"most new Linux users couldn't careless"
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jimf Jan 17, 2007 12:21 PM EDT |
I think that describes Matt's attitude pretty well. Hey, anyone can become a Linux user, but, I increasingly wonder what price the Linux community pays for the hordes of users like Matt.... |
| tuxchick Jan 17, 2007 12:52 PM EDT |
Exactly. "To me, the GPL is a double edged sword. Its positive aspects can be seen with projects, such as the Linux kernel and Firefox. But its negative side can be seen as more and more Linux distributions are using legal work-arounds to bypass GPL restrictions. " This is just plain retarded. |
| dinotrac Jan 17, 2007 1:10 PM EDT |
>This is just plain retarded. No, just wrong. I do wish somebody would sue somebody on the aggregation of free and non-free software so that we could get the issue settled once and for all. My bet is that courts would say something along the lines of , "You gotta be kiddin' me. You're trying to keep them from putting the programs on the same CD or on the same ftp server? What's the matter. They got cooties or somethin'?" I suspect we would get clearer rules as what constitutes aggregation that the GPL (or any other license) has no business trying to restrict and what can be restricted in a license. I also suspect that the "meaty" provisions of the GPL -- especially those with regard to redistribution and source code, would be upheld without any significant modifications. It would then be easier to deal with whiners in the distro ranks and whiners in the "4 freedoms -- It says so right here on my bumper sticker" brigade. |
| jdixon Jan 17, 2007 1:12 PM EDT |
> This is just plain retarded. Especially since Firefox isn't under the GPL. |
| tuxchick Jan 17, 2007 1:20 PM EDT |
dino, it is retarded. Notice the complete absence of his naming any actual examples of "using legal work-arounds to bypass GPL restrictions." Any "legal work-arounds" I've noticed are for dealing with patent and DMCA baloney, not to evade the GPL. Like what Linspire does. I believe that binary kernel modules are violations of the GPL, but it's pretty clear that the kernel devs are not interested in making an issue of it. (Yet.) Lots of Linux distributions, including the too-sexy-for-its-shirt Ubuntu include binary kernel modules without having to implement "legal work-arounds" . The guy is a troll, or ignorant and proud of it. |
| TPuffin Jan 17, 2007 1:28 PM EDT |
Hmph. I certainly didn't care for the article, or where it was going. There are a lot of licenses out there under which developers can release their products/code, and most consider their choices carefully. Seems like most meet-in-the-middle license, as the author asks for, either gets co-opted by one side or the other, or withers on the vine for lack of support. Kind of like American politics. Hmm... |
| tuxchick Jan 17, 2007 1:38 PM EDT |
ok, slowing down a bit here- these kinds of Enderle-style articles make me crazy. Nothing to support what they're saying, just a bunch of assertions with nothing to support them. It's lazy and useless. So much hot air and foam in the world already- would it kill columnists like this to write something with a bit of meat to it? Especially since they're getting paid for it. There's better stuff in the LXer comments. > I do wish somebody would sue somebody on the aggregation of free and non-free software so that we could get the issue settled once and for all. Is this really a legal issue? As I understand it, it's a question of policy for the different Linux distributions, not a legal question. |
| jezuch Jan 17, 2007 2:56 PM EDT |
Quoting:Especially since Firefox isn't under the GPL. Last I heard, Mozillas are triple-licensed [sic] and it's highly probable that GPL is among those three. I only remember MPL ;) |
| azerthoth Jan 17, 2007 3:08 PM EDT |
Gosh darn it, I hate it when I agree with dino, its just so much more fun to find him disagreeable *grin*. I made sure I wasnt guessing and went through and read the GPL (yet again) and no where in there does it say that you cant ship closed source material in a distribution. As long as you arent stepping on whatever license they were released under there isnt a single actionable clause that I saw. I'm a layman so I may well be wrong, its not illegal, just considered bad form by the purists. |
| dinotrac Jan 17, 2007 3:16 PM EDT |
>Is this really a legal issue? As I understand it, it's a question of policy for the different Linux distributions, not a legal question. Sorry. Head shoved up my .... well, not my shirt. Residue of reliving KDE and QPL, I guess. You're right, no legal workarounds, just whining. |
