Hi,

I thought Linux is free of cost. You can freely copy the installation
cds, distribute with your friends, download from the net, etc. But
since last one year (or maybe earlier, I might not have noticed), I am
seeing that most major distros are now pay-ware. And it isnt really
cheap to buy Linux.

How is Redhat , Suse and Mandrake different from Microsoft when they
sell public code (GNU, kernel). Atleast the MS guys write some of their
own code, some outsourced, and most of it comes from their previous
version of the software. :-)

What the linux vendors are doing is just lifting the public open source
code, compiling it and selling it. In fact I believe they are worse
than MS. The so called free Fedora is riddled with bugs and it is an
untested beta released for free testing by the public. Redhat then
picks up the tested code from Fedora and sells it in their "enterprise
edition".

I think they are shooting themselves in the foot by doing all this.

I was following linux for quite some time, and I had installed Redhat 7
Linux on my old P3 machine. I was happy to see linux growing. But this
linux selling business has left be disillusioned.

Before you put me in the line of fire(I have seen anti Linux people
shredded to bits in other forums :) ), I must say that I am not saying
all this just for the sake of saying something, but isnt something very
wrong here.

Your are mistaken.

Linux continues to be free.

_support_ is often not free and pretty much noone will for
free mail you CD's, and sure some distributions do panhandling,
and sure some probably have commercial content that isn't free,
but I'm not aware of any you can't have for free if you are
just talking about the Linux content itself.

Can you point to any counter examples?

Stan
-- 
Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
www.worldbadminton.com 

On 2005-10-07, HalcyonWild <Halcyon.Wild@gmail.com> wrote:

> linux selling business has left be disillusioned.

I can't imagine why.  I can get any linux distro at no cost whatsoever
from many sources on the internet.  Sure, they sell commercial copies,
but no one is twisting your arm to buy.  Even Redhat 9 is available
for download.

http://iso.linuxquestions.org/version.php?version=10

As I understand it, there is no problem with charging for linux.  It
just not ok to not make it available for free.  I do not know of any
linux that is not available at zero cost.  

nb

On 7 Oct 2005 10:09:48 -0700, HalcyonWild staggered into the Black Sun
and said:
> I thought Linux is free of cost. You can freely copy the installation
> cds, distribute with your friends, download from the net, etc.

This has always been true AFAICT.

> seeing that most major distros are now pay-ware.

?  Debian and Gentoo are payware now?  Son of a bitch.

> How is Redhat , Suse and Mandrake different from Microsoft when they
> sell public code (GNU, kernel)?

Redhat/SuSE/Mandriva make it possible to get the same stuff (minus a few
commercial apps) for free.

> What the linux vendors are doing is just lifting the public open
> source code, compiling it and selling it.

The terms of the GPL explicitly allow this.  Have you read the GPL?  Go
do that.  It's on your installed systems and on your installation CDs.

Also, when you buy a boxed set of Redhat/SuSE/Mandriva, you typically
get some physical media, a book or 2, and a card that entitles you to 30
days (60 days, 90 days...) of installation support.  It costs money to
provide those physical things and that installation support, and some of
what you're paying for those boxed sets goes to defray those costs.

To take this further, Redhat uses some of the money it takes in to pay
kernel developers and GNOME developers to write and debug code.  The
stuff those developers write gets released under the GPL.  SuSE
contributed a bunch of code to XFree86 in the past, and is probably
paying people to write/debug GPLed KDE code now.  This has resulted in
more Free stuff for everyone to use, so in the long term, everybody
wins.

> The so called free Fedora is riddled with bugs and it is an untested
> beta released for free testing by the public.

This surprises you?  If you want stable software, there's this thing
called "Debian Stable" that you can use.

> I was happy to see linux growing. But this linux selling business has
> left [me] disillusioned.

The whole "release a mostly-working beta" thing is pervasive in the
software industry.  It's not just Redhat doing this, it's also IBM, Sun,
and every game developer everywhere.  Bitching at one vendor for
doing something all the vendors are doing is... less than productive.
(Maybe the whole development process is broken, but if so, how could it
be fixed?  Specifics, please, and remember to avoid Flag Days and ensure
backwards combatability.)

> Before you put me in the line of fire, I must say that I am not saying
> all this just for the sake of saying something, but isn't something
> very wrong here?

Not AFAICT.  Remember, the folks at the FSF used to sell tapes and CDs
containing GPLed software.  They charged substantially more than the
cost of a blank tape/CD plus operator overhead.  I think they still do
that.  I don't think *anybody's* more concerned than the FSF about
complying with the letter and spirit of the GPL.

-- 
Matt G|There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see
Brainbench MVP for Linux Admin /    mail: TRAP + SPAN don't belong
http://www.brainbench.com     /    "He is a rhythmic movement of the
-----------------------------/      penguins, is Tux." --MegaHAL

In comp.os.linux.misc HalcyonWild <Halcyon.Wild@gmail.com>:
> Hi,

> I thought Linux is free of cost. You can freely copy the installation
> cds, distribute with your friends, download from the net, etc. But
> since last one year (or maybe earlier, I might not have noticed), I am
> seeing that most major distros are now pay-ware. And it isnt really
> cheap to buy Linux.

> untested beta released for free testing by the public. Redhat then
> picks up the tested code from Fedora and sells it in their "enterprise
> edition".

Which can and is (google for "CentOS") freely distributable with
minor changes. Just: 

 wget http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/trademark1.pdf

For more recent stuff, KDE/etc I'd suggest downloading Fedora
Core 4, the community version of redhat, which is by no means
beta quality.

> I think they are shooting themselves in the foot by doing all this.

> I was following linux for quite some time, and I had installed Redhat 7
> Linux on my old P3 machine. I was happy to see linux growing. But this
> linux selling business has left be disillusioned.

> Before you put me in the line of fire(I have seen anti Linux people
> shredded to bits in other forums :) ), I must say that I am not saying
> all this just for the sake of saying something, but isnt something very
> wrong here.

You presumption are completely wrong and it's not unlikely you
could get "shredded to bits" just because of this reason. ;-)

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 408: Computers under water due to SYN flooding.

stan@worldbadminton.com wrote:

> Your are mistaken.
>
> Linux continues to be free.

Go to the websites of Redhat, Mandriva or mandrake, Suse, Mepis, etc.
See the $ rates quoted. the free ones are the bug riddled test
versions. I have seen fedora to be slow and in some cases, crashing.

> _support_ is often not free and pretty much noone will for
> free mail you CD's, and sure some distributions do panhandling,

Fine, I dont want the free CDs mailed to me, but what about ISO
downloads. No ISOs are available for download. If it were allowed to
redistribute freely (GNU says that apart from free software, you should
have the freedom to redistribute ), there would be download servers out
there who would allow you to download linux. I did not find any. Only
debian happens to be free, but that again is way behind. If I am
allowed to redistribute after buying linux, I might set set up a
download site myself. Why is nobody doing it.


> and sure some probably have commercial content that isn't free,
> but I'm not aware of any you can't have for free if you are
> just talking about the Linux content itself.

Linux content, just the kernel you mean. Just the OS , without all the
utilities. Is it. What is it good for then. Will anyone bother to
download hundreds of programs and utilities. Many people do not have
access to Internet.

> Can you point to any counter examples?
The websites I mentioned above. I tried Ubuntu and Debian, it left me
unimpressed.
Ok, you cannot have quality without paying for it, you might say. Then
, better we stop using, reporting bugs and testing code for redhat ,
suse and mandrake; let them spend money they earn by selling public
open source code.

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 17:19:17 +0000 (UTC), stan@worldbadminton.com 
  <stan@worldbadminton.com> wrote:
> Your are mistaken.
>
> Linux continues to be free.
>
> _support_ is often not free and pretty much noone will for
> free mail you CD's,
except Ubuntu, http://ubuntulinux.com

-- 
BOFH excuse #259:
Someone's tie is caught in the printer, and if anything else gets
printed, he'll be in it too.

* HalcyonWild Wrote in comp.os.linux.misc:

> Fine, I dont want the free CDs mailed to me, but what about ISO
> downloads. No ISOs are available for download.

Iso's for all the distros you mention are available for free DL.

-- 
David

notbob wrote:

> but no one is twisting your arm to buy.  Even Redhat 9 is available
> for download.

Redhat 9. The shrike edition ! That was way back in 2001 or something!.
Now you wouldnt go back to using win NT 3.5 once you have put your
hands on WinXP.

> As I understand it, there is no problem with charging for linux.  It
> just not ok to not make it available for free.  I do not know of any
> linux that is not available at zero cost.

Well then why do they call linux free.

And I repeat, the free ones are unstable. A friend of mine formatted
his HDD after struggling with fedora for bout a week.
If you want to spend money, rather go for a stable unix version from
Sun Microsystems or HP or IBM. My point is that I am not anti-Linux or
pro MS or anything. It is that if you want to spend money, better go
for Sun, HP or MS Win2k(best windows version till date , IMHO), or
MacOS X

HalcyonWild wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I thought Linux is free of cost. You can freely copy the
> installation cds, distribute with your friends, download from
> the net, etc. But since last one year (or maybe earlier, I
> might not have noticed), I am seeing that most major distros
> are now pay-ware. And it isnt really cheap to buy Linux.

You don't buy Linux, you pay for the media and the service, of
putting a stable and working system together. BTW: SuSE has
become OpenSuSE, with a similair development model like Debian.

Apropos Debian. This distribution never was commercial, but yet
they are selling CDs with Debian on them. This is mainly for the
people who don't have a high bandwidth connection.

> How is Redhat , Suse and Mandrake different from Microsoft when
> they sell public code (GNU, kernel).

They don't sell the source code. You can perfectly download the
sources of all Linux related software, compile and install it
yourself. That is then called Linux from scratch. You may even
make an image from the system you created and sell this image,
as long as you provide all sources you may have changed or that
are based on GPL code.

Free in the OSS sense doesn't mean free as in free beer, but
rather free in freedom.

> What the linux vendors are doing is just lifting the public
> open source code, compiling it and selling it.

Ever did this yourself? You know how long it takes to build a
sane system from the bare sources. Just compiling and linking
the whole thing takes over a week, even on a P4 3GHz machine.
The only way to make it faster is to compile it on a compiler
farm. The other thing is, that there might be bugfixes, patches
etc. that should be merged with the sources before compiling.
Creating a distribution is a really difficult job. Not to
mention the development of the package managers and the actual
maintaince of the package database.

I think this _is_ worth the money to pay BUT you can easyly
download all known distributions from the servers minus the
additional licences third party applications that are not
OpenSource. E.g. VMWare or CrossOver Office or Cedega or... And
you forget that you not only get a OS but also a full set of
user applications, starting from simple text editors, CAD
Programs, Vector Graphics, Image Manipulation, Sound Recording
and Editing, CD/DVD Authoring, a whole bunch of servers etc. And
all this on a neat DVD you get for 70$ comming _with_ support
for everything that is on that CD.

Wolfgang Draxinger
-- 

On 2005-10-07, HalcyonWild <Halcyon.Wild@gmail.com> wrote:


> there who would allow you to download linux. I did not find any. 

Maybe not, but I did, and I provided the link.  Redhat Enterprise WS
(workstation) is not just the linux distro.  It's the distro plus
online/phone support.  There is nothing in the GPL that requires a
distro to either provide free support or provide an online download
server.    

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 10:09:48 -0700, HalcyonWild wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I thought Linux is free of cost. You can freely copy the installation
> cds, distribute with your friends, download from the net, etc. But
> since last one year (or maybe earlier, I might not have noticed), I am
> seeing that most major distros are now pay-ware. And it isnt really
> cheap to buy Linux.
> 
> How is Redhat , Suse and Mandrake different from Microsoft when they
> sell public code (GNU, kernel). Atleast the MS guys write some of their
> own code, some outsourced, and most of it comes from their previous
> version of the software. :-)
> 
> What the linux vendors are doing is just lifting the public open source
> code, compiling it and selling it. In fact I believe they are worse
> than MS. The so called free Fedora is riddled with bugs and it is an
> untested beta released for free testing by the public. Redhat then
> picks up the tested code from Fedora and sells it in their "enterprise
> edition".
> 
> I think they are shooting themselves in the foot by doing all this.
> 
> I was following linux for quite some time, and I had installed Redhat 7
> Linux on my old P3 machine. I was happy to see linux growing. But this
> linux selling business has left be disillusioned.
> 
> Before you put me in the line of fire(I have seen anti Linux people
> shredded to bits in other forums :) ), I must say that I am not saying
> all this just for the sake of saying something, but isnt something very
> wrong here.

I believe you have a serious misunderstanding. Basically what they are
selling are some commercial apps and SUPPORT. The free downloads have no
support. You want a free distro, fine - go for it. You want support -
that's available too; for a price.

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 12:34:26 -0500, notbob wrote:

> On 2005-10-07, HalcyonWild <Halcyon.Wild@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> linux selling business has left be disillusioned.
> 
> I can't imagine why.  I can get any linux distro at no cost whatsoever
> from many sources on the internet.  Sure, they sell commercial copies,
> but no one is twisting your arm to buy.  Even Redhat 9 is available
> for download.
> 
> http://iso.linuxquestions.org/version.php?version=10
> 
> As I understand it, there is no problem with charging for linux.  It
> just not ok to not make it available for free.  I do not know of any
> linux that is not available at zero cost.  
> 
> nb

Linspire? Xandros?

On 2005-10-07, Wolfgang Draxinger wrote:
>> What the linux vendors are doing is just lifting the public
>> open source code, compiling it and selling it.
>
> Ever did this yourself? You know how long it takes to build a
> sane system from the bare sources. Just compiling and linking
> the whole thing takes over a week, even on a P4 3GHz machine.

    You must be joking. I compiled a full system, including X on a
    PII, 300MHz in less than 24 hours.

-- 
    Chris F.A. Johnson                     <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
    ==================================================================
    Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach, 2005, Apress
    <http://www.torfree.net/~chris/books/cfaj/ssr.html>

Dances With Crows got shagged in the gutters and muttered:

>
> ?  Debian and Gentoo are payware now?  Son of a bitch.
>

I knew I would be shredded.

Well you use Gentoo and Debian. See you at a mental asylum. Or on the
streets with a dog behind you, bitch!!

And read my posts completely , I do say there are free distros out
there.

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

> On 2005-10-07, Wolfgang Draxinger wrote:
> >> What the linux vendors are doing is just lifting the public
> >> open source code, compiling it and selling it.
> >
> > Ever did this yourself? You know how long it takes to build a
> > sane system from the bare sources. Just compiling and linking
> > the whole thing takes over a week, even on a P4 3GHz machine.
>
>     You must be joking. I compiled a full system, including X on a
>     PII, 300MHz in less than 24 hours.
>

Sure he must be joking on this , though I agree with a lot of Wolfgangs
points. I admit I have not done anything like this. But once it is
built, you copy the CDs, you dont compile it again and again. Its the
economics of it all, Wolfgang, charging 50$ for media. Media are
available for less than a $ in China, where probably redhat gets the
CDs produced.

> 
>> Can you point to any counter examples?
> The websites I mentioned above. I tried Ubuntu and Debian, it left me
> unimpressed.
> Ok, you cannot have quality without paying for it, you might say. Then
> , better we stop using, reporting bugs and testing code for redhat ,
> suse and mandrake; let them spend money they earn by selling public
> open source code.

The difference between the free Mandriva and the paid for Mandriva is the
inclusion of some non-open source drivers and media players (all of which
are available for free elsewhere on the net). The people who pay get the
new release one month earlier, aside from that the free and non-free
versions are identical except that you have to do a little more work with
the free version to get full multimedia support.

Redhat has a free version called Fedora Core and non-free versions called
Redhat Enterprise Linux. Fedora Core is a development platform but as long
as you wait for a few months after a new release it's very solid, I
wouldn't call it bug ridden at all. If you use the version prior to the
current version, which would be Fedora Core 3 at the moment, it's every
bit as solid as Redhat Enterprise Linux. The current version of RHEL, RHEL
4.1, is virtually identical to Fedora Core 3. However if you want to use
RHEL and not pay for it then there are several clones available, CentOS
and Whitebox are the principal ones. The clones are built from the Redhat
sources but have the Redhat logos removed. They are identical in everyway
except for the missing logos and the fact that you don't get any support
from Redhat.

So the bottom line is that Linux really is available for free. Support is
also available for free, it's called newsgroups but you knew that because
you posted to this newsgroup. The price of free is that you are expected
to have some common sense and a certain degree of technical competence. If
you don't have those you probably shouldn't be using Linux at all.

"HalcyonWild" (Halcyon.Wild@gmail.com) writes:
> Hi,
> 
> I thought Linux is free of cost. You can freely copy the installation
> cds, distribute with your friends, download from the net, etc. But
> since last one year (or maybe earlier, I might not have noticed), I am
> seeing that most major distros are now pay-ware. And it isnt really
> cheap to buy Linux.
> 
> How is Redhat , Suse and Mandrake different from Microsoft when they
> sell public code (GNU, kernel). Atleast the MS guys write some of their
> own code, some outsourced, and most of it comes from their previous
> version of the software. :-)
> 
So decades ago, when I bought a commercial assembler, and wanted to print
things out to put in a binder, I had to disassemble the code and figure
out where I needed to patch things, and then patch things.

WIth open source, I can simply look at the source that must be released,
and it is far easier to figure out what needs fixing, and then compile
that code.  Plus, I can share that with others, while my modifying that
commercial code probably violated the license agreement (in that case,
there was a clause against disassemblying it).

I can go to the same pool of kernel, utility and applications and
put together my own distribution.  With commercial software, if I
needed a special commercial program (such as a run time package), I'd
often have to pay in order to distribute it.

When someone sends me a bloated file that was issued from Microsoft
Word, it is useless to me since I don't run Microsoft software.  Microsoft
wants such details secret, so people are forced to buy their products (and
they are fairly successful at this, because too many people are afraid
of using some alternative because they won't be compatible).  Open Source
is about being open, using standards that are either standards or become
standards because their makeup is distributed well and anyone can
find the specs and write programs to deal with them.

Way too often in recent years, people who have helped Microsoft become
so monolithic, decide that they've been duped so they look to Linux/GNU
as an alternative.  But they make the mistake that the alternative is
simply that they don't have to pay Microsoft for the software.  They don't
make the switch because Linux is based on Unix which is a different
operating system with a long history, and they don't switch because Linux
is open source, and they don't switch because there is something inherently
revolutionary when people do become more than consumers.

All they see is "free" and since they aren't all that capable then they
are just as dependent on the commerical distributions of Linux as
they were dependent on Microsoft.

They need to move beyond that in order to see the benefits of Open
Software.

  Michael

notbob wrote:

>
> Maybe not, but I did, and I provided the link.  Redhat Enterprise WS
> (workstation) is not just the linux distro.  It's the distro plus
> online/phone support.  There is nothing in the GPL that requires a
> distro to either provide free support or provide an online download
> server.

I agree, nobody is armtwisting.
But can you get the ISOs, without support. redhat says, "we are
charging for support", and they dont sell without support. we have a
choice, we dont go for redhat. My company uses only Solaris. And I have
not seen any unix/linux better than solaris.
debian is not used anywhere except university students who install in
their labs. 
Anyway, I feel many are misunderstanding me.

On 2005-10-07, HalcyonWild <Halcyon.Wild@gmail.com> wrote:

> Redhat 9. The shrike edition ! That was way back in 2001 or something!.

Oops, my mistake.  Shrike in Mar 2003.

> Well then why do they call linux free.

Because it is AVAILABLE at ZERO cost.  What part of zero cost do you
not understand?  No one says they have to make it available in
downloadable iso's.  If it can be *OBTAINED* at *ZERO COST*, it is
*FREE*!  So far, your claims only buggy versions are available are
unsubstantiated.

nb

HalcyonWild <Halcyon.Wild@gmail.com> wrote:

> I thought Linux is free of cost.

Aw, c'mon, guy.  You're being intellectually lazy, and asking us to do
your thinking for you.  Start here:

1.  Oracle RDBMS ships a Linux version.  If Oracle shipped its database
on a set of Linux distribution CDs, do you think they'd be obliged to
hand copies to everyone free of charge?

2.  A typical Linux distribution will not include Oracle RDBMS, but will
include some hundreds or thousands of other applications.  Some will be
open source.  Some may be freely redistributable but restrictively
licensed.  Some may be _not_ freely redistributable, and restrictively
licensed.

Do you think the publishers of restrictively licensed application
software are obliged to hand out copies to everyone free of charge?

3.  Even without significant user-level application software, a Linux
distribution would have to include some libraries, some system
utilities, and one of the implementations of the X Window System -- in
addition to the Linux kernel.  Each of those codebases will be available
under some open-source licence:  GPL, LGPL, BSD, Perl Artistic License,
MIT-X.  Did you _bother_ to read those?  Why not?  That would have
answered your implied question.

{sigh}


To answer your implied question:  The Linux _kernel_ is distributed by
its copyright holders to the public under the terms of the GNU General
Public License (GPL) version 2.  That licence _allows_ redistribution
free of charge, _as well as_ allowing distribution for money.  People who
do some sorts of redistribution of the Linux kernel or derivative works
thereof are obliged to offer all parties specified sorts of access to
the matching source code.

If someone says to you, "I'm willing to give you a copy of the Linux
kernel, but only if you pay me $5", you have absolutely no cause for
complaint.  You remain entirely free to find someone else who'll offer
it to you cheaper, and everyone else remains free to not offer it at
all, or to offer it at the price of their choosing.

If someone puts the Linux kernel onto a CD-ROM with various and sundry
other codebases, he/she will have whatever redistribution rights, and
matching responsibilities, that the various copyright owners have
specified in their licences.  That person may have the right to
redistribute some of the constituent codebases, but not others.

> You can freely copy the installation
> cds, distribute with your friends, download from the net, etc. But
> since last one year (or maybe earlier, I might not have noticed), I am
> seeing that most major distros are now pay-ware. And it isnt really
> cheap to buy Linux.
> 
> How is Redhat , Suse and Mandrake different from Microsoft when they
> sell public code (GNU, kernel).

1.  Read the damned licence.  They have every right under GPLv2 to sell
GNU codebases and the Linux kernel for whatever price the market will
bear.  You are _likewise_ free to do so.  Moreover, so is the FSF.
Aren't you aware that FSF has been selling media containing the GNU
codebases since its inception?

2.  Do you have any reason to think that Redhat [sic], Suse [sic], or
Mandrake [sic] are failing to provide the required access to third-party
GPLed codebases (from FSF or anyone else) in accordance with GPLv2
clause 3b?  Or any other provision?

3.  Read the damned licence.  Do you honestly believe that it says
anywhere that redistributors are required to furnish even source code,
let alone binaries, without charge?

4.  Do you think that Microsoft Corporation (other than its Interix
division) has suddenly become a major developer and redistributor of
open-source code?

5.  Read the damned licence.  It'd prevent you from running around in
public with your foot in your mouth.


> I think they are shooting themselves in the foot by doing all this.

Your opinion is noted, and I'm sure will be valued at, at minimum,
acquisition cost.  Meanwhile, if you think you can do better than those
other people, you're free to acquire source code to the open-soure
portions of those distributions' codebases, fork off a copy, develop the
hell out of it, and hand out copies free of charge at your own expense.
Good luck.


> Before you put me in the line of fire(I have seen anti Linux people
> shredded to bits in other forums :) ), I must say that I am not saying
> all this just for the sake of saying something, but isnt something very
> wrong here.

Read the damned licence.

Sheesh.

-- 
Cheers,             
Rick Moen                 Support your local medical examiner:  Die strangely.
rick@linuxmafia.com

notbob <notbob@nothome.com> wrote:

> I can't imagine why.  I can get any linux distro at no cost whatsoever
> from many sources on the internet. 

Not lawfully.  Example:  Xandros Desktop OS -- on account of some
included codebases whose copyright holders have not granted
redistribution rights.  There are many other such distributions.

On 2005-10-07, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> notbob <notbob@nothome.com> wrote:
>
>> I can't imagine why.  I can get any linux distro at no cost whatsoever
>> from many sources on the internet. 
>
> Not lawfully.  Example:  Xandros Desktop OS -- on account of some
> included codebases whose copyright holders have not granted
> redistribution rights.  There are many other such distributions.

You are correct, of course.  I changed it from "most" to "any" without
verifying my own statement.  My bad.

nb

General Schvantzkoph wrote:

> >
> >> Can you point to any counter examples?
> > The websites I mentioned above. I tried Ubuntu and Debian, it left me
> > unimpressed.
> > Ok, you cannot have quality without paying for it, you might say. Then
> > , better we stop using, reporting bugs and testing code for redhat ,
> > suse and mandrake; let them spend money they earn by selling public
> > open source code.
>
> Redhat has a free version called Fedora Core and non-free versions called
> Redhat Enterprise Linux. Fedora Core is a development platform but as long
> as you wait for a few months after a new release it's very solid, I
> wouldn't call it bug ridden at all. If you use the version prior to the
> current version, which would be Fedora Core 3 at the moment, it's every
> bit as solid as Redhat Enterprise Linux. The current version of RHEL, RHEL
> 4.1, is virtually identical to Fedora Core 3. However if you want to use
> RHEL and not pay for it then there are several clones available, CentOS
> and Whitebox are the principal ones. The clones are built from the Redhat
> sources but have the Redhat logos removed. They are identical in everyway


Well, I did not know that, Thanks. But I have seen fedora to be low
quality, that is why my experience. Also, I am a programmer and I have
that basic technical skill you talk about, if I want to install linux.
(That is why I had rh 7 on my box while i was in college). But somehow,
when they started selling linux, while I was stuck up with an old
version, I thought, there is no difference between RH and MS. If you
think about it, that selling media and 3 month support for a 100$ is
just a gimmick. I will try Centos.
Basically , I have lost touch with linux world, and now I hardly get
time to experiment with it. Most free distros I tried were hopeless.
They might be good, but I cannot spend 24 hours going from scratch, or
maybe install a distro from CD and keep tweaking it for days, to
finally get everything to work.

With respect to Linux, you can think of me as an average user, with
good technical knowledge. How can linux succeed if they sell the user
friendly versions while , dump the test versions on users. If this is
how a person like me feels about linux, I can imagine the frustation of
a user who just wants to play Quake, or browse the web.

Ever been to the Mysql site, for example. You will see a long long list
of mysql versions for different flavours of Linux. And even amongst a
single flavour, different versions !!. Look at the windows download
list. Just 3 links !! With such confusion in the linux world, with the
players looking only for profits without caring about linux (paying for
linux isnt bad if they give quality stuff, reduce confusion), I do not
think linux can be the much touted future OS. It was, but now the story
has changed. If anyone dreams that rh can be an IBM or MS or apple,
wake up.

I am reminded of "too many cooks spoil the broth" when I see the state
of the linux market. They are repeating Unix's mistakes.

Dances With Crows <danSPANceswitTRAPhcrows@gmail.com> wrote:

>> How is Redhat , Suse and Mandrake different from Microsoft when they
>> sell public code (GNU, kernel)?
> 
> Redhat/SuSE/Mandriva make it possible to get the same stuff (minus a few
> commercial apps) for free.

The term "commercial" is meaningless in this context.[1]  I believe you
mean "non-redistributable proprietary".

The right of redistribution is reserved to copyright owners by default.
Thus, issuing that right to the public requires an explicit licence
grant.  Some codebases are issued under proprietary terms but with the
right of public redistribution included (e.g., the xv graphics utility).  
Other codebases are issued under proprietary terms that _omit_ the right
of redistribution (e.g., Adobe Acrobat Reader, which may be lawfully 
retrieved only from Adobe-authorised distributors).

A Linux distribution that includes non-redistributable proprietary
applications (such as Adobe Acroread) consequently cannot lawfully be
redistributed by members of the public.  Those get commonly referred to
as "shrink-wrapped" distros.

A Linux distribution whose installation media are either 100% open
source (e.g., Debian, Gentoo) or include only open source +
redistributable proprietary apps (e.g., distros that include xv) can be
lawfully put on Linux-ISO download sites, etc.


[1] The English word "commercial" means "characterised by being the
object of commerce".  If I sell you a CD set of Official Debian 3.1, 
that will include 100% open-source codebases only, but our transaction
and the sold media would be by definition commercial.

HalcyonWild <Halcyon.Wild@gmail.com> schrieb:
> And read my posts completely , I do say there are free distros out
> there.

Which answers your question.

-- 
Jim Strathmeyer

HalcyonWild wrote:
> ...
> And I repeat, the free ones are unstable...

The free "ones"?  Which free ones have you tried outside of FC?  Debian 
(free) is generally considered to be the most reliable distro out there. 
  How about Ubuntu (free - they'll even send you a CD at no cost)? 
SimplyMepis (still free AFAIK)?  Mandriva download edition (free)?  Open 
Suse (free)?  Slackware (free)?  Gentoo (free)?  And I'm sure I'm 
missing some other obvious examples.  For your own reasons, you may not 
like some of these, but there's got to be at least ONE that will meet 
your needs.

Jeff

HalcyonWild wrote:
> notbob wrote:
> 
> 
>>Maybe not, but I did, and I provided the link.  Redhat Enterprise WS
>>(workstation) is not just the linux distro.  It's the distro plus
>>online/phone support.  There is nothing in the GPL that requires a
>>distro to either provide free support or provide an online download
>>server.
> 
> 
> I agree, nobody is armtwisting.
> But can you get the ISOs, without support. redhat says, "we are
> charging for support", and they dont sell without support. we have a
> choice, we dont go for redhat. My company uses only Solaris. And I have
> not seen any unix/linux better than solaris.
> debian is not used anywhere except university students who install in
> their labs. 
> Anyway, I feel many are misunderstanding me.

Nothing in the GPL says that Redhat has to let you have access to their
ISOs.  We have servers here that run Redhat Enterprise and since we have
the GPL'ed binaries, they have to give us access to the source also.  If
you've never received software from Redhat then they're under no obligation
to give you the source.

You run only Solaris.  Have you managed to get a complete (and legal) Solaris
system running from free downloaded ISO's?  Since this is your company,
personal download licenses don't count.  A substantial amount of the software
provided on the Solaris distributions I have is GPL code and Sun is going
the open-source route on solaris.  Why aren't you complaining about Sun
not giving you the full OS?

If you don't like Redhat and don't think any linux is as good as Solaris,
then don't use it.  At my institute, we have Redhat on Oracle servers since
we need Oracle to support the installation.  We also have Redhat Enterprise
on our 256-CPU cluster, but will probably migrate to Gentoo when the support
contract expires.  I don't fault Redhat for trying to make a buck on support
but I'm not going to pay for support that I'm unlikely to ever need.

Doug

HalcyonWild <Halcyon.Wild@gmail.com> wrote:

> stan@worldbadminton.com wrote:
> 
>> You are mistaken.
>>
>> Linux continues to be free.
> 
> Go to the websites of Redhat, Mandriva or mandrake, Suse, Mepis, etc.
> See the $ rates quoted. the free ones are the bug riddled test
> versions. I have seen fedora to be slow and in some cases, crashing.

You are basing your ill-informed and intellectually lazy rant on, among
other things, a factual error in this department:  All releases of
Mandriva and MEPIS are downloadable at no cost other than the cost of
your bandwidth, time, and CD/DVD media.  (Mandriva also makes supersets
of its releases available with non-redistributable apps on extra discs,
through its "Club".)

> Fine, I dont want the free CDs mailed to me, but what about ISO
> downloads. No ISOs are available for download. If it were allowed to
> redistribute freely (GNU says that apart from free software, you should
> have the freedom to redistribute )....

GPL (not "GNU") says you have the right to freely redistribute _if_
someone is willing to give or sell you a copy.  Others who redistribute
are obliged to give one of three forms of source-code access.  These
provisions apply, of course, only to the GPL-covered codebases, not to
others that happen to reside on the same discs.

You seem to want this to work out that everyone has the obligation to
give you free-of-charge access to anything that's bundled with the Linux
kernel -- and are going around calling names against those who decline.
Sorry, you lose -- and are making the rest of us look silly by
association with such ignorant whining.

Read the damned licence.

HalcyonWild wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I thought Linux is free of cost. You can freely copy the installation 
> cds, distribute with your friends, download from the net, etc. But since
> last one year (or maybe earlier, I might not have noticed), I am seeing
> that most major distros are now pay-ware. And it isnt really cheap to buy
> Linux.
> 
> How is Redhat , Suse and Mandrake different from Microsoft when they sell
> public code (GNU, kernel). Atleast the MS guys write some of their own
> code, some outsourced, and most of it comes from their previous version
> of the software. :-)
> 
> What the linux vendors are doing is just lifting the public open source 
> code, compiling it and selling it. In fact I believe they are worse than
> MS. The so called free Fedora is riddled with bugs and it is an untested
> beta released for free testing by the public. Redhat then picks up the
> tested code from Fedora and sells it in their "enterprise edition".
> 
Bear in mind that some of the developpers of GNU/Linux are full time
employees of Red Hat. As such, Red Hat must make enough money to pay them,
to maintain a battery of computers to support the developpers, to maintain a
support staff to do system tests of all the distributions, to make up the
indidual distributions, to maintain a web and ftp site for downloading the
software, and the updates.

Where do you suppose that money comes from?

-- 
  .~.  Jean-David Beyer          Registered Linux User 85642.
  /V\  PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A         Registered Machine   241939.
 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey    http://counter.li.org
 ^^-^^ 15:00:00 up 7 days, 8:02, 3 users, load average: 4.36, 4.22, 4.08

On 2005-10-07, HalcyonWild <Halcyon.Wild@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I thought Linux is free of cost.

It is not necessarily free as in gratis.  Read

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html#SEC2

In particular:

"[T]he GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom
to share and change free software"

Other licenses differ, but the basis is the same: you can take source
code and modify it if necessary.  Whether something must be offered for
no cost is not addressed (though see the below URL for one location
where it is addressed, sorta).

To pick one of your examples, RH complies with the GPL by providing the
source RPMs for its enterprise distro.  You can download these sources
yourself, build them, and mostly recreate RHEL.  What you can't
recreate is the proprietary software that RH writes itself, and can thus
restrict in any way they want.  Whether this is wise or not is a
different question, but whether they can do so is not in question.

> And it isnt really
> cheap to buy Linux.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html#HighOrLowFeesAndGPL

But, since you asked, there are plenty of cheaper distros.  Slackware
sells for about US$40.  CentOS, which as somebody mentioned is basically
RHEL stripped of proprietary marks/software, is US$10-15 from a few
different vendors.  There are plenty of others if you actually take the
time to look.

> Before you put me in the line of fire(I have seen anti Linux people
> shredded to bits in other forums :) ),

Quite frankly, you deserved your shredding.  I hope you'll learn from it
rather than grow bitter and grumpy like the rest of us.  :)

--keith

-- 
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom
see X- headers for PGP signature information

HalcyonWild wrote:
> Dances With Crows got shagged in the gutters and muttered:
> 
> 
>> ?  Debian and Gentoo are payware now?  Son of a bitch.
>> 
> 
> 
> I knew I would be shredded.
> 
> Well you use Gentoo and Debian. See you at a mental asylum. Or on the 
> streets with a dog behind you, bitch!!
> 
Do Gentoo and Debian drive you crazy? Could the reason be that they do not
spend the money designing, developping, packaging, and testing their
distributions that those who sell distributions do?

-- 
  .~.  Jean-David Beyer          Registered Linux User 85642.
  /V\  PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A         Registered Machine   241939.
 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey    http://counter.li.org
 ^^-^^ 15:10:00 up 7 days, 8:12, 3 users, load average: 4.13, 4.24, 4.16

On 2005-10-07, Douglas O'Neal <oneal@dbi.udel.edu> wrote:

> Nothing in the GPL says that Redhat has to let you have access to their
> ISOs.  We have servers here that run Redhat Enterprise and since we have
> the GPL'ed binaries, they have to give us access to the source also.  If
> you've never received software from Redhat then they're under no obligation
> to give you the source.

That's not quite true (according to the FSF).  If RedHat gave
you GPL'd binaries and an offer to provide sources, and you
copy those binaries and give them to other people, that offer
goes along with it.

The end result is that RedHat has to provide sources to anybody
that has binaries, regardless of whether they got those
binaries from RedHat or from a third party.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#RedistributedBinariesGetSource

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  ... Um...Um...
                                  at               
                               visi.com            

"HalcyonWild" <Halcyon.Wild@gmail.com> writes:
>stan@worldbadminton.com wrote:
>
>> Your are mistaken.
>>
>> Linux continues to be free.
>
>Go to the websites of Redhat, Mandriva or mandrake, Suse, Mepis, etc.
>See the $ rates quoted. the free ones are the bug riddled test
>versions. I have seen fedora to be slow and in some cases, crashing.

Anything can be slow if not setup correctly.  Generally, as long as
you install only what you need and apply patches in a reasonable
fashion, any of the major releases are stable and quite usable.

Personally, I prefer Gentoo for non critical systems.

>> _support_ is often not free and pretty much noone will for
>> free mail you CD's, and sure some distributions do panhandling,
>
>Fine, I dont want the free CDs mailed to me, but what about ISO
>downloads. No ISOs are available for download. 

Gentoo (http://gentoo.org) is free, AND has various ISO's available.
It's stable, current and works well.  I've loaded it on IBM Thinkpads
(various models), Dell servers, MPC servers and a bunch of different
generic Intel boxes.

While I don't use it, Fedora ISO's are here:

http://fedora.redhat.com/download/

I don't use SUSE either, but ISO's for the open source version are here:

http://www.opensuse.org/Released_Version

How come you had so much trouble finding the ISO's?  Or did you quit
looking when you saw the 'pay' (ie directly supported) versions?

For work, I use Red Hat Enterprise, and we pay for the yearly support
agreement.  I have no problem with paying for support/updates, given
the regulated releases.

>> and sure some probably have commercial content that isn't free,
>> but I'm not aware of any you can't have for free if you are
>> just talking about the Linux content itself.
>
>Linux content, just the kernel you mean. Just the OS , without all the
>utilities. Is it. What is it good for then. Will anyone bother to
>download hundreds of programs and utilities. Many people do not have
>access to Internet.

The ISO's I noted above have the standard set of utils.  

>> Can you point to any counter examples?
>The websites I mentioned above. I tried Ubuntu and Debian, it left me
>unimpressed.
>Ok, you cannot have quality without paying for it, you might say. Then
>, better we stop using, reporting bugs and testing code for redhat ,
>suse and mandrake; let them spend money they earn by selling public
>open source code.

They are selling supported version.  But there are plenty of sources
for good releases that do not require payment.  See Gentoo as a great
example of this.

 -Stephen

-- 
  Space Age Cybernomad                                   Stephen Adams
             malchus842SP@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)

"HalcyonWild" <Halcyon.Wild@gmail.com> writes:
>notbob wrote:
>
>> but no one is twisting your arm to buy.  Even Redhat 9 is available
>> for download.
>
>Redhat 9. The shrike edition ! That was way back in 2001 or something!.
>Now you wouldnt go back to using win NT 3.5 once you have put your
>hands on WinXP.

No, but given the choice, I would run Windows 2000 instead of XP.  In
fact, I have 2 Windows machines at home (along with 4 Macs and 2 Linux
boxes) - both run Windows 2000, despite the fact that I have access to
WinXP.

And my main Linux box that serves my email, website, my church's website
and some other stuff is running Red Hat 9.  Yes, I've updated things like
Apache, OpenSSL, Sendmail, etc, but the kernel and base utils are RH9.
And it works fine.   Sometime early next year, I'm going to switch it to
Gentoo (that's what my home test/development Linux box is running ).

>> As I understand it, there is no problem with charging for linux.  It
>> just not ok to not make it available for free.  I do not know of any
>> linux that is not available at zero cost.
>
>Well then why do they call linux free.

Because it is!  I haven't paid a DIME for any Linux I use at home or at
work, with the exception of RHEL 3 licenses for critical production
boxes, and those licenses are insisted upon by management.  I would be
fine without them.

>And I repeat, the free ones are unstable. 

I have several stable machines running Gentoo, one running RH9, one 
running (free) SuSE.

>A friend of mine formatted
>his HDD after struggling with fedora for bout a week.

Struggling in what way??  What problems?  What hardware?   Do you know
for a *fact* that the problem was with the software?

