--- On Sat, 7/19/08, Antonio Olivares <olivares14031@yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Antonio Olivares <olivares14031@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?
> To: fedora-list@redhat.com
> Date: Saturday, July 19, 2008, 3:37 PM
> > I'm beginning to think the GPL was a diabolical
> plan to
> > annoy the heck
> > out of Les, and it succeeded.
> >
> > John
> >
> > --
>
> Not only Les, but many others who do not agree with some of
> the terms in the license
>
> This is unfortunate, but the people that work on it should
> make up their minds and leave much doubt which still exists
>
Not leave any doubts. No and/ifs/buts or ors. That is what I am trying to say. They have said that they were going to block non GPL modules and they have not, they have tried. IT is still much of a gray area. That is what I mean. Some vendors have found ways of bypassing the GPL requirement, there's some that can be found on the net.
>
> Regards,
>
> Antonio
>
>
>
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list@redhat.com
> To unsubscribe:
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list




--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Antonio Olivares wrote:


Your meaning of object code is binary code?

and the modifications is the source code?

If I understand your point, they released versions of Linux only as binary, but without providing the sources(source code) for their modifications.


You have to provide source whether modifications are involved or not.
For example if you install Linux for a friend, you are obligated to
include the source of everything under GPL or a written offer to supply
it on demand any time in the following 3 years. If you make the binary
available via ftp, it has been considered sufficient to make the source
available at the same time whether the recipient takes a copy or not.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Antonio Olivares
<olivares14031@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Not leave any doubts. No and/ifs/buts or ors. That is what I am trying to say.
> They have said that they were going to block non GPL modules and they have
> not, they have tried. IT is still much of a gray area. That is what I mean. Some
> vendors have found ways of bypassing the GPL requirement, there's some that
> can be found on the net.

There are always doubts about the terms and validity of licenses until
courts speak on the matter. That may be fortunate or unfortunate
depending on your point of view.

I don't like the terms of just about every license I for one reason or
another accept. But the fact remains that the copyright holder gets to
make the choice of terms, I get to accept or decline them.

Would the world be a better place with no GPL and all software created
by those who now create code under the GPL putting it into the public
domain instead? Would users of software have the freedom to learn,
tinker, fix, and improve the amount of software they now can in that
world?

The GPL is a choice made by creators. They can and do make lots of
other choices. Some make choices that foster a free software
community, some don't. I think accepting that good and sincere people
will make the choice of copyleft licenses because they believe that
ultimately serves the free software community better than other
alternatives will help foster the dialog. If the goal is to get them
to allow their code to be assimilated into proprietary code then there
probably isn't much point to the dialog.

John

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Jul 19, 2008, Antonio Olivares <olivares14031@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Sorry for the misunderstanding

Not a problem :-)

> Like I have mentioned before some Linux Distros still keep cdrtools
> and have never adopted the cdrkit cd burning software(fork of
> cdrecord). They do not consider the issue as critical?

I don't speak for them, but if they keep on shipping it, either they
believe that's ok, or they don't even know about it. It might make
sense to warn/ask those you know about.

> Your name is mentioned in the Tivo battles with GPL() and Linus Torvalds

> http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/17/298

Yes, indeed, I was "honored" with some of Linus' typical verbal abuse
:-)

People interested in that thread, and in forming an opinion on them
that's not too biased towards the more famous person, might be
interested in reading these posts:

http://fsfla.org/blogs/lxo/2007-07-19-gplv3-tivo-and-linux
http://fsfla.org/blogs/lxo/2007-06-29-gplv3-tivo-and-linux
http://fsfla.org/blogs/lxo/2007-07-01-gplv3-tivo-and-linux
http://fsfla.org/blogs/lxo/draft/tivoization-and-communities
http://fsfla.org/blogs/lxo/draft/forking-and-license-patching

> The language, the wording and clauses here and clauses there are
> very hard to interpret.

Unfortunately, the nature of law is that even terms that appear
obvious to laymen sometimes mean something quite different to lawyers.

Oddly, the GPL, unlike most licenses, was originally written to be
understandable by software developers, which, in addition to the
surprising use of copyright "against" itself (copyleft), makes a large
number of lawyers quite uncomfortable with its wording.

GPLv3 unfortunately became longer and somewhat heavier on the
legalese, to a large extent because of requests for improvements and
clarifications from lawyers. I guess this is one of those cases of
not being able to have a cake and eat it too. Or either :-)

--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

> There are always doubts about the terms and validity of
> licenses until
> courts speak on the matter. That may be fortunate or
> unfortunate
> depending on your point of view.
Which courts do you mean?
International courts or U.S. based courts?
If you are considering the U.S. based courts, I have very little to no faith in them and I cannot trust them enough
>
> I don't like the terms of just about every license I
> for one reason or
> another accept. But the fact remains that the copyright
> holder gets to
> make the choice of terms, I get to accept or decline them.
If you get a distribution whichever linux you get, you accept everything about them. If you have installed it, then how can you say that you did not accept a license agreement?