| tuxchick Jan 17, 2007 3:39 PM EDT |
wuh oh, here comes someone with rubber gloves to help dino. I am so outa here-helpful people with rubber gloves scare me. |
| jdixon Jan 17, 2007 4:11 PM EDT |
> and it's highly probable that GPL is among those three. Well, the mozilla licensing policy page is here: http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing.html and I don't see anything about the GPL. It's possible I'm overlooking something. |
| tuxchick Jan 17, 2007 4:49 PM EDT |
Silly LXerers, always digging for facts. |
| dcparris Jan 17, 2007 5:02 PM EDT |
> Gosh darn it, I hate it when I agree with dino, its just so much more fun to find him disagreeable I would question you're ability to fit in if you didn't disagree with dino. :-p Seriously, though, I understand that non-libre can be included on a GNU/Linux OS CD, as long as it meets the requirements of "aggregation", and is not linked to the libre code/libraries too closely. I don't object to that from a legal standpoint, just from a policy standpoint. ;-) |
| bigg Jan 17, 2007 5:37 PM EDT |
Is there a debate about the ability of an OEM to include whatever it wants if it preinstalls Linux? I'm curious about the possibility that Dell or HP or Gateway could sell, say, Ubuntu preinstalled computers, complete with Flash, codecs, proprietary drivers, etc. It seems that is no different from having a friend install Linux on your computer. Not that this would necessarily be a good thing, just wondering. |
| dcparris Jan 17, 2007 5:52 PM EDT |
I don't think anything - beyond organizational policy - would stop someone from selling boxes with GNU/Linux and a slate of non-libre codecs/drivers pre-installed. Naturally, I would have to decline the extras. :-) |
| bigg Jan 17, 2007 5:57 PM EDT |
Then I'm totally confused by the first two sentences: > Have you ever sat back and pondered why we don’t see more Linux OEMs distributing Linux over Windows? Most might find themselves running down the usual list of reasons, but I have one that you might not have considered - the GPL. I wasn't aware that OEM's would have problems with the GPL. Either I'm a complete idiot or the author is a complete idiot. |
| jimf Jan 17, 2007 6:12 PM EDT |
> I don't think anything - beyond organizational policy - would stop someone from selling boxes with GNU/Linux and a slate of non-libre codecs/drivers pre-installed. I agree, that's pretty much added value... of a sort. > Naturally, I would have to decline the extras. :-) I'll take the 5th ;-)... |
| dcparris Jan 18, 2007 4:09 AM EDT |
jim! I'm shocked! /me feigns shocked expression bigg: I think it has less to do with OEMs than Matt's attitude. |
| tracyanne Jan 18, 2007 12:17 PM EDT |
Personally I thought the bloke was talking through the back of his neck, and filed the article under "too silly for words" |
| jimf Jan 18, 2007 12:29 PM EDT |
> "too silly for words" Well, absolutely. Unfortunately, there are a slew of people who are writing this kind of half baked opinion pieces and trying to pass them off as articles. I could see that posted in a thread on LXer, but they'd never withstand criticism. So maybe it's just an attempt to avoid the critique? |
| jezuch Jan 18, 2007 3:34 PM EDT |
Quoting:and I don't see anything about the GPL. It's possible I'm overlooking something. Always digging for facts, but not always deep enough :) http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/ "This page details the licenses under which Mozilla source code can be obtained. All of the code which makes up the core Mozilla products is licensed under a MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license or a licence compatible with all three of those (e.g. the BSD licence). Other code in our repository may have different licensing terms." One of the links: "GNU General Public License The GPL is one of the licenses under which our code is available." And later, in "Historical Documents": "Relicensing FAQ This document gives the details of the process we used to change the Mozilla source code from MPL or NPL to the current MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-licence." |
| jdixon Jan 18, 2007 7:10 PM EDT |
> Always digging for facts, but not always deep enough :) Well, I did say I might be overlooking something. Having made numerous mistakes in my life, I know better than to assume I'm always correct. |
| tuxchick Jan 18, 2007 8:00 PM EDT |
MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-licence sounds like it was made by Ronco. It's a floor wax! It's a dessert topping! Mmm, fresh bass! |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!