>If you want to spend money, rather go for a stable unix version from
>Sun Microsystems or HP or IBM. My point is that I am not anti-Linux or
>pro MS or anything. It is that if you want to spend money, better go
>for Sun, HP or MS Win2k(best windows version till date , IMHO), or
>MacOS X

My personal laptop is a 17" PowerBook with OSX 10.4.  But I also have
a Thinkpad running Gentoo - it runs great and cost $0 for the software.

 -Stephen
-- 
  Space Age Cybernomad                                   Stephen Adams
             malchus842SP@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)

In message <1128707640.700030.217270@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
HalcyonWild wrote:

> 
> stan@worldbadminton.com wrote:
> 
>> Your are mistaken.
>>
>> Linux continues to be free.
> 
> Go to the websites of Redhat, Mandriva or mandrake, Suse, Mepis, etc.
> See the $ rates quoted. the free ones are the bug riddled test
> versions. I have seen fedora to be slow and in some cases, crashing.
> 
I think you'll find that there are websites that provide all the open-source
stuff found in the paid-for Redhat distribution, go and get stuff from
there. Or you can take the base Linux code from the Debian website and put
it all together yourself. Or you can accept that someone has done that but
would like some payment for their work in compiling a CD image and give
them some money for it.
-- 
Dave
mail da ve@llondel.org (without the space)
http://www.llondel.org/
So many gadgets, so little time...

Rick Moen wrote (in part):

> 5.  Read the damned licence.  It'd prevent you from running around in
> public with your foot in your mouth.
> 
I absolutely _love_ that metaphor. Either he has three legs, a spare foot,
or hops instead of runs.

-- 
  .~.  Jean-David Beyer          Registered Linux User 85642.
  /V\  PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A         Registered Machine   241939.
 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey    http://counter.li.org
 ^^-^^ 15:20:00 up 7 days, 8:22, 3 users, load average: 4.13, 4.19, 4.17

notbob writes:
> As I understand it, there is no problem with charging for linux.

Correct (Linux being the kernel).

> It just not ok to not make it available for free.

Not correct.
-- 
John Hasler 
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

notbob writes:
> Because it is AVAILABLE at ZERO cost. 

No.  Linux is Free because it is libre, not because it is gratis.
-- 
John Hasler 
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

Dances With Crows writes:
> The terms of the GPL explicitly allow this.  Have you read the GPL?  Go
> do that.  It's on your installed systems and on your installation CDs.

Note that much of the software included in most Linux distributions
(including Debian), although Free, is licensed under terms other than those
of the GPL.

HalcyonWild writes:
> Before you put me in the line of fire, I must say that I am not saying
> all this just for the sake of saying something, but isn't something very
> wrong here?

Do you see the people who wrote the software complaining?
-- 
John Hasler 
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

HalcyonWild writes:
> Well you use Gentoo and Debian. See you at a mental asylum. Or on the
> streets with a dog behind you, bitch!!

Now we know you for what you are.
-- 
John Hasler 
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

jeff wrote:

> HalcyonWild wrote:
> > ...
> > And I repeat, the free ones are unstable...
>
> The free "ones"?  Which free ones have you tried outside of FC?  Debian
> (free) is generally considered to be the most reliable distro out there.
>   How about Ubuntu (free - they'll even send you a CD at no cost)?
> SimplyMepis (still free AFAIK)?  Mandriva download edition (free)?  Open
> Suse (free)?  Slackware (free)?  Gentoo (free)?  And I'm sure I'm
> missing some other obvious examples.  For your own reasons, you may not
> like some of these, but there's got to be at least ONE that will meet
> your needs.
>
> Jeff

No I havent tried Debian myself, but others who did told me to go for
MS Win2K.

Ubuntu, I tried it. No mp3 support. No sound at all. No net connection
at home so no free media player downloads. Not easily configurable. No
good system utilities.
Suse is free ??? Wake up.
Slackware ? Most stable AFAIK, but most unfriendly.
Gentoo. Never heard of it.
Mepis? you have to pay.

What I also say, is that at the price which distros supply support and
media , the stuff they provide is not at all worth it. Slow, resource
hungry and bug-ridden is what you will get.
(come on now, do you really still believe that media costs $100, and
support for 3 months means they really gonna give good quality
support).

Also there is another tendency I have noted. People tend to use windows
systems much more "roughly" than they would use linux systems because
they wouldnt know how to fix it. They are scared of linux systems.
Use linux as roughly as you would use windows , and see your hard disk
thrashing.

If you are selling linux, atleast give some good quality stuff.

Wolfgang Draxinger writes:
> Apropos Debian. This distribution never was commercial, but yet they are
> selling CDs with Debian on them. This is mainly for the people who don't
> have a high bandwidth connection.

We do not sell CDs (or anything else).  For-profit companies such as Cheap
Bytes make and sell Debian CDs and we don't mind at all (in fact we
encourage it).  Anyone is welcome to do so.
-- 
John Hasler 
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

HalcyonWild <Halcyon.Wild@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ubuntu, I tried it. No mp3 support.

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/support/documentation/faq/helpcenterfaq.2004-09-16.3469703387
And if you're not aware of the threat of patent encumbrances such as
Frauenhofer's on MP3, you really need to get out more.

> Suse is free ??? Wake up.

http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/suse-product-strategy.html

> Mepis? you have to pay.

ftp://ftp.cise.ufl.edu/pub/mirrors/mepis/testing/MEPISLite-3.3.2.test01.iso
http://www.tlm-project.org/public/distributions/mepis/

You know, you'd embarrass yourself less often if you bothered to check
Distrowatch.

John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> wrote:
> notbob writes:
>> As I understand it, there is no problem with charging for linux.
> 
> Correct (Linux being the kernel).
> 
>> It just not ok to not make it available for free.
> 
> Not correct.

Please cite the term of the covering licence (GPLv2) that mandates
redistributors making anything whatsoever available without charge.
Please note that clause 3b (one of three ways that some parties may meet
their source-code-access obligations) specifically acknowledges a right
to charge.

In comp.os.linux.misc Jean-David Beyer <jdbeyer@exit109.com>:
> Rick Moen wrote (in part):

>> 5.  Read the damned licence.  It'd prevent you from running around in
>> public with your foot in your mouth.
>> 
> I absolutely _love_ that metaphor. Either he has three legs, a spare foot,
> or hops instead of runs.

From the thread it looks like M$ has already successfully
off-shored parts of their FUD/troll department?

We'll probably get blasted real soon...

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 52: Smell from unhygienic janitorial staff wrecked
the tape heads

Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> wrote:
>> notbob writes:
>>> As I understand it, there is no problem with charging for linux.
>> 
>> Correct (Linux being the kernel).
>> 
>>> It just not ok to not make it available for free.
>> 
>> Not correct.

> Please cite the term of the covering licence (GPLv2) that mandates
> redistributors making anything whatsoever available without charge.

Well, para 3 does.

> Please note that clause 3b (one of three ways that some parties may meet
> their source-code-access obligations) specifically acknowledges a right
> to charge.

They can charge for the medium, not for the source or access to the
source.  #3b says:

   ... a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third
   party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing
   source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the
   corresponding source code ...

(so the price is specified, 0 for source and x for medium, for a total
of x).  And #1 also affirms:

   You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
   you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a
   fee.

Does any of this force the distributor to let you have the source code
for free (plus distribution cost)? Yes. #3 enumerates what you may do.

  a) give the source code away together on the same shebang as the
  progam.

  b) promise to give anybody at all the source at cost of medium.

  c) point to offers a) or b) or c) in the place you got the prgram
  from.

My paraphrasals, of course. In a), the GPL says "accompany [the
program] with", not "give away with", but that's synonymous. And in
(b), it restricts the time of the offer to three years.

But the three possibilities are all there are, and they don't include
"charging for the source" because each of the three possibilities
specifies the price of the source, and it is zero in each. Or are you
looking for a getout via 3c) (the recursion) say pointing back to an
original author who then charges for source?


Peter

HalcyonWild wrote:

> 
> No I havent tried Debian myself, but others who did told me to go for
> MS Win2K.
> 
> Ubuntu, I tried it. No mp3 support. No sound at all. No net connection
> at home so no free media player downloads. Not easily configurable. No
> good system utilities.
> Suse is free ??? Wake up.
> Slackware ? Most stable AFAIK, but most unfriendly.
> Gentoo. Never heard of it.
> Mepis? you have to pay.
> 
> 
> Also there is another tendency I have noted. People tend to use windows
> systems much more "roughly" than they would use linux systems because
> they wouldnt know how to fix it. They are scared of linux systems.
> Use linux as roughly as you would use windows , and see your hard disk
> thrashing.
> 
> If you are selling linux, atleast give some good quality stuff.
> 

Get the facts before you rant. As a Microsoft Registered Partner
I have licenced copies of the full Windows Server 2003 and Small
Business Server 2003. SBS is not bad if you're locked into The
Microsoft Way, but with both of those servers I still choose to
run Debian on my home server. Debian Stable is not a misnomer.
Debian Unstable has the bleeding-edge stuff, and it's only
unstable compared to Stable.

I use FC3 and FC4 on my workstations, dual booting with XP Pro,
and I find FC more efficient for VPN and remote admin of Windows
servers than XP. I don't seem to have these mysterious instability
problems which plague you and your friends, but then I have to say
I never saw that many BSODs, even with Win95. Just clean living, I
suppose.

And as others have said, if you're still not happy with any existing
distribution, compile and sell your own. Let's see you do that with
Windows.

Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
> Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> 
>> Please cite the term of the covering licence (GPLv2) that mandates
>> redistributors making anything whatsoever available without charge.
> 
> Well, para 3 does.

Sorry, _nowhere_ does paragraph 3 mandate making anything whatsoever
available without charge.

> They can charge for the medium, not for the source or access to the
> source.  #3b says:

You've just agreed with me, and contradicted your claim.

NOTE:  I did _not_ ask Mr. Hasler to cite a term of the covering licence
that prohibits charging anything at all for all forms of access -- nor
would I, not being a complete idiot.  I said:  "Please cite the term of
the covering licence (GPLv2) that mandates redistributors making
anything whatsoever available without charge."

Hasler had said "Not correct" to "notbob's" claim of "It['s] just not ok
to not make it [the Linux kernel] available for free.

A redistributor satisfying his source-access obligation using the 3b
method may well refuse to ever give access to _anything_ for free -- and
would not infringe anyone's copyright, thereby.

> (so the price is specified, 0 for source and x for medium, for a total
> of x).

You seem to be in strenuous agreement with me.

> Does any of this force the distributor to let you have the source code
> for free (plus distribution cost)? Yes.

The phrase "for free (plus distribution cost)" is a fancy way of saying 
"_not_ for free".  Please don't play word games:  It wastes our time.

> 
> Ever been to the Mysql site, for example. You will see a long long list
> of mysql versions for different flavours of Linux. And even amongst a
> single flavour, different versions !!. Look at the windows download
> list. Just 3 links !! With such confusion in the linux world, with the
> players looking only for profits without caring about linux (paying for
> linux isnt bad if they give quality stuff, reduce confusion), I do not
> think linux can be the much touted future OS. It was, but now the story
> has changed. If anyone dreams that rh can be an IBM or MS or apple,
> wake up.
> 
> I am reminded of "too many cooks spoil the broth" when I see the state
> of the linux market. They are repeating Unix's mistakes.

MYSQL and a host of other server applications come bundled with virtually
all Linux distributions, you don't have to download them from anywhere. As
for commercial applications, those are all targeted at Redhat or SUSE, for
most of the other distributions you are on your own. Although there are
hundreds of Linux distributions there are only a few that matter.

Big corporations primarily use Redhat or SUSE (Novell) because those are
the distributions that the commercial software vendors support. The
commercial software vendors target Redhat and SUSE because their customers
have standardized on them, it's a vicious or virtuous circle depending on
how you look at it.

The primary choices for end users are larger. If you use any commercial
applications you'll want to either use RHEL or SUSE or one of their
cousins like Fedora Core or the RHEL clones. Because FC is closely related
to RHEL you can usually run a commercial application that's targeted at
RHEL and still get the benefits of a cutting edge distribution. If you
only use open source software then you could use any distribution. However
only a few distributions are really popular, Fedora and SUSE of course.
Mandriva is popular as well as Slackware, Debian and some of the Debian
relatives like Ubuntu. Popularity is important for an end user OS because
a large user community makes it easier to get online help. More users also
improves the quality of a distribution because there are more people
finding bugs and it also improves the odds that a particular package is
available for that distribution. The hundreds of others distributions are
mostly irrelevant.

As for the reasons to use Linux, price isn't it. Price is usually a pretty
stupid reason to pick any product let alone an operating system. For price
to be compelling the price difference has to be huge and for OSes it
isn't. XP Pro is only $150 and XP Home is only $99, so neither is very
expensive. The reason to pick an OS is because it serves your needs
better. In the server space Linux has been hugely successful because it's
a vastly more capable OS then XP. Linux scales better and it works much
better in a networked environment. For engineering applications those
things matter also. I'm using a half dozen machines simultaneously, two of
which are dual processor, I simple couldn't do that with a Windows
environment. 
For typical home users the advantages aren't nearly as significant and
there are some major disadvantages that aren't going away anytime soon.
For example if what you want to do is play games Linux isn't the OS for
you, there are very few games for Linux vs Windows. Linux does better in
the media space then it does in the game space but it still isn't quite as
capable as Windows. If what you want to do is web surf, do Office type
things and do e-mail then Linux is every bit as good as Windows. However
every bit as good isn't a compelling reason to switch, there has to be
something that's much better. For the typical user the one advantage that
Linux has over Windows is that it's much much safer. The amount of malware
that's out there for Windows is frightening, there is nothing equivalent
in the Linux world. Although it's certainly possible to write a Linux worm
it's much much harder to do then for Windows. Also the huge number of
Linux variations helps to protect the Linux world from viruses in the same
way that genetic variability protects plant and animal populations from
diseases. In natural populations it's pretty much impossible for a disease
to wipe out a whole population, even the black plague only killed 1/3rd of
the human population. With genetically identical populations, like farmed
grapes or bananas for example, a single variant of a disease can wipe out
the whole population. There are only a couple of varieties of Windows, so
it's like bananas, there are hundreds of varieties of Linux (there is a
new kernel every month for example) so it's like a natural population.

Anyway my point is that if you are doing serious computing then Linux is
the obvious choice. If you want to play with a huge array of free
applications then Linux is also a good choice. If you are just a home user
then the one reason to pick Linux is that it's relatively virus proof.

HalcyonWild wrote:
> jeff wrote:
> 
> 
>>HalcyonWild wrote:
>>
>>>...
>>>And I repeat, the free ones are unstable...
>>
>>The free "ones"?  Which free ones have you tried outside of FC?  Debian
>>(free) is generally considered to be the most reliable distro out there.
>>  How about Ubuntu (free - they'll even send you a CD at no cost)?
>>SimplyMepis (still free AFAIK)?  Mandriva download edition (free)?  Open
>>Suse (free)?  Slackware (free)?  Gentoo (free)?  And I'm sure I'm
>>missing some other obvious examples.  For your own reasons, you may not
>>like some of these, but there's got to be at least ONE that will meet
>>your needs.
>>
>>Jeff
> 
> 
> No I havent tried Debian myself, but others who did told me to go for
> MS Win2K.
> 
> Ubuntu, I tried it. No mp3 support. No sound at all. No net connection
> at home so no free media player downloads. Not easily configurable. No
> good system utilities.
> Suse is free ??? Wake up.
> Slackware ? Most stable AFAIK, but most unfriendly.
> Gentoo. Never heard of it.
> Mepis? you have to pay.
> 
> What I also say, is that at the price which distros supply support and
> media , the stuff they provide is not at all worth it. Slow, resource
> hungry and bug-ridden is what you will get.
> (come on now, do you really still believe that media costs $100, and
> support for 3 months means they really gonna give good quality
> support).
> 
> Also there is another tendency I have noted. People tend to use windows
> systems much more "roughly" than they would use linux systems because
> they wouldnt know how to fix it. They are scared of linux systems.
> Use linux as roughly as you would use windows , and see your hard disk
> thrashing.
> 
> If you are selling linux, atleast give some good quality stuff.
> 
You seem to have a number of preconceptions about Linux that, as others 
have pointed out, are just plain incorrect.  And you also seem to be 
unwilling to at least do the research to get the facts.

Microsoft operating systems are not my first choice, but if used with 
care they can be useful and productive tools.  My advice to you is to 
stick with Windows.

Jeff

notbob <notbob@nothome.com> wrote:

>> Not lawfully.  Example:  Xandros Desktop OS -- on account of some
>> included codebases whose copyright holders have not granted
>> redistribution rights.  There are many other such distributions.
> 
> You are correct, of course.  I changed it from "most" to "any" without
> verifying my own statement.  My bad.

Well, I was also imprecise.  ;->   Each release of Xandros Desktop OS is
(as with SUSE Linux) available in several "editions".  Starting with
release 2.01, one of those was "Open Circulation Edition", for which
Xandros issued slightly limited redistribution rights as to a couple of
its components that are otherwise non-redistributable.  If memory
serves, it's something like:  You may not redistribute it for money or
as part of a product.

Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>> Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Please cite the term of the covering licence (GPLv2) that mandates
>>> redistributors making anything whatsoever available without charge.
>> 
>> Well, para 3 does.

> Sorry, _nowhere_ does paragraph 3 mandate making anything whatsoever
> available without charge.

I quoted it to you, and it says that the source of a GPL program is free
of charge to the person the program is distributed to, and possibly to
others too (at discretion).  I gave the reasoning which supports that
conclusion. I suspect that you are pointing out that the cost of
posting it to you isn't required t be borne by the redistributor.

>> They can charge for the medium, not for the source or access to the
>> source.  #3b says:

> You've just agreed with me, and contradicted your claim.

I have disagreed with you and supprted my claim.  I claim that there is
a clause of the GPL2 that mandates making something available without
charge.  That "something" is the source code of a GPLed program that has
been distributed to a second party, and the party it is free to is that
second party, or, at the first party's discretion, any third party
including the second party.


> NOTE:  I did _not_ ask Mr. Hasler to cite a term of the covering licence
> that prohibits charging anything at all for all forms of access -- nor
> would I, not being a complete idiot.  I said:  "Please cite the term of
> the covering licence (GPLv2) that mandates redistributors making
> anything whatsoever available without charge."

And I quoted it to you. There is nothing wrong with my logic, I can
assure you.  I understand that you are trying to say that because they 
give you A+B and charge you for A, then B is not free. I disagree. "A"
is limited to costs for B, so it's not a scam.

> Hasler had said "Not correct" to "notbob's" claim of "It['s] just not ok
> to not make it [the Linux kernel] available for free.

That is an incorrect statement. Let's analyse it:

  It['s] just not ok to not make it [the Linux kernel] available for free.

So he says its bad (not OK) to charge (not make available for free) the
linux kernel.

JH disagrees with him ("not correct"), thus saying it's good (not bad,
or at least not not OK) to charge for the linux kernel.  While I may not
have an opinion on whether it's definitely good or bad, I certainly
agree that it is not not OK.


> A redistributor satisfying his source-access obligation using the 3b
> method may well refuse to ever give access to _anything_ for free -- and
> would not infringe anyone's copyright, thereby.

That is not the case - under 3b he MUST give access to the source code of
the program "for a charge no more than [the] cost of physically
performing source distribution" [to any third party at all], which
implies that the source code is free, just the postage and packaging is
being charged for.

Hence the redistributor must make the source code available for free.
That's an "anything whatsoever". He can charge for P&P. But not beyond
reason.  It has to be "on a medium customarily used for software
interchange". 

>> (so the price is specified, 0 for source and x for medium, for a total
>> of x).

> You seem to be in strenuous agreement with me.

No, I am in disagreement. You say that the redistributor (the second
party?) doesn't have to make anything whatsoever available without
charge, and I say that he must make the source code available without
charge. That is a component of what the 3rd party has a right to ask for.
Posting it to you is charged for. So is stamping it on a cd.

>> Does any of this force the distributor to let you have the source code
>> for free (plus distribution cost)? Yes.

> The phrase "for free (plus distribution cost)" is a fancy way of saying 
> "_not_ for free".  Please don't play word games:  It wastes our time.

It's not a word game - it's very precise. The source code is free; the
medium it is sent to you on and the cost of posting it to you is not.
Try buying the source code of ms windows to see the difference between
zero charge and something very else for the source code!

Peter

jeff <jeff@invalid.spam> wrote:

> You seem to have a number of preconceptions about Linux that, as others 
> have pointed out, are just plain incorrect.  And you also seem to be 
> unwilling to at least do the research to get the facts.

The charitable interpretation would be that HalcyonWild is just a bit
confused.  There's a tediously familiar logic to his posts:  He used to
be able to download nearly every well-known distribution free of charge.
He now notices that a number of well-known distributions are not
lawfully redistributable, and figures _some_ right of his must be getting
trammeled, though he's a bit unclear on what that right is.

Besides, he doesn't enjoy the perceived quality flaws he thinks he sees
in freely redistributable distributions, and figures he can taunt,
wheedle, and complain that situation out of existence.

So, we see:  A vague sense of entitlement, laziness, aggressive
ignorance, a whiney approach to the subject -- and pervasive error.  And
he's surprised to get a somewhat dismissive reception?

Guess what, HalcyonWild?  Back in the days when you became accustomed to 
downloading (e.g.) RH9 ISOs "free", the large amounts of bandwidth and
hosting services required were never free of charge.  They were merely 
_subsidised_, at a time when vulture capitalists were handing out money
like candy.

Well, it's not 1999, any more.  A lot of the places on the Net that used
to underwrite immense bandwidth bills to make dozens of popular Linux
distribution ISOs available to the public got tired of the expense.
And some firms such as Red Hat, Inc., whether wisely or not, decided 
that emphasising somewhat restrictive service agreements wrapped around
their (otherwise) open source offerings made for a better likelihood of 
business success.

But there do remain a hundred or so freely redistributable, maintained
distributions at any given time.  HalcyonWild might enjoy one of those
-- or not.  But he really ought to adjust his attitude.

Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:

> I quoted it to you, and it says that the source of a GPL program is free
> of charge to the person the program is distributed to, and possibly to
> others too (at discretion).  I gave the reasoning which supports that
> conclusion. I suspect that you are pointing out that the cost of
> posting it to you isn't required t be borne by the redistributor.

You are playing games with words, and are wasting your time and mine.

Which will thus end _now_.  I will not argue with someone who whimsically
redefines "at no charge" to encompass charging money.

> There is nothing wrong with my logic....

There's something wrong with your _judgement_ -- as you are attempting to 
re-obscure a subject I just took considerable pains to clarify.  I do
not appreciate that.  Thus:  We are done.

HalcyonWild wrote:
> notbob wrote:
> 
> 
>>but no one is twisting your arm to buy.  Even Redhat 9 is available
>>for download.
> 
> 
> Redhat 9. The shrike edition ! That was way back in 2001 or something!.
> Now you wouldnt go back to using win NT 3.5 once you have put your
> hands on WinXP.

Windows Xtra Problems.   Don't want to start using it either
> 
> 
>>As I understand it, there is no problem with charging for linux.  It
>>just not ok to not make it available for free.  I do not know of any
>>linux that is not available at zero cost.
> 
> 
> Well then why do they call linux free.

Hello,   Because you can get it for FREE. What part don't you get about 
FREE??
> 
> And I repeat, the free ones are unstable. 

Please pull your head out your ass.  You have to be talking out your 
ass, as your mouth is to smart to say stuff like the above line.

A friend of mine formatted
> his HDD after struggling with fedora for bout a week.

Perhaps your friend is the problem. Did he ask for help in a SMART way 
or did he (like you) bitch about Linux?

> If you want to spend money, rather go for a stable unix version from
> Sun Microsystems or HP or IBM. My point is that I am not anti-Linux or
> pro MS or anything. It is that if you want to spend money, better go
> for Sun, HP or MS Win2k(best windows version till date , IMHO), or
> MacOS X
> 
Funny that Linux works for so many people.

jeff wrote:
> HalcyonWild wrote:
> 
>> ...
>> And I repeat, the free ones are unstable...
> 
> 
> The free "ones"?  Which free ones have you tried outside of FC?  Debian 
> (free) is generally considered to be the most reliable distro out there. 
>  How about Ubuntu (free - they'll even send you a CD at no cost)? 
> SimplyMepis (still free AFAIK)?  Mandriva download edition (free)?  Open 
> Suse (free)?  Slackware (free)?  Gentoo (free)?  And I'm sure I'm 
> missing some other obvious examples.  For your own reasons, you may not 
> like some of these, but there's got to be at least ONE that will meet 
> your needs.
> 
> Jeff
Jeff,  there will never be one that he likes........

notbob writes:
> It just not ok to not make it available for free.

I wrote:
> Not correct.

Rick Moen writes:
> Please cite the term of the covering licence (GPLv2) that mandates
> redistributors making anything whatsoever available without charge.

There is none.  That is why I wrote that notbob's assertion that it is not
ok to not make Linux available for free was incorrect.
-- 
John Hasler 
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> Rick Moen wrote (in part):
> 
> 
>>5.  Read the damned licence.  It'd prevent you from running around in
>>public with your foot in your mouth.
>>
> 
> I absolutely _love_ that metaphor. Either he has three legs, a spare foot,
> or hops instead of runs.
> 
Watching that would be like watching a one legged man in an ass kicking 
contest. :)

HalcyonWild wrote:
> jeff wrote:
> 
> 
>>HalcyonWild wrote:
>>
>>>...
>>>And I repeat, the free ones are unstable...
>>
>>The free "ones"?  Which free ones have you tried outside of FC?  Debian
>>(free) is generally considered to be the most reliable distro out there.
>>  How about Ubuntu (free - they'll even send you a CD at no cost)?
>>SimplyMepis (still free AFAIK)?  Mandriva download edition (free)?  Open
>>Suse (free)?  Slackware (free)?  Gentoo (free)?  And I'm sure I'm
>>missing some other obvious examples.  For your own reasons, you may not
>>like some of these, but there's got to be at least ONE that will meet
>>your needs.
>>
>>Jeff
> 
> 
> No I havent tried Debian myself, but others who did told me to go for
> MS Win2K.
> 
> Ubuntu, I tried it. No mp3 support. No sound at all. No net connection
> at home so no free media player downloads. Not easily configurable. No
> good system utilities.
> Suse is free ??? Wake up.
> Slackware ? Most stable AFAIK, but most unfriendly.
> Gentoo. Never heard of it.
> Mepis? you have to pay.
> 
> What I also say, is that at the price which distros supply support and
> media , the stuff they provide is not at all worth it. Slow, resource
> hungry and bug-ridden is what you will get.
> (come on now, do you really still believe that media costs $100, and
> support for 3 months means they really gonna give good quality
> support).
> 
> Also there is another tendency I have noted. People tend to use windows
> systems much more "roughly" than they would use linux systems because
> they wouldnt know how to fix it. They are scared of linux systems.
> Use linux as roughly as you would use windows , and see your hard disk
> thrashing.
> 
> If you are selling linux, atleast give some good quality stuff.
> 
Changing the story now. tisk tisk

Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>> I quoted it to you, and it says that the source of a GPL program is free
>> of charge to the person the program is distributed to, and possibly to
>> others too (at discretion).  I gave the reasoning which supports that
>> conclusion. I suspect that you are pointing out that the cost of
>> posting it to you isn't required t be borne by the redistributor.

> You are playing games with words, and are wasting your time and mine.

I'm playing no such games, in my judgment.  There are many such
situations with which we all have experience.  For example, a glass of
water is free in a restaurant - they charge you for the meal, not the
glass of water.  If I offer you my old TV "for free", that desn't
include postage and packing or other delivery. I don't see any possible
confusion.

> Which will thus end _now_.  I will not argue with someone who whimsically
> redefines "at no charge" to encompass charging money.

I am not redefining it - it has a precise meaning: the cost to you of
the source is zero; the cost of delivering that zero-cost thing to you,
otoh, is not.

>> There is nothing wrong with my logic....

> There's something wrong with your _judgement_

That's a fair comment, and I disagree with your judgment of my judgment.
I understand your point that the complete package of source plus medium
plus delivery to you costs you money, but maintain that (in my judgment)
that is not a charge for the source, but a charge for delivering the
source to you. And the GPL is careful to distinguish the two too.

> -- as you are attempting to 
> re-obscure a subject I just took considerable pains to clarify. 

It's not been obscured, but clarified. Neither of us have any doubt as
to what is or is not being charged for. There are two things, A and B. 
A is zero cost, and  B is "at cost". You get A+B, paying zero for A
and the no-profit rate for B. A is the source, B is the cd it comes on
and the cost of making it and sending it to you. You claim that that is
"charging for A".

No it isn't. It's charging for B.

> I do
> not appreciate that.  Thus:  We are done.

There is no argument! That you wish to call "paying zero for A and cost
for B", where B is the P&P for A, "charging for A" strikes me as
vaguely strange but not a crazy construal. It's just not a description
I'd use for the situation. I understand your motives and even applaud
them, but I see no need to conflate two perfectly clear and separate 
items (and their costs/charges). Perhaps it's a regional language thing
- "for free" does not connote to me that I should expect the seller to
also pay for delivery as well as giving ne the item in question for
nothing.


Peter

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 11:54:45 -0700, HalcyonWild wrote:

> I am reminded of "too many cooks spoil the broth" when I see the state
> of the linux market. They are repeating Unix's mistakes.

You're a clueless fucking moron.  Run along, troll boy.

-- 
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 13:01:39 -0700, HalcyonWild wrote:

> No I havent tried Debian myself, but others who did told me to go for
> MS Win2K.

Those "others" were stupid.
 
> Ubuntu, I tried it. No mp3 support. No sound at all. No net connection

Wrong on all counts.  You're stupid.

> Suse is free ??? Wake up.

Yes, it is.  You're stupid.

> Slackware ? Most stable AFAIK, but most unfriendly.

For stupid half-wits, it is unfriendly.

> Gentoo. Never heard of it.

You're stupid.

> Mepis? you have to pay.

Wrong.  You're stupid.
 
> What I also say, is that at the price which distros supply support and
> media , the stuff they provide is not at all worth it. Slow, resource
> hungry and bug-ridden is what you will get.

OK, you're a moron.

Actually, you're just the latest Win-troll to stop by.  It's quite obvious
when you post from Google Groups, using Windoze.  Shut the fuck up and get
out of here, doofus.

-- 
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
 
> I'm playing no such games, in my judgment.  

Repeated Clue:  We're done.

On 2005-10-07, General Schvantzkoph wrote:
>
> As for the reasons to use Linux, price isn't it.

    For some it certainly is.

> Price is usually a pretty stupid reason to pick any product let
> alone an operating system. For price to be compelling the price
> difference has to be huge and for OSes it isn't. XP Pro is only $150
> and XP Home is only $99, so neither is very expensive.

    Not to you, perhaps, but to many people it is prohibitive. With
    the number of used computers available at no cost, often with the
    hard drive wiped, even $99 is a considerable addition.

> The reason to pick an OS is because it serves your needs better.

    For the majority of people, any OS will do the job. In which case,
    why pay more than necessary?

[snip]
> For typical home users the advantages aren't nearly as significant and
> there are some major disadvantages that aren't going away anytime soon.
> For example if what you want to do is play games Linux isn't the OS for
> you, there are very few games for Linux vs Windows. Linux does better in
> the media space then it does in the game space but it still isn't quite as
> capable as Windows. If what you want to do is web surf, do Office type
> things and do e-mail then Linux is every bit as good as Windows. However
> every bit as good isn't a compelling reason to switch, there has to be
> something that's much better.

    E.g., price.

-- 
    Chris F.A. Johnson                     <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
    ==================================================================
    Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach, 2005, Apress
    <http://www.torfree.net/~chris/books/cfaj/ssr.html>

In comp.os.linux.misc Chris F.A. Johnson <cfajohnson@gmail.com>:
> On 2005-10-07, General Schvantzkoph wrote:
>>
>> As for the reasons to use Linux, price isn't it.

>    For some it certainly is.

>> Price is usually a pretty stupid reason to pick any product let
>> alone an operating system. For price to be compelling the price
>> difference has to be huge and for OSes it isn't. XP Pro is only $150
>> and XP Home is only $99, so neither is very expensive.

>    Not to you, perhaps, but to many people it is prohibitive. With
>    the number of used computers available at no cost, often with the
>    hard drive wiped, even $99 is a considerable addition.

Exactly, presuming someone would like to setup some PC lab, say
out of older/donated hardware 25 PC + 1 server. 25*99 $US + 1*n
$US > 2475 $US.

In opposite to downloading the distribution of your choice: 
 0 $US
Head over to http://www.ltsp.org/ and download packages:
 0 $US

Looks like >2475! $US against 0 $US!

One can setup a ltsp environment, which will be possible to
maintain at a fraction of time needed to keep all those eXPensive
boxes running. You only have to do things once for your 25 or
more clients.  ;-)

>> The reason to pick an OS is because it serves your needs better.

>    For the majority of people, any OS will do the job. In which case,
>    why pay more than necessary?

In reality, most people don't even know what an OS is, quite a
few will happily admit they'd run "word" on their system...

> [snip]
>> For typical home users the advantages aren't nearly as significant and
>> there are some major disadvantages that aren't going away anytime soon.
>> For example if what you want to do is play games Linux isn't the OS for
>> you, there are very few games for Linux vs Windows. Linux does better in
>> the media space then it does in the game space but it still isn't quite as
>> capable as Windows. If what you want to do is web surf, do Office type
>> things and do e-mail then Linux is every bit as good as Windows. However
>> every bit as good isn't a compelling reason to switch, there has to be
>> something that's much better.

>    E.g., price.

Which once again boils down to doze coming preloaded on what most
people buy as new computer and many of them think the OS wouldn't
cost them anything, it was installed already, wasn't it?

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 215: High nuclear activity in your area.

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 17:19:17 +0000 (UTC), stan@worldbadminton.com wrote:
> Your are mistaken.
>
> Linux continues to be free.
>
> _support_ is often not free and pretty much noone will for
> free mail you CD's, and sure some distributions do panhandling,

The most popular distribution today is shipped  on cd for absolutely 
no cost, namely Ubuntu. The company behind Ubuntu, Canonical, is
funding this. And Ubuntu is always going to be free of charge. Support
in form of help with fixing problems costs money also for ubuntu, but
support in form of software and security updates is free.

But the main thing to point out is that linux, as in the linux kernel,
is free. Linux is not an operating system, it is merely a kernel. Some
vendors basing their operating system on the linux kernel are adding
proprietary software bits to the open source software and charges for
it. The open source licenses also states that you may resell the open
source software, but there are special rules about the changes you do
to the software. If you make changes to open source software, you have
to make these changes publicly available. Free is meant as free to
copy, change and redistribute, not as "free of charge".

Actually you are allowed to install and run RedHat without paying for
it. What you must pay for is high quality updates to keep your system
stable and secure. If you want a RedHat with software updates, you can
install CentOS, which is a blueprint of RedHat. They just recompile
RedHats source code (because it is free) and distributes it under
another name.

-- 
Rolf Arne Schulze
Min Weblog: http://rolfas.net/

Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>  
>> I'm playing no such games, in my judgment.  

> Repeated Clue:  We're done.

Saying "we" when you mean "you" is not particularly open ;)!.  There is
certainly nothing to argue about in terms of facts or interpretation and
the only thing I can find to demur at in what you said is that you call
A "not for free" (paraphrasing) when the price of A+P&P is x, and the
price of P&P is x.  I don't find that label appropriate in those
circumstances, and you do.

I'm trying to see your point - I'm not blowing a gasket trying, but I am
making an attempt - but the logic above gets in the way for me.

As far as I recall your point and your motives, you are trying to
disabuse some person of the notion that SuSE, RH, etc.  should provide
him with an ISO image of their distro (or the GPL parts) sitting there
for him to download.  We agree that there is no requirement at all for
them to do that, and nowhere in the GPL does it say that they should,
and the person is a lazy ungrateful weak-minded pratt with the attitude
of a brat if he persists in whining that they SHOULD.

Quite the contrary ..  it says in the GPL that SuSE, RH.  have to make
available the source ("A"), not the programs, for the cost of A+P&P
(interpreting P&P as standing for what it says is allowable to charge in
the GPL #3b).

And they don't even have to that.  They can gesture in the direction of
the place they got their source from, and say "get it from there" (GPL
#3c). A list of the references will do.

And they don't even have to do that.  They can simply provide the source
of the GPL programs on the same cds simply ONLY to the persons who
actually bought the distro cd (GPL #3a), under whatever conditions were
attached to that.

But all that simply means that linux is FREE, in the sense of liberty -
people who buy linux get the source and hence the freedom to modify it
to fix things they don't like or improve it to fit their needs. That's
what RS intended.

Peter

HalcyonWild wrote:

> version, I thought, there is no difference between RH and MS. If you
> think about it, that selling media and 3 month support for a 100$ is
> just a gimmick. I will try Centos.

Good idea. Some linux-vendors are like Microsoft and some aren't. Pick 
the one *you* like. Obviously there are enough people that like RH to 
keep them in business. I don't see a problem with that.

> Basically , I have lost touch with linux world, and now I hardly get
> time to experiment with it. Most free distros I tried were hopeless.
> They might be good, but I cannot spend 24 hours going from scratch, or
> maybe install a distro from CD and keep tweaking it for days, to
> finally get everything to work.
> 
> With respect to Linux, you can think of me as an average user, with
> good technical knowledge. How can linux succeed if they sell the user
> friendly versions while , dump the test versions on users. If this is
> how a person like me feels about linux, I can imagine the frustation of
> a user who just wants to play Quake, or browse the web.

Uh, that's two usecases that has proven to work flawlessly for me on 
Fedora ... but that's probably just me.

One thing that *is* a problem is running multimedia stuff on the 
entirely free linux distros that choose not to take any chances 
regarding multimedia codec licenses. Having Fedora play common formats 
like mp3 isn't exactly rocket science, but it doesn't do that out of the 
box. Because those functions aren't free, plain and simple. One distro 
just can't be entirely free and include commercial software at  the same 
time.

> 
> Ever been to the Mysql site, for example. You will see a long long list
> of mysql versions for different flavours of Linux. And even amongst a
> single flavour, different versions !!. Look at the windows download
> list. Just 3 links !! With such confusion in the linux world, with the
> players looking only for profits without caring about linux (paying for
> linux isnt bad if they give quality stuff, reduce confusion), I do not
> think linux can be the much touted future OS. It was, but now the story
> has changed. If anyone dreams that rh can be an IBM or MS or apple,
> wake up.

Why don't you just stick with Windows? My favourite distro comes with 
all the software I need, including mysql (which I most certainly do not 
need, by the way, I prefer other alternatives). I see your point, 
though. When a software distribution that isn't so mainstream is to be 
distributed, the vendor has to support various distros and 
package-formats, and the user has to pick the correct download 
supporting his/her distro, if such a binary distribution exist. This is 
inherently how the free linux community works. To minimize the problem, 
just stick with either some common commercial version, like RHEL (which 
is equivalent to using commercial Windows), or a derivative like CentOS.

It *is* cumbersome and frustrating to narrow down and settle for the 
distribution that suits you best. But that's how it works. It's much 
like the best-of-breed-world you have to cope with if you're a Java J2EE 
developer. It's just how it is not being a Microsoft customer, I suppose 
.....

> 
> I am reminded of "too many cooks spoil the broth" when I see the state
> of the linux market. They are repeating Unix's mistakes.

Maybe, but Unix is still around, you know... FreeBSD is a viable 
alternative to Linux, it's free, and comes in one flavour only. OR you 
could go for a BSD-derivative, in which case you would have to settle 
for OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Firefly, DesktopBSD ... :-)

-- 
jon martin solaas

HalcyonWild wrote:
> notbob wrote:
> 
> 
>>but no one is twisting your arm to buy.  Even Redhat 9 is available
>>for download.
> 
> 
> Redhat 9. The shrike edition ! That was way back in 2001 or something!.
> Now you wouldnt go back to using win NT 3.5 once you have put your
> hands on WinXP.
> 
> 
>>As I understand it, there is no problem with charging for linux.  It
>>just not ok to not make it available for free.  I do not know of any
>>linux that is not available at zero cost.
> 
> 
> Well then why do they call linux free.
> 
> And I repeat, the free ones are unstable. A friend of mine formatted
> his HDD after struggling with fedora for bout a week.
> If you want to spend money, rather go for a stable unix version from
> Sun Microsystems or HP or IBM. My point is that I am not anti-Linux or
> pro MS or anything. It is that if you want to spend money, better go
> for Sun, HP or MS Win2k(best windows version till date , IMHO), or
> MacOS X
> 

To be honest I doubt your friend would be able to install Solaris at 
all, but then, it's free too :-)

Have you ever tried to install XP on a computer from scratch, with only 
an OEM XP install CD available? It's pretty ugly, and when you have 
downloaded and upgraded all needed drivers from third-parties etc. etc. 
you've spent much more time than any Fedora install ever will require.

