3 ms·

>Chrome being a rebranding from stable releases of Chromium + proprietary codecs (which Google moved to eliminate with WebM). It does not matter: would Stallma

by scythe 15y ago

>Chrome being a rebranding from stable releases of Chromium + proprietary codecs (which Google moved to eliminate with WebM). It does not matter: would Stallman use Chrome? Chromium, like Darwin, is indeed as Free as it gets. >Chromium versus Chrome is basically Fedora versus Red Hat. RHEL is fully Free, and can be recompiled at leisure, cf. Scientific Linux and Oracle Linux. It is not quite analogous. >If you're going to talk about battles and victories, show me the source code of Cocoa, show me the standard it is based on, show me another platform on top of which you can use it and show me what third-party contributors does it have (and no, Cocoa is not OpenStep). Also, show me how I can install OS X in a legal manner on top of non-Apple computers. Who said I was endorsing Mac OS X?

bad_user 15y ago
RHEL is fully Free No it's not, the brand Red Hat is protected by trademarks and there's a license involved if you want to use software branded as Red Hat, a license for which you have to pay for. You also cannot redistribute RHEL, having many restrictions one would expect from proprietary software. Also, only Red Hat, the company, gets to make releases of RHEL and only that company gets to decide what to include in that release. RHEL is commercial software and it makes no guarantees on whether you'll end up using only free software or not (unless you're paying close attention), although the process itself for the RHEL snapshot is fairly transparent and you can inspect what goes in and out of such a release. What sets Red Hat apart from others in regards to open-source is their handling of in-house developments - they are one of the biggest contributors to Linux and they are giving back both through up-stream and through Fedora, not to mention they aren't very upset about CentOS. Chrome to RHEL and Fedora to Chromium couldn't be more analogous, although I have to agree, Google doesn't play very well with upstream (but that's not a political issue, Google engineers are just stubborn). Who said I was endorsing Mac OS X? Indeed, who said you were?

by scythe 15y ago

bad_user 15y ago

RHEL is fully Free No it's not, the brand Red Hat is protected by trademarks and there's a license involved if you want to use software branded as Red Hat, a license for which you have to pay for. You also cannot redistribute RHEL, having many restrictions one would expect from proprietary software. Also, only Red Hat, the company, gets to make releases of RHEL and only that company gets to decide what to include in that release. RHEL is commercial software and it makes no guarantees on whether you'll end up using only free software or not (unless you're paying close attention), although the process itself for the RHEL snapshot is fairly transparent and you can inspect what goes in and out of such a release. What sets Red Hat apart from others in regards to open-source is their handling of in-house developments - they are one of the biggest contributors to Linux and they are giving back both through up-stream and through Fedora, not to mention they aren't very upset about CentOS. Chrome to RHEL and Fedora to Chromium couldn't be more analogous, although I have to agree, Google doesn't play very well with upstream (but that's not a political issue, Google engineers are just stubborn). Who said I was endorsing Mac OS X? Indeed, who said you were?