance of any RedHat product?

I do not hate redhat, I have defended redhat on this thread.

and the bloody post which you think is a token of my hate against redhat is actualy praise.

why is this hard to understand, I'm telling those who think redhat is an evil company that no they are not, they are in fact a good company.

and I'm giving them an example.

here let me explain AGAIN

>Red Hat ceased serving as the role of maintainer of eCos in Spring, 2002.

this is a quote from the redhat press release which you can read by following the link I posted.

now most companies when they hold rights for software or technology which is no longer an important asset to them just keeps these rights, just in case they may find some value in it one day, in so doing they render great harm to the users of this technology.

sure the GPL reduces the problem since one the thing is GPLd there is no going back, but still the owner of the copyright still has more rights than anyone else, they can still release proprietary software based on it, and they can still patent parts of it.
the ecos situation is even more complicated because it does have some patents (stricly for defence reasons, these patents are royalty free, but still RedHat can choose to change the rules).

also leaving a free software project unmaintained is a very bad thing.

but since redhat obviously lost interest in the project (they stopped maintaining it since 2002), they had nothing to loose by ignoring these issues.

now if redhat was a bad company this is exactly what they would have done.
but since they are actualy a good company they choose to do the right thing and find someone else to maintain the code.
and just to make everyone at ease that there is no posibility of foul play in the future they also choose to transfer the ownership to a trusted organization.

I'm not an expert in business but AFAIK since redhat is a publicly traded company they have a responsibility towards their stock holders (the majority are still redhat founders AFAIK), and in this light such a step is not a light step but it is actualy a coragous thing to do.
imagine telling shareholders that because its the right thing to do we are going to give up ownership of a useful product.

if all companies where as ethical as this we would not have the SCO fiasco at hand.

I HOPE I MADE IT CLEAR THIS TIME, I DO NOT HATE REDHAT, I WROTE THIS POST BECAUSE I ADMIRE WHAT THEY DID

WHEN I SAID THEY LOST INTEREST THIS WAS MY INTERPRETATION OF THE FACTS AND IT IS IN NO WAY A BAD THING


In conjunction with the eCos development community, Red Hat agreed that it would be best to have all eCos copyrights held by a single party. The FSF has agreed to accept ownership and maintenance of eCos.