Your point narrows down to: All pre-installed os'es are easy to install. 
That's pretty obvious as the work required amounts to nothing.

I've never installed MaxOS X, but I suppose it's the easiest one, as 
Apple provides both hardware and OS.

Finally, I've never expirienced any stability issues with Fedora, but 
that's just me ... Especially I'd be surprised if any RHEL-derivative is 
any more unstable than RHEL, being built from the same source. Also, 
most pay-linux'es comes with commercial software, and are available for 
free as well, only difference is the absence of some commercial code. I 
really don't understand how that could make the free versions less 
stable? Could you please explain how that is?

-- 
jon martin solaas

HalcyonWild wrote:

> 
> 
> No I havent tried Debian myself, but others who did told me to go for
> MS Win2K.

Really? How come you don't? Linux is very simply put, not built for you.

> 
> Ubuntu, I tried it. No mp3 support. No sound at all. No net connection
> at home so no free media player downloads. Not easily configurable. No
> good system utilities.
> Suse is free ??? Wake up.
> Slackware ? Most stable AFAIK, but most unfriendly.
> Gentoo. Never heard of it.
> Mepis? you have to pay.

In many cases the only difference between a "free" distro and a "pay" 
distro is the inclusion/exclusion of certain commercial software 
components (and in many cases access to support and stuff). Those 
differences are completely irrelevant when it comes to stability issues.

You claim that free linux is unstable and lists lack of mp3 support as 
an example? Clearly you are confused ...


> 
> What I also say, is that at the price which distros supply support and
> media , the stuff they provide is not at all worth it. Slow, resource
> hungry and bug-ridden is what you will get.
> (come on now, do you really still believe that media costs $100, and
> support for 3 months means they really gonna give good quality
> support).
> 
> Also there is another tendency I have noted. People tend to use windows
> systems much more "roughly" than they would use linux systems because
> they wouldnt know how to fix it. They are scared of linux systems.
> Use linux as roughly as you would use windows , and see your hard disk
> thrashing.

Really? Let me tell you one thing: it's in fact the opposite that's 
true. At least that's my experience ;-)

-- 
jon martin solaas

HalcyonWild wrote (in part):

> Well, I did not know that, Thanks. But I have seen fedora to be low
> quality, that is why my experience. Also, I am a programmer and I have
> that basic technical skill you talk about, if I want to install linux.
> (That is why I had rh 7 on my box while i was in college). But somehow,
> when they started selling linux, while I was stuck up with an old
> version, I thought, there is no difference between RH and MS. If you
> think about it, that selling media and 3 month support for a 100$ is
> just a gimmick. I will try Centos.

Use whatever distribution you like.

I happen to run Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 ES. I got it for about $175/year,
not $100 (in any case, half price for two years because I had already been a
subscriber to Red Hat Network). It comes with some "installation support" or
some such thing, for three months, but I do not recall needing it because I
could follow the directions of the installation program. But in addition to
that support, they also provide on-line support that works pretty well for
registered customers, and continuous updates for the duration of the
subscription (typically one year, renewable) using RHN and the up2date
program. There is a little blue icon with a white checkmark on the panel
that changes to a red icon with a flashing white exclamation point when
updates are available. Usually the updates are a very small set of rpm
packages, but since RHEL3 came out about 2 years ago, there have been 6
major updates. The little ones are security updates that they bring out as
soon as a problem has been detected and a fix available. The biggies tend to
be fixes of little bugs and other annoyances that they bunch together (e.g.,
total replacement of X Window System, new kernel, libraries, applications).
It is this last feature that I find the most important. Before RHN and
up2date, maintenance required finding out (by rumor, divine revelation,
intuition, etc.) that an update was available and desireable, locating a
source for it, downloading it, and trying to install it with the constant
fear that installing it would require major updating of libraries, etc.,
that when done, would make the system incompatible with other programs. I
was glad to be rid of that.

Now the same kind of thing was available for Fedora Core 2 (the only FC I
ever tried), but it rummaged around on many web sites, some of which were
down, many of which were incompatible with each other so if I downloaded an
updated package from one source (that up2date picked seemingly at random),
it would not install because it needed another package from elsewhere, but
the site it would pick for that had not been updated yet, so it would not
download (since I already had that). This got to be too much. Free just was
not good enough for me.

I had other troubles with FC2 that I have complained about before (e.g. CUPS
so incompatible that FC2 running CUPS as a server would not reliably act as
a print server to RHEL3 machine even though the ame machine running RHL7.3
or RHL9 does). Maybe when FC 5 or FC 6 comes out I will try it again on my
old machine, but not yet.

-- 
  .~.  Jean-David Beyer          Registered Linux User 85642.
  /V\  PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A         Registered Machine   241939.
 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey    http://counter.li.org
 ^^-^^ 08:25:00 up 8 days, 1:27, 3 users, load average: 4.12, 4.17, 4.08

Jon Martin Solaas wrote:

> Have you ever tried to install XP on a computer from scratch, with only
> an OEM XP install CD available?

I did it twice on the same machine. The first time was easy enough. Of
course I had to reinstall Windows 95 lots of times on the machine I was
running it on, too, so I had experience.

The reason I installed W-XP on the same machine twice is that it's file
system partitions gradually deteriorated and it stopped booting
successfully. It was easier to reinstall than to figure out what went wrong
with the file systems. Furthermore, although I had the whole thing backed up
to tape, I could not restore because W-XP would not boot, so I could not run
the restore program.

I have Red Hat Linux 9 running on the same machine, and it had no problems
at all, so it is unlikely to be a hardware problem. The machine is now a bit
over 5 years old and has had no hardware problems. I did put a bigger air
intake fan in the front (120x38mm instead of the 120x25mm fan it came with).

> It's pretty ugly, and when you have
> downloaded and upgraded all needed drivers from third-parties etc. etc.
> you've spent much more time than any Fedora install ever will require.

I did not need to download any drivers, but I did have to load the driver
for my SCSI mag tape drive that was on CD-ROM from the manufacturer. For
Linux, I did not need to install a driver for the mag tape drive.

I believe I also had to load in the software to monitor my UPS, but I had to
do that with my Linux machines as well.
> 
> Your point narrows down to: All pre-installed os'es are easy to install.
> That's pretty obvious as the work required amounts to nothing.
> 
> I've never installed MaxOS X, but I suppose it's the easiest one, as
> Apple provides both hardware and OS.
> 
> Finally, I've never expirienced any stability issues with Fedora, but
> that's just me ... 

Nor have I. I did not like FC2, but it was stable. It just did not work for me.

> Especially I'd be surprised if any RHEL-derivative is
> any more unstable than RHEL, being built from the same source. Also,
> most pay-linux'es comes with commercial software, and are available for
> free as well, only difference is the absence of some commercial code. I
> really don't understand how that could make the free versions less
> stable? Could you please explain how that is?
> 
They could be less stable if it took too much time to download all the
source, compile it, make a distribution from it, test it, get the disks
duplicated, etc. If it took too long, the security and other bug fixes
corrected in the meantime would not be there, and since the users of these
disks would not have a subscription to the provider's updates, they would
not be notified of the necessity to upgrade, etc.

-- 
  .~.  Jean-David Beyer          Registered Linux User 85642.
  /V\  PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A         Registered Machine   241939.
 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey    http://counter.li.org
 ^^-^^ 09:40:00 up 8 days, 2:42, 3 users, load average: 4.18, 4.22, 4.24

On Friday 07 October 2005 19:54, HalcyonWild stood up and spoke the
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.misc...:/

> stan@worldbadminton.com wrote:
> 
>> Your are mistaken.
>>
>> Linux continues to be free.
> 
> Go to the websites of Redhat, Mandriva or mandrake, Suse, Mepis, etc.
> See the $ rates quoted. the free ones are the bug riddled test
> versions. I have seen fedora to be slow and in some cases, crashing.

This is incorrect.  The free Mandriva version is simply less
feature-rich than the paid-for version, in the sense that it lacks
proprietary software such as nVidia drivers or RealPlayer.

Fedora Core is indeed the testbed for RedHat, but it's pretty reliable.

SuSE and Gentoo are only two of the freely downloadable distributions. 
There are plenty more, such as Ubuntu or Kubuntu, Debian, etc.

There are distributions that aren't freely downloadable, this is true,
e.g. TurboLinux.  However, this is more of an exception than a rule.

>> _support_ is often not free and pretty much noone will for
>> free mail you CD's, and sure some distributions do panhandling,
> 
> Fine, I dont want the free CDs mailed to me, but what about ISO
> downloads. No ISOs are available for download.

Sure there are freely downloadable /.iso's/.

> If it were allowed to redistribute freely (GNU says that apart from
> free software, you should have the freedom to redistribute ), there
> would be download servers out there who would allow you to download
> linux.

The "free" in Free Sofware means freedom, not "free of charge". 
However, most of the software *is* freely available.

> I did not find any.

Then you didn't look.  Since you mentioned Mandriva, have a look here:

        http://www1.mandrivalinux.com/en/ftp.php3

> Only debian happens to be free, but that again is way 
> behind. If I am allowed to redistribute after buying linux, I might
> set set up a download site myself. Why is nobody doing it.

People are.  Every distribution has loads of mirrors, and I usually use
a local mirror here that holds all distributions _and_ their upgrade
patches.

I see mirrored repositories for the following distributions on the site
I normally use, which is ftp://ftp.belnet.be.  Note that this is only
one of the free mirrors.

The distributions I see repositories for are...

        - Mandriva Linux
        - Centos Linux
        - Gentoo
        - Knoppix
        - Gnoppix
        - Kubuntu
        - Ubuntu
        - Debian Gnu/Linux
        - Mepis
        - PCLinuxOS
        - Linux From Scratch
        - Yoper
        - Fedora Core
        - RedHat Linux
        - Damn Small Linux
        - SuSE
        - OpenSuSE
        - Blue Linux
        - Aurora Linux
        - Yellow Dog Linux

.... and many others.  There are also mirrors for OpenOffice, X.Org and
many other Free & Open Source Software projects, such as the Linux
Kernel Project.

>> and sure some probably have commercial content that isn't free,
>> but I'm not aware of any you can't have for free if you are
>> just talking about the Linux content itself.
> 
> Linux content, just the kernel you mean. Just the OS , without all the
> utilities.

The kernel alone comes from kernel.org and is not a complete operating
system.  Distributions are more than just the operating system.

> Is it. What is it good for then. Will anyone bother to 
> download hundreds of programs and utilities. Many people do not have
> access to Internet.

Many distributions and many organizations offer the service of burning
the CD's for you and shipping them to you via snail mail.

>> Can you point to any counter examples?

> The websites I mentioned above. I tried Ubuntu and Debian, it left me
> unimpressed.

Speak for yourself.  There is nothing wrong with Ubuntu and Debian. 
They are perfectly good distributions.

> Ok, you cannot have quality without paying for it, you might say. Then
> , better we stop using, reporting bugs and testing code for redhat ,
> suse and mandrake; let them spend money they earn by selling public
> open source code.

Somehow, I have a very strong suspicion that you are none other than
Flatfish.  It's the same kind of rant, full of the same kind of lies.

You probably heeded the remarks about your ubiquitous Yahoo mail
accounts, and now you're using a G-Mail account instead, but I
recognize you from a long distance away, Flatfish...

Pretty soon you'll post a second and a third thread with this nonsense,
and then you'll start cross-posting again, right?

I have to hand it to you man: you really *are* a professional troll. 
Well, whomever signs your paycheck, right?

-- 
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(Registered Gnu/Linux user #223157)

On Saturday 08 October 2005 02:14, Dan C stood up and spoke the
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.misc...:/

> Actually, you're just the latest Win-troll to stop by.  It's quite
> obvious when you post from Google Groups, using Windoze.  Shut the
> fuck up and get out of here, doofus.

It's useless Dan.  This is Flatfish again, under a new identity, and
posting from Google Groups through an anonymous proxy, as always.

He/she/it knows he's/she's/it's lying through his teeth. He/she/it is
only here to yank our chains a bit more.  He/she/it has been doing this
for months in a row now, and from what I've heard, even for years in a
row.

Even /killfiling/ the troll is pointless.  He/she/it will be back with
another identity sooner than you can you can set up a filter, with Yet
Another Sorry "I've Tried Gnu/Linux But..." Tale.

-- 
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(Registered Gnu/Linux user #223157)

On Friday 07 October 2005 20:20, HalcyonWild stood up and spoke the
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.misc...:/

> 
> Dances With Crows got shagged in the gutters and muttered:
> 
>>
>> ?  Debian and Gentoo are payware now?  Son of a bitch.
>>
> 
> I knew I would be shredded.
> 
> Well you use Gentoo and Debian. See you at a mental asylum. Or on the
> streets with a dog behind you, bitch!!
> 
> And read my posts completely , I do say there are free distros out
> there.

You've been made out, Flatty Boy!  You may shift pseudonyms, but your
writing style and posting style - with several follow ups and
side-threads - remains the same.

I think you'll need to shift names again now.  I bet you still have a
number of free G-Mail accounts to pick from now?

-- 
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(Registered Gnu/Linux user #223157)

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 14:05:15 +0000, Aragorn wrote:

>> Actually, you're just the latest Win-troll to stop by.  It's quite
>> obvious when you post from Google Groups, using Windoze.  Shut the
>> fuck up and get out of here, doofus.
 
> It's useless Dan.  This is Flatfish again, under a new identity, and
> posting from Google Groups through an anonymous proxy, as always.

Yeah, you're right.  I guess I'll save my energy for dealing with
Matt_the_Mouth...  :)

-- 
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

On Saturday 08 October 2005 17:24, Dan C stood up and spoke the
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.misc...:/

> On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 14:05:15 +0000, Aragorn wrote:
> 
>>> Actually, you're just the latest Win-troll to stop by.  It's quite
>>> obvious when you post from Google Groups, using Windoze.  Shut the
>>> fuck up and get out of here, doofus.
>  
>> It's useless Dan.  This is Flatfish again, under a new identity, and
>> posting from Google Groups through an anonymous proxy, as always.
> 
> Yeah, you're right.  I guess I'll save my energy for dealing with
> Matt_the_Mouth...  :)

I've seen you sweat very hard over trying to talk sense into that guy... 
I gave that up a long time ago already... <lol>

Seems like Bit Twister is also trying...  You guys must like a real
challenge, hehe! ;-)

-- 
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(Registered Gnu/Linux user #223157)

Aragorn <stryder@telenet.invalid> wrote:

> Somehow, I have a very strong suspicion that you are none other than
> Flatfish.  It's the same kind of rant, full of the same kind of lies.

No, I'm pretty sure this one's merely a resentful, confused, and
mistaken desktop user.  You noticed that he's not crossposting.  Trolls
inevitably go for the low-hanging fruit; they don't _want_ to inspire
even-tempered explanations that clarify issues.

Rolf Arne Schulze <raskall@gmail.com> wrote:

> But the main thing to point out is that linux, as in the linux kernel,
> is free. Linux is not an operating system, it is merely a kernel. Some
> vendors basing their operating system on the linux kernel are adding
> proprietary software bits to the open source software and charges for
> it.

Not all proprietary software has restrictions on redistribution, though.
Thus my distinction into redistributable vs. non-.

> If you make changes to open source software, you have to make these
> changes publicly available. 

Not in the general case.  You're thinking of copyleft, not open source
as a whole.  For example, your claim is untrue of BSD or MIX-X-licensed
code.

If ASCII weren't so unsuitable, I'd draw you a Venn diagram, but let's
see what we can do with a text tree:

All software |- proprietary |- redistributable
             |              |- non-redistributable 
             |
             |- open source |- copyleft
                            |- non-copyleft

You'll note that the basically-meaningless term "commercial" isn't part of
that picture, since whether you acquire software through commerce or not 
is an issue orthogonal to that of its licensing terms.

(People who are attempting to view that diagram using proportional
typefaces should switch to monospace, and stop confusing Usenet with 
page layout.  ;->  )

-- 
Cheers,                   Mark Moraes: "Usenet is not a right."
Rick Moen            Edward Vielmetti: "Usenet is a right, a left, a jab,
rick@linuxmafia.com                     and a sharp uppercut to the jaw.
                                        The postman hits!  You have new mail."

Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:

> Saying "we" when you mean "you" is not particularly open ;)!.

ObDreadPirateRoberts:  "Get used to disappointment."  We're done.

-- 
Cheers,                    Long ago, there lived a creature with a 
Rick Moen                  voice like a vacuum cleaner.  We know little
rick@linuxmafia.com        about it, but we do know that it ate cats.

Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:

>> Saying "we" when you mean "you" is not particularly open ;)!.

> ObDreadPirateRoberts:  "Get used to disappointment."  We're done.

_You_ are done, maybe. _I_ don't take orders in this regard or in
others, I am afraid.  So you can say "we" all you like, but you should
expect it to have zero coercive effect on me!

For a moment I wondered whether clause 3c (recursion) in the GPL v2
might allow one an escape by permitting one to point receivers of the
program back to the original author for its source, and refusing to make
any copy of the source available to them directly from oneself, the
redistributor. The author can presumably do anything, including
refusing to give his source code to any passer by who asks.

But more careful reading shows firstly that the recursion can be only
one step at a time (#3b).  So provided you received the program from
someone who received it themselves in under GPL, they have to obey the
GPL clauses (3a, 3b) and make source available.  Or they can point you
back to where they got it from (3c) but only under the hypothesis that that
distributor got it UNDER GPL (3c).  The recursion is
carefully crafted to point backwards only to places that will offer
source code.  I think RS thought of that potential dodge.

So the recursion/induction  clause 3c appears to be void for people
who receive their program directly from the author. Curious - I can't
figure out if the author, once he SAYS he is distributing the program
under GPL, is obligated to give the source. But I suppose the licence
is on the source code, not the program, in the first instance, so it
makes no sense to wonder. The author gives his source code, other
people compile it int a program annd sell the program, but they are
obligated to pass on the (possibly modified) source code on request to
recipients of their compilation.

But the author can sell his program and SAY it is under GPL, but
refuse to give the source code, can't he? After all, he is binding the
recipients, not himself! That would stop anybody redistributing his
program at all. They are obligated to make the source code available
if they do so, but can't.


Peter

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 20:57:02 +0200, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
[...]
> So provided you received the program from someone who received it
> themselves in under GPL, they have to obey the GPL clauses (3a, 3b) and
> make source available.  Or they can point you back to where they got it
> from (3c) but only under the hypothesis that that distributor got it
> UNDER GPL (3c).

And only if they are distributing it "noncommercially" (3c).

[...]
> But the author can sell his program and SAY it is under GPL, but refuse
> to give the source code, can't he? After all, he is binding the
> recipients, not himself! That would stop anybody redistributing his
> program at all. They are obligated to make the source code available if
> they do so, but can't.

That does seem to be possible.  The answer in the GPL FAQ most relevant to
this circumstance seems to be this:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DeveloperViolate

    Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others
    to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not
    bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a
    "violation" of the GPL.

    However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL if
    done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral standing in
    the community.

-- 
http://members.dodo.com.au/~netocrat

On 2005-10-07, HalcyonWild <Halcyon.Wild@gmail.com> wrote:

> Fine, I dont want the free CDs mailed to me, but what about ISO
> downloads. No ISOs are available for download. 

Say what?

  http://linuxiso.org/

Take your pick...

-- 

John (john@os2.dhs.org)

On 2005-10-07, HalcyonWild <Halcyon.Wild@gmail.com> wrote:

> With respect to Linux, you can think of me as an average user, with
> good technical knowledge. How can linux succeed if they sell the user
> friendly versions while , dump the test versions on users. If this is
> how a person like me feels about linux, I can imagine the frustation of
> a user who just wants to play Quake, or browse the web.

I think this is a misleading depiction of linux. While *some* free 
distributions are indeed "test versions" (e.g. Fedora), this is not the 
case for all free distributions. Xandros "Open Circulation Edition," 
Knoppix, and Ubuntu come to mind. Knoppix and Ubuntu are also available as 
live CDs, from which you can run and use linux without installing anything 
on your hard drive.

BTW, you describe yourself as an "average user" with "good technical 
knowledge" (e.g. programming experience). I have had exactly one 
formal computer class in my life: a semester of Fortran programming I took 
in 1972, and do not consider myself to be a programmer by any stretch of 
the imagination. But I run several linux distributions at home (Fedora, 
Xandros-OCE, Vectorlinux) as well as NetBSD, FreeBSD, and Irix. I think 
the assuption that one needs to be a computer scientist to use linux is 
specious. 


-- 

John (john@os2.dhs.org)

On 2005-10-07, HalcyonWild <Halcyon.Wild@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you want to spend money, rather go for a stable unix version from
> Sun Microsystems or HP or IBM. 

FWIW, Solaris-10 (sparc or x86) is available for free from Sun:

  http://www.sun.com/download/

Why bother with XP? :-)

-- 

John (john@os2.dhs.org)

On 2005-10-07, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> notbob <notbob@nothome.com> wrote:
>
>> I can't imagine why.  I can get any linux distro at no cost whatsoever
>> from many sources on the internet. 
>
> Not lawfully.  Example:  Xandros Desktop OS -- on account of some
> included codebases whose copyright holders have not granted
> redistribution rights.  There are many other such distributions.

Xandros at least has their "Open Circulation Edition" which is available 
for free:

http://www.xandros.com/products/home/desktopoc/dsk_oc_download.html

-- 

John (john@os2.dhs.org)

On Saturday 08 October 2005 20:12, Rick Moen stood up and spoke the
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.misc...:/

> Aragorn <stryder@telenet.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Somehow, I have a very strong suspicion that you are none other than
>> Flatfish.  It's the same kind of rant, full of the same kind of lies.
> 
> No, I'm pretty sure this one's merely a resentful, confused, and
> mistaken desktop user.  You noticed that he's not crossposting. 
> Trolls inevitably go for the low-hanging fruit; they don't _want_ to
> inspire even-tempered explanations that clarify issues.

Hmm... Flatfish is unpredictable in where the posts are sent to.  There
are times he will single out one Gnu/Linux newsgroup, and other times
where he will crosspost to the Mandrake/Mandriva group, the SuSE group,
the advocacy group and the Windows-XP group.  

For extra points, he might even throw in the MacIntosh groups as well,
or something that has absolutely nothing to do with computers.

The only thing that's predictable about Flatfish is his style - he will
always represent himself as someone who is interested in Gnu/Linux but
who is forced to give it up because of his University not supporting
it, or because his hardware doesn't support it, etc. - and his frequent
replies, even to his own original post sometimes, complaining about how
intolerant we are.  

And then there's the Google Groups posting through an open proxy of
course.  Oh yes, and the fact that he'll always be back.  That's
predictable too. <grin>

-- 
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(Registered Gnu/Linux user #223157)

In <A9Q1f.16921$X31.619550@phobos.telenet-ops.be> Aragorn:

[Snip...]

> Flatfish.  It's the same kind of rant, full of the same kind of lies.

Bingo. I had this viper pegged from gitgo as such; a backstabbing buddy
in the "Et tu. Brute" tradition.

> accounts, and now you're using a G-Mail account instead, but I

Doesn't matter. The stench eventually leaks from the packaging, as now.

Since it's drifted to advocacy, I suggest Flats get his happyass there.

-- 
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.

Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:

> _You_ are done, maybe. _I_ don't take orders in this regard or in
> others, I am afraid.

Fear not:  You will suffer no damage beyond self-induced logorrhoea.

And we're done.

Netocrat <netocrat@dodo.com.au> wrote:

[proclaiming something to be licensed under GPL, but never issuing
source code:]

> That does seem to be possible.  The answer in the GPL FAQ....

Well, never mind the GPL FAQ:  It's obviously more than possible.  It's
happened quite a number of times, and is one of those topics we long ago
got did to death on the OSI license-discuss mailing list.  Obviously:  
A work that is claimed to be open source / free software, but whose 
source code has never been released, or is under patent or other legal
encumbrances that prevent exercise of important rights, is _not_ 
open source / free software regardless of what the licence says.

> Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others
> to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not
> bound by it....

Quite.  His/her rights are as close to inherent as statute can contrive.

-- 
Cheers,                   Mark Moraes: "Usenet is not a right."
Rick Moen            Edward Vielmetti: "Usenet is a right, a left, a jab,
rick@linuxmafia.com                     and a sharp uppercut to the jaw.
                                        The postman hits!  You have new mail."

Aragorn <stryder@telenet.invalid> wrote:

> The only thing that's predictable about Flatfish is his style....

Since you mention it, frankly, the writing style in this case doesn't
seem to match.  

But, if Flatfish did switch to sending non-crossposted and deliberately
clueless / mildly inflammatory posts to non-advocacy groups, one at a
time, _we wouldn't mind him_:  It's actually useful to have a resident
trigger for worthwhile conversations that clear up frequently
misunderstood points, even if that trigger is mildly annoying.

More to the immediate point, that hypothetical Flatfish would be having
_no fun_.  The trolls' payoff lies in getting people riled up,
preferrably engaged in pointless warfare with other groups.  Which 
is why I think this isn't he -- or at minimum is a Flatfish who screwed
up.  ;->

-- 
Cheers,   "Why is the alphabet in that order?  Is it because of that song?"
Rick Moen                                              -- Steven Wright
rick@linuxmafia.com

Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:

>> _You_ are done, maybe. _I_ don't take orders in this regard or in
>> others, I am afraid.

> Fear not:  You will suffer no damage beyond self-induced logorrhoea.

> And we're done.

I remind you that YOU are done, not me, so please stop that annoying
and grating terminator from leaving your fingers - thanks.

We have agreed that the only thing to disagree on is the label to
attach to a free-of-cost thing that is delivered for cost of delivery;
"free" or "charged for".  The source, as defined by the GPL.

OTfengwehOH, you may simply have been referring to the distribution's
right to charge what they like for their compilation, which is, as we
know, unfettered by the GPL.

Peter

Aragorn wrote:
> On Saturday 08 October 2005 17:24, Dan C stood up and spoke the
> following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.misc...:/
> 
> 
>>On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 14:05:15 +0000, Aragorn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Actually, you're just the latest Win-troll to stop by.  It's quite
>>>>obvious when you post from Google Groups, using Windoze.  Shut the
>>>>fuck up and get out of here, doofus.
>>
>> 
>>
>>>It's useless Dan.  This is Flatfish again, under a new identity, and
>>>posting from Google Groups through an anonymous proxy, as always.
>>
>>Yeah, you're right.  I guess I'll save my energy for dealing with
>>Matt_the_Mouth...  :)
> 
> 
> I've seen you sweat very hard over trying to talk sense into that guy... 
> I gave that up a long time ago already... <lol>
> 
> Seems like Bit Twister is also trying...  You guys must like a real
> challenge, hehe! ;-)
> 
You can't talk sense into Matt. His head is blocked up by his being 
RIGHT so much of the time. It must be a terrible burden, almost as heavy 
as the one the OP of this thread carries.

TJ

On Sunday 09 October 2005 02:05, Rick Moen stood up and spoke the
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.misc...:/

> Aragorn <stryder@telenet.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> The only thing that's predictable about Flatfish is his style....
> 
> Since you mention it, frankly, the writing style in this case doesn't
> seem to match.
> 
> But, if Flatfish did switch to sending non-crossposted and
> deliberately clueless / mildly inflammatory posts to non-advocacy
> groups, one at a
> time, _we wouldn't mind him_:  It's actually useful to have a resident
> trigger for worthwhile conversations that clear up frequently
> misunderstood points, even if that trigger is mildly annoying.
> 
> More to the immediate point, that hypothetical Flatfish would be
> having
> _no fun_.  The trolls' payoff lies in getting people riled up,
> preferrably engaged in pointless warfare with other groups.  Which
> is why I think this isn't he -- or at minimum is a Flatfish who
> screwed
> up.  ;->

Well, there is the notion over on /comp.os.linux.advocacy/ that Flatfish
may be more than one person.  The writing style may differ, but the
posting style is always the same.

The Flatfish posts come in at set intervals.  There are different
approaches.

It often starts with a sorry tale about how or why Gnu/Linux just
doesn't work for "him", or how he would like to use Gnu/Linux but he
can't as it's not supported by the educational software from his
University, or that he works at a computer store and tried to sell
computers pre-installed with Gnu/Linux, but people never bought them,
and that Gnu/Linux is just not ready for "prime time" and that we have
to face it, or some similar other drivel.

Then there are the posts that cover the typical Windows point of view. 
"My digital camera this or printer that are not supported.  Linux is
stupid!".

Another angle is the market share argument.  "Linux needs to become more
userfriendly, like Windows.  People buy Windows because it's quality."

In every case, the poster will follow up on the replies, and will
eventually post a reply to his own original post, in which he then
complains about how stupid, arrogant, zealous, ignorant or unhelpful we
are.  

Also note that the original post - if it is one along the "sorry
tale"-approach - will always contain a remark about how we "are going"
to react to said post, along the lines of "I know I'll get flamed" or
"Please don't flame me".

Replies that fully refute the arguments used by the troll or that give
him technical advice on how to deal with this or that peripheral are
simply ignored.  Instead, the troll will focus more on the "apparent"
areas where Gnu/Linux "fails", according to his arguments.

The posts always come in through an open proxy and are posted from
Google Groups.  Usually, the post is written in proper colloquial
English, with an American spelling - no, it's not me. <grin>  

The use of a gmail.com e-mail address is new now.  He previously always
used a Yahoo account, freshly created on the day of the first troll
posts under this identity.

There was a list published on C.O.L.A. with the pseudonyms this person
(or these persons) has (or have) used.  It was almost as long in lines
as the chunk of text I am now typing to you, spaces included, and
comprised of a comma-separated list of identities, a great and recent
deal of which were all female.

My belief is that whomever is responsible for this phenomenon must be
doing it for reasons other than simply enjoying himself.  I strongly
suspect that we have another Barkto incident on our hands here, with
more than one person typing up these posts.

-- 
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(Registered Gnu/Linux user #223157)

On Sunday 09 October 2005 15:22, TJ stood up and spoke the following
words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.misc...:/

> Aragorn wrote:
>> On Saturday 08 October 2005 17:24, Dan C stood up and spoke the
>> following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.misc...:/
>> 
>> 
>>>On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 14:05:15 +0000, Aragorn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Actually, you're just the latest Win-troll to stop by.  It's quite
>>>>>obvious when you post from Google Groups, using Windoze.  Shut the
>>>>>fuck up and get out of here, doofus.
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>>It's useless Dan.  This is Flatfish again, under a new identity, and
>>>>posting from Google Groups through an anonymous proxy, as always.
>>>
>>>Yeah, you're right.  I guess I'll save my energy for dealing with
>>>Matt_the_Mouth...  :)
>> 
>> 
>> I've seen you sweat very hard over trying to talk sense into that
>> guy... I gave that up a long time ago already... <lol>
>> 
>> Seems like Bit Twister is also trying...  You guys must like a real
>> challenge, hehe! ;-)
>> 
> You can't talk sense into Matt. His head is blocked up by his being
> RIGHT so much of the time. It must be a terrible burden, almost as
> heavy as the one the OP of this thread carries.

Indeed...  The paranoid are most often far too paranoid to seek out help
or even recognize that they are the ones at fault...  

The whole world is against these poor souls...  Too out of touch with
reality to even fathom that such a conspiracy would be ludicrous...

-- 
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(Registered Gnu/Linux user #223157)

In comp.os.linux.misc Aragorn <stryder@telenet.invalid>:
> On Sunday 09 October 2005 02:05, Rick Moen stood up and spoke the
> following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.misc...:/

>> Aragorn <stryder@telenet.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> The only thing that's predictable about Flatfish is his style....
[..]

> Well, there is the notion over on /comp.os.linux.advocacy/ that Flatfish
> may be more than one person.  The writing style may differ, but the
> posting style is always the same.

[ good write-up! ]

> There was a list published on C.O.L.A. with the pseudonyms this person
> (or these persons) has (or have) used.  It was almost as long in lines
> as the chunk of text I am now typing to you, spaces included, and
> comprised of a comma-separated list of identities, a great and recent
> deal of which were all female.

> My belief is that whomever is responsible for this phenomenon must be
> doing it for reasons other than simply enjoying himself.  I strongly

Second that and your description matches more or less with my
experience with this phenomena, even if I have kill-filed home
the trolls since some time. Taking the endurance into account,
hardly some school boys, they'd have grown up until now.

> suspect that we have another Barkto incident on our hands here, with
> more than one person typing up these posts.

Support this theory, at least it makes sense and could well
explain the endurance.

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 57: Groundskeepers stole the root password

Aragorn <stryder@telenet.invalid> wrote:

> Well, there is the notion over on /comp.os.linux.advocacy/ that Flatfish
> may be more than one person.  The writing style may differ, but the
> posting style is always the same.

Of course.  Keeping track of individual trolls is pointless, and their
number ultimately really doesn't matter.  

> It often starts with a sorry tale about how or why Gnu/Linux just
> doesn't work for "him"[snip]

And this guy did none of those things.  He credibly claims to have run
major distributions (notably RH) that were at the time freely
downloadable but no longer are in the same form, is distressed at their
withdrawal, and is reaching blindly for some reason to suppose that he
has cause for complaint.

One certainly needn't be a troll to profess that position: We've seen
it, and variations on it, a great deal over the past 13 years.  The
concept of "Certain of this code is freely redistributable, but nobody's
obliged to give you a copy at any price let alone for free, let alone 
as downloadable CD images, except some parties have obligations of
access to some matching source code, and not necessarily in the fashion
you prefer" is subtle.  Many people never quite get it right, and can't 
see past "Hey!  I used to be able to download this thing in convenient 
form.  But it stopped.  Doesn't that mean someone's ripping me off?"

In any event, you're perhaps missing my key point:  Trolls delight in
causing online havoc.  This guy didn't; he just posted some ill-informed
analysis and opinion, and then was quickly and calmly set straight.
That's either no troll or an incompetent one.

> I strongly suspect that we have another Barkto incident on our hands
> here.

Oh, c'mon.  That's loopily paranoid, and I say that as a professional
paranoic (system administrator).  I've met Microsoft shills -- a couple
of friends and I ran the first Windows Refund Day, after all -- and
they're better briefed.

-- 
Cheers,               Chip Salzenberg: "Usenet is not a right."
Rick Moen            Edward Vielmetti: "Usenet is a right, a left, a jab,
rick@linuxmafia.com                     and a sharp uppercut to the jaw.
                                        The postman hits!  You have new mail."

Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:

> I remind you that YOU are done [...]

Quite.  Followups set, accordingly.

-- 
Cheers,               Chip Salzenberg: "Usenet is not a right."
Rick Moen            Edward Vielmetti: "Usenet is a right, a left, a jab,
rick@linuxmafia.com                     and a sharp uppercut to the jaw.
                                        The postman hits!  You have new mail."

Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> writes:

>Aragorn <stryder@telenet.invalid> wrote:

>And this guy did none of those things.  He credibly claims to have run
>major distributions (notably RH) that were at the time freely
>downloadable but no longer are in the same form, is distressed at their
>withdrawal, and is reaching blindly for some reason to suppose that he
>has cause for complaint.

While RH may not be freely downloadable it is freely distributable. Thus
get it off a friend/collegue, whatever.

(It is GPL). While Redhat has tried to use trademark law to stop people
from commecially distributing it, they cannot stop you from giving it to a
friend. 





>One certainly needn't be a troll to profess that position: We've seen
>it, and variations on it, a great deal over the past 13 years.  The
>concept of "Certain of this code is freely redistributable, but nobody's
>obliged to give you a copy at any price let alone for free, let alone 
>as downloadable CD images, except some parties have obligations of
>access to some matching source code, and not necessarily in the fashion
>you prefer" is subtle.  Many people never quite get it right, and can't 

No, again. Redhat in their license states that it is GPL ( as it had beter
be). And GPL states that it is freely distributable. Of course redhat need
not distribute it. That is up to them. And they try very very very hard to
obfuscate the issue with their license language. 

It is not that "some of it is freely distributable." All is. Ald all
parties have rights to all source code. 

Yes, some people do not get it right.


>see past "Hey!  I used to be able to download this thing in convenient 
>form.  But it stopped.  Doesn't that mean someone's ripping me off?"

Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
> It is not that "some of [RH] is freely distributable." All is. Ald all
> parties have rights to all source code. 

Oh neiuwww! Not this "more than a mere aggregation" thing again!

> Yes, some people do not get it right.

:-)

Peter

Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:

> While RH may not be freely downloadable it is freely distributable. 

No.

RHEL 3 and 4 have been encumbered by trademark rights on images, themes,
etc. contained in the SRPMs for packages redhat-logos and
anaconda-images.  RH, Inc.'s licence (under copyright law) for the
specific instances (specific files) they supply of those images, etc. 
requires that you observe the corporation's trademark policy that it 
posts to http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/trademark/ .  That
corporate policy, in turn, requests a very maximalist interpretation of 
the scope of RH's trademark rights, including no commercial
redistribution (absent specific authorisation).

It's highly likely that various of the trademark-encumbered
proprietary image files in those SRPMs get included in quite a number of
the other binary packages, when one builds binary RPMs from the source
packages.  Therefore, those other binary packages become similarly
encumbered during the build process.

The effect of all this is that, if you _commercially_ redistribute 
RHEL 3 or 4 including the two encumbered packages' contents, then you
are committing copyright infringement as to those two packages -- 
a business tort -- because you're making an unlicensed use of them.
This is why RHEL rebuilds such as CentOS and Scientific Linux rebuild
from source _and_ substitute different contents for the two encumbered
SRPMs in doing so.  Only by carrying out such a substitution and rebuild
process can one avoid the proprietary encumbrance.

The predecessor release, RHAS 2.1, was additionally encumbered by a
number of non-redistributable proprietary packages, notably some Java
ones.


> Thus get it off a friend/collegue, whatever.

You can do that -- but it's technically unlawful if you do so as a
commercial transaction.  (Besides, you're much better off with CentOS
4.1.  ;->  )

> (It is GPL). 

Those two encumbered (and non-software) packages are _not_ GPL:  They're
proprietary images/themes/etc. under a licence that specifically does
not convey the right of commercial redistribution.

And I hope you're not one of those ill-informed people who assume that
everything on a set of Linux CDs is under GNU GPL, just because the
kernel and a number of other components are.

> While Redhat has tried to use trademark law to stop people from
> commecially distributing it, they cannot stop you from giving it to a
> friend. 

So, if you _do_ understand the nature of the trademark-based
encumbrance, kindly cease misleading people with grossly inaccurate
statements like "While RH may not be freely downloadable it is freely
distributable", especially when you're talking to someone who knows the
subject a lot better than you od.


> No, again. Redhat in their license states that it is GPL ( as it had beter
> be). 

You are _badly mistaken_.  Go read the licences to those two packages,
which are very clearly proprietary and deny the right of commercial
redistribution except if specifically authorised by RH, Inc.

> And GPL states that it is freely distributable. Of course redhat need
> not distribute it. That is up to them. And they try very very very hard to
> obfuscate the issue with their license language. 

RH's licensing setup as to its copyright properties within RHEL 3 and 4
is subtle, but hardly difficult to understand.  I'm sorry if you're
having problems with it, but I'll need to move onwards.

> It is not that "some of it is freely distributable." All is. Ald all
> parties have rights to all source code. 

Again, for Heaven's sake, take the trouble to actually _read_ some of
the licences before mouthing off on Usenet and contradicting those who
have.

-- 
Cheers,
Rick Moen                                     Age, baro, fac ut gaudeam.
rick@linuxmafia.com

HalcyonWild wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I thought Linux is free of cost. You can freely copy the installation
> cds, distribute with your friends, download from the net, etc. But
> since last one year (or maybe earlier, I might not have noticed), I am
> seeing that most major distros are now pay-ware. And it isnt really
> cheap to buy Linux.

The Linux vendors are selling support *for* the software not 
the actual software itself. All the vendors do make the 
software available for download - sometimes a bit later than 
the supported version.