In the first place, Other software companies have products and those products have a EULA(End User License Agreement), in our cases we use Fedora, and it clearly states in first boot that the software is provided as is without any implied warranties, either stated or implied and we click next and be happy However, there are other licenses bundled in the distribution that are ok and others that are not ok? This is why many people ask, why is this license ok, and this one is not. When you see time and time again that other people/distributions include the same programs which licenses are not widely accepted by the FSF.
>
> Would the world be a better place with no GPL and all
> software created
> by those who now create code under the GPL putting it into
> the public
> domain instead?
This is a question that is hard to answer. Like I have said before, I like the good parts of the GPL and not like the bad parts. Like I can say I like the Old Testament, where God used to quickly punish those where bad and get rid of them right away, I do not like the New Testament because it gives people too many rights and you can do harm to others and you slap me and I put my other cheek. This is what I am trying to say.
> Would users of software have the freedom to
> learn,
> tinker, fix, and improve the amount of software they now
> can in that
> world?
They do because everyone has a right to the code, just that if you modify the code and improve it, you have to give back and cannot get away with redistributing improved code without sharing it back to the community. There is no such thing as a free lunch!
> The GPL is a choice made by creators. They can and do make
> lots of
> other choices. Some make choices that foster a free
> software
> community, some don't. I think accepting that good and
> sincere people
> will make the choice of copyleft licenses because they
> believe that
> ultimately serves the free software community better than
> other
> alternatives will help foster the dialog. If the goal is to
> get them
> to allow their code to be assimilated into proprietary code
> then there
> probably isn't much point to the dialog.
I undertand the point that you are making, but many authors want to make money (yes they can make money with the GPL), but the GPL restricts them in a way that many prefer other licenses which are more flexible in that regard. They also do not complain about sharing their code and do not ask anything in return.

For instance,
Lets say you are on the side of the road with a flat tire. I stop and help you. I change the tire for you and put the flat tire in the trunk. I tell you to give me your address and telephone number. This way when I get thrown in jail, I can call you so that you can come and bail me out. I can ask you for $5 as well. This would be a GPL way of dealing with this.

If I change the tire for you and do everything and smile and tell you to have a wonderful day and not ask anything in return. That you can go on with your life and never have to thank me for everything that would a different license other than GPL.
>
> John
>
> --

NOTE:
I am not against the GPL. I am just questioning why it prohibits some things that others do not and thus force authors of good software to change licenses to protect their interests. I like the good parts of the GPL just like the Bible. I should be allowed to pick the chapters that I like and refuse to read or cooperate with the ones that I don't.

Regards,

Antonio




--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 11:03 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
> > > > > ZFS was included in FreeBSD 7.0 because the
> > BSD
> > > > license is more free than the GPL with that
> > regard.
> > > >
> > > > And if NetApp win against Sun they can sue
> > FreeBSD now, for
> > > > triple
> > > > damages which would be millions and the end of
> > FreeBSD.
> > >
> > > That is a big IF, maybe it should be an iff (IF and
> > ONLY IF) like in Mathematics.
> >
> > A big if but rather a nasty consequence, and unlike FreeBSD
> > the Linux
> > companies have enough money that people do try lawsuits.
> >
> > > They(FreeBSD) should be protected, the users can get
> > the ports from source, they do not ship binaries(except the
> > installation *.tbz files).
> >
> > That makes no difference to US patent law.
>
> # fsck US Patent law
> fsck 1.40.8 (13-Mar-2008)

That's got to be the dumbest thing I've heard you say yet. It is the
height of "head in the sand" syndrome.

To just blithely say "screw the law of the land where the company which
arguably does more for Free/Open Source Software is based" is just,
well, childish.

I, too, hate the patent system here. I agree that the it needs to be
torn down. But to spit in the eye of the government of *any* company is
just stupid.

> Sun Microsystems encouraged the ZFS port to FreeBSD, and yes they
> placed the patents in place, now if they encouraged the port to
> FreeBSD(since BSDs* are more relaxed than GPL), they should protect
> FreeBSD. If not, like you say (FreeBSD should get rid of it and
> protect themselves much like Fedora protects itself from these cr*ppy
> patents and lawuits

It's easy for you to say that sun *should* do this or that. You gonna
pony up the bucks if someone like the FreeBSD group gets sued, though?
Cause nothing says that Sun *has* to. Your wishes and suppositions !=
fact.



--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

inode0 wrote:


Would the world be a better place with no GPL and all software created
by those who now create code under the GPL putting it into the public
domain instead?


Microsoft would almost certainly have been displaced years ago by many
other companies building better products containing this code - or at
least have been forced to build much better products to stay
competitive. That alone would have made the world a better place.



Would users of software have the freedom to learn,
tinker, fix, and improve the amount of software they now can in that
world?


