Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:44:54 +0000,
> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:24:39 +0000,
>>> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>
>>>>> at most, if you are being accurate, you could say that *some* RH
>>>>> salesdroids are making such a claim to you or your company. We don't
>>>>> get that from the salesdroids we talk to, and it certainly isn't RH's
>>>>> official position.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I did not remark on your experience, Jim, I remarked on my own. You're
>>>> quite welcome to remark on yours, of course.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That's fair enough, but with no evidence, and no references, it's a bit
>>> of the old "lurkers support me in email"
>>
>> Well, okay. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to make this any more
>> visible. I have no idea how far this problem goes, whether it extends
>> outside the UK or just within it, whether it's just one salesman or
>> several, whether its even our own buyers who are being bullied or
>> misunderstanding terms, nevertheless, this problem has come up in some
>> pretty senior-level discussions with myself and our group solicitor
>> involved, and the buyers were quite convinced that in order to install
>> multiple copies of Red Hat, they had to buy licences.
>>
>
>
> Different issue entirely.
>
> You can install as many machines with RH as you want *provided* you
> don't install a couple of trademark bits, from memory, redhat-logos.
> Other than the redhat-logos package, every other package on our RH boxes
> are all under freely distributable licences.
>
> You only get support for the number of machines you have a support
> contract for, although you can move that support around with a bit of
> poking at the support website.
Not this issue in hand at all. The issue in hand is what Red Hat's
salesmen were saying with respect to licences, which is what I said in
the first place...
>
>
>>>
>>> Especially as no one else seems to have had the same experience as you.
>>>
>>
>> *Someone* has to report everything first.
>>
>> Personally, I'm hoping that word will get back to Red Hat that I'm
>> p*ssed off about this, and they'll change their approach, which would be
>> great.
>>
>
> See above, it sounds like a misunderstanding (perhaps a deliberate one
> on the part of the RH salesman)
I'm fairly certain it was deliberate, which is yet another reason why I
was more than a bit irritated.
>
> Of course, if your PHB are hard of thinking, you can always go CentOS.
> The only reason we have the 5 RH boxes we do have, is because Oracle and
> MySQL support is only for RH and not for CentOS (It's the same reason we
> are on RH 4 for those boxes, and not RH 5) The cost of the RH support is
> a pittance compared to Oracle :) (Oracle *works* fine on CentOS, but the
> Oracle support contract doesn't)
>
The whole issue was about support contracts. Our traditional
procurement people are only just beginning to grasp the idea that
support might be separable from RTU, and that RTU is meaningless in
GPLed code. Well, not meaningless, but at least has a completely
different meaning, anyway.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