Even at these prices it's cheap to buy Linux. Since when did 
you get a fully functional Office Suite, Professional 
quality graphics program, C compiler, etc included in the 
price of other OSs?

> 
> How is Redhat , Suse and Mandrake different from Microsoft when they
> sell public code (GNU, kernel). Atleast the MS guys write some of their
> own code, some outsourced, and most of it comes from their previous
> version of the software. :-)

RH, Suse and Mandrake all write 'their own code' as well. 
The difference is that it's contributed to the community. 
e.g. RPM is Red Hat software, Yast is Suse software, etc. 
This way everyone benefits from the open source efforts of 
the few.

It's funny you say that MS write 'some of their own' code, 
as they've been caught several times stealing other people's 
code. MS should be writing *all* their own code anything 
else is theft.

> What the linux vendors are doing is just lifting the public open source
> code, compiling it and selling it. In fact I believe they are worse
> than MS. The so called free Fedora is riddled with bugs and it is an
> untested beta released for free testing by the public. Redhat then
> picks up the tested code from Fedora and sells it in their "enterprise
> edition".
> 
Correct. That's how free software works. Free as in freedom 
to do what you want within the limits of the public licence.

The bugs in Fedora are part and parcel of dealing with 
cutting-edge releases - it can be a bit hairy. If you don't 
like it don't use Fedora, simple. This is part of 
community-based testing: the community finds problems, the 
vendor fixes them and releases them back into the community. 
It's not just RH et al that benefit, but everyone. Anyone 
has access to the enterprise version of the software (see 
CentOS or WhiteBox Linux).

> I think they are shooting themselves in the foot by doing all this.

Why?

> I was following linux for quite some time, and I had installed Redhat 7
> Linux on my old P3 machine. I was happy to see linux growing. But this
> linux selling business has left be disillusioned.

The people who write the code have to be paid something. 
They can't live on fresh air alone. IMHO, the cost of Linux 
is minimal compared to what you get from the competition.

> Before you put me in the line of fire(I have seen anti Linux people
> shredded to bits in other forums :) ), I must say that I am not saying
> all this just for the sake of saying something, but isnt something very
> wrong here.
> 

No. Things have changed a bit, that's all. If you what free 
(as in free of charge) versions of Linux you have to look a 
little harder (e.g. www.distrowatch.com not that hard really).

Distros like debian, which are free in all senses of the 
word, mean that Linux will never disappear, but if we really 
want Linux to compete with the Microsoft's of this world it 
has to start being profitable.

Chris.

Stephen M. Adams wrote:
> "HalcyonWild" <Halcyon.Wild@gmail.com> writes:
> Anything can be slow if not setup correctly.
> Personally, I prefer Gentoo for non critical systems.

Thanks. I did set it up as far as possible. Still it was quite slow.



> I don't use SUSE either, but ISO's for the open source version are here:
>
> http://www.opensuse.org/Released_Version

I could not find Suse ISOs I admit. Where do they hide the links.

> How come you had so much trouble finding the ISO's?  Or did you quit
> looking when you saw the 'pay' (ie directly supported) versions?
>

Yes. I looked around the page, and it turns out most links lead to
pay-up linux versions.
In another post, you said it might be a hardware problem, but Win2k
works smooth on it.
I am trying Ubuntu, though it does not have much support for
multimedia, I will download some free players. Seems like they did a
good job on debian.


Thanks.

To all,
I was looking for good answers, not name calling. Why do you have to
start abusing if someone doesnt find something, and asks for it. Hence
my replies to some crow.
I did look around before posting. I read the reviews on distrowatch and
some other sites. Most reviews did not have much good to say about any
free download distro.
I tried Fedora and found it cumbersome and slow. If it is the truth, I
cannot deny it. I did not even try Debian since my friends advised
against it. I had win2k for some time, and it works cool, unlike Fedora
which crashes often, and is slow, on the same PC.

I am not a lawyer and I found the language of GPL quite legalish. I
read it quite some time back. English is not my first language. But I
have an idea about the general terms. Like you are free to distribute
(by free, I meant free as in free to give away for no cost, not free
beer).
By the way, this is on GNUs site
" 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise
to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will
automatically terminate your rights under this License. However,
parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this
License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties
remain in full compliance. " . Now what does this mean. You can copy
but cannot copy, if you comply with this license. ??

Anyway, I did not mean to start a troll, and I did not mean to be
abused or to abuse. Thanks.



          malchus842SP@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)

> (by free, I meant free as in free to give away for no cost, not free
> beer).

Also, free of cost I admit. I remember the good old days when we could
download the latest and greatest linux without paying $50 for media.

Ok, if it is not compulsory for redhat and suse to make available isos
for download, you are not even allowed to redistribute. I have seen
many old RH shrike edition cds around, not RHEL or Suse or Mandrake. So
free as in free to distribute, also goes away.

Are you allowed to make copies of RHEL and give away. I could get them
from a friends company . (they use RHEL on their servers)

YouCanToo wrote:
> Please pull your head out your ass.  You have to be talking out your
> ass, as your mouth is to smart to say stuff like the above line.

Does most of people here have to talk this way. I did reply bad to some
crow, because s/he started all that abusive language. A momentary lapse
of reason, on my part. I should have just ignored that s_pammer.

> Funny that Linux works for so many people.

Whats the percentage of people using Linux today, even on servers. I
see solaris or HP-UX most of the times on servers. I hope usage of
linux rises. But for that, it is going to take time, to get over the
politics played by redhat and suse. I think redhat wants people to use
the pay-version, so its giving away the buggy and sluggish FC. It might
back-fire instead of increasing their revenues.
As of now, I do not think there is any version of Linux which satisfies
a user for all his needs. Ubuntu comes close, but no mp3 player. I
would have to switch audioCDs back and forth. Anyway, I will try and
get some work-around. Or get another rig with win2k for such purposes,
and use ubuntu for running client-server apps/playing around with gcc
c++ coding.

General Schvantzkoph wrote:
>
> for commercial applications, those are all targeted at Redhat or SUSE, for
> most of the other distributions you are on your own. Although there are
> hundreds of Linux distributions there are only a few that matter.

Yes you are right.


> only use open source software then you could use any distribution. However
> only a few distributions are really popular, Fedora and SUSE of course.
> Mandriva is popular as well as Slackware, Debian and some of the Debian
> relatives like Ubuntu. Popularity is important for an end user OS because
> a large user community makes it easier to get online help. More users also

stuff deleted.

> expensive. The reason to pick an OS is because it serves your needs
> better. In the server space Linux has been hugely successful because it's
> a vastly more capable OS then XP. Linux scales better and it works much
> better in a networked environment. For engineering applications those
> things matter also. I'm using a half dozen machines simultaneously, two of
> which are dual processor, I simple couldn't do that with a Windows
> environment.

Yes, but I am still to find a distribution that serves my needs. I am a
programmer, play lot of rock CDs and games, and type at over 60words
per min. Many a times, I have to wait for linux to respond to previous
action before I can do anything else. Ok I cannot play many of my games
on linux. I do not have internet connection at home, so I have to go to
someone's place , download stuff and burn CDs, try it out , if it
doesnt work for some strange reason, repeat the process.


> Anyway my point is that if you are doing serious computing then Linux is
> the obvious choice. If you want to play with a huge array of free
> applications then Linux is also a good choice. If you are just a home user
> then the one reason to pick Linux is that it's relatively virus proof.

Somewhere between a home user and power-user. I just wanted to dive
back into Linux again.
Thanks.

To someone who said you can download Mandrake or mandriva from the
mandriva club - You need to join that club first, for a fee of course.
There are no free lunches, as Americans say.

HalcyonWild wrote:
> YouCanToo wrote:
> 
>>Please pull your head out your ass.  You have to be talking out your
>>ass, as your mouth is to smart to say stuff like the above line.
> 
> 
> Does most of people here have to talk this way. I did reply bad to some
> crow, because s/he started all that abusive language. A momentary lapse
> of reason, on my part. I should have just ignored that s_pammer.
> 
> 
>>Funny that Linux works for so many people.
> 
> 
> Whats the percentage of people using Linux today, even on servers.

100% of the people in my house use Linux on their desktops, and all the
servers here run Linux. To be honest, though, there are only two machines
here, one of which runs Windows-XP Home once in a while when I need to run
Quicken or TurboTax. I consider both machines to be desktops, but the big
one is connected directly to the Internet, and it runs an _iptables_
firewall that protects itself and the other machine. It also runs a
nameserver, a mail transfer agent, nfs server, and IBM's DB2 UDB dbms
servers, and an ssh server and client. (The other machine also runs an nfs
server and ssh server and client.)

> I
> see solaris or HP-UX most of the times on servers.

My ISP has a battery of machines that run FreeBSD Unix on their servers. I
believe they run one server with some Windows server on it for the benefit
of some clients who cannot hook up any other way. At least they did 5 years
ago. I do not know if they still find this to be necessary.

> I hope usage of
> linux rises. But for that, it is going to take time, to get over the
> politics played by redhat and suse. I think redhat wants people to use
> the pay-version, so its giving away the buggy and sluggish FC. It might
> back-fire instead of increasing their revenues.

I do not thing Red Hat and SuSE are playing politics. They are trying to
make enough money to cover the costs of their service, and to provide a
decent rate of return to their shareholders. This is America shareholders
must get a return on their investments or they will not participate. And
without investment, companies do not succeed. Red Hat, and for all I know
SuSE, are not parasites. They employ developers at their expense who make
significant contributions to the Linux and GNU community.

> As of now, I do not think there is any version of Linux which satisfies
> a user for all his needs. Ubuntu comes close, but no mp3 player. I
> would have to switch audioCDs back and forth. Anyway, I will try and
> get some work-around. Or get another rig with win2k for such purposes,
> and use ubuntu for running client-server apps/playing around with gcc
> c++ coding.
> 
I do not get this. I have no trouble at all coding in C++ on GNU/Linux
systems. In fact, I had nothing but trouble trying to get the Visual C++
development system in Windows 95 to work properly. It was not even
compatable with Microsoft Office Professional at the time, using
incompatable libraries so I had to reinstall Visuall C++ whenever I wanted
to program, and then reinstall Microsoft Office Professional when I wanted
to use that. I could understand (but not forgive) Microsoft for being
incompatible with other vendors' products, but with their own?

-- 
  .~.  Jean-David Beyer          Registered Linux User 85642.
  /V\  PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A         Registered Machine   241939.
 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey    http://counter.li.org
 ^^-^^ 07:35:00 up 1 day, 5:56, 3 users, load average: 4.43, 4.30, 4.13

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 04:43:24 -0700, HalcyonWild wrote:

> To someone who said you can download Mandrake or mandriva from the
> mandriva club - You need to join that club first, for a fee of course.
> There are no free lunches, as Americans say.

There is indeed a "Club" that costs a fee.  However, you can FREELY
download the Mandriva distribution from their website.

Why can't you understand that?

-- 
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 03:52:09 -0700, HalcyonWild wrote:

> Also, free of cost I admit. I remember the good old days when we could
> download the latest and greatest linux without paying $50 for media.

That is still the case today.
 
> Ok, if it is not compulsory for redhat and suse to make available isos
> for download, you are not even allowed to redistribute. I have seen
> many old RH shrike edition cds around, not RHEL or Suse or Mandrake. So
> free as in free to distribute, also goes away.

Wrong on all counts.
 
-- 
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 10:54:00 -0700, HalcyonWild wrote:

> 
> stan@worldbadminton.com wrote:
> 
>> Your are mistaken.
>>
>> Linux continues to be free.
> 
> Go to the websites of Redhat, Mandriva or mandrake, Suse, Mepis, etc.
> See the $ rates quoted. the free ones are the bug riddled test
> versions. I have seen fedora to be slow and in some cases, crashing.
> 
>> _support_ is often not free and pretty much noone will for
>> free mail you CD's, and sure some distributions do panhandling,
> 
> Fine, I dont want the free CDs mailed to me, but what about ISO
> downloads. No ISOs are available for download.

LIAR.

What do you call these?

      ftp://mirrors.kernel.org/suse/i386/10.0/iso

The GM in the .iso names stands for "Gold Master", meaning the .isos are
exactly the same as the CDs in the paid for boxed sets. If you read
"README.txt" you will see that the so called EvalDVDs are the same as all
5 CDs, on a single DVD. The only difference from the boxed set is you
obviously get no dead tree manuals, and there is no helpdesk type support.
Software update and security support is the same as the boxed set.

The purely OSS opensuse version is available on the same server under the
directory opensuse. Duh! It has the exact same software as the GM cds,
except there are none of the closed source apps that are on the GMs. This
is not "Beta" software, anymore than Win XP is "Beta" software. Then
again, some would argue that all of Microsoft's products have never gotten
past being Alpha software.

There are similar .iso repository mirrors for all the major distros, as
well as the hundreds of more specialized minor ones, and the software on
them is the exact same software as is in the boxed sets. Depending on the
distro, there may be less of the software on the download .isos, but all
of the OSS software is available, somewhere on their mirrors, after the
basic installation is complete. The closed source items are of the
Real-player, Acrobat Reader, Flash Player type, or demo versions, and
available, for free, from their own sites, so it's no big deal if they're
not included.

Here's a little puzzle game for you. Use the link, and see how many
Linux .isos you can find.

     ftp://ftp.planetmirror.com/pub

I know it's hard for you, so I'll give you a hint. Put the arrow thingy,
on your screen, that moves when you move your mouse, over the things that
look like file folders and click (press down) the left button ultil they
open to show you what's inside. Keep clicking, and counting each .iso you
find, until you find them all. For even more fun, do the same again, only
this time, count all the different Linux packages you find. That should
keep you busy, and out of here, for a while.



> If it were allowed to
> redistribute freely (GNU says that apart from free software, you should
> have the freedom to redistribute ), there would be download servers out
> there who would allow you to download linux. I did not find any.

The only way you can "not find any", is to not look at all. Suse alone is
mirrored on over 100 servers world wide. 


> Only debian happens to be free,

Liar, liar.

> but that again is way behind. If I am
> allowed to redistribute after buying linux, I might set set up a
> download site myself. Why is nobody doing it.

They are, as shown above.

If you'd like to pay the costs of setting up and maintaining a proper,
free, mirror server, with all the various distros that offer isos, or ftp
installations, feel free to do so. I hope you've got deep pockets. There
are already hundreds, maybe thousands, out there already. Nobody will stop
you, unless you try to tamper with the mirrored files. Do that, and you'd
better be prepared for heavy legal expenses, large fines, and possibly,
very large damage awards to the files creators.

If you want to create your own distro, and host a download server for
that, feel free to do that also; it's allowed, you already have permission.


>> and sure some probably have commercial content that isn't free,
>> but I'm not aware of any you can't have for free if you are
>> just talking about the Linux content itself.
> 
> Linux content, just the kernel you mean. Just the OS , without all the
> utilities. Is it. What is it good for then. Will anyone bother to
> download hundreds of programs and utilities. Many people do not have
> access to Internet.

Then how are they going to download all those .isos you're pissing and
moaning about. You know, the ones that contain all those hundreds, even
thousands, of programs and utilities that you claim you'd download, if
only they existed. They do. You knew that, before you started this thread.
You have no interest in learning about, or running, Linux. You post on
Linux NGs for the sole purpose of spreading FUD, because you are a LIAR,
and a piss poor one, at that.  

No more time to waste on you.

Good bye.

-- 
imotgm   
       "Lost? Lost? I've never been lost... Been a tad confused for a
        month or two, but never lost."

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 20:05:28 -0400, Rick Moen wrote:

 -- or at minimum is a Flatfish who screwed
> up.  ;->

That's "flounder", right?

Flounder \Floun"der\, n. [Cf. Sw. flundra; akin to Dan. flynder,
   Icel. fly?ra, G. flunder, and perh. to E. flounder, v.i.]
   1. (Zool.) A flatfish of the family Pleuronectid[ae], of
      many species.
 
Flounder \Floun"der\, v. i. [imp. & p. p. Floundered; p. pr. &
   vb. n. Floundering.] [Cf. D. flodderen to flap, splash
   through mire, E. flounce, v.i., and flounder the fish.]
   To fling the limbs and body, as in making efforts to move; to
   struggle, as a horse in the mire, or as a fish on land; to
   roll, toss, and tumble; to flounce.

Sounds like Flatfish to me.

-- 
imotgm   
       "Lost? Lost? I've never been lost... Been a tad confused for a
        month or two, but never lost."

HalcyonWild wrote:
>>(by free, I meant free as in free to give away for no cost, not free
>>beer).
> 
> 
> Also, free of cost I admit. I remember the good old days when we could
> download the latest and greatest linux without paying $50 for media.

No one is asking you $50 for media. There are plenty of 
sites offering distributions on media for a nominal fee.

What you are paying for are manuals, licences for certain 
software (such as mp3, crossover, etc) and support.

> Ok, if it is not compulsory for redhat and suse to make available isos
> for download, you are not even allowed to redistribute. I have seen
> many old RH shrike edition cds around, not RHEL or Suse or Mandrake. So
> free as in free to distribute, also goes away.

Wrong. See below.

> Are you allowed to make copies of RHEL and give away. I could get them
> from a friends company . (they use RHEL on their servers)
> 

Yes. All you have to do is remove the RH copyrighted stuff 
first. This turns out to be mainly logos. But, why bother 
when White Box Linux and CentOS have done it all for you 
already (as others have already posted)? Clearly you haven't 
been bothered to follow-up previous posts so I'll make it 
easier for you:

http://www.centos.org/
http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/

Hey, who is this flatfish. I am not flatfish. I never come across him
but this is the first time i posted here. Seems like he is the most
reviled person here. :)

Yes I have tried Linux, rh 7. I tried mandrake 8 too, with its
diskdruid partition manager. It was one of the best installs at that
time. RH7 was a bit obfuscated though. Also, rh7 didnt work with my
onboard sound card 815e, which Mandrake detected. And somehow, Ubuntu
dint detect my sound card. I dont know why, but it did not play any
sound. And I dint investigate further. I will try again though, as I
posted earlier.
I am a java programmer and I hardly ever have anything to do with Linux
or windows running in the background. So, my knowledge about deep
internals of OS is much less.
Yes. let us stop this. I was hoping to get insights, I was mistaken. So
much for that much talked about community support for linux. Thanks
all. 
I stop here.

HalcyonWild wrote:
> YouCanToo wrote:
> 
> 
>>Funny that Linux works for so many people.
> 
> 
> Whats the percentage of people using Linux today, even on servers. I
> see solaris or HP-UX most of the times on servers. I hope usage of
> linux rises. But for that, it is going to take time, to get over the
> politics played by redhat and suse. I think redhat wants people to use
> the pay-version, so its giving away the buggy and sluggish FC. It might
> back-fire instead of increasing their revenues.

FC and Enterprise versions of RH cover different markets and 
different types of users. I personally don't like FC as it's 
too unstable (in terms frequency of updates) for my use at 
home, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't use RHEL at work.

> As of now, I do not think there is any version of Linux which satisfies
> a user for all his needs. 

And that's the way it should be. I wouldn't want my server 
to be running KDE or loads of X type guff. Nor would I want 
my home desktop to be running Apache or an NIS server. 
Certain distros are more suited to specific tasks.

This is exactly the same with Windows. You have Windows XP 
Home and Windows Server 2003. Although with Linux you have 
the flexibility to turn your 'home' distro into a server if 
you desired or your 'server' distro into a more friendly 
desktop version. This you cannot and *will not* be able to 
do with MS.

HalcyonWild <Halcyon.Wild@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey, who is this flatfish. I am not flatfish. I never come across him
> but this is the first time i posted here. Seems like he is the most
> reviled person here. :)

He's a troll who haunts the comp.os.*.advocacy (ghetto) newsgroups and
attempts to sucker people on leglitimate newsgroups into noisy donnybrooks 
by crossposting flamebait.

> Yes I have tried Linux, rh 7. I tried mandrake 8 too, with its
> diskdruid partition manager. It was one of the best installs at that
> time. RH7 was a bit obfuscated though. Also, rh7 didnt work with my
> onboard sound card 815e, which Mandrake detected.

Mandrake, which is now Mandriva, remains pretty well-known as a
cutting-edge desktop distribution with good hardware autodetection.  The
Knoppix derivatives Kanotix and SimplyMEPIS have good reputations for
that, too.

> And somehow, Ubuntu dint detect my sound card. I dont know why, but it
> did not play any sound. And I dint investigate further. I will try
> again though, as I posted earlier.

One of the nice things about Ubuntu is the extremely active and helpful
user community, e.g., on their forums.  You can probably get effective 
help, there.  Note that the Ubuntu 5.10 distribution has a release
candidate out:  If you have anything earlier, you might want to fetch
that or wait for 5.10, which should be out imminently.

In those and numerous other areas, http://distrowatch.com/ is your
friend.

> Yes. let us stop this. I was hoping to get insights, I was mistaken. So
> much for that much talked about community support for linux. Thanks
> all. 

You entered with a number of wild mistaken claims and a seeming attitude
problem.  If you're really surprised at the response, you really should
go back and re-read your initial posts.

-- 
Cheers,               Chip Salzenberg: "Usenet is not a right."
Rick Moen            Edward Vielmetti: "Usenet is a right, a left, a jab,
rick@linuxmafia.com                     and a sharp uppercut to the jaw.
                                        The postman hits!  You have new mail."

HalcyonWild <Halcyon.Wild@gmail.com> wrote:

> I could not find Suse ISOs I admit. Where do they hide the links.
[...]
> I did look around before posting. I read the reviews on distrowatch and
> some other sites.

One of the most valuable uses of Distrowatch is to find unobscured,
efficientdownload links.  Consider SimplyMEPIS, for example:  The MEPIS
guy (Warren Woodford) really does try to encourage people to purchase
copies rather than downloading them, and doesn't in general go out of
his way to make the download URLs obvious, relying on people to follow
the path of least resistance.  So:  Go to http://distrowatch.com/, and
enter "MEPIS" into the search field.  (In theory, MEPIS offers
SimplyMEPIS for desktop users and a ProMEPIS developer version, but the
latter has gone roughly nowhere.)

That takes you to Distrowatch's MEPIS page,
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=mepis .  Read down that
page until you find the section Recent Related News.  Notice that the
most recent dated item is "2005-09-28: Development Release: MEPISLite
3.3.2 Test 1".  Let's say you decide to locate and download that 
pre-release version.  So, you follow the item link, taking you to
http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=02930#0

You read the news item, and notice that it ends with "Download:
MEPISLite-3.3.2.test01.iso (660MB)."

The hyperlink is to
ftp://ftp.cise.ufl.edu/pub/mirrors/mepis/testing/MEPISLite-3.3.2.test01.iso

And that's your download direct link.

>  Most reviews did not have much good to say about any free download
>  distro.

Here's the thing:  Most reviewers don't understand the realities of
freely redistributable distros -- in exactly the way you didn't when you
started this thread:  They'll say "Hey, where are the MP3 utilities?
Where are the Window Media and QuickTime players?  Where's Adobe Acrobat
Reader?  Where's RealPlayer?[1]  Where's Sun Java?

All of those are restricted by either patent (e.g., MP3) or copyright
encumbrances.  Some of them are available under restrictive licence from
their owners, but then the resulting distribution would no longer be 
freely redistributable, because it could then be lawfully distributed
only from authorised sites.

That is why Ubuntu, Fedora, and any number of others omit such packages,
and they need to be retrofitted by you if at all.

> I tried Fedora and found it cumbersome and slow. If it is the truth, I
> cannot deny it. 

The default setup of Fedora (with GNOME) is very RAM-hungry.  It can be
configured to use a different window manager, but likely you don't have
the patience for that, and would probably be happier with some other
starting point, anyway.

> I did not even try Debian since my friends advised against it.

I advise likewise, even though I use Debian on almost all my machines.
There are excellent Debian-derived desktop distributions:  Ubuntu,
MEPIS, Kanotix, Libranet, Xandros, a number of others.  I'd advise
looking into those.  If you prefer an RPM-based distribution as
something you're more used to from RH7-9 days, then consider Mandriva or
SUSE.

Xandros is an excellent illustration of the point I made earlier about
freely redistributable distributions:  The retail boxed set editions
from Xandros, such as Deluxe Edition and Standard Edition, include quite
a number of those proprietary "enhancements" that reviewers complain
about being missing from freely redistributable distros.  And those
boxed-set editions are _not_ freely redistributable, specifically
because of their presence, plus the commercial entitlement for paid
technical support that is bundled with them.  Accordingly, they also
cost money.

> I am not a lawyer and I found the language of GPL quite legalish.

Of necessity:  If you were to simply hand someone a copy of a program
you wrote without an explicit licence, then the implied licence that's
inherent in copyright law would apply, and that licence's terms are
proprietary.  Therefore, the only way one can have open-source software
is with explicit, (usually) written licences.  Since those have to
explicitly grant the public some rights that otherwise would be reserved
to the copyright holder, it's unescapable that they seems somewhat
legalish.  _However_, you'll find that any open-source licence is much
easier to understand than almost any proprietary-software one.  For
example, did you ever read the one to Sun's Java SDK?  Did you
understand it?

> By the way, this is on GNUs site " 4. You may not copy, modify,
> sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided
> under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense
> or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate
> your rights under this License. However, parties who have received
> copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their
> licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
> " . Now what does this mean. You can copy but cannot copy, if you
> comply with this license. ??

Whatever licence that's from, its meaning is that _only_ the licence 
grants you the rights to copy, etc., and attempting to do so in any way
other than as provided by the licence automatically terminates the
licence.

-- 
Cheers,               Chip Salzenberg: "Usenet is not a right."
Rick Moen            Edward Vielmetti: "Usenet is a right, a left, a jab,
rick@linuxmafia.com                     and a sharp uppercut to the jaw.
                                        The postman hits!  You have new mail."

Rick Moen wrote:


> You entered with a number of wild mistaken claims and a seeming attitude
> problem.  If you're really surprised at the response, you really should
> go back and re-read your initial posts.
>

Well whatever, someone started using bad language. What I put forth was
a valid question. Will the computer websites, magazines and papers stop
including the famed, and so called wide community support, in support
of linux. It is not community support, it is trolling and spamming most
of the times, with few exceptions. Instead of asking me, why dont you
look back, and re-read all the posts, not just mine.

And though I agree to most of you, there are some points that I still
feel I am valid on. And thanks to the ones who helped.

imotgm wrote (in part):

> There are similar .iso repository mirrors for all the major distros, as
> well as the hundreds of more specialized minor ones, and the software on
> them is the exact same software as is in the boxed sets. Depending on the
> distro, there may be less of the software on the download .isos, but all
> of the OSS software is available, somewhere on their mirrors, after the
> basic installation is complete. The closed source items are of the
> Real-player, Acrobat Reader, Flash Player type, or demo versions, and
> available, for free, from their own sites, so it's no big deal if they're
> not included.
> 
> Here's a little puzzle game for you. Use the link, and see how many
> Linux .isos you can find.
> 
>      ftp://ftp.planetmirror.com/pub
> 
> I know it's hard for you, so I'll give you a hint. Put the arrow thingy,
> on your screen, that moves when you move your mouse, over the things that
> look like file folders and click (press down) the left button ultil they
> open to show you what's inside. Keep clicking, and counting each .iso you
> find, until you find them all. For even more fun, do the same again, only
> this time, count all the different Linux packages you find. That should
> keep you busy, and out of here, for a while.
> 
You typed that too fast. For the benefit of slow readers, you should have
typed that more slowly.

-- 
  .~.  Jean-David Beyer          Registered Linux User 85642.
  /V\  PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A         Registered Machine   241939.
 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey    http://counter.li.org
 ^^-^^ 10:15:00 up 1 day, 8:36, 3 users, load average: 4.32, 4.29, 4.24

HalcyonWild <Halcyon.Wild@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ok, if it is not compulsory for redhat and suse to make available isos
> for download, you are not even allowed to redistribute. 

Well, no.  A counter-example would be Libranet.  Back around Libranet
2.8, someone asked on the Libranet discussion forums if there was
anything that would make it illegal to duplicate and redistribute that
distribution, and one of the two guys (Jon and Tal Danzig) who produced
the distribution said "No", despite the fact that there were no
accessible online copies of 2.8 at that time.

Everyone so much loved and appreciated Libra Computer Systems (of
Vancouver) and wanted that small firm to survive and thrive that nobody
was posting ISOs: Instead, people were advising newcomers to pay Libra's
very modest charges for either CDs or money-supported downloads -- in
recognition that even offering public bandwidth costs money, and the
Danzig's were not rich people.

Jon recently died of cancer, by the way.  Libra's in the middle of
"restructuring", and we hope they'll emerge intact -- but they have a
quite awesome amount of goodwill built up among the Linux-using public,
anyway.

> I have seen many old RH shrike edition cds around, not RHEL or Suse or
> Mandrake. So free as in free to distribute, also goes away.

RHEL is a special case:  All of the software on the RHEL 3 and RHEL 4
CDs is open-source, but the image files are trademark-encumbered and
proprietary-licensed.  Therefore, they are not lawfully redistributable
for profit (though they would be for free).  People who _could_ host the
ISOs for free public download generally decline to do so because they'd
have to pay huge bandwidth bills for no benefit to themselves.

However, a number of projects rebuild the ISOs without the encumbered
image files, and offer the exact same distribution under a different
name.  My favourite of those is CentOS, currently at release 4.1, which 
is exactly the same software as RHEL 4 with Update 1.

SUSE has numerous editions, some of which have restrictively licenced
third-party software, and others of which don't.  I already provided the
URL of my page that details this.  You seem to have have ignored that.
Here's the URL again:
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/suse-product-strategy.html

Mandrake isn't Mandrake any more:  It renamed itself "Mandriva" when it
acquired the Brazilian firm Conectiva.  You can find the regular
download edition via Distrowatch.  It includes only freely
redistributable software.  Mandriva Club adds to that extra CDs that
furnish non-redistributable, restrictively licensed software.

> Are you allowed to make copies of RHEL and give away. I could get them
> from a friends company . (they use RHEL on their servers)

Yes, but, once again, you're better off with CentOS.

For one thing, then you have access to updates, which with RHEL are
provided directly by that company only if you're the registered
purchaser.  It's possible to set up RHEL to use third-party update
facilities, but not the default as it is with CentOS.

-- 
Cheers,               Chip Salzenberg: "Usenet is not a right."
Rick Moen            Edward Vielmetti: "Usenet is a right, a left, a jab,
rick@linuxmafia.com                     and a sharp uppercut to the jaw.
                                        The postman hits!  You have new mail."

Rick Moen wrote:

> HalcyonWild <Halcyon.Wild@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That takes you to Distrowatch's MEPIS page,
> http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=mepis .  Read down that
> page until you find the section Recent Related News.  Notice that the
> most recent dated item is "2005-09-28: Development Release: MEPISLite
> 3.3.2 Test 1".  Let's say you decide to locate and download that
> pre-release version.  So, you follow the item link, taking you to
> http://distrowatch.com/?newsid=02930#0
>
> You read the news item, and notice that it ends with "Download:
> MEPISLite-3.3.2.test01.iso (660MB)."
>
> The hyperlink is to
> ftp://ftp.cise.ufl.edu/pub/mirrors/mepis/testing/MEPISLite-3.3.2.test01.iso
>
> And that's your download direct link.
>
> >  Most reviews did not have much good to say about any free download
> >  distro.
>
> Here's the thing:  Most reviewers don't understand the realities of
> freely redistributable distros -- in exactly the way you didn't when you
> started this thread:  They'll say "Hey, where are the MP3 utilities?
> Where are the Window Media and QuickTime players?  Where's Adobe Acrobat
> Reader?  Where's RealPlayer?[1]  Where's Sun Java?
>
> All of those are restricted by either patent (e.g., MP3) or copyright
> encumbrances.  Some of them are available under restrictive licence from
> their owners, but then the resulting distribution would no longer be
> freely redistributable, because it could then be lawfully distributed
> only from authorised sites.



Well thanks rick, but I have seen distrowatch.com. I have been there.
The sheer number of distros adds to the confusion. And if I follow the
few distros I am interested in, they turned out to be test versions.
Anyway, I will make a backup of my files on CD, format and install
Ubuntu 5.1 (i had tried the 4.xx earlier) and wait and watch. I
downloaded the single iso from ubuntu site.


> legalish.  _However_, you'll find that any open-source licence is much
> easier to understand than almost any proprietary-software one.  For
> example, did you ever read the one to Sun's Java SDK?  Did you
> understand it?


Actually no, I have never read it. It was too complicated.

imotgm <imotgm_REM@invalid-yahoo.com> wrote:
 
> Sounds like Flatfish to me.

It has become apparent to me that you and the others who lazily jumped
to that conclusion were mistaken.  And it really does you no credit, by
the way.

HalcyonWild <Halcyon.Wild@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well thanks rick, but I have seen distrowatch.com. I have been there.
> The sheer number of distros adds to the confusion. 

To be sure.  However, Ladislav, who runs Distrowatch, is sympathetic to
that problem and has a "Major Distributions" link right off the front
page (top right navigation box).  Now, just to warn you, "Major" in that
context consist mostly of things being believed to be widely used, which
doesn't necessarily mean they have merit -- but Ladislav has some pretty 
good advice at the top of the "Major Distributions" page:

   [...] MEPIS and Xandros are considered the best for new Linux users
   who want to get productive in Linux as soon as possible without having
   to master all its complexities. On the other end of the spectrum,
   Gentoo, Debian, Slackware and FreeBSD are more advanced distributions
   that require plenty of learning before they can be used effectively.
   Mandriva, Red Hat, Ubuntu and SUSE can be classified as good
   "middle-road" distributions. [...]

Others (including me) in this newsgroup have also mentioned some others
favourably:  Kanotix, Ubuntu, CentOS.

Just to be clear on this, CentOS is not necessarily a great choice as a
desktop distribution, but it's the appropriate answer when someone says
"I want RHEL but consider Red Hat's pricing [or licence terms] not OK."

> And if I follow the few distros I am interested in, they turned out 
> to be test versions.

Ladislav highlights the beta releases because, of course, he's a news
junkie catering to other news junkies.  Also, if, say, you have a really
cutting-edge x86 laptop whose hardware components seem difficult to
support, you might be very eager to find the very latest test image of
Kanotix, because that's one of its specialties.

> Anyway, I will make a backup of my files on CD, format and install
> Ubuntu 5.1 (i had tried the 4.xx earlier) and wait and watch. I
> downloaded the single iso from ubuntu site.

Just a note:  It's 5.10, not 5.1.  The "5" is for 2005, and the "10" 
is the month of release.  Ubuntu declare their intended release schedule
a long time in advance, and have had a remarkable record of hitting
their target dates.  That's why I was saying that the 5.10 release
should be out imminently:  It's currently October, and I do believe the
Ubuntu people when they say they'll make their release deadline.

-- 
Cheers,               Chip Salzenberg: "Usenet is not a right."
Rick Moen            Edward Vielmetti: "Usenet is a right, a left, a jab,
rick@linuxmafia.com                     and a sharp uppercut to the jaw.
                                        The postman hits!  You have new mail."

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> writes:

>HalcyonWild wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I thought Linux is free of cost. You can freely copy the installation
>> cds, distribute with your friends, download from the net, etc. But
>> since last one year (or maybe earlier, I might not have noticed), I am
>> seeing that most major distros are now pay-ware. And it isnt really
>> cheap to buy Linux.

>The Linux vendors are selling support *for* the software not 
>the actual software itself. All the vendors do make the 
>software available for download - sometimes a bit later than 
>the supported version.

This is true, although Redhat for one tries hard to make the consumer
confused as to what the license covers, especially with their insistance on
being able to enter the premesis at any time and inspect for which machines
the software is installed on. They want you to think that the license is
for the software, and not the support. 

Note that they have refused to answer a direct query as to what the license
actually covers. 

However, for most o f the distros, the paid version also includes a
separate Cd or four of commercial nonGPL programs.



>Even at these prices it's cheap to buy Linux. Since when did 
>you get a fully functional Office Suite, Professional 
>quality graphics program, C compiler, etc included in the 
>price of other OSs?

>> 
>> How is Redhat , Suse and Mandrake different from Microsoft when they
>> sell public code (GNU, kernel). Atleast the MS guys write some of their
>> own code, some outsourced, and most of it comes from their previous
>> version of the software. :-)

There is nothing in the GPL which says you cannot sell the code. It just
says that you cannot prevent the purchaser from copying it and giving it
away. Also all the vendors do write some of their own code and do package
up the software so that you can install it easily, and keep up with
security updates, .....

"HalcyonWild" <Halcyon.Wild@gmail.com> writes:



>I am not a lawyer and I found the language of GPL quite legalish. I
>read it quite some time back. English is not my first language. But I
>have an idea about the general terms. Like you are free to distribute
>(by free, I meant free as in free to give away for no cost, not free
>beer).
>By the way, this is on GNUs site
>" 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
>except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise
>to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will
>automatically terminate your rights under this License. However,
>parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this
>License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties
>remain in full compliance. " . Now what does this mean. You can copy
>but cannot copy, if you comply with this license. ??

It means that IF you do not abide by the terms of the GPL then you do NOT
have the right to copy the program, but that anyone you gave it to does
still keep that right.  For example, if you do not make the source code
available then you have no right to copy the code, you are violating the
copyright of the code and you could be sued. 



>Anyway, I did not mean to start a troll, and I did not mean to be
>abused or to abuse. Thanks.



>          malchus842SP@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)

"HalcyonWild" <Halcyon.Wild@gmail.com> writes:

>> (by free, I meant free as in free to give away for no cost, not free
>> beer).

>Also, free of cost I admit. I remember the good old days when we could
>download the latest and greatest linux without paying $50 for media.

>Ok, if it is not compulsory for redhat and suse to make available isos
>for download, you are not even allowed to redistribute. I have seen

Sorry, the second part of this sentence does not follow from the first.
Redhat does not have to make isos available for download, but you can do as
you wish with the distro. 

>many old RH shrike edition cds around, not RHEL or Suse or Mandrake. So
>free as in free to distribute, also goes away.

How does this follow? 

Note that Redhat HAS used trademark law to try to prevent commercial
distribution of their software. I believe that this violates the GPL, but
am not willing to sue Redhat to legally establish this. 



>Are you allowed to make copies of RHEL and give away. I could get them
>from a friends company . (they use RHEL on their servers)

Yes. You may not however ask Redhat for help if you have troubles with it. 
They may also distribute as part of their distribution software which is
not covered by the GPL. This should be clearly separated from the rest, or
it is again in violation of the GPL.

"HalcyonWild" <Halcyon.Wild@gmail.com> writes:


>To someone who said you can download Mandrake or mandriva from the
>mandriva club - You need to join that club first, for a fee of course.
>There are no free lunches, as Americans say.

False. You can download Mandriva from many mirrors around the world. IF you
join the club, then you can download new distros earlier ( by a month or so) than
others can. But all of their distros are free for download. 

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> writes:

>Yes. All you have to do is remove the RH copyrighted stuff 
>first. This turns out to be mainly logos. But, why bother 

No. Redhat is trying to use trademark law. Trademark law has to do with the
marketplace, not with copying. Thus I do not believe that trademark law has
anything to say about your copying Redhat for your own use. That is
copyright law, and redhat CANNOT under the GPL use copyright law to
restrict your right to copy. They cannot use trademark law either. 

Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
> Note that Redhat HAS used trademark law to try to prevent commercial
> distribution of their software. I believe that this violates the GPL, but
> am not willing to sue Redhat to legally establish this. 

The only route that I can see to that conclusion from the facts stated
is via your belief that the distro as a whole (and "therefore" ALL its
components, according to you) is contaminated by GPL, and therfore the
trademarked components fall foul of GPL

    4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
    except as expressly provided under this License. 

and maybe

    7.  ...  If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously
    your obligations under this License and any other pertinent
    obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the
    Program at all.

But note that you have to get out of the follwoing in the GPL in order
to establish your chain of reasoning:

    ... mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the
    Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a
    storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
    the scope of this License.

I have heard you claim that you think the distro is not "mere
aggregation", but I forget the details of the reasoning. I can see
that you might claim that the binaries are deeply dependent on that
kernel and that libc (in my expert opinion, they are NOT, since you
can run them on a linux emulation layer in, say, freebsd, and you can
use a different libc - I do!). Anyway, I do not see that logos are
binary dependent on that environment!

You have maybe a stronger argument via this part of the GPL:

    If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
    Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate
    works in themselves,

That's the logos, I guess.

    then this License, and its terms, do not apply
    to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.