There can be no question about that, given the many examples of open
source code not under the GPL.


--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

> > > That makes no difference to US patent law.
> >
> > # fsck US Patent law
> > fsck 1.40.8 (13-Mar-2008)
>
> That's got to be the dumbest thing I've heard you
> say yet. It is the
> height of "head in the sand" syndrome.
It is because of patents that many users out there do not have things easier
The big guys get lots of break, while many little guys get sued.
If many patents died soon the world would be a better place for all of us.
>
> To just blithely say "screw the law of the land where
> the company which
> arguably does more for Free/Open Source Software is
> based" is just,
> well, childish.
I wish I had more faith in the US court system, but it sells itself to the people with money and if you are poor, you end up paying for it.
I have not had good experiences with the Courts system
The lies are the ones that are accepted as facts and they say that you are innocent till proven guilty, but it is the other way around
you are guilty, till proven innocent.

The company you refer to, is Red Hat Inc correct?

If it were based outside the US, it could do much more and not have to worry about patents(if the country they were based in was more cooperative), but there again other places like Europe also have patents and are trying to enforce them

http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/intro/index.html

>
> I, too, hate the patent system here. I agree that the it
> needs to be
> torn down. But to spit in the eye of the government of
> *any* company is
> just stupid.
The government, take a look at the stuff they are doing, they are restricting your freedom and mine, at any time they want they can arrest you, they can search your property without a search warrant, they can do whatever they want to you and not have to answer to anyone.

Do you believe a governement that standed for freedom is doing this?

What do you think of the Patriot Act?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

There are many other things that have done away with the freedoms that made this country great.

It is also sad that because the Company's base is here in the U.S, that other countries have to put up with laws that are not of their own. Of course they have repositories and work on things that Fedora cannot distribute, but that is not the point. These are workarounds that exist.

I also believe that the "BORDER WALL" is stupid, but I cannot do anything about it? Can you do something about it?
>
> > Sun Microsystems encouraged the ZFS port to FreeBSD,
> and yes they
> > placed the patents in place, now if they encouraged
> the port to
> > FreeBSD(since BSDs* are more relaxed than GPL), they
> should protect
> > FreeBSD. If not, like you say (FreeBSD should get rid
> of it and
> > protect themselves much like Fedora protects itself
> from these cr*ppy
> > patents and lawuits
>
> It's easy for you to say that sun *should* do this or
> that. You gonna
> pony up the bucks if someone like the FreeBSD group gets
> sued, though?
> Cause nothing says that Sun *has* to. Your wishes and
> suppositions !=
> fact.
>
Why should I ponny up the bucks?
Sun should do this, it is their product, if they want people to use it, then they should protect its customers or people that freely download it.

> --

Regards,

Antonio




--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

On Sat, 2008-07-19 at 22:44 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> inode0 wrote:
> >
> > Would the world be a better place with no GPL and all software created
> > by those who now create code under the GPL putting it into the public
> > domain instead?
>
> Microsoft would almost certainly have been displaced years ago by many
> other companies building better products containing this code - or at
> least have been forced to build much better products to stay
> competitive. That alone would have made the world a better place.
----
I doubt that it would have made the world a better place any more than
Coca-Cola does (and I'm a loyal Coke drinker).

The fact is, it is not now, nor has it ever been a stated goal to
'displace' Microsoft...at least not by the major Linux players. You've
confused your own aspirations with those of various contributors to that
which is known as Linux.

Craig

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

> > > Would the world be a better place with no GPL and
> all software created
> > > by those who now create code under the GPL
> putting it into the public
> > > domain instead?
> >
> > Microsoft would almost certainly have been displaced
> years ago by many
> > other companies building better products containing
> this code - or at
> > least have been forced to build much better products
> to stay
> > competitive. That alone would have made the world a
> better place.
> ----
> I doubt that it would have made the world a better place
> any more than
> Coca-Cola does (and I'm a loyal Coke drinker).
>
> The fact is, it is not now, nor has it ever been a stated
> goal to
> 'displace' Microsoft...at least not by the major
> Linux players. You've
> confused your own aspirations with those of various
> contributors to that
> which is known as Linux.
>
> Craig
>
> --

All the deals go to Microsoft as they pay the vendors to sell their product(or get into deals with hardware vendors),

A good example were the ASUS mini computers that were running Linux, but Microsoft stepped in (found this at Distrowatch)

http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20080609

If you go and buy a new computer, it will come with a version of Windows, with the exceptions out there DELL and others who offer preintalled Linux like Ubuntu, etc.

New users have to pay the Micro$oft Tax.

It is very hard for Linux to compete against Microsoft in this regard.

Now about the better products thing that Les has mentioned, this would not have been a problem as the product would have been bought out and become part of Microsoft IT is sad but true. Money talk$ and Bullshit walks! Sorry I had to say that.

Regards,

Antonio




--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list