Red Hat Enterprise Linux. It's an odd one. In order to use RHEL for longer than a trial period, you have to have a support contract. If you sign up with Red Hat to download the .iso / get a copy of RHEL from a Red Hat course, you have a one month access to binaries and updates. Anything after that, you pay for a support contract.
Because Red Hat retain copyright on the binaries and trademark rights on the artwork, at that point, Red Hat can't stop you using the binaries you have - but they can deny you (and anyone else) access to support and updates. They can also restrict you from passing on the binaries you have because you are then in breach of the agreement - me handing you Red Hat binaries may void my right to use the 50+ machines I've a support agreement on, for example.
That's a good way to fund support teams - it's even better when you get to charge per machine for older point releases as they go out of support. It's legitimate but not in any way generous or paying back. Red Hat now own CentOS - but there's no paid-for support and no guarantee of binary compatibility going forward. Your risk to run a business on it.
Canonical, on the other hand, are just being difficult and not playing well with the rest of Free Software. I respect Mark - his use of his own money has made a huge difference - but the results are mixed. I wouldn't be surprised to see Ubunu get out of the business of providing the Ubuntu Linux distributions inside three years, focussing instead on smartphones or container infrastructure.
My personal sum up of Canonical - too few experienced developers, a large, unfocussed user base and a vast dependent user base from child distributions. Add to that the treatment of some in the Ubuntu community and I'm unsure why so many people continue drinking the Kool-Aid.
Canonical, Ubuntu ...
Because Red Hat retain copyright on the binaries and trademark rights on the artwork, at that point, Red Hat can't stop you using the binaries you have - but they can deny you (and anyone else) access to support and updates. They can also restrict you from passing on the binaries you have because you are then in breach of the agreement - me handing you Red Hat binaries may void my right to use the 50+ machines I've a support agreement on, for example.
That's a good way to fund support teams - it's even better when you get to charge per machine for older point releases as they go out of support. It's legitimate but not in any way generous or paying back. Red Hat now own CentOS - but there's no paid-for support and no guarantee of binary compatibility going forward. Your risk to run a business on it.
Canonical, on the other hand, are just being difficult and not playing well with the rest of Free Software. I respect Mark - his use of his own money has made a huge difference - but the results are mixed. I wouldn't be surprised to see Ubunu get out of the business of providing the Ubuntu Linux distributions inside three years, focussing instead on smartphones or container infrastructure.
My personal sum up of Canonical - too few experienced developers, a large, unfocussed user base and a vast dependent user base from child distributions. Add to that the treatment of some in the Ubuntu community and I'm unsure why so many people continue drinking the Kool-Aid.