Fine, but ...

    But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which
    is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must
    be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other
    licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every
    part regardless of who wrote it.

which must be the basis of your argument. 


Peter

Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
> "HalcyonWild" <Halcyon.Wild@gmail.com> writes:

>>" 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
>>except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise
>>to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will
>>automatically terminate your rights under this License. However,
>>parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this
>>License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties
>>remain in full compliance. " .

(GPL #4)

>> Now what does this mean. You can copy
>>but cannot copy, if you comply with this license. ??

It means what it says - the english is not difficult. 

> It means that IF you do not abide by the terms of the GPL then you do NOT
> have the right to copy the program, but that anyone you gave it to does
> still keep that right.  For example, if you do not make the source code
> available then you have no right to copy the code, you are violating the
> copyright of the code and you could be sued. 

Indeed, the point it is making is that if YOU get your licence
revoked, that does not also mess up the licences of people who got the
program (and the licence) via you.

If you read it, it is saying

   (first sentence). You may not do BLAH.

   (second sentence). If you go ahead and do BLAH, you get NUKED.

   (third sentence). Even if we NUKE you, we're not going to NUKE the
                    people who got the software (and licence) via you.

I don't see that there's anything difficult in the english.

Peter

imotgm <imotgm_REM@invalid-yahoo.com> wrote:

> LIAR.
> 
> What do you call these?

Settle down, Junior.  Seek your emotional therapy elsewhere, please.

> The purely OSS opensuse version is available on the same server under the
> directory opensuse. Duh! It has the exact same software as the GM cds,
> except there are none of the closed source apps that are on the GMs.

As long as you're being picky, the term "closed source" is somewhat
inaccurate.  I believe you mean either non-redistributable or
proprietary.  Example:  The "xv" graphics utility is proprietary
licensed, but may be lawfully distributed by anyone.  It may be _used_
only in non-commercial contexts without separate licensing.  Full source
code is available, but it may not be forked/modified for any purpose by 
anyone.  Those restrictions are what make it proprietary rather than
open source -- but it _is_ redistributable.

One would not call the source code "closed" in the sense that every byte
of it is accessible to public inspection -- but it is proprietary, in
the sense that modifications / derivative works are forbidden, and there
are restrictions on the type of use that are allowed.

> There are similar .iso repository mirrors for all the major distros....

Really?  Show me the ones for Linspire and RHEL.

-- 
Cheers,               Chip Salzenberg: "Usenet is not a right."
Rick Moen            Edward Vielmetti: "Usenet is a right, a left, a jab,
rick@linuxmafia.com                     and a sharp uppercut to the jaw.
                                        The postman hits!  You have new mail."

Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>>Yes. All you have to do is remove the RH copyrighted stuff 
>>first. This turns out to be mainly logos. But, why bother 
> 
> No. Redhat is trying to use trademark law. Trademark law has to do with the
> marketplace, not with copying. Thus I do not believe that trademark law has
> anything to say about your copying Redhat for your own use. That is
> copyright law, and redhat CANNOT under the GPL use copyright law to
> restrict your right to copy. They cannot use trademark law either. 

Ah, but you've missed two points:  1.  RH's _copyright_ licences for the
two SRPM packages of images, theme elements, etc. condition their
permission to use and redistribute on observance of the corporate
trademark policy.  So, their trademark preferences _are_ enforced via
copyright law.  (That's a smart move on their part, because their
trademark "policy" attempts to assert tighter control over "branding"
than trademark law actually allows.)

2.  Moreover, and more important, the two packages are simply not "under
the GPL".  If you think that everything on either that or any other
Linux distribution is GPLed, then you have made a careless error.

In theory, one might create replacement images of one's own devising
(and thus, one's own copyright title) that still express RH's
trademark-law-encumbered styles, names, etc.  Then, what you say would
be literally true, that the exact reach of trademark law would apply and
no more.

As it happens, RH's copyright licence for the two encumbered SRPMs
doesn't bar non-commercial copying, by the way.  But your assertion that
RH "cannot use copyright law to restrict your right to copy" is simply
untrue -- especially as the material in question is not "under the GPL".

Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:

> Note that Redhat HAS used trademark law to try to prevent commercial
> distribution of their software. I believe that this violates the GPL, but
> am not willing to sue Redhat to legally establish this. 

Your belief appears to be in error.

Can you name a single GPLed codebase within RHEL whose commercial
redistribution RH bars in any way?  To my knowledge, they put no
impediment in the way of such redistribution.  (You will note that the
two encumbered SRPMs of image files are not under GPL.)

> They may also distribute as part of their distribution software which is
> not covered by the GPL. This should be clearly separated from the rest, or
> it is again in violation of the GPL.

I don't know what you mean by "clearly separated", but the various
non-GPLed codebases including the two encumbered ones are, obviously, in
what GPLv2 refers to as a state of "mere aggregation", and thus are not
derivative works, and thus are not encumbered by the GPled works'
copyright titles.

-- 
Cheers,               Chip Salzenberg: "Usenet is not a right."
Rick Moen            Edward Vielmetti: "Usenet is a right, a left, a jab,
rick@linuxmafia.com                     and a sharp uppercut to the jaw.
                                        The postman hits!  You have new mail."

Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote (replying to Unruh):

> I have heard you claim that you think the distro is not "mere
> aggregation", but I forget the details of the reasoning. 

1.  If merely residing on the same CD isn't "mere aggregation", then
what _is_?  (To those of us who've studied copyright law, that clause in
GPLv2 is obviously intended to clarify that the licence isn't attempting
to encumber works that aren't derivative of itself in the copyright-law
sense of that term of art.)

2.  If that assumption were correct, then many of the other codebases, 
e.g, Mozilla Firefox, OpenSSL, any the BSD Main Utilties that are under
the old BSD licence, etc. would be in licence conflict with the GPLed
components.  Clearly, that is not the case.

Rick Moen wrote:

> Ah, but you've missed two points:  1.  RH's _copyright_ licences for the
> two SRPM packages of images, theme elements, etc. condition their
> permission to use and redistribute on observance of the corporate
> trademark policy.  So, their trademark preferences _are_ enforced via
> copyright law.  (That's a smart move on their part, because their
> trademark "policy" attempts to assert tighter control over "branding"
> than trademark law actually allows.)
> 
> 2.  Moreover, and more important, the two packages are simply not "under
> the GPL".  If you think that everything on either that or any other
> Linux distribution is GPLed, then you have made a careless error.
> 
> In theory, one might create replacement images of one's own devising
> (and thus, one's own copyright title) that still express RH's
> trademark-law-encumbered styles, names, etc.  Then, what you say would
> be literally true, that the exact reach of trademark law would apply and
> no more.
> 
> As it happens, RH's copyright licence for the two encumbered SRPMs
> doesn't bar non-commercial copying, by the way.  But your assertion that
> RH "cannot use copyright law to restrict your right to copy" is simply
> untrue -- especially as the material in question is not "under the GPL".
> 
Copyright bars all copying except as allowed under the "fair use" doctrine
that allows making brief extracts, etc. (or as specifically granted by the
copyright owner). It does not allow copying of an entire copyrighted work.
Just what is "fair use" is determined in each case of possible copyright
violation in a court of law. No one really knows, in advance, what is or is
not "fair use," although some rules of thumb seem to work pretty well.

-- 
  .~.  Jean-David Beyer          Registered Linux User 85642.
  /V\  PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A         Registered Machine   241939.
 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey    http://counter.li.org
 ^^-^^ 12:55:00 up 1 day, 11:16, 3 users, load average: 4.20, 4.27, 4.27

Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> writes:

>Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>>Yes. All you have to do is remove the RH copyrighted stuff 
>>>first. This turns out to be mainly logos. But, why bother 
>> 
>> No. Redhat is trying to use trademark law. Trademark law has to do with the
>> marketplace, not with copying. Thus I do not believe that trademark law has
>> anything to say about your copying Redhat for your own use. That is
>> copyright law, and redhat CANNOT under the GPL use copyright law to
>> restrict your right to copy. They cannot use trademark law either. 

>Ah, but you've missed two points:  1.  RH's _copyright_ licences for the
>two SRPM packages of images, theme elements, etc. condition their
>permission to use and redistribute on observance of the corporate
>trademark policy.  So, their trademark preferences _are_ enforced via

And the GPL specifically states that you may NOT restrict the right of
anyone else to copy. You may not use copyright or trademark or any other
law to restrict the right to copy. IF they so restrict then their right to
copy any of the GPL material is withdrawn and they have no distribution to
distribute. Ie, their attempt to restrict copying by use of trademark law
is clearly in violation of the GPL. 

>copyright law.  (That's a smart move on their part, because their
>trademark "policy" attempts to assert tighter control over "branding"
>than trademark law actually allows.)

It is not a smart move. It is simply an illegal move. 


>2.  Moreover, and more important, the two packages are simply not "under
>the GPL".  If you think that everything on either that or any other
>Linux distribution is GPLed, then you have made a careless error.

They distributions are copyrighted as works,  and they are NOT mere
aggregations, by their own admission (removal of the trademarks may make
the system inoperative.). As such the distributions themselves must be
under the GPL and Redhat explicitley states that they are released under
the GPL. Under the GPL, restrictions on copying are simply invalid.


>In theory, one might create replacement images of one's own devising
>(and thus, one's own copyright title) that still express RH's
>trademark-law-encumbered styles, names, etc.  Then, what you say would
>be literally true, that the exact reach of trademark law would apply and
>no more.

Irrelevant. They are attempts to restrict copying, and as such are illegal
under the GPL.


>As it happens, RH's copyright licence for the two encumbered SRPMs
>doesn't bar non-commercial copying, by the way.  But your assertion that
>RH "cannot use copyright law to restrict your right to copy" is simply
>untrue -- especially as the material in question is not "under the GPL".


Oh, but it is. Both by its use of GPL material and by explicity statement
by Redhat they are under the GPL.

Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> writes:

>Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:

>> Note that Redhat HAS used trademark law to try to prevent commercial
>> distribution of their software. I believe that this violates the GPL, but
>> am not willing to sue Redhat to legally establish this. 

>Your belief appears to be in error.

>Can you name a single GPLed codebase within RHEL whose commercial
>redistribution RH bars in any way?  To my knowledge, they put no
>impediment in the way of such redistribution.  (You will note that the
>two encumbered SRPMs of image files are not under GPL.)

>> They may also distribute as part of their distribution software which is
>> not covered by the GPL. This should be clearly separated from the rest, or
>> it is again in violation of the GPL.

>I don't know what you mean by "clearly separated", but the various
>non-GPLed codebases including the two encumbered ones are, obviously, in
>what GPLv2 refers to as a state of "mere aggregation", and thus are not
>derivative works, and thus are not encumbered by the GPled works'
>copyright titles.

You seem to neglect the term "mere". "mere" means that the only thing in
common is that they happen to be on the same CD. That if one were to
distribute them separately there would be no difference to either one. This
is clearly NOT true of the Redhat stuff. It becomes compeletely pointless
without the distribution. It is changed by its association and thus becomes
more than "mere".

>-- 
>Cheers,               Chip Salzenberg: "Usenet is not a right."
>Rick Moen            Edward Vielmetti: "Usenet is a right, a left, a jab,
>rick@linuxmafia.com                     and a sharp uppercut to the jaw.
>                                        The postman hits!  You have new mail."

Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote (replying to Unruh):

>> I have heard you claim that you think the distro is not "mere
>> aggregation", but I forget the details of the reasoning. 

> 1.  If merely residing on the same CD isn't "mere aggregation", then
> what _is_?

If they were to merely reside there, that persumably would not be a
point of contention for Bill.  But he must also believe that the
interrelationship is more profound than that (if he would allow me to
put words in his mouth for a moment).  It's a point of view that is not
invalid of itself as a matter of fact or law - it merely requires a
supporting argument for us to be able to judge ahether or not we agree.
 
> (To those of us who've studied copyright law, that clause in GPLv2 is
> obviously intended to clarify that the licence isn't attempting to
> encumber works that aren't derivative of itself in the copyright-law
> sense of that term of art.)

Well, sure. There was that whole "is the archive copyright" thing in
the 80s over repositories like simtel.

> 2.  If that assumption were correct, then many of the other codebases, 
> e.g, Mozilla Firefox, OpenSSL, any the BSD Main Utilties that are under
> the old BSD licence, etc. would be in licence conflict with the GPLed
> components.  Clearly, that is not the case.

Perhaps he thinks their integration is manifestly not so profound, or 
perhaps he would not view them as contributing to the distinctive
character and individuality of the distribution - I don't recall. All
I recall is that Bill has this argument, and he won't be dislodged by
pinpricks!

Peter

Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> writes:

>Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote (replying to Unruh):

>> I have heard you claim that you think the distro is not "mere
>> aggregation", but I forget the details of the reasoning. 

>1.  If merely residing on the same CD isn't "mere aggregation", then
>what _is_?  (To those of us who've studied copyright law, that clause in
>GPLv2 is obviously intended to clarify that the licence isn't attempting
>to encumber works that aren't derivative of itself in the copyright-law
>sense of that term of art.)

It is Redhat that makes them more than "mere aggregation". It is redhat who
claims that those items prevent others from copying or distributing the distribution. 
That they are on the same CD does not make them "mere aggregation". It may
be necessary for aggregation, but is not sufficient for "mere aggregation". 
There must be a independence of the two, that the two items are independent
of each other. This is clearly not true of the Redhat material. Its whole
purpose is to be displayed at different and places in the running of the
distribution. Its reason for existence depends on the rest of the
distribution. That is more than "mere aggregation."


>2.  If that assumption were correct, then many of the other codebases, 
>e.g, Mozilla Firefox, OpenSSL, any the BSD Main Utilties that are under
>the old BSD licence, etc. would be in licence conflict with the GPLed
>components.  Clearly, that is not the case.

These are problematic but maybe less so, since they some  are truely independent
However, many have been altered by the distribution authors to make them
run better with teh distribution. As such they become more than mere
aggregation. Now those parts which are more lenient than the GPL presumably
are not in license conflict. Ie, it is far from clear that this is not the
case. You may hope it is the case. 

However, in  Redhat's case one of the main purposes of the trademark files
is precisely to restrict the copying and distribution of the distribution.
That is in in clear conflict with a central point of the GPL. Ie, Redhat's
material is a direct attack on the rights established by the GPL, while
none of the other parts make any such claim.

The whole purpose of the Redhat stuff is to restrict your rights. 
(Ask say cheapbytes if you doubt this)

Jean-David Beyer <jdbeyer@exit109.com> writes:

>Rick Moen wrote:

>> Ah, but you've missed two points:  1.  RH's _copyright_ licences for the
>> two SRPM packages of images, theme elements, etc. condition their
>> permission to use and redistribute on observance of the corporate
>> trademark policy.  So, their trademark preferences _are_ enforced via
>> copyright law.  (That's a smart move on their part, because their
>> trademark "policy" attempts to assert tighter control over "branding"
>> than trademark law actually allows.)
>> 
>> 2.  Moreover, and more important, the two packages are simply not "under
>> the GPL".  If you think that everything on either that or any other
>> Linux distribution is GPLed, then you have made a careless error.
>> 
>> In theory, one might create replacement images of one's own devising
>> (and thus, one's own copyright title) that still express RH's
>> trademark-law-encumbered styles, names, etc.  Then, what you say would
>> be literally true, that the exact reach of trademark law would apply and
>> no more.
>> 
>> As it happens, RH's copyright licence for the two encumbered SRPMs
>> doesn't bar non-commercial copying, by the way.  But your assertion that
>> RH "cannot use copyright law to restrict your right to copy" is simply
>> untrue -- especially as the material in question is not "under the GPL".
>> 
>Copyright bars all copying except as allowed under the "fair use" doctrine
>that allows making brief extracts, etc. (or as specifically granted by the
>copyright owner). It does not allow copying of an entire copyrighted work.
>Just what is "fair use" is determined in each case of possible copyright
>violation in a court of law. No one really knows, in advance, what is or is
>not "fair use," although some rules of thumb seem to work pretty well.

No, copyright law does NOT bar all copying. Copyright law gives the
copyright holder the right to control the copying of his work. If he gives
you permission you have complete rights to copy. And the GPL gives you
complete right to copy the work and to allow others to copy it, provided
you complywith certain conditions. 
Fair use is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

In comp.os.linux.misc Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca>:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> writes:

>>HalcyonWild wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I thought Linux is free of cost. You can freely copy the installation
>>> cds, distribute with your friends, download from the net, etc. But
>>> since last one year (or maybe earlier, I might not have noticed), I am
>>> seeing that most major distros are now pay-ware. And it isnt really
>>> cheap to buy Linux.

>>The Linux vendors are selling support *for* the software not 
>>the actual software itself. All the vendors do make the 
>>software available for download - sometimes a bit later than 
>>the supported version.

> This is true, although Redhat for one tries hard to make the consumer
> confused as to what the license covers, especially with their insistance on
> being able to enter the premesis at any time and inspect for which machines
> the software is installed on. They want you to think that the license is
> for the software, and not the support. 

Hi Bill!

Please check the facts:

[ http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html?country=United+States& ]

"Any such audit shall only take place during Customer's normal
business hours and upon no less than ten (10) days prior written
notice from Red Hat. Red Hat shall conduct no more than one such
audit in any twelve-month period [..]"

> Note that they have refused to answer a direct query as to what the license
> actually covers. 

If you follow this:

http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/trademark1.pdf

Seems as if it's based on the trademark "Redhat" and those two
rpm containing images/logos, if you remove them, you are free to
do what you like under GPL, like redistribution. CentOS and
others do just that.

[..]

>>> How is Redhat , Suse and Mandrake different from Microsoft when they
>>> sell public code (GNU, kernel). Atleast the MS guys write some of their
>>> own code, some outsourced, and most of it comes from their previous
>>> version of the software. :-)

> There is nothing in the GPL which says you cannot sell the code. It just
> says that you cannot prevent the purchaser from copying it and giving it
> away. Also all the vendors do write some of their own code and do package
> up the software so that you can install it easily, and keep up with
> security updates, .....

Exactly, the GPL isn't about money but to ensure that none can
make GPL code closed source. Freedom in speech.

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 272: Netscape has crashed

Jean-David Beyer <jdbeyer@exit109.com> writes:

> Copyright bars all copying except as allowed under the "fair use"
> doctrine that allows making brief extracts, etc. (or as specifically
> granted by the copyright owner). 

This is either poorly worded or completely wrong, depending on how one
interprets it.  However, more to the immediate point, it's completely
unresponsive to my earlier post, which you followed up:  You've
basically started talking about something completely unrelated to the
earlier thread.

Not that I mind; it's just that I already am quite familiar with much of
the caselaw that touches the fair use defence, thanks -- and it really 
wasn't the subject of discussion at all, either.

(If you posted anything other than the above-quoted paragraph, I haven't
yet seen it on my news spool, having spotted it only as quoted by
Unruh.)

In comp.os.linux.misc Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>:
> imotgm <imotgm_REM@invalid-yahoo.com> wrote:

[ download .iso ]

> Really?  Show me the ones for Linspire and RHEL.

Dunno about Linspire, never used. There are quite a few mirrors
allowing to download a redistributed RHEL, now called CentOS,
should be close enough:

http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=13

The question is what you want to do with it? If you want/need to
run certified apps (Oracle/SAP/etc) you are required to run RHEL
and the bucks for the yearly subscription fee shouldn't really
bother you. If something goes wrong, you can blame RH and open up
a ticket. 

You don't really want to run one of those on your desktop, you
get more recent stuff and better USB support with Fedora Core.

It's rock stable and by *no* means beta software, have a box with
FC3/FC4 running, yum beats the crap out of anything else I have
used on rpm based distro, including my own remote (ssh) update
script. ;-)

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 464: last entry

Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
> Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> 
>> 1.  If merely residing on the same CD isn't "mere aggregation", then
>> what _is_?
> 
> If they were to merely reside there, that persumably would not be a
> point of contention for Bill.  But he must also believe that the
> interrelationship is more profound than that (if he would allow me to
> put words in his mouth for a moment). 

OK, but there's been no showing of that.

Come to think of that, if there were GPL copyright encumbrances on a
bunch of third-party packages, I rather suspect the rest of it would
have heard about it, too, and not just Bill.  But no, I suspect this is
just another guy, one of a long series, going around maintaining (in
fundamental error) that anything on a Linux CD is GPL-encumbered.  Some
such people misread the compilation copyright statement in RH discs' root
directory, for example.
 
> Well, sure. There was that whole "is the archive copyright" thing in
> the 80s over repositories like simtel.

That would be a claim of _compilation_ copyright -- the type of copyright
title over the arrangement and selection of others' works (recognised as 
a creative work in itself) that accrues to the editors of anthologies.
For the salient caselaw in the USA court system (if interested), see
Feist v. Rural Telephone.

Unruh wrote:
> Jean-David Beyer <jdbeyer@exit109.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>Rick Moen wrote:
> 
> 
>>>Ah, but you've missed two points:  1.  RH's _copyright_ licences for the
>>>two SRPM packages of images, theme elements, etc. condition their
>>>permission to use and redistribute on observance of the corporate
>>>trademark policy.  So, their trademark preferences _are_ enforced via
>>>copyright law.  (That's a smart move on their part, because their
>>>trademark "policy" attempts to assert tighter control over "branding"
>>>than trademark law actually allows.)
>>>
>>>2.  Moreover, and more important, the two packages are simply not "under
>>>the GPL".  If you think that everything on either that or any other
>>>Linux distribution is GPLed, then you have made a careless error.
>>>
>>>In theory, one might create replacement images of one's own devising
>>>(and thus, one's own copyright title) that still express RH's
>>>trademark-law-encumbered styles, names, etc.  Then, what you say would
>>>be literally true, that the exact reach of trademark law would apply and
>>>no more.
>>>
>>>As it happens, RH's copyright licence for the two encumbered SRPMs
>>>doesn't bar non-commercial copying, by the way.  But your assertion that
>>>RH "cannot use copyright law to restrict your right to copy" is simply
>>>untrue -- especially as the material in question is not "under the GPL".
>>>
>>
>>Copyright bars all copying except as allowed under the "fair use" doctrine
>>that allows making brief extracts, etc. (or as specifically granted by the
>>copyright owner). It does not allow copying of an entire copyrighted work.
>>Just what is "fair use" is determined in each case of possible copyright
>>violation in a court of law. No one really knows, in advance, what is or is
>>not "fair use," although some rules of thumb seem to work pretty well.
> 
> 
> No, copyright law does NOT bar all copying. Copyright law gives the
> copyright holder the right to control the copying of his work. If he gives
> you permission you have complete rights to copy.

Only if he gave you complete rights. He could give you permission to copy
for a specific purpose and no others if he so chose. Thus, I might grant
copyright permission to a book publisher for first publication of something
I wrote, but not grant the publisher permission to reprint later (though in
practice, I doubt a major publisher would accept such a limited copyright
grant. Maybe Joanne Rowling has the clout to demand such a thing.).

> And the GPL gives you
> complete right to copy the work and to allow others to copy it, provided
> you comply with certain conditions. 

The GPL is more generously administered than typical copyrights in that the
intent is to have the work copied and to prevent others from limiting ones
right to copy. The GPL need not have been that way, but if it were not,
there would not be much point to it.

> Fair use is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
> 
I was responding to something I misread. I thought (I think it was) you said
"Thus I do not believe that _copyright_ law has anything to say about your
copying Redhat for your own use" when actually you said:
"Thus I do not believe that _trademark_ law has anything to say about your
copying Redhat for your own use"

-- 
  .~.  Jean-David Beyer          Registered Linux User 85642.
  /V\  PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A         Registered Machine   241939.
 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey    http://counter.li.org
 ^^-^^ 14:15:00 up 1 day, 12:36, 4 users, load average: 4.05, 4.12, 4.09

Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>> Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 1.  If merely residing on the same CD isn't "mere aggregation", then
>>> what _is_?
>> 
>> If they were to merely reside there, that persumably would not be a
>> point of contention for Bill.  But he must also believe that the
>> interrelationship is more profound than that (if he would allow me to
>> put words in his mouth for a moment). 

> OK, but there's been no showing of that.

Bill will presumably make a showing of his argument.

> Come to think of that, if there were GPL copyright encumbrances on a
> bunch of third-party packages, I rather suspect the rest of it would
> have heard about it, too, and not just Bill.

Very few people have actually read RH's licence. I have, and in my
opinion it was flat out in contradiction to the GPL ..

(http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html?country=United+States&)

   The term "Installed Systems" means the number of Systems on which
   Customer installs or executes the Software.

So Systems are things on which we install (or just run) the Software.

   The term "System" means any hardware on which the Software is
   installed, which may be, without limitation, a server, a work
   station, a virtual machine, a blade, a partition or an engine, as
   applicable.

Uh uh .. they just set "installs or executes" a sentence before. Now
they say "installed". Which is it? Does not compute. Error. Licence
void (IMO).

   The initial number of Installed Systems is the number of copies of
   the Software that Customer purchases. 

Uh uh ... they just defined "installed Systems", and therefore the
number of such is determined by facts. They can't redefine it. What
they mean to say is not this, but something like "the number of
Installed Systems ALLOWED is the number of copies ... purchase[d]".

And then there's the confusion over whether they mean installed or
executed.

At this point, with blooies in the opening paragraphs, I'd shoot the
lawyer, or suppose that this is deliberately obfuscatory. Here's their
GPL killer:

   4. REPORTING AND AUDIT. If Customer wishes to increase the number
   of Installed System, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat
   additional Services for each additional Installed System.

Uh uh. That's limiting the customer's rights to INSTALL (or execute, on
one reading) the Software (which happens to be 99.99% GPLed software)
they have purchased.  The GPL says that you receive that allowance in
GPLed software:

   3.  You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
   under Section 2) in object code or executable form ...

and the GPL also says that you (RH) can't abridge those rights:

   6.  Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
   Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
   original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject
   to these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
   restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted
   herein.

Hence I would say that RH licence is in violation of GPL in respect of
the GPL parts of their distribution. The only possible letout I see is
that "the Software" is undefined. If they were to mean by "the
Software" "our trademarked non-GPL logos", then that would be OK.

But I don't think they do.




>   But no, I suspect this is
> just another guy, one of a long series, going around maintaining (in
> fundamental error) that anything on a Linux CD is GPL-encumbered.

Bill has as good a thinking apparatus as you may ever wish for, in many
respects (look him up).  That doesn't make him a matehmatical logician
(which I am) or a lawyer (which I am not).
  
> Some such people misread the compilation copyright statement in RH
> discs' root directory, for example.

Maybe. I don't know. But Bill can argue if you ask him to. I suspect
that his contention is that everything on the distro "fits together
specially", rather like Microsoft argued that IE was integral to their
distro. I disagree with his contention as a matter of fact wrg
linking, and library and kernel support. I cannot be so definitive
in my opinion wrt his assertion that the whole thing is INTENDED or
DESIGNED to fit together uniquely, which in my opinion is a plausible
argument in favur of regarding the ensemble as more than a mere
aggregation. Another question is whether the ensemble is GPL ...

    
> >> Well, sure.  There was that whole "is the archive copyright" thing
> > tin he 80s over repositories like simtel.


> That would be a claim of _compilation_ copyright -- the type of copyright
> title over the arrangement and selection of others' works (recognised as 
> a creative work in itself) that accrues to the editors of anthologies.
> For the salient caselaw in the USA court system (if interested), see
> Feist v. Rural Telephone.

Oh, I agree. But is the compilation GPLed!


Peter

In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es>:
> Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>>> Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
[..]

> Very few people have actually read RH's licence. I have, and in my
> opinion it was flat out in contradiction to the GPL ..

> (http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html?country=United+States&)

;-)


> Hence I would say that RH licence is in violation of GPL in respect of
> the GPL parts of their distribution. The only possible letout I see is
> that "the Software" is undefined. If they were to mean by "the
> Software" "our trademarked non-GPL logos", then that would be OK.

> But I don't think they do.

IANAL, but it looks like this, why on earth should redhat make a
guide available on howto go about redistributing RHEL?

[ wget http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/trademark1.pdf }

"Guidelines For Marketing Software Products Containing Unmodified
Red Hat? Linux? Software As a licensee under the GPL and other
applicable copyright licenses, you may replicate the software
contained in Red Hat? Linux? or Red Hat? Enterprise Linux?,
whether downloaded from an FTP site or other electronic download
site or copied from a CD originally produced by Red Hat, and may
market the replicated product in accordance with the terms of the
copyright licenses. However, it would be confusing to consumers
if you identify such a replicated product as Red Hat? Linux?"
[..]
"D. You must modify the  files identified as REDHAT-LOGOS and
ANACONDA-IMAGES so as to remove all use of images containing the
Red Hat  trademark or Red Hat?s Shadow Man logo. Note that mere
deletion of these files may corrupt the software. [..]"

So it boils down to removing those to packages and not calling
it Redhat. Perhaps PLF Linux (Peter's lightning fast Linux).
Other use names like CentOS/whitebox/etc.

Can't see how this violates GPL, if you think about it, how many
kernel developers are paid by redhat? Would you assume they'd
work at redhat, if they are in complete violation of the GPL?

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 235: The new frame relay network hasn't bedded
down the software loop transmitter yet.

On 2005-10-10, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>
> Come to think of that, if there were GPL copyright encumbrances on a
> bunch of third-party packages, I rather suspect the rest of it would
> have heard about it, too, and not just Bill.  But no, I suspect this is
> just another guy, one of a long series, going around maintaining (in
> fundamental error) that anything on a Linux CD is GPL-encumbered.  Some
> such people misread the compilation copyright statement in RH discs' root
> directory, for example.

Bill has posted many times to this newsgroup, and IIRC others, that he
believes a linux distro is not a ''mere aggregation'', therefore is a
derived work, therefore is derived from some GPL software, therefore the
entire distro must be under the GPL.  The only salient point I've ever
seen him make is that the distro wouldn't work without some tools which
are GPL.  I don't buy that argument one bit, since (IANAL, but) the GPL
explains that a derived work is a work that *modifies* the original
work.

I think he's also fixated on "mere" in the GPL.  I don't think it's
really relevant: the GPL is contrasting aggregation with modification, not
mere aggregation with some more complex aggregation that Bill has never
defined.

Anyway, Rick, the point being, I doubt you'll get Bill to change his
mind, so if that's your objective, you may as well give up now.  (If
your goal is to correct his erroneous views for other readers, then by
all means continue.)

--keith

-- 
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom
see X- headers for PGP signature information

Michael Heiming <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:
> IANAL, but it looks like this, why on earth should redhat make a
> guide available on howto go about redistributing RHEL?

Because their left hand does not know what their right hand is doing.
I would guess that they paid some lawyers to invent a licence agreement
for them and that the lawyers didn't know what they were doing and left
a mess of rubbish as a licence - or maybe they did and deliberately left
a mess of rubbish with the intention of intimidating licensees.  But
some other part of RH has decided to leave the intimidating nonsense
licence in place and add a separate document saying how to go about
legally modifying their distro for distribution - thus not offending
the people who put together the nonsense licence and not  losing the
intimidating effect for licensees.

Since you asked!

> [ wget http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/trademark1.pdf }

> So it boils down to removing those to packages and not calling

Whatever they say ELSEWHERE does not affect the licence you accepted
(indeed may not apply) unless they say that it is a clarifcation of
that license. In the case of conflicting information, no you don't get
free choice - it becomes a matter of legal decision as to what applies
where and whenand to whom. So confusion is not bad from their point of
view.

> Can't see how this violates GPL

I stated how so you don't have to think about it!  You just have to
answer the argument given!
 
>   if you think about it, how many kernel developers are paid by
>  redhat?

About 10-20, I think. I don't know. Neil Brown is the only one who
springs to mind immediately, but I could grep the Maintainers list and
the source for clues. Where is Alan Cox?
 
>   Would you assume they'd work at redhat, if they are in
>   complete violation of the GPL?

I'd assume that they'd be happy if there were a GPL and "low cost"
version freely avaiable. Which is the case. Linus was happy at
Transmeta and I didn't notice them open-sourcing their hardware specs!

Peter

In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es>:
> Michael Heiming <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:
[..]

>> [ wget http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/trademark1.pdf }

>> So it boils down to removing those to packages and not calling

> Whatever they say ELSEWHERE does not affect the licence you accepted
> (indeed may not apply) unless they say that it is a clarifcation of
> that license. In the case of conflicting information, no you don't get
> free choice - it becomes a matter of legal decision as to what applies
> where and whenand to whom. So confusion is not bad from their point of
> view.

Zero problems there, after you made the above changes, it just
*isn't* RHEL anymore, as the above guide explicit says. So how
could you violate their license, if you aren't using their
product at all, but running your own/etc modified distro (GPL)?

Totally agree, the confusion looks intentional. Took some time to
get behind the "logic". ;-)

[..]

> I'd assume that they'd be happy if there were a GPL and "low cost"
> version freely avaiable. Which is the case. Linus was happy at
> Transmeta and I didn't notice them open-sourcing their hardware specs!

;)

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 351: PEBKAC (Problem Exists Between Keyboard
And Chair)

Michael Heiming <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es>:
>> Michael Heiming <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:
> [..]

>>> [ wget http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/trademark1.pdf }

>>> So it boils down to removing those to packages and not calling

>> Whatever they say ELSEWHERE does not affect the licence you accepted
>> (indeed may not apply) unless they say that it is a clarifcation of
>> that license. In the case of conflicting information, no you don't get
>> free choice - it becomes a matter of legal decision as to what applies
>> where and whenand to whom. So confusion is not bad from their point of
>> view.

> Zero problems there, after you made the above changes, it just
> *isn't* RHEL anymore,

Well, it certainly has been DERIVED from RHEL, in at least some sense.
But if your argument is to hold, you have to tell me what changes I
have to make to something before it becomes NOT that something! I
don't view writing spaces over a couple of logos as changing it in
such a way as to make it definitively not RHEL (think about a thief
filing the logo off your motorbike, and listen to the bike-nappers
explanation that YOU had a KTM, but the bike he has is NOT a KTM ...).

So I do not believe your argument stands. It may well be the case that
you receive permission from RHEL to "install the Software" on as many
machines as you like "provided you remove their logos", but their
licence does not say that.

> as the above guide explicit says. So how
> could you violate their license, if you aren't using their
> product at all, but running your own/etc modified distro (GPL)?

Because that argument rests on an assumption that has to be proved (that
the modified distro is yours, not theirs).  Moreover, plainly IMO you
ARE using their distro - that you have removed their two logos does not
alter that it's their distro.  Indeed you are specifically claiming that
you are deriving a new work from theirs.  By copyright law (as applied
to compilations), ipso facto you have no right to redistribute without
explicit permission.  The document you referenced may provide that
permission - I don't know, not having read it - but if so one would have
to ask with what authority it does so, and in a contest between that
permission and the licence you accepted, which one wins.

> Totally agree, the confusion looks intentional. Took some time to
> get behind the "logic". ;-)

I also maintain that their licence is sabotaged by improper and
contracdictory definitions of terms, and improper wording, as
well as conflict with the GPL, subject to a listiing of what they mean
by "the Software".  It needs clarification.


Peter

Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:

> Bill will presumably make a showing of his argument.

I will look forward to it politely but with quiet resignation, having 
seen a lot of similar junk arguments from people who don't grasp the 
nature of all the pieces (but know how they'd like it to work out).

> Very few people have actually read RH's licence. I have....

As have I.  My analysis has been on the Web for some years:
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/RedHat/rhel-isos.html  (better reachable via
my knowledgebase index as "RHEL ISOs" on http://linuxmafia.com/kb/RedHat/)

It awaits (and needs) some redaction and correction, because of the
additional consideration brought to my attention by James Sparenberg:
That matter is detailed at the top of the file.  (Additionally, I have 
recently been able to verify within reasonable certainty that, unlike
RHAS 2.1, RHEL 3 & 4 have no proprietary _software_ contents.  Their
only proprietary content is the two "images" SRPMs, discussed earlier.)

> ...and in my opinion it was flat out in contradiction to the GPL ..

Here you have triggered one of my personal peeves:  People use terms
like "violate the GPL" and "in contradiction to the GPL" as if the GNU
GPL were a statute -- and end up being, typically, unclear _even_ in
their own minds about what they actually mean.  GNU GPL is, of course, a
copyright-based[1] licence that gets applied by copyright owners to
particular instances of particular creative works they own, issued to
members of the public.  RH, Inc. implicitly accepts attached obligations
to third-party works available under GPL terms; if it fails to meet
those obligations, then it thereby commits the tort of copyright
violation against the works' copyright owners (because it is then using
the owners' property in an unlicensed fashion).

So, for your phrase "contradiction to the GPL" to actually mean
anything, you would have to identify one or more codebase (or other
creative work) that Red Hat, Inc. received under the terms of GNU GPL 
and then redistributed, and then show reason to believe that the
"Service Agreement" you're about to point to in some way causes RH, Inc.
to shirk its obligations in some specific area or other.  That Service
Agreement (in USA jurisdictions) is:

> (http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html?country=United+States&)

And here you see your first problem:  These are the contractual terms
for a _service agreement_.  If the customer doesn't meet those terms,
then he/she doesn't lose entitlement to use the software in any way
whatsoever; he/she merely loses service entitlement.

[quotations from the Service Agreement snipped]

> Uh uh .. they just set "installs or executes" a sentence before. Now
> they say "installed". Which is it? Does not compute. Error. Licence
> void (IMO).

Your error lies in assuming that what is limited is the service
licensee's right to install the software.  In fact, what is limited is
the licensee's right to install it _with a support contract_.  But, of
course, neither GPL nor any of the other constituent software's licences 
obliges RH, Inc. (or anyone else) to fulfill a service contract.  So, RH
declaring the customer to have voided his/her service entitlement
doesn't constitute any sort of tort against copyright holders (what you
misleadingly refer to as "infringing the GPL").

[snip more of the same]

> Here's their GPL killer:
> 
>   4. REPORTING AND AUDIT. If Customer wishes to increase the number
>   of Installed System, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat
>   additional Services for each additional Installed System.

> Uh uh. That's limiting the customer's rights to INSTALL (or execute, on
> one reading) the Software [...]

Same erroneous analysis and conclusion.

Now, you _might_ try to convince a judge that RH, Inc. had violated the
copyrights of Torvalds, Cox, Miller, Stallman, et alii, if you could 
show that RH, Inc. had at some point had hauled a licensee into court on
that sort of contract-violation tort charge and successfully got
monetary damages -- on a rather thin theory that substantively RH had
failed to pass on rights they'd promised upstream copyright holders to 
transmit to any recipient.  Your lesser obstacle would be the complete
and total lack of any such tort case.

Your bigger obstacle would be that neither GPLv2 nor any of the other
copyleft licenses you might wish to cite at this point actually say
anything about guaranteeing recipients the right to _use_ software.
If you read Prof. Moglen's interviews given during the early phases of
the SCO cases, you'll learn that this is no accident:  GPLv2 doesn't
_have_ to convey rights of use, because the right to use is not within
the scope of copyright law at all.  See:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/08/19/the_gpl_will_win_claims/

  According to the Wall Street Journal, an attorney for SCO, Mark Heise,
  said the company would contest that the users and distributors of GPL
  licensed software were permitted to make copies. He based this on a
  reading of the Copyright Act which allows licensees of computer
  software to make one copy for backup or archival purposes.

  "It seemed to me," Moglen told us on Saturday, "the responsible thing
  is to ask if he'd even said such a thing." Moglen says he emailed Heise
  to check if he had been misquoted. Why?

  "It's moonshine! The Copyright Act doesn't set limitations on what the
  copyright holder can do. But because you can make one copy, that
  doesn't mean there's no way you can make multiple copies. The wording is
  crystal clear. It is not an infringement."

>   3.  You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
>   under Section 2) in object code or executable form ...
> 
> and the GPL also says that you (RH) can't abridge those rights:

And apparently you haven't noticed that the Service Agreement doesn't
anywhere purport to abridge those rights.  Quod erat demonstrandum.

> Hence I would say that RH licence is in violation of GPL in respect of
> the GPL parts of their distribution. 

I'd say your logic has holes big enough to drive a lorry through.

> Bill has as good a thinking apparatus as you may ever wish for, in many
> respects (look him up). 

I await.  But am not holding my breath.

> That doesn't make him a mathematical logician (which I am) or a lawyer
> (which I am not).
 
