Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Red Hat Software Businesses

RedHat's Solution to Pseudo-Free Software Problem. 134

Posted by Roblimo from the thanks-for-clearing-that-up dept.
Christian Winebrenner writes "RedHat seems to have seen the new licensing terms on rdist (background story: Pseudo-Free software...) and decided that the best solution to the problem is to recommend that users DOWNgrade to the previous version. Their RH 6.0 errata page offers the solution of ditching rdist 6.1.5 in favor of 6.1.0. Who knows how long it will be until we find that distributions will be riddled with "holes" from out of date non-free-for-commercial-use software? "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RedHat's Solution to Pseudo-Free Software Problem. More

RedHat's Solution to Pseudo-Free Software Problem.

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Good copmany (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Suggest that you take another look at the packages contained in Slackware 4.0, I'll bet that you will find even fewer questionable packages there than you will in RedHat.

    I find it amazing that the same people who put down the GPL/LGPL will suddenly scream if something becomes available that is not 100 percent free.

    Free Beer (no cost/open source) = Good for one drink, then your empty. Can't modify original recipe, stuck with one flavor.

    Free Recipe (GPL/LGPL) = Good for lifetime of Free Beer. Can modify recipe to suit ones taste buds.

    You can take all of the free beer that you want, I'll take the recipe.

  • Re:RDist is free with Linux (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I think the biggest problem is with the "use the Software on the computers which you own or lease" part. This means that a student can not use rdist to sync up his work between the computer in his dorm and the a workstation in the lab's University since he is neither owning or leasing the computer in the lab.

  • Software Licence Grouping Proposal. (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    As more and more commercial products based on
    Linux come into the market, this becomes
    fantastically important. Many of these systems
    will be made up of a hoge-podge of programs, some
    GPL, some BSD, some with the author's wierd non-
    commercial licence. They break down into three
    categories:

    GREEN: BSD Licence. Do whatever you want.
    YELLOW: GPL. Use it, but if you improve it, you
    gotta share.
    RED: You can't use this in a commercial product
    without reading the fine print.

    Don't know wher LGPL fits in.

    Some categorization (check me guys):

    GREEN
    BSD and family
    TCL
    Python
    PostgreSQL

    Yellow:
    Linux Kernel
    GCC
    GlibC

    RED:
    rdist (bummer!)
    MSQL
    MySql
    ...

    It is crucial that people understand what goes
    where and what you can do with each part.

    Look folks, people are making money wit Linux.
    This is great, but as a consequence the Lawers
    are out there, licking their chops. We've got
    to be carefull.

    -- cary

  • Good copmany (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17, 1999 @07:38AM (#1797705)
    I really admire Red Hat. Red Hat and Debian are the only two distributions with this strong a policy towards free software. Red Hat is the only commercial distribution with this strong a moral stance.

    It's stuff like this that makes me really annoyed at people who make the Red Hat/Microsoft comparison. I mean people are buying SuSE, a distribution that is known to use underhanded tactics (undermining the Red Hat IPO), proprietize everything they can, and act generally sleazy to avoid the new Microsoft of Red Hat. In the meantime, Red Hat is one of the only two really ethical major distributions.
  • I'm the maintainer of cxhextris for debian and this seems to have slipped through by accident. It'll probably be moved to non-free RSN and I'll then contact the author and see if the license can't be fixed.
  • *I* am not saying anything. The guy who sent in the comment said it all. There is no "article" here in the sense of linking to MSNBC or CNN, just an ongoing discussion of potential importance to open source and/or free software developers and users, many of whom regularly read and post to Slashdot. If software licensing issues aren't your cup of tea, that's okay. Different people have different interests. :)




  • I've asked this before, but I'll ask again: *why* won't SuSE open up their installer? Red Hat & Debian don't seem to have a problem with distros based off of them, why does SuSE?

