Red Hat Acquires Data-Cleaning Company Permabit

An anonymous reader quotes Fortune: Business software company Red Hat said on Monday that it is acquiring the technology assets of Permabit, a small company that specializes in cleaning up corporate data to make storage more efficient and data access faster. Terms of the deal were not disclosed but a Red Hat spokesman said 16 people from Permabit will be joining that company...

While the conventional wisdom is that data storage is cheap, it is not free. And with companies turning to more expensive flash storage, it saves money to remove redundant data, said Richard Fichera, vice president and principal analyst at Forrester Research... Red Hat, which sells a version of the Linux operating system used by many Fortune 500 companies, also offers its own storage software. And, it wants to become a more formidable challenger in data storage, a goal that can be furthered by buying Permabit's technology, Fichera said.
Slashdot reader See Attached points out that this week Red Hat also released RHEL 7.4, which introduces support for Network Bound Disk Encryption (NBDE) and system protection against intrusive USB devices.

I am still waiting for a credible...

[bogaboga]

...Microsoft Office Suite replacement.

By "credible", I mean a suite that will: -

... allow "Business Logic" to be programmed into it

...one that will be a beauty to look at (by default)

... one that will be fast as well.

Think of it as a suite that will have a Visual Basic equivalent.

Short of that, I am uninterested, unfortunately.

Re:

[Zero__Kelvin]

Keep waiting for Office to be those things my friend!

Red Hat sells support, not Linux

[Zero__Kelvin]

Somebody needs to explain to Fortune that Red Hat doesn't sell Linux; they sell support and services. It is not legal to sell Linux. (See also CentOS)

Re:

[r1348]

When you sell software, you sell a licence to use it, not the code itself. This licence might include support (that's what Red Hat does).
It's perfectly legal to sell a licence to a Linux distro, as long as you comply with the GPL.
CentOS repackages most of RHEL, but they need to remove any Red Hat branding. Other that that, they're perfectly in scope with the requirements of GPL (and all the other FOSS licences present in the software collection).

Re:

[Zero__Kelvin]

You can't sell the GPL. It is certainly NOT legal to sell rights to any entity already granted by the GPL. That is THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT of the GPL. They offer their distribution for free, with a SUPPORT contract. You are free to redistribute ALL code, even if you don't have and have never purchased a SUPPORT contract. You can't redistribute their logos, etc. or other non-derivative copyrighted material, like knowledge base articles, etc. which is where CentOS comes from. They DO NOT sell GPL code, nor do

Re:

[Zocalo]

"Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer." — Richard Stallman (original author of the GPL). You seriously ought to go and read up on that, because you are badly misinformed about what the GPL actually aims to do and lets you do with code licensed under it. GNU.org has a whole bunch of pages on it, including an explicit statement that you can indeed sell code licensed under the GPL, so you could start

Re:

[Zero__Kelvin]

You can offer non-derivative works under dual license (e.g. Nokia with qt ). Linux is not developed in house from scratch by Red Hat. I'm afraid it is you that has no clue my friend.

Re:

[Zocalo]

From the GPL FAQ [gnu.org]:

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

Note the word "everyone" - that includes Red Hat (amongst others). Here's a more detailed piece [gnu.org] on the matter, where they

Re:

[Zero__Kelvin]

Did you intentionally leave out the preceeding answer to try to sound smart? "Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. “All third parties” means absolutely everyone—but this does not require you to do anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version." If Red Hat creates something from scratch they can sell it, but nobody can take their work and re-sell it. This is why N

Re:

[drinkypoo]

If Red Hat creates something from scratch they can sell it, but nobody can take their work and re-sell it. This is why NOBODY can sell Linux.

If Red Hat creates something from scratch and wants people to use it, they'll license it under the GPL. Any software licensed with the GPL can be sold for any amount of money you can charge, so long as you're not misrepresenting it. That means you can't claim to hold the copyright, and you can't use someone else's trademarks without their permission.

This is why anyone can sell Linux. If nobody could sell Linux, then it would be illegal to buy a Linux CD, but you can buy a Linux CD all day.