I am likewise a (lapsed) mathematician.  And likewise:  IANAL.  TINLA.

> Maybe. I don't know. But Bill can argue if you ask him to. I suspect
> that his contention is that everything on the distro "fits together
> specially", rather like Microsoft argued that IE was integral to their
> distro.

If he does, then he faces the horrendous problem that he's just alleged
that all Linux distributions with old-BSD or MPLed or ASL-licensed
software has been in a state of licence conflict since day one.  Which
is absurd.

>> For the salient caselaw in the USA court system (if interested), see
>> Feist v. Rural Telephone.
> 
> Oh, I agree. But is the compilation GPLed!

<sigh>  That happens to be irrelevant to the discussion -- as the
"compilation" is a separate copyright property distinct from the
components within it -- but, in the case of RH's distributions since
early days, yes, they have always put a statement in the root directory
that they are licensing whatever compilation property they own under
GPLv2 terms.

-- 
Cheers,               Chip Salzenberg: "Usenet is not a right."
Rick Moen            Edward Vielmetti: "Usenet is a right, a left, a jab,
rick@linuxmafia.com                     and a sharp uppercut to the jaw.
                                        The postman hits!  You have new mail."

In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es>:
> Michael Heiming <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es>:
>>> Michael Heiming <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:
>> [..]

>>>> [ wget http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/trademark1.pdf }

>>>> So it boils down to removing those to packages and not calling

[..]

> Because that argument rests on an assumption that has to be proved (that
> the modified distro is yours, not theirs).  Moreover, plainly IMO you
> ARE using their distro - that you have removed their two logos does not
> alter that it's their distro.  

What exactly stops me from taking the steps and redistributing it
as "Michael's Clue-stick Linux (MCL)"? It's a work under GPL,
allowing me as the GPL allows you and anyone else.

> Indeed you are specifically claiming that
> you are deriving a new work from theirs.  By copyright law (as applied
> to compilations), ipso facto you have no right to redistribute without
> explicit permission.  The document you referenced may provide that
> permission - I don't know, not having read it - but if so one would have

That would indeed help!

> to ask with what authority it does so, and in a contest between that
> permission and the licence you accepted, which one wins.

There's no problem between both, just strictly follow the
redistribution guide.

>> Totally agree, the confusion looks intentional. Took some time to
>> get behind the "logic". ;-)

> I also maintain that their licence is sabotaged by improper and
> contracdictory definitions of terms, and improper wording, as
> well as conflict with the GPL, subject to a listiing of what they mean
> by "the Software".  It needs clarification.

Probably, but they are not the bad guys as some would like to
believe here.

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 217: The MGs ran out of gas.

Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:

> Bill has posted many times to this newsgroup, and IIRC others, that he
> believes a linux distro is not a ''mere aggregation'', therefore is a
> derived work, therefore is derived from some GPL software, therefore the
> entire distro must be under the GPL.

That's colourful, but -- to be blunt -- constitutes rationalising from a
false premise.  If you start out with a belief that something obviously
untrue is true, then you can arrive at pretty much any conclusion you
want to aim for.

To properly understand GPLv2's term "mere aggregation" in a legal
context, you have to first understand that it's an indirect reference to
the term of art from copyright law, "derivative work" (which is in fact
also used elsewhere in the licence text) -- and then you have to study
some of the caselaw that outlines what that concept is supposed to mean
when applied to software.  If concerned with USA jurisdictions, you 
would end up studying CAI v. Altai, which introduced the "abstraction,
filtration, comparison" standard for software cases, and Gates Rubber v.
Bando Chemical, which further clarified it.

I _have_ read those opinions, and am afraid I can't take seriously
anyone's claim that everything on a Linux distribution is derivative of
its GPLed toolkits and similar parts.  Imagine what a revolution in the
software business would result, if that were true!  Every piece of
software for MS-Windows would be a derivative work of Microsoft
Corporation's core libraries, tools, and development kits -- which in
turn would be a derivative work of Digital Research's CP/M, which no
doubt would be a derivative work of something else, ad nauseum.

And plainly none of that is the case.  The judge would throw any such
plaintiff out on his/her ass.

> The only salient point I've ever seen him make is that the distro
> wouldn't work without some tools which are GPL.

It won't work without electric power, either.  That's a bulls___ legal
argument.  ;->

> I don't buy that argument one bit, since (IANAL, but) the GPL
> explains that a derived work is a work that *modifies* the original
> work.

GPLv2 actually _doesn't_ even attempt to define "derivative work":  It
can't.  That's a term of art (a term with special, technical, defined
meaning) in copyright law.  Moglen and company were much too smart to
attempt otherwise.

> Anyway, Rick, the point being, I doubt you'll get Bill to change his
> mind, so if that's your objective, you may as well give up now.

As I'd always assumed was true of most other (post-adolescent, anyway) 
Usenet participants, I'm almost never interested in altering the
personal views of any single person: I'm writing to clarify issues for
the entire applicable body of readers of various newsgroups, and to
express my views to them as best I can.

> (If your goal is to correct his erroneous views for other readers,
> then by all means continue.)

Basically.  I'm certainly not egotistical enough to claim any sort of
monopoly on the truth, though:  I'm just trying to be clear and
articulate, and with luck clarify issues.  What people choose to think
after that is entirely their affair.

-- 
Cheers,               Chip Salzenberg: "Usenet is not a right."
Rick Moen            Edward Vielmetti: "Usenet is a right, a left, a jab,
rick@linuxmafia.com                     and a sharp uppercut to the jaw.
                                        The postman hits!  You have new mail."

Michael Heiming <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>:
>> imotgm <imotgm_REM@invalid-yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> [ download .iso ]
> 
>> Really?  Show me the ones for Linspire and RHEL.
> 
> Dunno about Linspire, never used. There are quite a few mirrors
> allowing to download a redistributed RHEL, now called CentOS,
> should be close enough:
> 
> http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=13

That is of course an answer to a different question from the one I asked
of imotgm.  _Thus proving my point_, I think.

> The question is what you want to do with it?

No, that is a _third_ question.  ;->

You're perfectly welcome to change the subject if you wish, but I'd
like to stop for a moment and let my point sink in, first, if you
please.  (Yes, I know all about CentOS.  I helped assemble the group
that maintains it, know most of them, and have loosely worked with
them.)

Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:

> Because that argument rests on an assumption that has to be proved (that
> the modified distro is yours, not theirs).

Error #1:  assuming that a distribution can be fruitfully regarded as a
single copyright property.

> By copyright law (as applied to compilations), ipso facto you have no
> right to redistribute without explicit permission.

Error #2:  fundamentally misunderstanding (and then misstating) the
nature of compilation copyrights.

In comp.os.linux.misc Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>:
> Michael Heiming <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.misc Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>:
>>> imotgm <imotgm_REM@invalid-yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>> [ download .iso ]
>> 
>>> Really?  Show me the ones for Linspire and RHEL.
>> 
>> Dunno about Linspire, never used. There are quite a few mirrors
>> allowing to download a redistributed RHEL, now called CentOS,
>> should be close enough:
>> 
>> http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=13

> That is of course an answer to a different question from the one I asked
> of imotgm.  _Thus proving my point_, I think.

Talking about trademarks, yep it's not RHEL, technically speaking
and this is a technical ng, it is (you know as well as I do). ;-)

[..]

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 138: BNC (brain not connected)

On 2005-10-10, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't buy that argument one bit, since (IANAL, but) the GPL
>> explains that a derived work is a work that *modifies* the original
>> work.
>
> GPLv2 actually _doesn't_ even attempt to define "derivative work":  It
> can't.

Good point.  What I should have written is that the relevant section of
the GPL (section 2) applies to modified copies of the Program.  But I
think the GPL FAQ gives a much better idea of my meaning than I could:

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation

Note especially the last paragraph, which pretty much shoots down Bill's
theory.  (Of course, he's been shown this before, so seeing it again
isn't likely to change his mind.)  I really doubt that FSF would support
anyone who claimed that an entire linux distro is a combination of
modules into one program.

--keith

-- 
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom
see X- headers for PGP signature information

Michael Heiming <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> writes:

>In comp.os.linux.misc Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca>:
>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> writes:

>>>HalcyonWild wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I thought Linux is free of cost. You can freely copy the installation
>>>> cds, distribute with your friends, download from the net, etc. But
>>>> since last one year (or maybe earlier, I might not have noticed), I am
>>>> seeing that most major distros are now pay-ware. And it isnt really
>>>> cheap to buy Linux.

>>>The Linux vendors are selling support *for* the software not 
>>>the actual software itself. All the vendors do make the 
>>>software available for download - sometimes a bit later than 
>>>the supported version.

>> This is true, although Redhat for one tries hard to make the consumer
>> confused as to what the license covers, especially with their insistance on
>> being able to enter the premesis at any time and inspect for which machines
>> the software is installed on. They want you to think that the license is
>> for the software, and not the support. 

>Hi Bill!

>Please check the facts:

>[ http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html?country=United+States& ]

>"Any such audit shall only take place during Customer's normal
>business hours and upon no less than ten (10) days prior written
>notice from Red Hat. Red Hat shall conduct no more than one such
>audit in any twelve-month period [..]"

They have changes this from teh last time I read it ( 6 months or so ago).
It is still highly intrusive and is in conflict with the statement later on
that the Distribution is under the GPL. What in the world are they
auditing? Since you have the perfect right to copy the distro to as many
computers as you want, and since trademark law applies to the marketplace,
not what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom or office, what would
they look for on this audit?



>> Note that they have refused to answer a direct query as to what the license
>> actually covers. 



>If you follow this:

>http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/trademark1.pdf

This does NOT state anything about what the license covers. It states that
Redhat is jealous of their trademark, which they have a right to be. But
they do NOT have the right to restrict copying of a GPL distro via
trademark concerns.

I note that this document is a vast vast change over the previous (year
ago) document they had. And I think it still does not go far enough.
As they say, the crucial issue is whether something causes confusion in the
marketplace. If I take the exact distribution that redhat supplies and
place it onto a CDROm and state what is on that cdrom is the Redhat
distribution, what I am saying is both true, and unlikely to cause
confusion in the marketplace. In fact my taking that same distribution and
calling it Blanc Chapeau is what is liable to cause confusion in the
marketplace. I do not believe that they would have a leg to stand on in
court if they were to try to prevent me from calling it the Redhat
distribution. However that does not mean that they would not sic their
lawyers onto me and threaten me with costly court actions. Look at SCO and
Linux. Having no case need not prevent court actions.

However, Redhat admits that their files are critical to the distributions

You must modify the files identified as REDHAT-LOGOS and ANACONDA-IMAGES so
as to remove alluse of images containing the Red Hat trademark or Red Hats
Shadow Man logo. Note that mere deletion of these files may corrupt the software.

If the removal of the files "may corrupt the software" then those file are
certainly not "mere aggregation". And their presence is being used to limit
the rights to copy the software, in direct contravention of the GPL.






>Seems as if it's based on the trademark "Redhat" and those two
>rpm containing images/logos, if you remove them, you are free to
>do what you like under GPL, like redistribution. CentOS and
>others do just that.

The question is whether or not they are obliged to do that. I would argue
that they are not. 


>[..]

Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> writes:

>Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>> Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 1.  If merely residing on the same CD isn't "mere aggregation", then
>>> what _is_?
>> 
>> If they were to merely reside there, that persumably would not be a
>> point of contention for Bill.  But he must also believe that the
>> interrelationship is more profound than that (if he would allow me to
>> put words in his mouth for a moment). 

>OK, but there's been no showing of that.

>Come to think of that, if there were GPL copyright encumbrances on a
>bunch of third-party packages, I rather suspect the rest of it would
>have heard about it, too, and not just Bill.  But no, I suspect this is
>just another guy, one of a long series, going around maintaining (in
>fundamental error) that anything on a Linux CD is GPL-encumbered.  Some
>such people misread the compilation copyright statement in RH discs' root
>directory, for example.

I have no trouble with the "mere aggregation"-- ie the lumping together of
programs on a CD. The question is when does it cease being "mere
aggregation". That word "mere" is critical IMHO. Thus, I do claim that for
example, the Redhat Logo files are more than "mere aggregation" They are
used by the distribution itself in its boot up sequence. They are an
integral part of the distribution. As such they cease being "mere
aggregations" which implies a complete indendence of the parts. A cannot
rely on B and still have A and B enjoy "mere aggregation".


> 
>> Well, sure. There was that whole "is the archive copyright" thing in
>> the 80s over repositories like simtel.

Phone books do not enjoy copyright. It is only when there is a sufficient
level of creative imput that the archive would attract copyright. You could
certainly say that a distribution enjoys such copyright, while a simple
compilation does not. 


>That would be a claim of _compilation_ copyright -- the type of copyright
>title over the arrangement and selection of others' works (recognised as 
>a creative work in itself) that accrues to the editors of anthologies.
>For the salient caselaw in the USA court system (if interested), see
>Feist v. Rural Telephone.

Which stated that a phone bood did not enjoy copyright protection. And I
would expect a "mere aggregation" to also not enjoy such protection.

"Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> writes:

>Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>>> Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 1.  If merely residing on the same CD isn't "mere aggregation", then
>>>> what _is_?
>>> 
>>> If they were to merely reside there, that persumably would not be a
>>> point of contention for Bill.  But he must also believe that the
>>> interrelationship is more profound than that (if he would allow me to
>>> put words in his mouth for a moment). 

>> OK, but there's been no showing of that.

>Bill will presumably make a showing of his argument.

>> Come to think of that, if there were GPL copyright encumbrances on a
>> bunch of third-party packages, I rather suspect the rest of it would
>> have heard about it, too, and not just Bill.

Glad to see that you agree with me on the license. 



>Very few people have actually read RH's licence. I have, and in my
>opinion it was flat out in contradiction to the GPL ..

>(http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html?country=United+States&)

>   The term "Installed Systems" means the number of Systems on which
>   Customer installs or executes the Software.

>So Systems are things on which we install (or just run) the Software.

>   The term "System" means any hardware on which the Software is
>   installed, which may be, without limitation, a server, a work
>   station, a virtual machine, a blade, a partition or an engine, as
>   applicable.

>Uh uh .. they just set "installs or executes" a sentence before. Now
>they say "installed". Which is it? Does not compute. Error. Licence
>void (IMO).

>   The initial number of Installed Systems is the number of copies of
>   the Software that Customer purchases. 

>Uh uh ... they just defined "installed Systems", and therefore the
>number of such is determined by facts. They can't redefine it. What
>they mean to say is not this, but something like "the number of
>Installed Systems ALLOWED is the number of copies ... purchase[d]".

>And then there's the confusion over whether they mean installed or
>executed.

>At this point, with blooies in the opening paragraphs, I'd shoot the
>lawyer, or suppose that this is deliberately obfuscatory. Here's their
>GPL killer:

>   4. REPORTING AND AUDIT. If Customer wishes to increase the number
>   of Installed System, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat
>   additional Services for each additional Installed System.

>Uh uh. That's limiting the customer's rights to INSTALL (or execute, on
>one reading) the Software (which happens to be 99.99% GPLed software)
>they have purchased.  The GPL says that you receive that allowance in
>GPLed software:

>   3.  You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
>   under Section 2) in object code or executable form ...

>and the GPL also says that you (RH) can't abridge those rights:

>   6.  Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
>   Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
>   original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject
>   to these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
>   restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted
>   herein.

>Hence I would say that RH licence is in violation of GPL in respect of
>the GPL parts of their distribution. The only possible letout I see is
>that "the Software" is undefined. If they were to mean by "the
>Software" "our trademarked non-GPL logos", then that would be OK.

>But I don't think they do.




>>   But no, I suspect this is
>> just another guy, one of a long series, going around maintaining (in
>> fundamental error) that anything on a Linux CD is GPL-encumbered.

>Bill has as good a thinking apparatus as you may ever wish for, in many
>respects (look him up).  That doesn't make him a matehmatical logician
>(which I am) or a lawyer (which I am not).
>  
>> Some such people misread the compilation copyright statement in RH
>> discs' root directory, for example.

>Maybe. I don't know. But Bill can argue if you ask him to. I suspect
>that his contention is that everything on the distro "fits together
>specially", rather like Microsoft argued that IE was integral to their
>distro. I disagree with his contention as a matter of fact wrg
>linking, and library and kernel support. I cannot be so definitive
>in my opinion wrt his assertion that the whole thing is INTENDED or
>DESIGNED to fit together uniquely, which in my opinion is a plausible
>argument in favur of regarding the ensemble as more than a mere
>aggregation. Another question is whether the ensemble is GPL ...

>    
>> >> Well, sure.  There was that whole "is the archive copyright" thing
>> > tin he 80s over repositories like simtel.


>> That would be a claim of _compilation_ copyright -- the type of copyright
>> title over the arrangement and selection of others' works (recognised as 
>> a creative work in itself) that accrues to the editors of anthologies.
>> For the salient caselaw in the USA court system (if interested), see
>> Feist v. Rural Telephone.

>Oh, I agree. But is the compilation GPLed!

Redhat both in its license and in its web page on trademarks says it is, as
I read it.

Michael Heiming <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> writes:

>In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es>:
>> Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>>> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>>>> Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>[..]

>> Very few people have actually read RH's licence. I have, and in my
>> opinion it was flat out in contradiction to the GPL ..

>> (http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html?country=United+States&)

>;-)


>> Hence I would say that RH licence is in violation of GPL in respect of
>> the GPL parts of their distribution. The only possible letout I see is
>> that "the Software" is undefined. If they were to mean by "the
>> Software" "our trademarked non-GPL logos", then that would be OK.

>> But I don't think they do.

>IANAL, but it looks like this, why on earth should redhat make a
>guide available on howto go about redistributing RHEL?

>[ wget http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/trademark1.pdf }

>"Guidelines For Marketing Software Products Containing Unmodified
>Red Hat? Linux? Software As a licensee under the GPL and other
>applicable copyright licenses, you may replicate the software
>contained in Red Hat? Linux? or Red Hat? Enterprise Linux?,
>whether downloaded from an FTP site or other electronic download
>site or copied from a CD originally produced by Red Hat, and may
>market the replicated product in accordance with the terms of the
>copyright licenses. However, it would be confusing to consumers
>if you identify such a replicated product as Red Hat? Linux?"
>[..]
>"D. You must modify the  files identified as REDHAT-LOGOS and
>ANACONDA-IMAGES so as to remove all use of images containing the
>Red Hat  trademark or Red Hat?s Shadow Man logo. Note that mere
>deletion of these files may corrupt the software. [..]"

>So it boils down to removing those to packages and not calling
>it Redhat. Perhaps PLF Linux (Peter's lightning fast Linux).
>Other use names like CentOS/whitebox/etc.

The last sentence you quoted shows that those files are not there as "mere
aggegation". They are a part of the distribution. The distribution as a
copyrightable work depends crucially on the kernel. Were you to remove the
kernel the distribution would not work. As such it is a derived work of the
kernel, and as a copyrightable work must therefor be under the GPL.


>Can't see how this violates GPL, if you think about it, how many

It violates the GPL in that Redhat is using their trademarks to limit your
rights to copy and distribute  the software. 

>kernel developers are paid by redhat? Would you assume they'd
>work at redhat, if they are in complete violation of the GPL?

Keeping bread on the table can be a powerful incentive. 
Are they in "complete" violation of the GPL? Of course not. Are they in
violation? Yes, I believe they are. 

>-- 
>Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
>mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
>#bofh excuse 235: The new frame relay network hasn't bedded
>down the software loop transmitter yet.

Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> writes:

>On 2005-10-10, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>>
>> Come to think of that, if there were GPL copyright encumbrances on a
>> bunch of third-party packages, I rather suspect the rest of it would
>> have heard about it, too, and not just Bill.  But no, I suspect this is
>> just another guy, one of a long series, going around maintaining (in
>> fundamental error) that anything on a Linux CD is GPL-encumbered.  Some
>> such people misread the compilation copyright statement in RH discs' root
>> directory, for example.

>Bill has posted many times to this newsgroup, and IIRC others, that he
>believes a linux distro is not a ''mere aggregation'', therefore is a
>derived work, therefore is derived from some GPL software, therefore the
>entire distro must be under the GPL.  The only salient point I've ever
>seen him make is that the distro wouldn't work without some tools which
>are GPL.  I don't buy that argument one bit, since (IANAL, but) the GPL
>explains that a derived work is a work that *modifies* the original
>work.

Good. You have my essential argument. Under copyright law a derived work
does not modify the original. It contains the original. Thus if I take a
photograph you have taken and paste it, completely unmodified into my
canvas, and surround it by my own painting, then my work is a derived work
of yours. Your copyright applies to my work as well as my own copyright. 
Modification is not needed. However, Redhat DOES massively modify the
kernel. 


>I think he's also fixated on "mere" in the GPL.  I don't think it's
>really relevant: the GPL is contrasting aggregation with modification, not
>mere aggregation with some more complex aggregation that Bill has never
>defined.

No, the GPL is stating that "mere aggregation" is OK. You say that the
"mere" in that sentence is irrelevant. Why was it placed there? It is not
defined in the text and thus the common dictionary definition of "mere"
applies. You cannot simply throw out words from a legal document because
you do not like them.

"aggregation" means that a bunch of disparate things are lumped together in
some way. "mere" that that is the only relationship that they have, that
they happen to have been lumped together. It implies that they do not rely
on each other, that they are independent of each other. That if the other
were to be entirely changed for some other thing (pictures of my summer
holidays) it would make no difference to the function of the first. 
 



>Anyway, Rick, the point being, I doubt you'll get Bill to change his
>mind, so if that's your objective, you may as well give up now.  (If
>your goal is to correct his erroneous views for other readers, then by
>all means continue.)

I do agree that it will be hard to get me to change my mind. It has
happened in other arguments, so it is not impossible. But simply telling me
that you disagree, and then presenting arguments in which you simply throw
away terms in the license to make your argument will not do it. 

"Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> writes:

>Michael Heiming <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:

>> as the above guide explicit says. So how
>> could you violate their license, if you aren't using their
>> product at all, but running your own/etc modified distro (GPL)?

>Because that argument rests on an assumption that has to be proved (that
>the modified distro is yours, not theirs).  Moreover, plainly IMO you

No, the copyright to the modified distro resides in you (for your
modifications) in Redhat( for their modifications) and in all of the
contributors to the software in the distro. However, the GPL gives you
certain rights, including the right to make those changes and distribute
the resulting software. 

>ARE using their distro - that you have removed their two logos does not
>alter that it's their distro.  Indeed you are specifically claiming that

Yes (given the caveates above) but they have given you the right to do what
you will under the GPL.


>you are deriving a new work from theirs.  By copyright law (as applied
>to compilations), ipso facto you have no right to redistribute without
>explicit permission.  The document you referenced may provide that
>permission - I don't know, not having read it - but if so one would have
>to ask with what authority it does so, and in a contest between that
>permission and the licence you accepted, which one wins.

No, it is the GPL that gives you that permission. And without the GPL they
are not allowed to distribute their own distribution.



>> Totally agree, the confusion looks intentional. Took some time to
>> get behind the "logic". ;-)

>I also maintain that their licence is sabotaged by improper and
>contracdictory definitions of terms, and improper wording, as
>well as conflict with the GPL, subject to a listiing of what they mean
>by "the Software".  It needs clarification.

Agreed.

Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:

>>> Well, sure. There was that whole "is the archive copyright" thing in
>>> the 80s over repositories like simtel.
> 
> Phone books do not enjoy copyright. It is only when there is a sufficient
> level of creative imput that the archive would attract copyright.

Er, didn't *I* just get through referring to the "Rural Telephone Service
Co. v. Feist" decision where (in USA law) this principle was set forth?  ;->

> You could certainly say that a distribution enjoys such copyright,
> while a simple compilation does not. 

Be careful:  The term "compilation" is yet another term of art in
copyright law.  It means a collection and arrangement by party A of (and
reification of party A's property interest in that collection and
arrangement) works that themselves are owned by parties B, C, etc.  The
classic example would be the property interest that an anthology editor
enjoys in his work picking, arranging, and laying out a set of stories 
by other people.

If authors B, C, etc., were to attempt to reprint the volume without 
recompensing editor A for his work, they would be committing the tort of
copyright violation to the extent of the compilation copyright owned by
A.

> Which stated that a phone bood did not enjoy copyright protection. And
> I would expect a "mere aggregation" to also not enjoy such protection.

The "Feist" decision held that Rural did not enjoy compilation copyright
over its white pages listings because the sole "creative" contribution 
Rural made lay in arranging them in alphabetical order.  So, the USSC
ruled that, to quote Justice O'Connor:

   "To be sure, the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even
   a slight amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the
   grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, "no matter
   how crude, humble or obvious" it might be."

Other jurisdictions' standards may differ (and I offer my neighbourly
apology for not being familiar with what might prevail in B.C.), but,
at least in the USA, the bar for successfully claiming a compilation 
copyright is really, really low.  Such as, maybe, picking which
codebases do and do not go into your distribution, arranging their
documentation into FHS-compliant form, etc.

(In the case of RH, Inc., they state that their compilation copyright
if any shall be considered to be under GPLv2, anyway, so there's not 
really much to argue about.)

-- 
Cheers,               Chip Salzenberg: "Usenet is not a right."
Rick Moen            Edward Vielmetti: "Usenet is a right, a left, a jab,
rick@linuxmafia.com                     and a sharp uppercut to the jaw.
                                        The postman hits!  You have new mail."

Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:

> The last sentence you quoted shows that those files are not there as
> "mere aggegation". They are a part of the distribution. The
> distribution as a copyrightable work depends crucially on the kernel.
> Were you to remove the kernel the distribution would not work. As such
> it is a derived work of the kernel, and as a copyrightable work must
> therefor be under the GPL.

So, if Oracle Corporation provides the Linux port of Oracle RDBMS with a
bundled Linux distribution, then Oracle RDBMS automatically becomes a
derivative work of the Linux kernel?  And, if they also provide the same
Linux port of Oracle RDBMS bundled with FreeBSD and _its_ Linux-binary
runtime libraries / binary-support interface, then Oracle RDBMS
automatically becomes a derivative work of the FreeBSD kernel?

This is a joke-shop legal standard, and the judge would throw plaintiff
out on his/her ass.

Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:

> Good. You have my essential argument. Under copyright law a derived work
> does not modify the original. It contains the original. 

This is a VERY dangerous misconception.  (ObDisclaimer:  I unfortunately
cannot speak to Canadian or B.C. statute or caselaw, per se, and can
in general speak only of standard USA copyright law.  Your local mileage
may differ.)  

See "Micro Star v. FormGen, Inc.", 154 F.3d 1107 9th Cir. 1998, in which 
one computer game was ruled to be derivative of another even though the
two had not a single line of code in common.  The court found that the
infringing work had incorporated audiovideo display data, a protected
creative work, from the original, thereby incorporating the 'story' (not
the story idea, but its various expressive elements) of the original
game.  This has been used as ruling precedent by other circuit judges, 
in all subsequent, similar cases.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/cases/Micro_Star_v_Formgen.html

> No, the GPL is stating that "mere aggregation" is OK.

Note:  In so doing, GPLv2 is merely acknowledging what is outside its
reach, through operation of external law:  That would, in fact, be true
regardless of whether GPLv2 said so.  Moglen and company seem to have
put that in there to assist in interpretation.

> I do agree that it will be hard to get me to change my mind. It has
> happened in other arguments, so it is not impossible. 

Differences of view are, as the saying goes, what make horse races.  
But of course you'll make up your own mind, as is only appropriate, 
and is fine by me.  All I'm doing is stating my mind, and attempting to
clarify issues.  What people choose to believe after that is their own 
problem.

Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:

> They have changes this from teh last time I read it ( 6 months or so ago).
> It is still highly intrusive and is in conflict with the statement later on
> that the Distribution is under the GPL.
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

1.  Underlined phrase has no obvious meaning.
2.  Terms of the service agreement apply to the service contract,
    obviously. 
3.  If you believe RH, Inc. are in violation of any specific term 
    of GPLv2 as to some particular copyrighted property, by doing 
    or not doing something in particular, _please cite_ specifically.

Clue:  You can't.

> This does NOT state anything about what the license covers.

It's not a tort to be vague.  ;->


> It states that Redhat is jealous of their trademark, which they have a
> right to be. But they do NOT have the right to restrict copying of a
> GPL distro via trademark concerns.
  ^^^^^^^^^^

Underlined phrase has no obvious meaning.

If you aspire to say something meaningful, you might want to try being
more specific.  I rather think you're either confused or _want_ it to
work out that the entire distribution is subject to GNU GPL, which very
obviously is not the case, and never has been.


> I do not believe that they would have a leg to stand on in court if
> they were to try to prevent me from calling it the Redhat
> distribution.

Again, I am not clear on the specifics of Canadian Federal or B.C.
provincial trademark law, but the USA's Lanham Act very clearly provides
that you commit the tort of trademark dilution if your unauthorised 
competing _commercial_ usage of someone else's trademarked phrases, 
marks, insignia, slogans, etc., in the same trade or industry are judged
likely to mislead the trademark owner's customers into believing that 
the trademark owner endorsed or produced your competing goods or
services.

(If it's services rather than goods being sold, then technically what's
at stake is a service mark, not a trademark, but the collective term for
both is "trademark".)

So, you could stand underneath Matthew Szulik's window and _give away_ 
your unauthorised literal copies of RHEL all day long without violating
trademark law.  Your selling them under his window might well get you
sued, though -- and lose.

The interesting case is your changing the names on everything to say
"Scarlet Chapeau" (or the like) but not taking the trouble to replace
all of the images derived from SRPMs redhat-logos and anaconda-images --
and then selling "Scarlet Chapeau" under Szulik's window.  In that case,
you would have barely scraped through without commiting trademark
dilution, but would have violated the proprietary _copyright_ licence 
on the images, as you would be making an unauthorised use of them.



> However that does not mean that they would not sic their
> lawyers onto me and threaten me with costly court actions. Look at SCO and
> Linux. Having no case need not prevent court actions.

Oh, please spare us the abused-martyr rhetoric.  You'd lose.  And
deserve it -- if only for willful ignorance of the law.


> If the removal of the files "may corrupt the software" then those file are
> certainly not "mere aggregation". 

1.  Do we _really_ have to explain this to you?  It means that the
    Makefiles of many of the other packages, upon doing "rpmbuild foo", 
    will try to pull in particular named files from those two SRPMs.  
    Thus, merely yanking the files out without replacing them or 
    editing the Makefiles will cause compiles to error out.

    That doesn't make the other SRPMs derivative works of the two
    encumbered ones any more than a gallery painting becomes a derivative
    work of the paint factory's factory formula.

2.  You very obviously do not understand the legal concept of derivative
    works.  I'd suggest reading some caselaw.

> And their presence is being used to limit the rights to copy the
> software, in direct contravention of the GPL.
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Underlined phrase has no obvious meaning.  If there's a specific
third-party package in RHEL 3 or 4 whose _copyright_ you believe RH, Inc.
infringes in some way, please identify the particular package, the
action RH takes to commit that tort, and what obligation to the
copyright holder they thereby fail.  However:

Please be aware that I can point you to each and every single
GPL-licensed file in RHEL 3 or 4, in both source and binary form, and
truthfully state that you, I, and everyone else already possess the
right to redistribute those files if we happen to have copies of those
files.

So:  Your premise is fundamentally wrong.

Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
> "Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> writes:

>>Michael Heiming <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:

>>> as the above guide explicit says. So how
>>> could you violate their license, if you aren't using their
>>> product at all, but running your own/etc modified distro (GPL)?

>>Because that argument rests on an assumption that has to be proved (that
>>the modified distro is yours, not theirs).  Moreover, plainly IMO you

> No, the copyright to the modified distro resides in you (for your
> modifications)

Correct but irrelevant to the question of whether the result is RH or
not.

> in Redhat( for their modifications) 

Correct, and relevant, in that if you keep RHs modifications, then you
are definitely looking at/keeping RHs work.

> and in all of the
> contributors to the software in the distro.

Correct, but irrelevant to the question ...

> However, the GPL gives you
> certain rights, including the right to make those changes and distribute
> the resulting software. 

That does not affect the question of WHAT you have - indeed, I believe
that you are tacitly agreeing that you have hold of a modified RH
distro, which itself consists (largely) of modified original works
placed under GPL by their authors.

Yes - you have the right to copy and modify those original sources AND
the modified work as produced by RH. However this is a different
argument to the one advanced by Michael, which I believe to be false
and which I was arguing against.


>>ARE using their distro - that you have removed their two logos does not
>>alter that it's their distro.  Indeed you are specifically claiming that

> Yes (given the caveates above) but they have given you the right to do what
> you will under the GPL.

I agree (for certain values of "do what you will" defined in the GPL).


>>you are deriving a new work from theirs.  By copyright law (as applied
>>to compilations), ipso facto you have no right to redistribute without
>>explicit permission.  The document you referenced may provide that
>>permission - I don't know, not having read it - but if so one would have
>>to ask with what authority it does so, and in a contest between that
>>permission and the licence you accepted, which one wins.

> No, it is the GPL that gives you that permission. And without the GPL they
> are not allowed to distribute their own distribution.

But you/he/they modified parts of the distro which are NOT under GPL, so
I don't think that was necessarily an allowed act.  Nor do I know for a
fact that the compilation itself is under GPL (nor am I sure what it
would mean for a compilation to be under GPL - presumably the "source"
is the spec files in the srpms, or some such) and thus I do not know to
what extent you are allowed to make a derivative compilation, or what
you may do with that derivative once you have made it.

So I agree with "No, it is the GPL that gives you that permission" as
far as modifying and redistributing certain individual programs in the
distribution is concerned.  And I agree with "And without the GPL they
are not allowed to distribute their own distribution" insofar as it
relates to the GPL portions of their distribution.  But I believe that
those "insofar as"s make it plain that the totality is not covered,
unless you advance your doctrine of contagion by "more than mere
aggregation" to the whole distribution, in one sense or other.  And I do
not regard that doctrine as proved, though I do not feel it is
impossible (I would give it about a 5% truth value evaluation).

And I also do not agree that even if you are allowed to redistribute
the individual programs (by GPL or otherwise), that you are free of
copyright restrictions with respect to the collection as a whole.  I
mean presumably RH made specific choices about what to put in their
distro, what versions, what alterations, what configurations, and so on,
and the sum of those choices is under their authorship, hence under
copyright.

So I would suggest that one could certainly take RH individual GPLed
programs and assemble them into a new distro of ones own, but I am not
sure that one can just take the WHOLE RH distro, wipe over their two
logo files with blanks, and redistribute that.

>>> Totally agree, the confusion looks intentional. Took some time to
>>> get behind the "logic". ;-)

>>I also maintain that their licence is sabotaged by improper and
>>contradictory definitions of terms, and improper wording, as
>>well as conflict with the GPL, subject to a listing of what they mean
>>by "the Software".  It needs clarification.

> Agreed.

Well, nobody seems to disagree with that, but life goes on as normal!

Peter

Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> writes:

>Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:

>> Bill will presumably make a showing of his argument.

>I will look forward to it politely but with quiet resignation, having 
>seen a lot of similar junk arguments from people who don't grasp the 
>nature of all the pieces (but know how they'd like it to work out).

>> Very few people have actually read RH's licence. I have....

>As have I.  My analysis has been on the Web for some years:
>http://linuxmafia.com/faq/RedHat/rhel-isos.html  (better reachable via
>my knowledgebase index as "RHEL ISOs" on http://linuxmafia.com/kb/RedHat/)

>It awaits (and needs) some redaction and correction, because of the
>additional consideration brought to my attention by James Sparenberg:
>That matter is detailed at the top of the file.  (Additionally, I have 
>recently been able to verify within reasonable certainty that, unlike
>RHAS 2.1, RHEL 3 & 4 have no proprietary _software_ contents.  Their
>only proprietary content is the two "images" SRPMs, discussed earlier.)

>> ...and in my opinion it was flat out in contradiction to the GPL ..

>Here you have triggered one of my personal peeves:  People use terms
>like "violate the GPL" and "in contradiction to the GPL" as if the GNU
>GPL were a statute -- and end up being, typically, unclear _even_ in
>their own minds about what they actually mean.  GNU GPL is, of course, a
>copyright-based[1] licence that gets applied by copyright owners to
>particular instances of particular creative works they own, issued to
>members of the public.  RH, Inc. implicitly accepts attached obligations
>to third-party works available under GPL terms; if it fails to meet
>those obligations, then it thereby commits the tort of copyright
>violation against the works' copyright owners (because it is then using
>the owners' property in an unlicensed fashion).

Of course that is what "in violation of the GPL" means-- that they have
violated the terms of the copyright license which they agreed to when they
copied and used the GPLed software in their distributions. What else would
it mean.



>So, for your phrase "contradiction to the GPL" to actually mean
>anything, you would have to identify one or more codebase (or other
>creative work) that Red Hat, Inc. received under the terms of GNU GPL 

Lets concentrate on the kernel, for want of anything more obvious.

>and then redistributed, and then show reason to believe that the
>"Service Agreement" you're about to point to in some way causes RH, Inc.
>to shirk its obligations in some specific area or other.  That Service
>Agreement (in USA jurisdictions) is:

I am sorry, it is not a "Service Agreement" it is a ilicense (note the term
in the url you have posted below) or a "Subscription Agreement" as the very
top of the agreement states. One of the first questions is what in the hell
a Subscription Agreement is. I know what a subscription to a magazine is,
and my purchasing Redhat looks nothing like that. Next is says that this
"Subscription Agreement applies to "RED HAT PRODUCTS AND SERVICES" in
capital letters. Now, it does include Services but it also includes
"PRODUCTS". The only product I know that Redhat sells is its software,
(unless you claim that this Subscription Agreement applies to its mugs and
T-shirts).

Then we come to the next paragraph which contains
The term "Software" means the subscription for the family of software
products purchased under this Agreement and defined herein, if any. The
term "Installed Systems" means the number of Systems on which Customer
installs or executes the Software. 

This seems to me unambiguous as the software NOT the service (mentioned in
the previous paragraph) and also uses the term "subscription" as applied to
the software, not the service. Ie, this Subscription Agreement applies to
the software Not the Services alone. 

Then in section 4
"If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed System,then
Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional
Installed System." Remember
the definition above. Installed systems are NOT service agreements.
Installed systems is the number of computers etc, that the software is
installed on. Under the GPL, Redhat CANNOT impose conditions on your
installing the software on other systems. The customer, under the GPL is
free to increase the number of installed systems without any limits or
conditions. The customer of course cannot demand service on those, but 
that is NOT what the Agreement states. It clearly and explicitly places
conditions on the customer as to the copying and installation of the
software on otehr systems. The GPL clearly states that ANY such conditions
voids the license under which Redhat is allowed to copy the software, eg
the kernel. 

Redhat is explicitly and clearly in violation of the license under which
they use the kernel.

 


>> (http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html?country=United+States&)

>And here you see your first problem:  These are the contractual terms
>for a _service agreement_.  If the customer doesn't meet those terms,

No they are not. They are for a Subscription Agreement. Sheesh. People
change the contract and then argue till they are blue in the face that that
changed contract is not in disagreement with the GPL. Of course they argue
that those changes are minor and of no account, which makes it very obscure
why they made the changes. 


>then he/she doesn't lose entitlement to use the software in any way
>whatsoever; he/she merely loses service entitlement.

>[quotations from the Service Agreement snipped]

>> Uh uh .. they just set "installs or executes" a sentence before. Now
>> they say "installed". Which is it? Does not compute. Error. Licence
>> void (IMO).

>Your error lies in assuming that what is limited is the service
>licensee's right to install the software.  In fact, what is limited is

It is. It says so specifically and clearly and unambiguously that if the
customer wishes to increase the installed systems, the customer MUST buy
additional Subscriptions. That is a limit on the right to install the
software. 

>the licensee's right to install it _with a support contract_.  But, of

No, that is NOT what it says. It is how you are rewriting the contract to
say so.


>course, neither GPL nor any of the other constituent software's licences 
>obliges RH, Inc. (or anyone else) to fulfill a service contract.  So, RH
>declaring the customer to have voided his/her service entitlement
>doesn't constitute any sort of tort against copyright holders (what you
>misleadingly refer to as "infringing the GPL").

IF that voiding of the service contract is because of copying or installing
the software on other machines, then it does constitute a tort against the
copyright holders.



>[snip more of the same]

>> Here's their GPL killer:
>> 
>>   4. REPORTING AND AUDIT. If Customer wishes to increase the number
>>   of Installed System, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat
>>   additional Services for each additional Installed System.