  • The trouble with BSD-licensed code is that someone can modify it a little and then hide the source from then on. If the code no longer maintained or whatnot, the original BSD-licensed copies of the code can die out, leaving only the proprietary licensed code left. With GPL, even if the code is modified, it can't be made proprietary. Even if the code ceases to be maintained, if there is at least one copy of the code around, even if it's modified, it's still free.

    Basically, the freedom of BSD-licensed code is more contingent on the maintainers of the code keeping it free.
  • Posted by Synsthe:

    :I installed it many times and everything just
    :plain annoys me, from the installer to the stupid
    :X only control panel. Hmm, so I have to do some
    :remote administration... Too bad, gotta have X.

    For the record, I'm not a RedHat fan either - I use Debian. However, this argument is pretty baseless - You aren't required in any way to use that control panel tool to administer a RedHat box.


    :And if you don't like it, don't buy or download
    :it. Use RedHat and never ever use Civ:CTP,
    :Borland's software (if they do it), Codewarrior,
    :or any other piece of useful software that isn't
    :specifically GPL'ed.

    This part I have to agree with - I've witnessed far too many people whine and complain about software simply for the reason being that it's not free. Get over it - some things just weren't meant to be that way, and being that way doesn't make them any less useful. If you're going to pick at software, atleast find some valid reasons.

    I think this is one problem out of a few that the Linux community faces right now; they're too busy fighting amongst themselves over stuff like this, instead of putting that energy to something useful. There are people who are so elitist in their views that they don't consider distributions like RedHat or suse, etc, to be Linux simply because they're backed by a company of some kind.

    That's just silly I think. It's still Linux, and disregarding items simply for a commercial background is more trouble than it's worth. Quite simply, if you don't want to support the company for whatever reason, than don't - other than that, let people choose for themselves what they want; it's still Linux after all.

    Okay.. slided a tiny bit off topic there with that last rant. =)

    --
    Mark Waterous (mark@projectlinux.org)
  • But you can hit F1 in the Redhat Installer and get the description of the package.

    Have you ever tried it?
  • Reusing is not stealing. Especially when you're talking about a distribution of Linux, which is free software.

    SuSE is legally entitled to not play nice, but they will suffer in the marketplace.

    --

  • No, they're *not* playing nice. They are selling the work of others, but refuse to share their own (much smaller) work.

    Legal? Yes. Nice? No.

    --

  • Actually, it's the advocates of BSD/X11-style licensing who want to steal the work of others. They want the "freedom" to take code that has been contributed to free software projects, and resell that code in their own non-free, proprietary package.

    That's theft, pure and simple. The GPL protects against this type of abuse; BSD/X11 licenses do not.

    So if you're a free software developer, the GPL best protects your interests. If you're a proprietary software developer, the GPL is your worst nightmare.

    --

  • There you have it, folks.

    The intelligent, reasonable face of anti-GPL advocacy.

    --

  • Minor change; GPL should be GREEN. BSD and X11 licenses should be YELLOW.

    Was it not a BSD-licensed package (rdist) that caused this mess in the first place? Could that have happened had rdist been GPLd? Yes, I know if it was authored by a single author, it could, as long as he holds the copyright, but I don't believe that was the case here, was it?

    You should look at this from the perspective of the *end user*; that is who the GPL is designed to protect. It is not designed to protect software developers primarily. It protects end users, because it keeps the software free. Not surprisingly, this ticks off developers with dreams of proprietary products, so they FUD the GPL by calling it less free than the BSD license, which is simply a matter of perspective. You cannot rationally define freedom as the freedom to deprive others of freedom.

    --

  • More sorta greenish yellow. Linking is green, using it's source (other than as a whole and seperatly linked) is yellow.

  • If they are worried about people 'stealing their work' they should consider getting into another line of work. Kinda wierd to have a company in the business of packaging free software worry about code reuse.