Re:

[Zero__Kelvin]

Stop thinking you understand what you just proved you don't. In the case you describe you are charging for the cost of the CD including the cost of labor to create the CD, packaging and distribution, including shipping costs.

Re:

[Kjella]

Note the word "everyone" - that includes Red Hat (amongst others). Here's a more detailed piece on the matter, where they even state that they "encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can." (my emphasis)

You damn well better charge as much as you can, as the first copy you sell might be your last. Since everyone you sell it to can turn around and give it to everyone for free and you can't stop them. Heck, if Bruce Perens wins against grsecurity you can't even stop selling it to those who do. The FSF knows this right is a joke. The FSF doesn't care that it's a joke. Making money on the COTS model is wrong, as RMS has stated repeatedly. If you want to make money, the GPL doesn't restrict your ability to shoot

Re:

[LostMyBeaver]

hmmm.... I'm curious... if you're zero kelvin... then does that mean your completely stuck in just one place... if so.. how do you move your fingers to type... or is it something that affects only portions of your brain stem but still allows free motion of your finger and mouth without input from your brain.

Damn... that was rude and uncalled for, but I've always loved picking on handles/aliases/pseudonyms/nicknames, etc... You might feel bad for my friend Aslak that to me sounds like Ass-Lock which I then a

Re:

[Zero__Kelvin]

I never said they are doing anything wrong. In fact I love Red Hat. You are right that they know what they are doing. It is YOU that does not. Off you go now ...

Re:

[ls671]

Damn... that was rude and uncalled for, but I've always loved picking on handles/aliases/pseudonyms/nicknames, etc...

OK then "LostMyBeaver", what happened? Did you shave your pussy?

Re:

[LostMyBeaver]

Didn't say I was better at choosing names

And i was actually referring to a cheesy line from a cheesy movie where two idiots hunting in hats with antlers argue over the hats and then look up to realize their prey was gone. It actually would make Canadian Bacon or Teen Movie look high class.

BTW... I was tempted as I'm allergic to cat hair, but the kids wouldn't let me

Re:

[ShanghaiBill]

Open source developers are just a bunch of chumps.

Not really. If Linus had closed sourced Linux back in 1991, approximately this many people would use it today: 0.

Instead, by making it free, he has made $150 Million [celebritynetworth.com].

Re:

[Zero__Kelvin]

They only say "give" and don't mention sell, because with derivative works "give" is the only option, as I said: "Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. “All third parties” means absolutely everyone—but this does not require you to do anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version".

Re:

[F.Ultra]

No he didn't, there is a difference between charging for the binaries and charging for the source code.

Re:

[Zero__Kelvin]

I NEVER said that. I said you can't sell Linux. You can certainly write your own OS and sell that if you want to do that.

Re:

[aardvarkjoe]

I NEVER said that. I said you can't sell Linux.

And if you'd read the link he pointed you to, you'd understand that your statement is completely false. Somehow I trust the FSF's interpretation of the GPL over yours.

Re:

[Zero__Kelvin]

Again, you can't create A DERIVATIVE WORK and sell it, which is the case we are talking about here, because: "Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. “All third parties” means absolutely everyone—but this does not require you to do anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version. " Good luck learning about the GPL!

Re:

[F.Ultra]

Yes you can, you can create a derivative and sell it all you want as long as you give out the complete source code (i.e including your changes) to all of your customers that ask for it, you don't have to give it to any one else but any one of your customers can freely distribute the sources to whoever they choose which is why companies like Red Hat doesn't bother with restricting the source to customers only.

Re:

[Zero__Kelvin]

Read it again and think this time. If you create and distribute a derivative work I already have a license to use it. You can't sell me rights I already have.

Re:

[F.Ultra]

Still does not prevent you from charging for the prebuilt binaries. Yes you have all the right in the world to download the sources of my derivative works if they are published somewhere (note that if none of my customers have decided to utilize their rights under the GPL then you have no sources to download!), but that fact does not prevent me from selling you prebuilt binaries of said sources.

It might sound strange that people would pay for something that they can get for free, but that is besides the poi

Re:

[Zero__Kelvin]

You keep mixing terms. Buy the software. Buy a license to run the software. They aren't the same thing. I do agree with you that GPLv3 was written to stop the abuse of GPLv2 that you describe.