>> Uh uh. That's limiting the customer's rights to INSTALL (or execute, on
>> one reading) the Software [...]

>Same erroneous analysis and conclusion.

This is called argument by blatant assertion. If you repeat a lie often
enough that does not make it the truth.


>Now, you _might_ try to convince a judge that RH, Inc. had violated the
>copyrights of Torvalds, Cox, Miller, Stallman, et alii, if you could 
>show that RH, Inc. had at some point had hauled a licensee into court on
>that sort of contract-violation tort charge and successfully got
>monetary damages -- on a rather thin theory that substantively RH had
>failed to pass on rights they'd promised upstream copyright holders to 
>transmit to any recipient.  Your lesser obstacle would be the complete
>and total lack of any such tort case.

The GPL specifically states that no limitations on the rights to copy are
allowed. This is a limitation. It is thus a tort against the copyright
holder. Now, I will agree that since I am not Torvalds or any other
contributor to the kernel, and thus the court might well argue that I have
no standing. That does not negate that Redhat has violated the terms of 
their license, which was the whole point of this exercise. 


>Your bigger obstacle would be that neither GPLv2 nor any of the other
>copyleft licenses you might wish to cite at this point actually say
>anything about guaranteeing recipients the right to _use_ software.

Copyright law is silent on use because that is not its purvue. It refers to
copying. Furthermore, the Agreement also refers to copying (Installing). 
Futhermore the GPL states that any limitation on the right to copy
invalidates teh license. It does not claim that that limitation need come
from copyright law. It might come from trademark law or contract law, or
criminal law, or whatever. 



>If you read Prof. Moglen's interviews given during the early phases of
>the SCO cases, you'll learn that this is no accident:  GPLv2 doesn't
>_have_ to convey rights of use, because the right to use is not within
>the scope of copyright law at all.  See:

Agreed.

>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/08/19/the_gpl_will_win_claims/

>  According to the Wall Street Journal, an attorney for SCO, Mark Heise,
>  said the company would contest that the users and distributors of GPL
>  licensed software were permitted to make copies. He based this on a
>  reading of the Copyright Act which allows licensees of computer
>  software to make one copy for backup or archival purposes.

>  "It seemed to me," Moglen told us on Saturday, "the responsible thing
>  is to ask if he'd even said such a thing." Moglen says he emailed Heise
>  to check if he had been misquoted. Why?

>  "It's moonshine! The Copyright Act doesn't set limitations on what the
>  copyright holder can do. But because you can make one copy, that
>  doesn't mean there's no way you can make multiple copies. The wording is
>  crystal clear. It is not an infringement."

>>   3.  You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
>>   under Section 2) in object code or executable form ...
>> 
>> and the GPL also says that you (RH) can't abridge those rights:

>And apparently you haven't noticed that the Service Agreement doesn't
>anywhere purport to abridge those rights.  Quod erat demonstrandum.

Of course it does. Section 4 which both he and I quoted. 



>> Hence I would say that RH licence is in violation of GPL in respect of
>> the GPL parts of their distribution. 

>I'd say your logic has holes big enough to drive a lorry through.

I would say that you have no logic at all. You blatantly ignore the clear
words of the agreement, and having ignored them state that they do not
exist.


>> Bill has as good a thinking apparatus as you may ever wish for, in many
>> respects (look him up). 

>I await.  But am not holding my breath.

Please don't hold your breath. Netnews is sufficiently slow that you would
die before you read my comments, and would not want that to happen.



>> That doesn't make him a mathematical logician (which I am) or a lawyer
>> (which I am not).
> 
>I am likewise a (lapsed) mathematician.  And likewise:  IANAL.  TINLA.

>> Maybe. I don't know. But Bill can argue if you ask him to. I suspect
>> that his contention is that everything on the distro "fits together
>> specially", rather like Microsoft argued that IE was integral to their
>> distro.

>If he does, then he faces the horrendous problem that he's just alleged
>that all Linux distributions with old-BSD or MPLed or ASL-licensed
>software has been in a state of licence conflict since day one.  Which
>is absurd.

>>> For the salient caselaw in the USA court system (if interested), see
>>> Feist v. Rural Telephone.
>> 
>> Oh, I agree. But is the compilation GPLed!

You say you read the license. I do not think you have. Let me quote

"LICENSE AGREEMENT AND LIMITED PRODUCT WARRANTY RED HAT� ENTERPRISE LINUX�
AND RED HAT� APPLICATIONS

This agreement governs the use of the Software and any updates to the
Software, regardless of the delivery mechanism. The Software is a
collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. Subject to the following terms,
Red Hat, Inc. ("Red Hat") grants to the user ("Customer") a license to this
collective work pursuant to the GNU General Public License."



><sigh>  That happens to be irrelevant to the discussion -- as the
>"compilation" is a separate copyright property distinct from the
>components within it -- but, in the case of RH's distributions since
>early days, yes, they have always put a statement in the root directory
>that they are licensing whatever compilation property they own under
>GPLv2 terms.

Good we agree. Thus the question is whether their subscription agreement
cpmpies with the GPL. 

Note that under the GPL, they are not allowed to place conditions on
copying or distribution. They do. Now, you may say that they are explicitly
disavowing that section of the GPL by their statement "Subject to the
following terms" However, insofar as their work is a work which is
"derived" (under copyright law)  from the kernel, they have no right to make the license subject
to anything and continue to use that kernel. 


Note that they also commit a tort against all users of their software. They
claim implicitly if not otherwise, that they have the right to supply the
kernel to the end user. By violating the terms of the license to do so,
they do not have such a right and commiting fraud against the end user. 
>-- 
>Cheers,               Chip Salzenberg: "Usenet is not a right."
>Rick Moen            Edward Vielmetti: "Usenet is a right, a left, a jab,
>rick@linuxmafia.com                     and a sharp uppercut to the jaw.
>                                        The postman hits!  You have new mail."

Michael Heiming <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> writes:


>> I also maintain that their licence is sabotaged by improper and
>> contracdictory definitions of terms, and improper wording, as
>> well as conflict with the GPL, subject to a listiing of what they mean
>> by "the Software".  It needs clarification.

>Probably, but they are not the bad guys as some would like to
>believe here.

"the bad guys" as if "badness" were a property which coloured everything
they do. Of course they have done a huge bunch of good. Of course they have
had a large responsibility for bringing Linux to the masses. Of course they
have contributed a huge amount to Linux. But in their current license they
are the "bad guys". If mother Teresa commited a murder, that murder would
not wipe out the vast amount of good she had done, but it would still make
her into a "bad guy" with respect to that murder. Similarly Redhat is a
"bad guy" for their "Subscription agreement".

Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> writes:

>On 2005-10-10, Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't buy that argument one bit, since (IANAL, but) the GPL
>>> explains that a derived work is a work that *modifies* the original
>>> work.
>>
>> GPLv2 actually _doesn't_ even attempt to define "derivative work":  It
>> can't.

>Good point.  What I should have written is that the relevant section of
>the GPL (section 2) applies to modified copies of the Program.  But I
>think the GPL FAQ gives a much better idea of my meaning than I could:

>http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation

>Note especially the last paragraph, which pretty much shoots down Bill's
>theory.  (Of course, he's been shown this before, so seeing it again
>isn't likely to change his mind.)  I really doubt that FSF would support
>anyone who claimed that an entire linux distro is a combination of
>modules into one program.


Note the first paragraph. 
"Mere aggregation of two programs means putting them side by side on the
same CD-ROM or hard disk. We use this term in the case where they are
separate programs, not parts of a single program. In this case, if one of
the programs is covered by the GPL, it has no effect on the other program."

The last paragraph reads
"By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication
mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are
used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if
the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex
internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two
parts as combined into a larger program. "

Which is largely irrelevant to my argument. Of course I agree that A will
not affect B just because A and B can communicae with each other. The
question is one of relationship. 

My argument has a number of steps.

a) The distribution itself is a work. It is more than a compilation,
because Redhat goes to immense efforts in changing the programs (look at
the number of kernel patches they for example put in) to make the programs
fit together into the distribution. 

b) As a work it is a derivative work, of for example the kernel. Both
because of the efforts to tune and customize the kernel for the
distribution, and the efforts to ensure that the rest of the distro fits
together smoothly with the kernel and the intimate relationship between the
kernel and the distribution. 

c) As a derivative work, it must be released under the GPL (it is). 

d) Under the GPL no restrictions may be placed on anyone else's copying or
distributions  of the work.

e) Redhat places such restriction on the installation of their work onto
additional systems. 

f) As such Redhat is in violation of the GPL under which they copied and
altered the kernel. 

Peter T. Breuer wrote (in part):

> Because that argument rests on an assumption that has to be proved (that 
> the modified distro is yours, not theirs).  Moreover, plainly IMO you ARE
> using their distro - that you have removed their two logos does not alter
> that it's their distro.  Indeed you are specifically claiming that you
> are deriving a new work from theirs.  By copyright law (as applied to
> compilations), ipso facto you have no right to redistribute without 
> explicit permission.  The document you referenced may provide that 
> permission - I don't know, not having read it - but if so one would have 
> to ask with what authority it does so, and in a contest between that 
> permission and the licence you accepted, which one wins.
> 
Of course, we _know_ which one wins: the lawyers. 8-(

-- 
  .~.  Jean-David Beyer          Registered Linux User 85642.
  /V\  PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A         Registered Machine   241939.
 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey    http://counter.li.org
 ^^-^^ 21:40:00 up 1 day, 20:01, 3 users, load average: 4.14, 4.21, 4.15

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:04:24 -0400, Rick Moen wrote:

> imotgm <imotgm_REM@invalid-yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> LIAR.
>> 
>> What do you call these?
> 
> Settle down, Junior.  Seek your emotional therapy elsewhere, please.

Junior? Hardly. Nothing emotional either. 

What you snipped, and what I was answering;

Go to the websites of Redhat, Mandriva or mandrake, Suse, Mepis, etc. See
the $ rates quoted. the free ones are the bug riddled test versions.

and;

Fine, I dont want the free CDs mailed to me, but what about ISO downloads.
No ISOs are available for download.

These statements are untrue. The OP lumped "Redhat, Mandriva or mandrake,
Suse, Mepis, etc." into a group, stated that "the free ones are the bug
riddled test versions.", and "No ISOs are available for download."

I used the example of SUSE because;

1. It was part of the stated group

2. It offers ISOs for both, an OSS free version, and an exact duplicate of
   its paid for version

3. The packages that do appear in the OSS version are the same ones that
   appear in the paid for version, and not "bug riddled test versions"
   somehow different from those charged for

4. All of the ISOs, are downloadable to anyone who choses to download
   them, free of any monetary charge

thus all of the parts, of the charges made, being untrue, are thereby
lies.
 
>> The purely OSS opensuse version is available on the same server under
>> the directory opensuse. Duh! It has the exact same software as the GM
>> cds, except there are none of the closed source apps that are on the
>> GMs.
> 
> As long as you're being picky, the term "closed source" is somewhat
> inaccurate.  I believe you mean either non-redistributable or
> proprietary.
>  Example:  The "xv" graphics utility is proprietary licensed, but may be
> lawfully distributed by anyone.  It may be _used_ only in non-commercial
> contexts without separate licensing.  Full source code is available, but
> it may not be forked/modified for any purpose by anyone.  Those
> restrictions are what make it proprietary rather than open source -- but
> it _is_ redistributable.
> 
> One would not call the source code "closed" in the sense that every byte
> of it is accessible to public inspection -- but it is proprietary, in
> the sense that modifications / derivative works are forbidden, and there
> are restrictions on the type of use that are allowed.

Overly pedantic, and does not change the essence of the original
statement, in the context in which it was made.
 
>> There are similar .iso repository mirrors for all the major distros....
> 
> Really?  Show me the ones for Linspire and RHEL.

I'm sorry, I paint with a slightly broader brush, in this instance, than
you. Redhat does offer ISOs of RH-9 "shrike" still, as well as the
fedora labled releases. 

   ftp://ftp.planetmirror.com/pub/redhat/redhat-9/en/iso/i386

I did not state, nor did I imply, that every version of every distro was
available as a free download, only that they, the majors, maintained ISO
mirrors, which more than satisfy the requirements to again prove the OP's
statements, as stated above, to be unfounded. 

Please do not attempt to imply words and meanings, not my own, nor in
evidence, to that which you ascribe to me, while forming your rebuttals.

If you wish to be overly pedantic about it, I willingly modify my
statement to read "There are similar .iso repository mirrors for "most of"
the major distros.... if that pleases you.

Linspire, I downloaded, from their site, as a fully registered, not
stolen, but free of charge bittorrent ISO. If you want to say that doesn't
count, then the modification above takes care of that too.

-- 
imotgm   
       "Lost? Lost? I've never been lost... Been a tad confused for a
        month or two, but never lost."

Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:

(of RH licence)

> As have I.  My analysis has been on the Web for some years:
> http://linuxmafia.com/faq/RedHat/rhel-isos.html  (better reachable via
> my knowledgebase index as "RHEL ISOs" on http://linuxmafia.com/kb/RedHat/)

I'll have a look.


> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>> ...and in my opinion it was flat out in contradiction to the GPL ..

> Here you have triggered one of my personal peeves:  People use terms

That was a summary. I specified below.

>> (http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html?country=United+States&)

> And here you see your first problem:  These are the contractual terms
> for a _service agreement_. 

That is your characterization. What it says it is is:

    Subscription Agreement

    This Subscription Agreement (the "Agreement") is between Red Hat,
    Inc. ("Red Hat") and any purchaser or user ("Customer") of Red Hat
    products and services that accepts the terms of this Agreement
    ("Customer").

So it is an "agreement", not a licence, in title.  I agree.  But one
concerning "products", as well as services, so I think it's not quite OK
to say it is (only) a "service" agreement, on the face of it.  At any
rate, it is an agreement, hence you are bound by it, and it adds
restrictions to what you can do with GPLed software (which is the nub
of my argument), and I don't care whether you characterize it as a
licence or an agreement.

Moreover, the URL shows you it is in the RH LICENCES directory, so RH
seem to think it is a licence.

If you are tryingto say that it is really all about services, not about
installing software, well, groovy, that may be its intention but it
ain't what it says, if one looks, as I'll show below.


> If the customer doesn't meet those terms,
> then he/she doesn't lose entitlement to use the software in any way
> whatsoever; he/she merely loses service entitlement.

That's your characterization. The blurb actually says:

   The term "Installed Systems" means the number of Systems on which
   Customer installs or executes the Software. 

(nothing about services). And

   If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed System, then
   Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each
   additional Installed System.

So if you agree to this agreement, then you can't install "the
Software" (whatever that is) on more systems without paying Geld
for a corresponding number of Services. That's an encumbrance on
your GPL-given right to copy "the Software" where you like.

Now, I grant you that looking at this "agreement" anew, it certainly
seems to have changed from the last time I looked at it,and to be more
obviously about services. As such, I feel that the penalty for
breaking the agreement must indeed be "loss of services" (I haven't
checked). 

But that doesn't change the argument that the agreement limits what
you can do under the GPL - that it threatens you with something
silly (no services) as a penalty is neither here nor there.

> [quotations from the Service Agreement snipped]

>> Uh uh .. they just set "installs or executes" a sentence before. Now
>> they say "installed". Which is it? Does not compute. Error. Licence
>> void (IMO).

> Your error lies in assuming that what is limited is the service
> licensee's right to install the software.  In fact, what is limited is
> the licensee's right to install it _with a support contract_.

Show me where it says that. I read the definitions and quited them. It
said "install the Software". Not "install the Software with a support
contract".
 
>  But, of
> course, neither GPL nor any of the other constituent software's licences 
> obliges RH, Inc. (or anyone else) to fulfill a service contract.  So, RH
> declaring the customer to have voided his/her service entitlement

You are placing constructions on what they might have menat to have
said. They didn't say that. I agree they might have intended to, but
they didn't.

> doesn't constitute any sort of tort against copyright holders (what you
> misleadingly refer to as "infringing the GPL").

Those are the words I know.  I vaguely recall that a tort is a major
class of legal infraction. If you want to call "infringing the GPL" 
"a tort against the copyright holders", that is OK with me. What I see
is that it places restrictions on what can be done with GPL software
by the receiver of that software - it doesn't say that the penalty is
boo hoo we won't service your installation, it says you AGREE not to
do that.

>> Here's their GPL killer:
>> 
>>   4. REPORTING AND AUDIT. If Customer wishes to increase the number
>>   of Installed System, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat
>>   additional Services for each additional Installed System.

>> Uh uh. That's limiting the customer's rights to INSTALL (or execute, on
>> one reading) the Software [...]

> Same erroneous analysis and conclusion.

Where is the error?  It says what I said it says.  Your claiming it does
NOT say that needs a supporting argument, which you have not supplied.
Instead you have _claimed_ that instead of forbidding the customer from
doing something allowed by the GPL, it "really" only says "if you do
that, then we won't service any of the extra copies you made".  Well
tough - the Agreement does not say that.  You need to argue it.


> Now, you _might_ try to convince a judge that RH, Inc. had violated the
> copyrights of Torvalds, Cox, Miller, Stallman, et alii, if you could 
> show that RH, Inc. had at some point had hauled a licensee into court on
> that sort of contract-violation tort charge and successfully got
> monetary damages

So they actually have to sue somebody before they can be sued back?
Well, so if upholding the terms of their agreement in court makes them
liable for a court action, it seems to me that they are in the wrong
with regard to their agreement!

> -- on a rather thin theory that substantively RH had
> failed to pass on rights they'd promised upstream copyright holders to 
> transmit to any recipient.

That "thin theory" is based on the fact that the agreement says they
can't install the software again without paying for each extra copy.
Your argument is presumably that the penalty for tossing their agreement
into the bin and going ahead anyway is that they won't service any of the
extra copies you make, but that isn't a barrier, simply a choice they
offer you, and a very reasonable one.

I agree - put that way, it looks as though the agreement is really
only meant to limit RHs duties in regard to servicing installations of
RHEL. The trouble is "it doesn't say that".

>   Your lesser obstacle would be the complete and total lack of any
>   such tort case.

Why  is it not enough that the agreement limits your rights to install
the software (lterally, never mind that you claim they intended to say
"and still have it serviced by us") for their right to distribute the
software under GPL to be abrogated? Thus putting them in breach f
copyright against the originall authors.

> Your bigger obstacle would be that neither GPLv2 nor any of the other
> copyleft licenses you might wish to cite at this point actually say
> anything about guaranteeing recipients the right to _use_ software.

It doesn't matter since INSTALLATION and COPYING is the issue, not USE.
I haven't mentioned use at all (except to note that the RH definitions
at one stage use "install or execute" and at another use only
"install").

>   According to the Wall Street Journal, an attorney for SCO, Mark Heise,
>   said the company would contest that the users and distributors of GPL
>   licensed software were permitted to make copies. He based this on a
>   reading of the Copyright Act which allows licensees of computer
>   software to make one copy for backup or archival purposes.

>   "It seemed to me," Moglen told us on Saturday, "the responsible thing
>   is to ask if he'd even said such a thing." Moglen says he emailed Heise
>   to check if he had been misquoted. Why?

>   "It's moonshine! The Copyright Act doesn't set limitations on what the
>   copyright holder can do. But because you can make one copy, that
>   doesn't mean there's no way you can make multiple copies. The wording is
>   crystal clear. It is not an infringement."

I understand none of this. It appears to me that there is a missing
NOT in the statement by Heise, as the simplest repair required to make
sense. Or maybe "contest" does not mean "oppose" in your language!

Perhaps Moglen is pointing out that "permitted to make one" does not
say "prohibited to make more than one".  And perhaps Heise is saying
"permitted to make one" is "not permitted to make many".  That all makes
sense too.

>>   3.  You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
>>   under Section 2) in object code or executable form ...
>> 
>> and the GPL also says that you (RH) can't abridge those rights:

> And apparently you haven't noticed that the Service Agreement doesn't
> anywhere purport to abridge those rights.

I quoted it to you. You can't say it didn't. If you make such an
outlandish statement you must take the quote I quoted and show how it
does not say what I said it said.
 
>   Quod erat demonstrandum.

You cannot argue like this!  To prove something you have to move in
logical steps from a hypothesis to a conclusion.  You cannot state your
conclusion without the steps and say "QED"!

>> Hence I would say that RH licence is in violation of GPL in respect of
>> the GPL parts of their distribution. 

> I'd say your logic has holes big enough to drive a lorry through.

I'd say that it doesn't. If there are holes, point to them. I quoted
the evidence and gave the reasoning. Now you get to either contradict
the evidence or the reasoning. You haven't.

>> Maybe. I don't know. But Bill can argue if you ask him to. I suspect
>> that his contention is that everything on the distro "fits together
>> specially", rather like Microsoft argued that IE was integral to their
>> distro.

> If he does, then he faces the horrendous problem that he's just alleged
> that all Linux distributions with old-BSD or MPLed or ASL-licensed
> software has been in a state of licence conflict since day one.  Which
> is absurd.

That doesn't follow - many distros are just selections, without
special alterations. Slackware, for example.

>>> For the salient caselaw in the USA court system (if interested), see
>>> Feist v. Rural Telephone.
>> 
>> Oh, I agree. But is the compilation GPLed!

> <sigh>  That happens to be irrelevant to the discussion

It's relevant to Bill's argument, as it's a stage in his argument.

> "compilation" is a separate copyright property distinct from the
> components within it -- but, in the case of RH's distributions since
> early days, yes, they have always put a statement in the root directory
> that they are licensing whatever compilation property they own under
> GPLv2 terms.

Aha. I wonder what the source is. 

Peter

Michael Heiming <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:
> What exactly stops me from taking the steps and redistributing it
> as "Michael's Clue-stick Linux (MCL)"? It's a work under GPL,
> allowing me as the GPL allows you and anyone else.

You would have to show that you did it without copying the compilation
(absent further permissions).  That would presumably require a chinese
wall kind of arrangement at the very least.

But it's moot, as Rick tells me that the compilation itself is GPL.
You can (i.e.  have permission to) copy and modify it once you have
received it.

> Probably, but they are not the bad guys as some would like to
> believe here.

Appears so.

Peter

Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:

>> Because that argument rests on an assumption that has to be proved (that
>> the modified distro is yours, not theirs).

> Error #1:  assuming that a distribution can be fruitfully regarded as a
> single copyright property.

There is no error.  I mean the selection of software normally "the
compilation". I might also additionally mean the selection of the
configuration of that software, and the selection of the patches to
apply to it.

>> By copyright law (as applied to compilations), ipso facto you have no
>> right to redistribute without explicit permission.

> Error #2:  fundamentally misunderstanding (and then misstating) the
> nature of compilation copyrights.

No error. Copyright is copyright -  you can't copy the thing that the
author has copyright over. 

God, you're annoying.

Peter

Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:

> Similarly Redhat is a "bad guy" for their "Subscription agreement".

(Same old broken record.)

Something that might not have occurred to you:  _If_ so, so what?  RH's
service agreement is, in fact, not obligatory -- _if_ you can find
someone willing to make a CD-set copy for you free of charge (which act
is entirely lawful):

Although RHEL is very much not _my_ preference in distributions, I
happen to have media for RHEL 3 and 4 on various supported
architectures.  If you happened to be in my area and I happened to like
you, I might well be willing to make duplicates for you, as a favour.
And no, I have no special desire to post ISOs on my ftp/Web server for
the public, because I pay for my bandwidth and, although the machine and
the line have survived repeated slashdotting, I'd rather that not happen
avoidably.  I suspect that untold others have come to the same assessment.

Dislike the fact that nobody in your neighbourhood feels like doing that
for you?  Sucks to be you, I guess -- but it leaves an utter mystery
how you or anyone else has been wronged in this picture (unless of
course one grants your rubbish about everything provided on Linux
distribution media automatically therefore being "derivative works" of
the Linux kernel, which I certainly do not).

Meanwhile, 100% of the software contents of those disks _is_ open source
and fully available from Red Hat, Inc. in SRPM form at its expense, just
as the two proprietary packages are available in SRPM form at its
expense.  And yet you call them "bad" because they don't do _even more_ 
at their expense, and because they bundle a service contract with
instances of their distribution that they hawk to the corporate world.

Sorry, I'm no huge fan of RH, Inc., but that's pretty ridiculous.

Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:

> There is no error.  I mean the selection of software normally "the
> compilation". I might also additionally mean the selection of the
> configuration of that software, and the selection of the patches to
> apply to it.

OK.  Please pardon my being watchful for people inventing imaginary
omnibus properties in these discussions, concocting bogus owners for
them, and the rushing to unwarranted conclusions.  It happens pretty
much all the time, in these discussions.  I do regret any offence.

The important thing to remember is that a compilation copyright has
nothing to do with rights concerning the components.  It exists solely
as judicial reification of someone's arrangement and selection _of_
those components.

[compilation copyrights:]

> No error. Copyright is copyright -  you can't copy the thing that the
> author has copyright over. 

Maybe, but all one would have to do (in the case of an obstructive party
who credibly claims compilation copyright) is make some minor changes to
the arrangement / selection.  For example, despite the OpenBSD
Foundation's insistance that nobody may lawfully redistribute OpenBSD
images and is obliged to buy same directly from them (on grounds of the
Foundation's claimed compilation copyright), people who prefer not to do
so can lawfully download the "unofficial" ISOs from
ftp://ftp.zedz.net/pub/ .

> God, you're annoying.

You flatterer.  ;->

Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> writes:

>Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:

>> Similarly Redhat is a "bad guy" for their "Subscription agreement".

>(Same old broken record.)

>Something that might not have occurred to you:  _If_ so, so what?  RH's
>service agreement is, in fact, not obligatory -- _if_ you can find
>someone willing to make a CD-set copy for you free of charge (which act
>is entirely lawful):

What kind of argument it this? I decide to buy the software from redhat for
whatever reason (eg I want to support redhat because of all they have done
for Linux). They state that they are selling me the software only if I
agree to their subscription agreement. That subscription agreement violates
teh GPL. Of course I could have done something else. I could have installed
Mandrake instead for example. The fact that I could have done something
else does ot lessen Redhat's culpability in the case that I bought from
them. 

Your honour I could have gone for a walk beside the river instead of
murdering that man. Thus I should be allowed to go free since there is
nothing illegal about walking beside the river. 



>Although RHEL is very much not _my_ preference in distributions, I
>happen to have media for RHEL 3 and 4 on various supported
>architectures.  If you happened to be in my area and I happened to like
>you, I might well be willing to make duplicates for you, as a favour.

I don;t want it, thanks anyway.

>And no, I have no special desire to post ISOs on my ftp/Web server for
>the public, because I pay for my bandwidth and, although the machine and
>the line have survived repeated slashdotting, I'd rather that not happen
>avoidably.  I suspect that untold others have come to the same assessment.

>Dislike the fact that nobody in your neighbourhood feels like doing that
>for you?  Sucks to be you, I guess -- but it leaves an utter mystery
>how you or anyone else has been wronged in this picture (unless of
>course one grants your rubbish about everything provided on Linux
>distribution media automatically therefore being "derivative works" of
>the Linux kernel, which I certainly do not).

>Meanwhile, 100% of the software contents of those disks _is_ open source
>and fully available from Red Hat, Inc. in SRPM form at its expense, just
>as the two proprietary packages are available in SRPM form at its
>expense.  And yet you call them "bad" because they don't do _even more_ 
>at their expense, and because they bundle a service contract with
>instances of their distribution that they hawk to the corporate world.

No, I call them bad because they force those that DO buy from them into a
agreement which violates the GPL. I feel that the status of Linux is harmed
for all by that kind of behaviour from one of the largest distributors of
Linux. They are saying by their actions that the terms of the GPL are null
and void, that they are optional and anyone who does not like one or the
other of the terms can ignore it. That position harms me,
 as well as those directly affected by their agreement. 

IF what they bundled was a service contract, then I would have absolutely
no argument with them. They are clearly withing their rights to do whatever
they wish with their service contracts. But they do not. They limit the
rights of people who buy their distribution beyond what the GPL allows.
That is what bothers me ( almost as much as the fact that so many people do
not care that they do so.) Were SCO to put forth this contract, everyone
would be jumping up and down in anger and horror. 





>Sorry, I'm no huge fan of RH, Inc., but that's pretty ridiculous.

Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> writes:

>Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:

>> There is no error.  I mean the selection of software normally "the
>> compilation". I might also additionally mean the selection of the
>> configuration of that software, and the selection of the patches to
>> apply to it.

>OK.  Please pardon my being watchful for people inventing imaginary
>omnibus properties in these discussions, concocting bogus owners for
>them, and the rushing to unwarranted conclusions.  It happens pretty
>much all the time, in these discussions.  I do regret any offence.

>The important thing to remember is that a compilation copyright has
>nothing to do with rights concerning the components.  It exists solely
>as judicial reification of someone's arrangement and selection _of_
>those components.

Agreed. I would argue that the Redhat distribution goes beyond a mere
compilation copyright, precisely because of the originality and the
alteration of the components that make up the distribution. Not all of
them. I contend that this is sufficient to make the distribution an
original work in its own right (Just as a collage would be especially one
where the artist drew mustaches and funny hats onto the pictures of others
he included in the work). 



>[compilation copyrights:]

>> No error. Copyright is copyright -  you can't copy the thing that the
>> author has copyright over. 

>Maybe, but all one would have to do (in the case of an obstructive party
>who credibly claims compilation copyright) is make some minor changes to
>the arrangement / selection.  For example, despite the OpenBSD
>Foundation's insistance that nobody may lawfully redistribute OpenBSD
>images and is obliged to buy same directly from them (on grounds of the
>Foundation's claimed compilation copyright), people who prefer not to do
>so can lawfully download the "unofficial" ISOs from
>ftp://ftp.zedz.net/pub/ .

Except that I believe that the distributions are more than simply
compilations. They are works in their own right. 
They are fuzzy and certainly with many of the components of the distro,
they are there purely as compilation. But with for example the kernel,
because of the extensive changes made to the kernel, the relation between
the distro and the kernel is more than compilation. It is a separate
derivative work.



>> God, you're annoying.

>You flatterer.  ;->

Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:

> Of course that is what "in violation of the GPL" means--

First of all, I was writing that to Peter, not you.  (Where exactly do
you get off stating what Peter means?)  Second, you seem to be going far
out of your way to ignore the point that I was making to Peter -- not to
you -- that such language obscures and confuses the actual, concrete
legal issue and the relationship between the parties.

If you think that the identity of the property in question, and of the
relationship and identity of the parties isn't vital to correctly
understanding copyright issues, I won't be the least bit surprised --
and yet it is.

> Lets concentrate on the kernel, for want of anything more obvious.

Great.  Let's concentrate on the kernel.

Red Hat offers no impediment against customers (or anyone else) giving
(or selling!) copies of that kernel in either source or binary form to
any party whatsoever.

So, please remind me:  What kernel copyright infringement are you speaking of?

> I am sorry, it is not a "Service Agreement" it is a ilicense (note the term
> in the url you have posted below) or a "Subscription Agreement" as the very
> top of the agreement states.

Please don't pay word games with me, little man.  I was speaking of what
it _is_, not the title at the top.

> One of the first questions is what in the hell a Subscription
> Agreement is.

As my friend Richard Couture says, I'm sorry to hear about _your problem_.
But RH, Inc.'s compliance with its obligations doesn't hinge on whether
you understand documents RH, Inc. writes.

So, please remind me:  What kernel copyright infringement are you speaking of?

> This seems to me unambiguous as the software NOT the service (mentioned in
> the previous paragraph) and also uses the term "subscription" as applied to
> the software, not the service. Ie, this Subscription Agreement applies to
> the software Not the Services alone. 

I think it clear that you're mistaken.  But, regardless, I'm still
waiting for the part where you show me kernel copyright infringement.

> Under the GPL, Redhat CANNOT impose conditions on your installing the
> software on other systems.

Oh really?  Assuming your interpretation of the Subscription Agreemnent
is correct, what specific obligation within GPLv2 concerning the kernel
has RH, Inc. violated?   What do you think would happen if some RH audit
team found that a customer had violated the terms of that agreement?  
Do you think they would be able to prevent redistribution, or even
attempt to do so?  I can guess to a near certainty:  Their service
entitlement would be curtailed or cancelled.  RH, Inc. would not be
legally _able_ to prevent additional deployment (let alone
redistribution), even if it wanted to.

I notice you do not bother to talk about such specifics, but instead wave
your arms wildly about this-and-that being prohibited "under the GPL".
Does that bother you?  It should, because you've concealed a lot of bad
assumptions and conceptual errors under that sloppy thinking.


> This is called argument by blatant assertion. If you repeat a lie often
> enough that does not make it the truth.

Little cheeky anonymous man, are you rudely butting into my conversation
with Peter in order to _call me a liar_?



>>> Oh, I agree. But is the compilation GPLed!
> 
> You say you read the license. I do not think you have. Let me quote
> 
> "LICENSE AGREEMENT AND LIMITED PRODUCT WARRANTY RED HAT� ENTERPRISE LINUX�
> AND RED HAT� APPLICATIONS

They have indeed changed it since RH9 days, and I'd forgotten that they
had replaced the simple compilation-copyright-GPL statement with that
new one.  But it says (copying directly from my _own_ CDs, which I don't
bring out often because I don't really _like_ RHEL):

    With the exception of certain image files identified in Section 
    2 below, the license terms for the components permit Customer 
    to copy, modify, and redistribute the component, in both source 
    code and binary code forms. 

And there you go.  

So, please remind me:  What kernel copyright infringement are you speaking of?

It would be unpleasant to call you grossly rude and a bit of a loon, so
I'll just stop at:  profoundly mistaken.

Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:

> So it is an "agreement", not a licence, in title.  I agree.  But one
> concerning "products", as well as services, so I think it's not quite OK
> to say it is (only) a "service" agreement, on the face of it.

Agreed that it talks about, and has conditions concerning, products.
But it's a contract for maintenance updates and technical support.

> At any rate, it is an agreement, hence you are bound by it....

You're bound to it (_to the extent of contract_) if you become a party to
that agreement.  But say you come over to my house and I duplicate 5 CDs
of RHEL 4.0 x86_64.  (Actually, I currently couldn't duplicate CD#1 for
you, because it's cracked, but that's just an indication of how seldom I 
bother to pull out the blasted thing.)  Then, you are not a party to it.

But let's continue with your hypothetical:

> ...and it adds restrictions to what you can do with GPLed software
> (which is the nub of my argument)...

No.  It says that, if you do those things, you have violated the terms
of the Subscription Agreement.  And what do you think they'd be able to
do then?  Get a restraining order against you installing onto more
machines?  Fat chance.  Nope.  All they'd be able to do is end or reduce
your service entitlement.

> So if you agree to this agreement, then you can't install "the
> Software" (whatever that is) on more systems without paying Geld
> for a corresponding number of Services.

Yes, you can.  You're merely not carrying out your end of a
"Subscription Agreement" if you do, and might be subject to its
cancellation or curtailment.

>> Your error lies in assuming that what is limited is the service
>> licensee's right to install the software.  In fact, what is limited is
>> the licensee's right to install it _with a support contract_.
> 
> Show me where it says that.

It doesn't _need_ to say that.  It has no power over your right to install
the software as you please, which was separately conveyed by the
licences of the software packages themselves.

> You are placing constructions on what they might have menat to have
> said. They didn't say that.

It doesn't matter:  Even if they wanted to imposed some more drastic
penalty, they have no power to do so.

> Those are the words I know.  I vaguely recall that a tort is a major
> class of legal infraction.

A tort is a business wrong in civil (as opposed to criminal) wrong.
But _that's not the point_.  The point is that GPL is not a law, which is 
what you make it sound like when you speak of someone "infringing" it.
It is a set of license terms granted to others by a copyright holder.  
So, the only thing that can be infringed is the owner's property rights,
if you attempt to use it in an unlicensed fashion.  That is called
"copyright infringement".  (The fact that in legal jargon it's within a
category called "torts" is beside the point.)

> So they actually have to sue somebody before they can be sued back?

A copyright infringer can be (successfully) sued if he/she violates
plaintiff's copyright.  That requires showing that defendent did
something _clearly violating_ his/her licence terms.  Just running up in
front of a judge and saying "These guys induced a bunch of customers to 
sign a contract that made them _feel_ as if they couldn't fully exercise
their rights" would merely get you bounced out of court on your ass.

> It doesn't matter since INSTALLATION and COPYING is the issue, not USE.

Sorry, those rights aren't actually curtailed, it seems to me.  See above.

Anyhow, I apologise if I've failed to do your post justice, but it's
late for me, I'm tired, and I'm still fighting a headcold.  (Grr.  ;-> )

-- 
Cheers,               Chip Salzenberg: "Usenet is not a right."
Rick Moen            Edward Vielmetti: "Usenet is a right, a left, a jab,
rick@linuxmafia.com                     and a sharp uppercut to the jaw.
                                        The postman hits!  You have new mail."

Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:

"Unruh", I'm afraid I'm going to be short of time, so I'm obliged to try
to zero in on whatever's central to your post.  Take that however you
will.  If I don't do your post justice, it's not intended as any sort of
personal slight.  It's just lack of time.

[your quotations from GPL FAQ:]

I've very familiar with Richard's opinions / wishes about what does and
does not constitute a derivative work.  (Hey, I've had him over as a
house guest, several times.)  But you're best advised to not rely on
that to gain an understanding of the legal concept.

> My argument has a number of steps.
> 
> a) The distribution itself is a work.

I deny the premise.  Further:

> b) As a work it is a derivative work, of for example the kernel.

Non sequitur.

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 00:36:32 -0400, Rick Moen wrote:
> Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
[...]
>> I am sorry, it is not a "Service Agreement" it is a ilicense (note the
>> term in the url you have posted below) or a "Subscription Agreement" as
>> the very top of the agreement states.
> 
> Please don't pay word games with me, little man.

Coming from you, that disrespect surprised me.

> I was speaking of what it _is_, not the title at the top.

The point is that the agreement - whatever it is intended to be -
simultaneously licences a collective work (and most of the component
works) under the GPL, yet restricts rights to (a) copy - by restricting
personal installation - and (b) distribute - by commercial trademark
barriers - that work in a manner contradictory to the GPL (paragraph 4).

After reading through the RedHat agreement I concur with the reasoning of
PTB in his post with ID <ulfq13-hdv.ln1@news.it.uc3m.es>.

Now point (a) is pretty straightforward, but (b) wrt commercial
distribution is more tenuous and depends partly on the answer to the
questions: 
* as PTB has raised: what is the "source code" for a collective
work such as a distribution? 
* is it consistent with the GPL to distribute under that licence a
collection in which not all of the components themselves are licenced
under the GPL?

I would argue that this is only the case where the collected items are
unencumbered to the extent that they are at least as freely
_redistributable_ as under the GPL - the ability to modify, copy and
distribute a collection of necessity depends on the ability to rearrange
and redistribute that which it aggregates.  This ability is not present
when trademark law is used to limit commercial redistribution of certain
components - as RedHat is doing with its "GPL distribution".

[...]
>> You say you read the license. I do not think you have. Let me quote
>> 
>> "LICENSE AGREEMENT AND LIMITED PRODUCT WARRANTY RED HAT� ENTERPRISE
>> LINUX� AND RED HAT� APPLICATIONS
> 
> They have indeed changed it since RH9 days, and I'd forgotten that they
> had replaced the simple compilation-copyright-GPL statement with that
> new one.  But it says (copying directly from my _own_ CDs, which I don't
> bring out often because I don't really _like_ RHEL):
> 
>     With the exception of certain image files identified in Section 2
>     below, the license terms for the components permit Customer to copy,
>     modify, and redistribute the component, in both source code and
>     binary code forms.
> 
> And there you go.
> 
> So, please remind me:  What kernel copyright infringement are you
> speaking of?

Right, there's no argument that the "licence/service
agreement/subscription agreement" is badly conflicted.  e.g. in Appendix
1, p1 it states:

"With the exception of certain image files identified in Section 2 below,
the license terms for the components permit Customer to copy, modify, and
redistribute the component, in both source code and binary code forms."

So it's OK to unconditionally install all components (excepting the image
files) on an additional system by Appendix 1, but not to install an
additional "System" without payment by Section 4 of "General Terms and
Conditions".  A very subtle and largely meaningless distinction.