    Fortunately they aren't as clueless as you make them out because they DO share quite a bit of code, and someday one would hope they get smart enough to realize that being anal about the installer only hurts them. Sure every install of Mandrake is a RedHat sale lost, but it is another machine in the RedHat 'camp' as opposed to a SUSE or Caldera user.
  • Ask him what "land of the free" means or what a "hacker" is.

    Just because the "common guy" have chosen to blur the difference between "free" and "gratis" I won't.

    MSIE is gratis and gcc is free.

    /mill

  • gnu (Score:1)

    by joshua ( 2507 )
    Maybe Richard Stallman was right in insisting
    that the only true free software was under
    the GPL?

    We should start projects to recreate all
    partially free software in GPL or BSD licensed
    form, and _keep_ it that way.

  • Re:gnu (Score:1)

    by joshua ( 2507 )
    The FSF seem to think GNU free is the only true form of free software. I don't think that way, but I believe that's their opinion...
  • Even with a BSD license, the code isn't really
    locked up -- no free code release can ever become
    non-free -- at worst, someone else can release a new version under a new license -- I've never been able to see how the software suddenly becomes no longer free when this is done...

  • Re:gnu (Score:1)

    by joshua ( 2507 )
    Hmm, I've possibly got hold of the wrong end of
    the stick. I've sure I've heard that position
    from some of the more enthusiastic GNU supporters,
    but I hadn't actually looked into exactly where it's coming from. Anyone else had that idea, and did you get it direct from the FSF, or was it just a general impression?

  • XV (Score:1)

    by way_out ( 2820 )
    XV is still included in RH. Thats an "unregistred" version.
  • It's incredible that people cannot just choose the GPL or BSD licence variant that fits their needs the best, when they after all do create open source software.

    Of course, perhaps they don't want people to use their stuff, and that's fair enough, it's too bad when the software is good and could benefit a lot of people, but it's fair enough if someone wants to prohibit others from using their creations.

    Now someone may say that by choosing a licence that doesn't permit commercial use, binary distribution, or a licence like the rdist one, doesn't prohibit people from downloading the software themselves. Well it doesn't completely prohibit people from using it, but it does make the better software a second choice (or last resort), when so much other good software has a licence that allows a company like redhat/suse/... to back it.

    Ironically, it may be the companies that will start a lot of the GPL projects in the future. We'll have anti-commercial shit^H^H^H^Hdevelopers changing their licences into ``everyone can use this software, but not if you use it in a way so that you make money'', or whatever, and the commercial parties will be left to write real Free software using GPL or similar.

  • Daniel,

    Please post to debian-legal@lists.debian.org and ask them to look at it.

    Thanks

    Bruce

  • By the way, I don't run the license-discuss mailing list. I just dominate it :-)
  • This is sort of what I was trying to do when I proposed the Debian Free Software Guidelines (which became the Open Source Definition). It's been pretty successful - even IBM bought into it. I think a check-box approach (as I use at the end of my Open Sources chapter [perens.com] is more useful, but the bottom line is of course you've got to read the license before you put serious work into something.

    Thanks

    Bruce

  • I've thought about auditing Red Hat and the others - of course it would take a lot of time, and that's something I don't necessarily have. If someone else wants to do this there's a good article in it and I can help you get it published.

    Thanks

    Bruce

  • Distributions won't be riddled with holes because they'll be too careful to include poorly-licensed software in the first place.

    Red Hat made a mistake in this case. It was their policy to not put this kind of software in their distribution, and one package slipped by. We all had some fun razzing them, but this was never a controversy - we knew they'd revert to another version of the package.

    We also had fun exploring the alternatives to the problem package, there were at least two of them, at least one of which was much more powerful and both had no questions about their licenses.

    In other words, this is no big deal. It's nice to note that Red Hat did the right thing, though.

    Thanks

    Bruce Perens

  • dear god!

    redhat spent $2.2 million on development last year. cygnus did a fair amount of development last year. so did suse. and caldera. and the debian developers. and the samba team. and the apache team.

    the old rdist has an acceptable license. we fork. it's that simple.

    less hand wringing, more code. more clue, less talk.

    sheesh.
  • It is not untrue, just because you choose to deny commonly accepted definitions of free. It's not free according to the FSF definition, not free according to the DFSG, not free according to OSI, and definetly not free by the BSD definition. These are all definitions of free that are used in the Linux and BSD worlds.
  • I think you've missed part of the point. They can distribute the software now, but they choose not to as it's not free. That part seems to be unresolvable without you permitting general for-profit distribution, which you appear not to want to. (While I accept you're decision, I would ask you to extend Linux to include Hurd and BSD - for one thing, Debian would like to include it, and that includes Hurd.)
  • I agree that the "me too" comments suck...

    but this is an important issue, and I would like to publicly voice my support.

    Red Hat often gets a lot of flack (is it deserved ???), but everything I have seen of them they are truly commited to giving back to the community:

    • participation and support at installfests
    • open sourcing just about everything they produce (where is the source to the caldera install program... or suse's?)
    • their "revolution tour" to bring attention to linux
    • support and participation at linux expo

    sure, all these things helps them in the long run, but as long as it is a too way road then its great.

    Federico

  • Re:gnu (Score:2)

    by itp ( 6424 )
    Where'd you get this idea? Look at what makes up the GNU system. The FSF clearly recognizes that things like the BSD license, the XFree86 license, etc are all free software. Hell, RMS recognizes that Qt 2.0 is free software. All the FSF says is that the GPL and LGPL guarantee that software will remain free, whereas things like BSD (as evidenced in this case) do not.

    --
    Ian Peters

  • Re:gnu (Score:2)

    by itp ( 6424 )
    Maybe Richard Stallman was right in insisting that the only true free software was under the GPL?

    Sigh ... RMS has never insisted on this. Go to the gnu web page some time, look at the official list of GNU software. You'll find many pieces that aren't under the [L]GPL.

    We should start projects to recreate all partially free software in GPL or BSD licensed form, and _keep_ it that way.

    This is what the GNU project is! All GNU software is free software. Not all under the GPL, but all free. Even if a program like rdist, under a BSD license, is taken non-free, we still have the older version under a BSD license. This cannot be taken back from us.

    --
    Ian Peters
  • You're taking a very biased approach to your color coding. True, you can do more with a BSD licensed program than a GPL licensed program. But try this scenario on for size:

    I'm a faithful user of program foo. All of a sudden, program foo++ shows up on the market. Here's the problem. If foo was under a BSD license, there's no reason foo++ has to be free software. So now foo++ costs $400, and if we want the new features, we've got to reimplement them.

    But if foo were a GPL licensed program, anybody who creates foo++ has to release it back under the GPL if they want to distribute it. In other words, people aren't able to take our work, extend it, and refuse to share it back.

    I don't know about you, but when I see a new project, I'm much more comfortable to hear that it's under the GPL than any other license. True, I can't take that code and go commercial with it, but the good thing is, no one else can either.

    --
    Ian Peters
  • Thank you for writing this reply. This is what I was trying to say in my reply to the red-yellow-green proposal comment, but you have said it much better.

    --
    Ian Peters
  • * specific, written prior permission, and that no fee is charged for further
    * distribution of this software, or any modifications thereof. The copyright

    You're not really paying for the software. In the old days of shareware when you could buy disks w/ Duke Nukem or whatever (2400 was slow), the ASP allows distributors to charge for the media.

    This is what commercial Linux distros do. They charge for the media and the support. RedHat is NOT charging you for hextris. Assuming that hextris or cxhextris is on ftp.redhat.com for free download, they CANNOT charge you for it. The economics wouldn't work out; who would pay for it then?