Re:

[Zero__Kelvin]

You might be the most clueless moron in this thread. Good Job!

Re:

[Zero__Kelvin]

There is something called the LGPL that libraries use to solve this issue (but the L stands for "lesser", not "library" as one might first assume). So ask YOURSELF this, why do they need an LGPL if I am wrong?

Re:

[Zero__Kelvin]

I really don't have time to help you with your reading comprehension skills today. CentOS, which is RHEL minus the branding, is 100% legal. Res ipso loquitur.

Re:

[F.Ultra]

Since you talk about selling people rights that they already have I guess that this thinking is what makes you so confused. No one is talking about selling any rights, we are talking about selling copies of software, nothing else. I can put Debian on a CD and sell it to you for money, I cannot sell you any rights or licenses but I sure can sell you that specific CD with Debian on it for money and there is nothing in the GPL that forbids this. Why is this so hard for you to understand when even the FSF thems

Re:

[F.Ultra]

No one is talking about "buying a license to run the software" but you, all of the rest of us are only talking about "buy the software". And this is perfectly fine in GPLv3 as well since it's no abuse what so ever (trying to sell a license to it would however be a clear abuse).

Re:

[F.Ultra]

The LGPL was created so that pieces of software (usually libraries) could have it's own source code licensed as GPL but still allow linking without forcing the derived works to be also GPL. So this is still only a licensing issue and not a "charge money" issue, the AC above are completely free to charge money for his derivative works regardless of if the library he used where GPL or LGPL. The only difference is that if the library where LGPL then he would not have to GPL his own code.

Re:

[F.Ultra]

Of course it's legal, no one have argued otherwise. But you can still put CentOS on DVD:s and sell them for money from your local Wallmart. You might not get many purchases since most people interested in CentOS probably knows that they can download it for free from the Internet but you are still allowed legally to sell it for money. What you cannot do is claim that people who download CentOS for free is somehow infringing your copyright or any other such nonsense.

Re:

[F.Ultra]

And btw their errata and documentation used to be completely free, they only put it behind a paywall when Oracle started to sell support for Red Hat systems and used Red Hats own errata and documentation to do so. So a few years back you would only get the install media for RHEL for the $349 and nothing else, note that this is not a license to use RHEL. Mention this since you keep thinking that we are talking about selling licenses and not actual software.

Re:

[F.Ultra]

I think that you are stuck in a mindset where you still think that we argue that you can sell rights to a software when we only talk about charging money for access to the actual bits. Looks like you are stuck in the mindset of how Microsoft and Apple sells their software (i.e the sell only a usage license). I can put the download link to my CD behind a paywall and still charge money for it. There is nothing in the GPL that prevents this and FSF have never once moved to even indicate that they would want to

Re:

[Zero__Kelvin]

I haven't embarrassed myself, because I never said the reason has anything to do with Stallman or his philosophy. The issue is a legal one, not a philosophical one.

Re:

[F.Ultra]

And the legal issue is that you are allowed to sell copies of other peoples GPL software including your derivative works of said software, as long as you abide by the license (i.e the GPL).

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Zero__Kelvin sez:

It is not legal to sell Linux. (See also CentOS)

Good lord, he's not just a total idiot in the systemd arena!

Some alternate uses

[BarbaraHudson]

"Data cleaning" - remove all redundant data, so that you only have to bitbleach ONE file.

Re:

[KiloByte]

So you're not using Debian

No one keeps you from using a sane init (and the whole bunch of daemons that systemd craps over) on Debian. Just in case you'd wonder why Red Hat used to be the dominant distribution a decade ago but is not any more.

will be Open Source with Red Hat Patent Promise?

[tech-law-ny]

https://www.redhat.com/en/abou... [redhat.com] says "Red Hat plans to open source Permabit's technology." This may mean that Red Hat's https://www.redhat.com/en/abou... [redhat.com] Patent Promise will apply. Possibly Red Hat will announce whether they will hold all of the patents on the Permabit technology, or whether any third-party patents remain relevant.