I agree with you that this document probably should be a service
agreement, but its wording is very confused and lacking and currently
that's _not_ what it is.  It is blatantly in contradiction of the GPL.

-- 
http://members.dodo.com.au/~netocrat

Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:

> What kind of argument it this?

Among the very classiest; thanks for asking.

> I decide to buy the software from redhat for whatever reason (eg I
> want to support redhat because of all they have done for Linux). They
> state that they are selling me the software only if I agree to their
> subscription agreement. That subscription agreement violates teh GPL. 

Unsupported assertion and vague terminology "violates the GPL" noted in
passing without further comment.

> No, I call them bad because they force those that DO buy from them
> into a agreement which violates the GPL.

Unsupported assertion and vague terminology "violates the GPL" noted in
passing without further comment.

Don't you ever get tired of that?

> They limit the rights of people who buy their distribution beyond what
> the GPL allows.

I deny the premise.

Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:

> Agreed. I would argue that the Redhat distribution goes beyond a mere
> compilation copyright, precisely because of the originality and the
> alteration of the components that make up the distribution. Not all of
> them. I contend that this is sufficient to make the distribution an
> original work in its own right

Er, not really.  Each constituent individual codebase has its own terms,
including those that RH modifies.  Some, of course, are owned by them;
most are not.

Envisioning a "work in its own right" comprising all of those things
mixed up in a stew together really doesn't get you anywhere as to legal
considerations; a court isn't going to recognise such an entity, if only
because assessing ownership of particular codebases is cleaner and is 
the way ownerships actually _do_ break down in the real world.

Netocrat <netocrat@dodo.com.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 00:36:32 -0400, Rick Moen wrote (replying to "Unruh"):

>> Please don't pay word games with me, little man.
> 
> Coming from you, that disrespect surprised me.

Oh, I was just getting warmed up.  Further on, this ill-mannered
stranger had the unbelievable temerity to accuse me of dishonesty!  My
civility often gets immediately cut to the utter bare minimum in such
situations.  Deal.

By the way, I notice you _too_ are cutting in on a conversation I had
suddenly (and somewhat unwillingly) found myself in, that one with
"Unruh".  And I notice that, like him, you are not bothering to post
using _your actual name_, and yet you (too) are presuming to make
personally critical comments about someone who does. 

That's more than a bit _low_ as a standard of conduct, in my view, but
maybe it doesn't bother you.

> The point is that the agreement - whatever it is intended to be -
> simultaneously licences a collective work....

Er, no, that's a key point:  It does not.  Analysis posted separately.

>> So, please remind me:  What kernel copyright infringement are you
>> speaking of?
> 
> Right, there's no argument that the "licence/service
> agreement/subscription agreement" is badly conflicted. 

I notice that, even though you're butting in, you're ignoring my
question.  OK.

> I agree with you that this document probably should be a service
> agreement, but its wording is very confused and lacking and currently
> that's _not_ what it is.

I _will_ agree that it gives every appearance of being a canny device
for fooling purchasers into thinking they cannot exercise rights that in
fact they certainly can. 

> It is blatantly in contradiction of the GPL.

That continues to be a meaningless phrase, as it was when that rude
little guy used it.  And I note that you, also, apparently cannot cite
exactly what kernel copyright infringement "Unruh" was speaking of.

In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es>:
> Michael Heiming <michael+USENET@www.heiming.de> wrote:
>> What exactly stops me from taking the steps and redistributing it
>> as "Michael's Clue-stick Linux (MCL)"? It's a work under GPL,
>> allowing me as the GPL allows you and anyone else.

> You would have to show that you did it without copying the compilation
> (absent further permissions).  That would presumably require a chinese
> wall kind of arrangement at the very least.

> But it's moot, as Rick tells me that the compilation itself is GPL.
> You can (i.e.  have permission to) copy and modify it once you have
> received it.

Correct, as stated by:

[ http://www.redhat.com/f/pdf/corp/trademark1.pdf ]

"As a licensee under the GPL and other applicable copyright
licenses, you may replicate the software contained in Red Hat?
Linux? or Red Hat? Enterprise Linux?, whether downloaded from an
FTP site or other electronic download site or copied from a CD
originally produced by Red Hat, and may market the replicated
product in accordance with the terms of the copyright licenses."

>> Probably, but they are not the bad guys as some would like to
>> believe here.

> Appears so.

;)

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 430: Mouse has out-of-cheese-error

In comp.os.linux.misc Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>:
> Netocrat <netocrat@dodo.com.au> wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 00:36:32 -0400, Rick Moen wrote (replying to "Unruh"):

[..]

> By the way, I notice you _too_ are cutting in on a conversation I had
> suddenly (and somewhat unwillingly) found myself in, that one with
> "Unruh".  And I notice that, like him, you are not bothering to post
> using _your actual name_, and yet you (too) are presuming to make
> personally critical comments about someone who does. 

Here you go wrong, I can assure you it's his real name, "Bill
Unruh", just try a google search (first hit). ;-)

-- 
Michael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
#bofh excuse 405: Sysadmins unavailable because they are in
a meeting talking about why they are unavailable so much.

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 01:10:07 -0400, Rick Moen wrote:
> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
[...]
>> At any rate, it is an agreement, hence you are bound by it....
> 
> You're bound to it (_to the extent of contract_) if you become a party
> to that agreement.  But say you come over to my house and I duplicate 5
> CDs of RHEL 4.0 x86_64.  (Actually, I currently couldn't duplicate CD#1
> for you, because it's cracked, but that's just an indication of how
> seldom I bother to pull out the blasted thing.)  Then, you are not a
> party to it.

Again this meaningless argument?  Does the ability to choose not to engage
in a corrupt deal make the terms of the deal any less corrupt?

> But let's continue with your hypothetical:
> 
>> ...and it adds restrictions to what you can do with GPLed software
>> (which is the nub of my argument)...
> 
> No.  It says that, if you do those things, you have violated the terms
> of the Subscription Agreement.  And what do you think they'd be able to
> do then?

That's beside the point.  The terms of the Subscription Agreement violate
the terms of the GPL under which it is distributing most of its
products.  And your quibble that the phrase "violates the GPL" is
"vague" is dubious considering your use of a similar phrase in the above
paragraph.

[...]
>>> Your error lies in assuming that what is limited is the service
>>> licensee's right to install the software.  In fact, what is limited is
>>> the licensee's right to install it _with a support contract_.
>> 
>> Show me where it says that.
> 
> It doesn't _need_ to say that.  It has no power over your right to
> install the software as you please, which was separately conveyed by the
> licences of the software packages themselves.

Exactly the point - it is asserting and requiring the customer to agree to
a power that it does not have.

You are claiming that the licence is intended to be limited to maintenance
and support, and it would be possible to reword it in those terms, but
currently it is not.

[...]
> A copyright infringer can be (successfully) sued if he/she violates
> plaintiff's copyright.  That requires showing that defendent did
> something _clearly violating_ his/her licence terms.  Just running up in
> front of a judge and saying "These guys induced a bunch of customers to
> sign a contract that made them _feel_ as if they couldn't fully exercise
> their rights" would merely get you bounced out of court on your ass.

That may or may not be true, but it doesn't take away from the fact that
the contract is in contradiction to the terms of the GPL under which it is
distributing its products.

[...]
-- 
http://members.dodo.com.au/~netocrat

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 01:57:18 -0400, Rick Moen wrote:
> Netocrat <netocrat@dodo.com.au> wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 00:36:32 -0400, Rick Moen wrote (replying to "Unruh"):
> 
>>> Please don't pay word games with me, little man.
>> 
>> Coming from you, that disrespect surprised me.
> 
> Oh, I was just getting warmed up.  Further on, this ill-mannered
> stranger had the unbelievable temerity to accuse me of dishonesty!  My
> civility often gets immediately cut to the utter bare minimum in such
> situations.  Deal.
> 
> By the way, I notice you _too_ are cutting in on a conversation I had
> suddenly (and somewhat unwillingly) found myself in, that one with
> "Unruh".  

This is a threaded public forum - my contribution doesn't block your
conversation with anyone else.  But perhaps I'm missing some netiquette. 
Enlighten me if that's the case.

> And I notice that, like him, you are not bothering to post
> using _your actual name_, 

I don't see what relevance it has to what I have to say.  We live on
opposite sides of the world.  Given that I'm doing nothing illegal and (I
hope) nothing immoral, a consistent pseudonym is as good a means of
identifying myself to you on the internet as any other.

> and yet you (too) are presuming to make
> personally critical comments about someone who does.  That's more than a
> bit _low_ as a standard of conduct, in my view, but maybe it doesn't
> bother you.

From what I've observed you generally make an effort at diplomacy and
civility.  I wasn't intending to be self-righteous, I was remarking that
your behaviour seemed uncharacteristic.  If you were typically insulting I
would have made no comment.

>> The point is that the agreement - whatever it is intended to be -
>> simultaneously licences a collective work....
> 
> Er, no, that's a key point:  It does not.  Analysis posted separately.

Appendix 1:

This agreement governs the use of the Software and any updates to the
Software, regardless of the delivery mechanism. The Software is a
collective work under U.S. Copyright Law. Subject to the following terms,
Red Hat, Inc. ("Red Hat") grants to the user ("Customer") a license to
this collective work pursuant to the GNU General Public License.

>>> So, please remind me:  What kernel copyright infringement are you
>>> speaking of?
>> 
>> Right, there's no argument that the "licence/service
>> agreement/subscription agreement" is badly conflicted. 
> 
> I notice that, even though you're butting in, you're ignoring my
> question.  OK.

I did not bring up the kernel copyright in the first place and that is not
what I wanted to respond to.  But since you've prompted my opinion on
that, the kernel is licenced under the GPL and since RedHat's
licence/agreement/whatever you want to call it contravenes the terms of
the GPL, it is prohibited from distributing the kernel (para 6 of the GPL).

>> I agree with you that this document probably should be a service
>> agreement, but its wording is very confused and lacking and currently
>> that's _not_ what it is.
> 
> I _will_ agree that it gives every appearance of being a canny device
> for fooling purchasers into thinking they cannot exercise rights that in
> fact they certainly can.

That's something we probably all agree on.

>> It is blatantly in contradiction of the GPL.
> 
> That continues to be a meaningless phrase, as it was when that rude
> little guy used it.  

GPL, paragraph 6: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the
recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein".  Inarguably this is
what RedHat's agreement does.  Yes, it could and should restrict the terms
within the context of service and maintenance, but it doesn't.

> And I note that you, also, apparently cannot cite
> exactly what kernel copyright infringement "Unruh" was speaking of.

See above.

-- 
http://members.dodo.com.au/~netocrat

Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> writes:

>Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:

>> Of course that is what "in violation of the GPL" means--

>First of all, I was writing that to Peter, not you.  (Where exactly do
>you get off stating what Peter means?)  Second, you seem to be going far
>out of your way to ignore the point that I was making to Peter -- not to
>you -- that such language obscures and confuses the actual, concrete
>legal issue and the relationship between the parties.

No you were making blanket statements about people who talk about Redhat
and the GPL.


>If you think that the identity of the property in question, and of the
>relationship and identity of the parties isn't vital to correctly
>understanding copyright issues, I won't be the least bit surprised --
>and yet it is.

>> Lets concentrate on the kernel, for want of anything more obvious.

>Great.  Let's concentrate on the kernel.

>Red Hat offers no impediment against customers (or anyone else) giving
>(or selling!) copies of that kernel in either source or binary form to
>any party whatsoever.

What has that to do with anything? Redhat also offers no impediment to my
buying coffee at starbucks. It is the relationship of the distribution,
which is what was being talked about by both Peter and me, to the kernel.


>So, please remind me:  What kernel copyright infringement are you speaking of?

The distribution is a derived work of the kernel. Thus the distribution
according to the GPL must also be GPL and cannot restrict copying or
distribution not only of the kernel but also of the distribution.
Redhat restricts it. Redhat is infringing the copyright on the kernel by
not abiding by the terms of the only license under which it uses the
kernel.




>> I am sorry, it is not a "Service Agreement" it is a ilicense (note the term
>> in the url you have posted below) or a "Subscription Agreement" as the very
>> top of the agreement states.

>Please don't pay word games with me, little man.  I was speaking of what
>it _is_, not the title at the top.

And you know this how? You guess it? Sheesh. An agreement is the words
which comprise it, not words that third parties want it to contain. 
It is NOT a service agreement. It very clearly refers to more than
"service".



>> One of the first questions is what in the hell a Subscription
>> Agreement is.

>As my friend Richard Couture says, I'm sorry to hear about _your problem_.
>But RH, Inc.'s compliance with its obligations doesn't hinge on whether
>you understand documents RH, Inc. writes.

??? Your problem is that you seem incapable of reading. Your preconceptions
alter the words from what they actually are. Could you please tell me what
a "Subscription Agreement" is? It is NOT a Service Agreement.



>So, please remind me:  What kernel copyright infringement are you speaking of?

>> This seems to me unambiguous as the software NOT the service (mentioned in
>> the previous paragraph) and also uses the term "subscription" as applied to
>> the software, not the service. Ie, this Subscription Agreement applies to
>> the software Not the Services alone. 

>I think it clear that you're mistaken.  But, regardless, I'm still
>waiting for the part where you show me kernel copyright infringement.

Argument by blatant assertion again. Are you really incapable of developing
an argument to support your case?



>> Under the GPL, Redhat CANNOT impose conditions on your installing the
>> software on other systems.

>Oh really?  Assuming your interpretation of the Subscription Agreemnent
>is correct, what specific obligation within GPLv2 concerning the kernel
>has RH, Inc. violated?   What do you think would happen if some RH audit
>team found that a customer had violated the terms of that agreement?  

See above. I have no idea what they would do. But they clearly spell out
your obligations. I assume that they would sue you for payment of
subscription purchases for each and every computer thatthe software was
installed on. That is what the agreement says you must do. That is your
obligation under the agreement and that is what they could come after you
for if you broke the agreement ( plus punitive damages and whatever else
their lawyers could dream up).


>Do you think they would be able to prevent redistribution, or even
>attempt to do so?  I can guess to a near certainty:  Their service

Whether they are able to or not, that is whatthey are trying to do.

>entitlement would be curtailed or cancelled.  RH, Inc. would not be
>legally _able_ to prevent additional deployment (let alone
>redistribution), even if it wanted to.

And you think that theirs is the first contract to demand things they are
legally unable to demand? That their agreement contains such terms is in
violation of the license under which they copy and supply the kernel.
That it may be unenforceable is irrelevant. 




>I notice you do not bother to talk about such specifics, but instead wave
>your arms wildly about this-and-that being prohibited "under the GPL".
>Does that bother you?  It should, because you've concealed a lot of bad
>assumptions and conceptual errors under that sloppy thinking.

And you do not bother to talk about the issues at all, you just make
blatant assertions in whatever location an argument is called for. 




>> This is called argument by blatant assertion. If you repeat a lie often
>> enough that does not make it the truth.

>Little cheeky anonymous man, are you rudely butting into my conversation
>with Peter in order to _call me a liar_?

Yes. And furthermore, you stated that you were awaiting my comments, so the
conversation contained me as well from the first. 





>>>> Oh, I agree. But is the compilation GPLed!
>> 
>> You say you read the license. I do not think you have. Let me quote
>> 
>> "LICENSE AGREEMENT AND LIMITED PRODUCT WARRANTY RED HAT� ENTERPRISE LINUX�
>> AND RED HAT� APPLICATIONS

>They have indeed changed it since RH9 days, and I'd forgotten that they
>had replaced the simple compilation-copyright-GPL statement with that
>new one.  But it says (copying directly from my _own_ CDs, which I don't
>bring out often because I don't really _like_ RHEL):

>    With the exception of certain image files identified in Section 
>    2 below, the license terms for the components permit Customer 
>    to copy, modify, and redistribute the component, in both source 
>    code and binary code forms. 

But the agreement is in contradiction to this. 



>And there you go.  

>So, please remind me:  What kernel copyright infringement are you speaking of?

>It would be unpleasant to call you grossly rude and a bit of a loon, so
>I'll just stop at:  profoundly mistaken.


Just where? You have made no argument at all as to where I am "grossly
mistaken" 

Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> writes:

>Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:

>> So if you agree to this agreement, then you can't install "the
>> Software" (whatever that is) on more systems without paying Geld
>> for a corresponding number of Services.

>Yes, you can.  You're merely not carrying out your end of a
>"Subscription Agreement" if you do, and might be subject to its
>cancellation or curtailment.

The subscription agreement is a limitation of what you can do with the
software. Any such limitation automatically cancels their right to use the
kernel amongst other things. They have no right to distribute their
distribution, or to make changes.
That they may or may not be able to enforce their contract is irrelevant. 


>>> Your error lies in assuming that what is limited is the service
>>> licensee's right to install the software.  In fact, what is limited is
>>> the licensee's right to install it _with a support contract_.
>> 
>> Show me where it says that.

>It doesn't _need_ to say that.  It has no power over your right to install
>the software as you please, which was separately conveyed by the
>licences of the software packages themselves.

?? Sheesh. Are you now agreeing that what the contract says is that it
limits your rights and is not soley a support contract? You seem to be in
that you are agreeing that it nowhere says it is a support contract. That
it may or may not be enforcable is irrelevant to what it is. 


>> You are placing constructions on what they might have menat to have
>> said. They didn't say that.

>It doesn't matter:  Even if they wanted to imposed some more drastic
>penalty, they have no power to do so.

>> Those are the words I know.  I vaguely recall that a tort is a major
>> class of legal infraction.

>A tort is a business wrong in civil (as opposed to criminal) wrong.
>But _that's not the point_.  The point is that GPL is not a law, which is 
>what you make it sound like when you speak of someone "infringing" it.

Again you are reading your own prejudices onto others statements. Noone,
not Peter, not me, has ever said that the GPL is law. It is a license. It
is an agreement with terms. Just as one can talk about infringing a patent
which means using the patent without the permission of the patent holder,
infringing a copyright is copying without the permission of the copyright
holder. And the GPL is the extent of the permission. And if you do not
comply with the terms of the GPL you are infringing the copyright. That is
what "infringing the GPL" means to me, and I assume means to Peter. (He
will undoubtedly let us know if this is not what he means, I am not worried
about that).


>It is a set of license terms granted to others by a copyright holder.  
>So, the only thing that can be infringed is the owner's property rights,
>if you attempt to use it in an unlicensed fashion.  That is called
>"copyright infringement".  (The fact that in legal jargon it's within a
>category called "torts" is beside the point.)

Yes, and that is preciselty what "infringe the GPL" is short for. It is
infringing the copyright by not abiding by the terms of the GPL.



>> So they actually have to sue somebody before they can be sued back?

>A copyright infringer can be (successfully) sued if he/she violates
>plaintiff's copyright.  That requires showing that defendent did
>something _clearly violating_ his/her licence terms.  Just running up in
>front of a judge and saying "These guys induced a bunch of customers to 
>sign a contract that made them _feel_ as if they couldn't fully exercise
>their rights" would merely get you bounced out of court on your ass.

No, they forced the customers to sign a contract which explicitly
restricted them in a way forbidden by the GPL, the only license by which
Redhat can use the kernel. 

Would I have standing in the court? Probably not, not least because I do
not use Redhat nor have I ever signed that license. But the question was
not whether or not Peter or I could sue redhat. the question was whether or
not Redhat by its Subscription Agreement was violating the terms of its
license, the GPL.



>> It doesn't matter since INSTALLATION and COPYING is the issue, not USE.

>Sorry, those rights aren't actually curtailed, it seems to me.  See above.

Again in blatant disregard of the explicit words of the agreement. 


>Anyhow, I apologise if I've failed to do your post justice, but it's
>late for me, I'm tired, and I'm still fighting a headcold.  (Grr.  ;-> )

Yes, it is obvious.

Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> writes:

>Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:

>"Unruh", I'm afraid I'm going to be short of time, so I'm obliged to try
>to zero in on whatever's central to your post.  Take that however you
>will.  If I don't do your post justice, it's not intended as any sort of
>personal slight.  It's just lack of time.

>[your quotations from GPL FAQ:]

>I've very familiar with Richard's opinions / wishes about what does and
>does not constitute a derivative work.  (Hey, I've had him over as a
>house guest, several times.)  But you're best advised to not rely on
>that to gain an understanding of the legal concept.

I have no idea what Richard's opinion is. I have met him only once when he
very rudely interrupted a conversation I was having with Rivest. 


>> My argument has a number of steps.
>> 
>> a) The distribution itself is a work.

>I deny the premise.  Further:

Fine. I assume by "premise" you mean the statement itself, since the
statement does not have a premise.
 Your argument in favour of that denial is? Oh that is right. You do
not give arguments. You make pronouncements. 


>> b) As a work it is a derivative work, of for example the kernel.

>Non sequitur.

Non-sequiter? of what? It is not a deduction, it is a statement. 

I was outlining the premises of my argument.

Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> writes:

>Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:

>> Agreed. I would argue that the Redhat distribution goes beyond a mere
>> compilation copyright, precisely because of the originality and the
>> alteration of the components that make up the distribution. Not all of
>> them. I contend that this is sufficient to make the distribution an
>> original work in its own right

>Er, not really.  Each constituent individual codebase has its own terms,
>including those that RH modifies.  Some, of course, are owned by them;
>most are not.

>Envisioning a "work in its own right" comprising all of those things
>mixed up in a stew together really doesn't get you anywhere as to legal
>considerations; a court isn't going to recognise such an entity, if only
>because assessing ownership of particular codebases is cleaner and is 
>the way ownerships actually _do_ break down in the real world.


Yes. So? An original work can contain, and be derived from subsidiary
works. A artisitic collage is an example. I can cut out photos from a
magazine and arrange them and enhance them so that the collage becomes a
work in its own right. It is NOT simply a collection of the pictures. It is
more. It is a work. It is a derived work since it derives from the
copyrighted works of others ( the magazine and its photographers). As such
it attracts copyright in its own right and it still maintains the copyright
of the magazine/photographers in their pictures which constitute the
collage. 

 

Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> writes:

>Netocrat <netocrat@dodo.com.au> wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 00:36:32 -0400, Rick Moen wrote (replying to "Unruh"):

>>> Please don't pay word games with me, little man.
>> 
>> Coming from you, that disrespect surprised me.

>Oh, I was just getting warmed up.  Further on, this ill-mannered
>stranger had the unbelievable temerity to accuse me of dishonesty!  My
>civility often gets immediately cut to the utter bare minimum in such
>situations.  Deal.

>By the way, I notice you _too_ are cutting in on a conversation I had
>suddenly (and somewhat unwillingly) found myself in, that one with
>"Unruh".  And I notice that, like him, you are not bothering to post
>using _your actual name_, and yet you (too) are presuming to make

And what do you think my name is? 

>personally critical comments about someone who does. 

And you also seem to have a strange view about netnews. These are public
discussions. If you wanted to have a private discussion with Peter, pls do
so via email



>That's more than a bit _low_ as a standard of conduct, in my view, but
>maybe it doesn't bother you.

>> The point is that the agreement - whatever it is intended to be -
>> simultaneously licences a collective work....

>Er, no, that's a key point:  It does not.  Analysis posted separately.

No it has not been posted anywhere until now. 



>>> So, please remind me:  What kernel copyright infringement are you
>>> speaking of?
>> 
>> Right, there's no argument that the "licence/service
>> agreement/subscription agreement" is badly conflicted. 

>I notice that, even though you're butting in, you're ignoring my
>question.  OK.

>> I agree with you that this document probably should be a service
>> agreement, but its wording is very confused and lacking and currently
>> that's _not_ what it is.

>I _will_ agree that it gives every appearance of being a canny device
>for fooling purchasers into thinking they cannot exercise rights that in
>fact they certainly can. 

>> It is blatantly in contradiction of the GPL.

>That continues to be a meaningless phrase, as it was when that rude
>little guy used it.  And I note that you, also, apparently cannot cite
>exactly what kernel copyright infringement "Unruh" was speaking of.

Stated elsewhere.  For your information, "contradiction to the GPL" means
that the terms of the agreement are in violation of the explicit obligations
that the GPL imposes on someone who copies a work licensed under the
GPL. 
"infringing on the GPL" means infringing on the copyright held by the
copyright holder by not abiding by the terms of the license granted in the
GPL. 

Now that you have had the terms defined for you, as in a legal document,
perhaps we can hear an argument from you.

HalcyonWild wrote:
> Hey, who is this flatfish. I am not flatfish. I never come across him
> but this is the first time i posted here. Seems like he is the most
> reviled person here. :)
> 
I apologize for jumping to the conclusion that you are Flatfish. In my 
defense, I had my suspicions even before Aragorn brought it up. Your 
posts fit Flatfish's pattern, if not precisely. The differences were 
small enough to suspect you, if you were he, had changed his tactics a 
bit to throw us off. Your subsequent posts are enough to now make me 
doubt that position. I am now on the fence as far as this is concerned.

> Yes I have tried Linux, rh 7. I tried mandrake 8 too, with its
> diskdruid partition manager. It was one of the best installs at that
> time. RH7 was a bit obfuscated though. Also, rh7 didnt work with my
> onboard sound card 815e, which Mandrake detected. And somehow, Ubuntu
> dint detect my sound card. I dont know why, but it did not play any
> sound. And I dint investigate further. I will try again though, as I
> posted earlier.
> I am a java programmer and I hardly ever have anything to do with Linux
> or windows running in the background. So, my knowledge about deep
> internals of OS is much less.
> Yes. let us stop this. I was hoping to get insights, I was mistaken. So
> much for that much talked about community support for linux. Thanks
> all. 
> I stop here.
> 
The folks here take swift umbrage at what they perceive to be attacks on 
their favorite OS. Those attacks have been almost constant in recent 
months, and they have become very gunshy. If you have not been on the 
attack, please forgive them. If you *have* been on the attack, then they 
were justified, don't you think?

I have used Mandrake/Mandriva since 2002, with a brief turn at Fedora 
about a year ago. As far as monetary cost is concerned, I haven't paid a 
cent for either. The cost I paid has been in the time spent learning 
what I needed to to get things working correctly. Sometimes those 
lessons have been painful. Life isn't always easy.

IMHO, Fedora is a developer's distro, good for those who want to be on 
the bleeding edge and who want to delve deep into the OS and tweak it 
into maximum performance. That wasn't for me. I now use Mandriva 2005 
Limited Edition(Limited meaning it was only to be available for a 
limited time). For those who don't want to have to do so much tweaking, 
it's the better choice of the two. Mandriva 2006 will be freely availabe 
to the public in a couple of weeks or so. Try it out - it's free!

BTW, the free Mandriva version does not include the proprietary Java 
software, because Mandriva must pay for a license to distribute it. 
However, Java for Linux is freely available to individuals from Sun.

TJ

I'll answer some of this now, although I have flu ...

Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Peter T. Breuer <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>> At any rate, it is an agreement, hence you are bound by it....

> You're bound to it (_to the extent of contract_) if you become a party to
> that agreement.  But say you come over to my house and I duplicate 5 CDs

You are trying to distinguish clearly a licence from a contract. I
don't know what you are allowed to do under the contract, but I was
under the impression that you couldn't redistribute RH cds per se
because of the trademark and non-GPL parts issue - but I am willing to
believe that there are exceptions listed (in what?) that give you
permission for this kind of thing.


>> ...and it adds restrictions to what you can do with GPLed software
>> (which is the nub of my argument)...

> No.  It says that, if you do those things, you have violated the terms
> of the Subscription Agreement.  And what do you think they'd be able to
> do then?  Get a restraining order against you installing onto more
> machines?  Fat chance.  Nope.  All they'd be able to do is end or reduce
> your service entitlement.

Well, you've broken the terms of the agreement. That doesn't seem to be
germane to the argument to me - the point as far as I see it is that the
agreement says you can't exercise your GPL-given right (in MY reading)
to install the software all over your house should you feel like it.
The agreement says you "WILL" buy one product from RH for each
installation. So exercising your GPL right to copy breaks the
agreement you signed (will you say that it is only in respect of the
copies, not the original?  But you didn't buy the copies from RH, just
the original).

So what is the status of an agreement not to exercise rights already
awarded to you, should yu wish to view it that way?  You are saying it
is not a restriction of those rights.  That seems to be sailing pretty
close to the wind to me!  To buy their product you HAVE to sign the
agreement, so their product comes with a "don't give me any of that GPL
baloney or else your money's confetti" sticker on it.

I would have thought that any contract that tried to abridge rights
already vested was null, for starters.  I am sure you can quote me the
law on that.


>> So if you agree to this agreement, then you can't install "the
>> Software" (whatever that is) on more systems without paying Geld
>> for a corresponding number of Services.

> Yes, you can.  You're merely not carrying out your end of a
> "Subscription Agreement" if you do, and might be subject to its
> cancellation or curtailment.

There you are - as I said, exercising your GPL-given rights makes your
money go poof.  Mind you, I suspect the intended result is only that
they won't support the copies, but then what are the threatened
audits for?


>>> Your error lies in assuming that what is limited is the service
>>> licensee's right to install the software.  In fact, what is limited is
>>> the licensee's right to install it _with a support contract_.
>> 
>> Show me where it says that.

> It doesn't _need_ to say that.

Sorry - I read what is said. I am prepared to make deductions from what
is said too. If it is not said, then it has to be deducible, or else it
is simply not so.
 
> It has no power over your right to install
> the software as you please, which was separately conveyed by the
> licences of the software packages themselves.

The agreement plainly said what installing the software resulted in (an
"installed System") and how many of those you could have per RH purchase
(one). So it seems to me that it SAYS it has the power. I don't know
how else it can say it!

>> You are placing constructions on what they might have menat to have
>> said. They didn't say that.

> It doesn't matter:  Even if they wanted to imposed some more drastic
> penalty, they have no power to do so.

So your position is that even if their "agreement" abrogates a right
given by the GPL, then you always have the choice of disregarding the
agreement - which at most loses you the support/service they promised,
nothing more.

I would thus have said that the agreement is potentially in conflict
with the GPL according to you, but that the consequences of this
(according to you) are nothing to be worried about, in that the GPL wins
and the agreement gets voided when push comes to shove.


> something _clearly violating_ his/her licence terms.  Just running up in
> front of a judge and saying "These guys induced a bunch of customers to 
> sign a contract that made them _feel_ as if they couldn't fully exercise
> their rights" would merely get you bounced out of court on your ass.

But they couldn't exercise their rights - not without losing RHs
services. 

Now, I believe I have heard of agreements that do this sort of thing.
We won't sue you if you don't sue us, sort of things. Even police plea
bargains, perhaps, are similar. The criminal agrees to waive his right
to remain silent in return for a lower sentence. If at trial he remains
silent despite the  agreement ... is he still entitled to the
remission? Not.

However, it seems to me that a RH contract saying that you can't
exercise your GPL right is not acceptable in the spirit of the GPL.
They didn't have to make an agreement that said that. They could simply
have written "you get support for one and only one installed copy of
the software for each boxed copy of RHEL you buy", and "you are free to
copy it around as much as you like, but the support don't go with the
copies". Instead they  said you "WILL" only install one copy for each
bought pack of RHEL.  That wording aounts to placing a restriction on
the rights awarded to you under the GPL via which they received the
bulk of their code, so their licence to that code is revoked, by the
GPL.

Never mind that business of "you can break their agreement" because it
has no force. There has to be a legal word describing this sort of
attempt to prevent you exercising your rights under the guise of an
agreement (with penalties).

Peter

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 01:21:27 +0200, Peter T. Breuer wrote:

> I'll answer some of this now, although I have flu ...

Avian, or Regular?

-- 
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

"Peter T. Breuer" <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> writes:

....


>>> So if you agree to this agreement, then you can't install "the
>>> Software" (whatever that is) on more systems without paying Geld
>>> for a corresponding number of Services.

>> Yes, you can.  You're merely not carrying out your end of a
>> "Subscription Agreement" if you do, and might be subject to its
>> cancellation or curtailment.

>There you are - as I said, exercising your GPL-given rights makes your
>money go poof.  Mind you, I suspect the intended result is only that
>they won't support the copies, but then what are the threatened
>audits for?

No. As per the agreement you have agreed that you will buy an extra copy
for each machine you install the program on. Thus, the minimum penalty they
can charge you according to the contract is the price of the distro times
the number of machines you have installed it on. They may well cancel your
service contract as well after they have collected that money from you for
breaking the terms of the contract. 


>>>> Your error lies in assuming that what is limited is the service
>>>> licensee's right to install the software.  In fact, what is limited is
>>>> the licensee's right to install it _with a support contract_.
>>> 
>>> Show me where it says that.

>> It doesn't _need_ to say that.

>Sorry - I read what is said. I am prepared to make deductions from what
>is said too. If it is not said, then it has to be deducible, or else it
>is simply not so.
> 
>> It has no power over your right to install
>> the software as you please, which was separately conveyed by the
>> licences of the software packages themselves.

>The agreement plainly said what installing the software resulted in (an
>"installed System") and how many of those you could have per RH purchase
>(one). So it seems to me that it SAYS it has the power. I don't know
>how else it can say it!

>>> You are placing constructions on what they might have menat to have
>>> said. They didn't say that.

>> It doesn't matter:  Even if they wanted to imposed some more drastic
>> penalty, they have no power to do so.

>So your position is that even if their "agreement" abrogates a right
>given by the GPL, then you always have the choice of disregarding the
>agreement - which at most loses you the support/service they promised,
>nothing more.

>I would thus have said that the agreement is potentially in conflict
>with the GPL according to you, but that the consequences of this
>(according to you) are nothing to be worried about, in that the GPL wins
>and the agreement gets voided when push comes to shove.

Actually it is more difficult than that I would suspect. The GPL was a
license between them and say the kernel authors. It was not a license
between you and Redhat. Thus, since you signed the agreement, they can sue
you for the damages of violating the contract-- eg the sum of the number of
machines times the price per subscription, plus legal fees, plus ...
At that point Linus T can sue them for having violated the license under
which they copied the kernel. Of course he might have trouble collecting
damages since he gave the kernel away for free, but that has nothing to do
with you. Now you might be able to sue Redhat for fraud, since they claimed
to be able to deliver the kernel to you for you to use, but since they
broke the GPL they did not have that right. However, the GPL specifically
says that even if Redhat broke the GPL and has no right to copy it, you
still have the right under the GPL to what they gave you. Thus you could
not collect damages from Redhat because they have not damaged you. 

End result: You pay redhat for their subscription price on all machines you
installed it on, plus their legal fees. They do not pay Linus because Linus
has not been damaged. They do not pay you because you have not been damaged
by their giving you something which they had not right to give you.

You are screwed and Redhat is smiling.

(Yes, the above tale is just that, a tale, but my worry is that it is not a
complete fiction.)




>> something _clearly violating_ his/her licence terms.  Just running up in
>> front of a judge and saying "These guys induced a bunch of customers to 
>> sign a contract that made them _feel_ as if they couldn't fully exercise
>> their rights" would merely get you bounced out of court on your ass.

>But they couldn't exercise their rights - not without losing RHs
>services. 

>Now, I believe I have heard of agreements that do this sort of thing.
>We won't sue you if you don't sue us, sort of things. Even police plea
>bargains, perhaps, are similar. The criminal agrees to waive his right
>to remain silent in return for a lower sentence. If at trial he remains
>silent despite the  agreement ... is he still entitled to the
>remission? Not.

>However, it seems to me that a RH contract saying that you can't
>exercise your GPL right is not acceptable in the spirit of the GPL.
>They didn't have to make an agreement that said that. They could simply
>have written "you get support for one and only one installed copy of
>the software for each boxed copy of RHEL you buy", and "you are free to
>copy it around as much as you like, but the support don't go with the
>copies". Instead they  said you "WILL" only install one copy for each
>bought pack of RHEL.  That wording aounts to placing a restriction on
>the rights awarded to you under the GPL via which they received the
>bulk of their code, so their licence to that code is revoked, by the
>GPL.

>Never mind that business of "you can break their agreement" because it
>has no force. There has to be a legal word describing this sort of
>attempt to prevent you exercising your rights under the guise of an
>agreement (with penalties).

I have no idea how he comes to the conclusion that the agreement has no
force. You and they can enter into whatever contract you want, as long as
it is not illegal. Your contract with them does not loose its force just
because they broke their contract (as per the license)  with someone else,
 the GPL holder. Now, if the basis of the contract is that they had the
right to deliver to you the article, and they did not have that right, then
maybe the contract would loose its force. But the contract nowhere says
that. And, having delivered it to you, you have a right to keep it and use
it under the GPL even though they had no right to deliver it to you.

Peter T. Breuer writes:
> I was under the impression that you couldn't redistribute RH cds per se
> because of the trademark...

Merely copying and/or distributing a trademark is not infringement.  I am
not infringing any trademarks by including the strings "Red Hat" or
"Coca-Cola" or even "Mickey Mouse" in this message.
-- 
John Hasler 
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

>>Unruh <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
> 
>>> Agreed. I would argue that the Redhat distribution goes beyond a mere
>>> compilation copyright, precisely because of the originality and the
>>> alteration of the components that make up the distribution. Not all of
>>> them. I contend that this is sufficient to make the distribution an
>>> original work in its own right

RedHat's agreement states that it is licencing "The Software" as a
"collective work under U.S. Copyright Law...pursuant to the GNU General
Public License".  So you must be claiming that the definition of "The
Software" is incompatible with the legal definition of a "collective work"
and that therefore the agreement's use of such term legally invalidates it.

If that's the case, then I follow your reasoning and the collage is a good
example.

I don't use RedHat and I would be surprised if its components are so
interdependent and "collaged" as to disqualify it as a collective work,
but your argument is intriguing.

-- 
http://members.dodo.com.au/~netocrat

Dan C <youmustbejoking@invalid.lan> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 01:21:27 +0200, Peter T. Breuer wrote:

>> I'll answer some of this now, although I have flu ...

> Avian, or Regular?

The kind that is cured by chicken soup, not caused by it.

Peter

John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> wrote:
> Peter T. Breuer writes:
>> I was under the impression that you couldn't redistribute RH cds per se
>> because of the trademark...

> Merely copying and/or distributing a trademark is not infringement.  I am
> not infringing any trademarks by including the strings "Red Hat" or
> "Coca-Cola" or even "Mickey Mouse" in this message.

Nor am I infringing any trademark by including the string "Red Herring"
here and now.

Peter

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 09:20:31 +0200, Peter T. Breuer wrote:

>>> I'll answer some of this now, although I have flu ...
 
>> Avian, or Regular?
 
> The kind that is cured by chicken soup, not caused by it.

Well, that's good to hear.  Hope you feel better soon.

-- 
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951

On 10 Oct 2005 07:17:53 -0700, a posting issued forth from HalcyonWild...
>
> Rick Moen wrote:
>
>
>> You entered with a number of wild mistaken claims and a seeming attitude
>> problem.  If you're really surprised at the response, you really should
>> go back and re-read your initial posts.
>>
>
> Well whatever, someone started using bad language. What I put forth was
> a valid question. Will the computer websites, magazines and papers stop
> including the famed, and so called wide community support, in support
> of linux. It is not community support, it is trolling and spamming most
> of the times, with few exceptions. Instead of asking me, why dont you
> look back, and re-read all the posts, not just mine.
>

The responses you've gotten were due to the attitude expressed in your
original post. You didn't ask for help. You stomped in, crying about the
evils of coporate linux distributions. You stated that the only "free" Linux
you could find (Debian) was out-dated and unusable. You did a lot of whining
and moaning, but asked for no support.

> And though I agree to most of you, there are some points that I still
> feel I am valid on. And thanks to the ones who helped.
>

Possibly, but your attitude precluded you getting anything but the response
you wanted. Read the posts here. You see many people come here, ask a
reasonably question, and get extensive, expert responses.

There has been no spamming (unsolicited bulk commercial messages) in this
thread that I've seen. The only trollish behavior behavior I've seen, is
your original post, which reads like the standard Microsoft astroturf. The
fact that you've responded, and seem to be recognizing your mistakes make it
unlikely that that's what it was, but it was an extremely argumentitive
post, and the responses have been more or less appropriate to its tone.

-- 
Jacob
mailto:`echo wnpbo@urvqre.ubzryvahk.arg | tr [a-z] [n-za-m]`

Grant Edwards writes:
> That's not quite true (according to the FSF).  If RedHat gave you GPL'd
> binaries and an offer to provide sources, and you copy those binaries and
> give them to other people, that offer goes along with it.

But not if Red Hat gave you the sources along with the binaries.
-- 
John Hasler 
john@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA