3 ms·
He is not a stupid person, he knows what he's talking about. Of course he doesn't wan to pay for RHEL licenses, and he explains why the licensing model used by
by hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
He is not a stupid person, he knows what he's talking about. Of course he doesn't wan to pay for RHEL licenses, and he explains why the licensing model used by RH now is a bad choice for a business with a high number of nodes.
- pjmlp 4y agoWhich is why proper open source should be GPL, with a commercial license, so that the likes of him pay for the work of others that make his business possible to start with.
- fazfq 4y agoProper open source uses whatever licence the author wants.
- rbanffy 4y agoIf the authors want to get paid, they need to choose a license wisely.
- j33zusjuice 4y agoThat more or less rules out GPL.
- rbanffy 4y agoTell that to the MySQL folks. They sold it to Sun for a billion dollars, then made Larry Ellison pay for its development when he finally realised buying it with Sun wouldn’t allow him to kill it.
- poulpy123 4y agoHow ?
- pjmlp 4y agoThat is the whole point of having GPL with an additional comercial license.
- netmonk 4y agoI’m still waiting red hat to pay me for the accepted ansible patch I wrote few years ago.
- ungamedplayer 4y agoDid you get a contract for work done?
- netmonk 4y agoIt was a way to reply “has to pay for work of others” but which work ? And which others ? Cause currently Redhat is owner of Ansible and make money with it, while me as a contributor never got any penny they get from Ansible. So why rakuten should pay Redhat for work not getting paid by Redhat? See the point ? Who is parasiting the ecosystem here ?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ghaff 4y agoSo long as he’s not making changes and distributing them the choice of open source license is mostly irrelevant.
- jacooper 4y agoWhich is already happening. RHEL is open source because the majority of Linux packages are GPL licensed. If they were using non-copyleft licenses then RHEL packages would be closed.
- j33zusjuice 4y agoHe isn’t stupid, but he’s either uninformed, or he’s lying because he’s dead wrong about their licensing model. You don’t pay per core. You pay per physical machine (of any size), or per 2 VMs (of any size). If you’re heavily virtualizing, you buy a VDC license at an MSRP of $4k USD, and you run all the VMs you want on a single hypervisor. If you’ve got more than a couple hundred machines, the VDC licensing is probably your best option. Alternatively, use RH’s virtualization solution, and pay only for the OpenShift licenses. He doesn’t want to pay for the OS at all, he just wants to pay for support. That’s fine, but he’s still factually incorrect in what he’s said.