    So what are you paying for when you buy a Linux distro in a store? Everything that's not in the downloadable version.
  • Question for you - has anybody (independent of redhat) gone through all of redhat's current packages to make sure there aren't other license issues? I think you'd be the point-man to ask, given that you run a list dedicated to talking about licenses..



    --
  • Debian is not a company. It is a non-profit organization.
  • cxhextris has a similar problem, however, and there may be others. To quote:

    /*
    * hextris Copyright 1990 David Markley, dm3e@+andrew.cmu.edu, dam@cs.cmu.edu
    *
    * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute, this software and its
    * documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided that
    * the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that
    * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting
    * documentation, and that the name of the copyright holders be used in
    * advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software with
    * specific, written prior permission, and that no fee is charged for further
    * distribution of this software, or any modifications thereof.     The copyright
    * holder make no representations about the suitability of this software for
    * any purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty.

    [italics mine]
    It just seems likely that other packages have slipped through the screening, too, in inverse relation to the package's importance.
  • Be fair. SuSE isn't just "packaging free software". 1) They write very useful, complex pieces of software themselves (SaX, yast). 2) They have a very good support policy. 3) They support free software developers.

    I don't know what your problem is. If you'd rather pay twice the price for a distribution that does less, just because it has that "untainted by capitalism" image (ha), you're free to do so. I'd rather have a cheaper, better distribution. But remember: SuSE get to decide which license to use for their code, they wrote it (and besides, most of their code is free, perhaps all of it will be at some point).

  • They are selling the work of others, but refuse to share their own (much smaller) work.

    Which part of their work exactly do they refuse to share? I.e. which part can't you download from ftp.suse.com for free?

  • Re:XV (Score:1)

    by msw ( 9192 )
    xv was removed from Red Hat Linux 6.0. Matt msw@gimp.org
  • Python is very free. If it were ever to become non free software, a free version would branch off, I'm sure.

    From Python's README:

    Copyright issues
    ----------------

    Python is COPYRIGHTED but free to use for all. See the full copyright notice at the end of this file and in the file Misc/COPYRIGHT.

    The Python distribution is *not* affected by the GNU Public Licence (GPL). There are interfaces to some GNU code but these are entirely optional and no GNU code is distributed with Python.
    --------------------------------------------
    And the COPYRIGHT:

    Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation, and that the names of Stichting Mathematisch Centrum or CWI or Corporation for National Research Initiatives or CNRI not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, written prior permission.

  • Face it, commercial distributions that hop on the Linux bandwagon are keen on making money.

    What does RedHat actually care that stuff they distribute is free ?

    Only image: they want to appear as the good guys.

    But there is a compromise at work! They have to include MORE bells and whistles than the opposition, while still looking like they endorse free software.

    So mistakes like these are going to be made...

    Because checking licenses and cataloguing stuff as free/restricted/commercial is not a priority for them.

    Likewise, making sure everything is secure and hole-free is not a priority either.

    If you want this to change, the only way is to act responsibly, like flaming them to hell each time they `forget' to check... and stop whinying and insisting every stupid new gadget gets included in the distribution.

    Huh... wait a second. What am I doing ? asking a bunch of linux lusers to act responsibly ? naaaww. Linux is succesful, so you get the disgruntled Zin95 nincoocoomps. Good luck handling them.
  • Yeah sure... start projects to recreate all partially free software.

    Talk is cheap. *Acting* on it is ways better.

    Like, use rsync, which is free, and start contributing to it so that it handles rdist-like features better.
  • Slackware definately belongs in that group with RedHat and Debian. goto slackware.com and find out. Pat V has continued to do a hell of a good job trying to keep SW free.
  • If you like their stuff and it isn't free then just recode it. I'd find it hard to believe it's to complex for the rest of us to understand. Personally one of my major complaints between different dist's is a lack of a unified installation interface. I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to put files in different places or install different files or whatever but it'd be great if they had a single unified itnerface with the differences set by their config files. I end up working with pretty much everything and it would go faster if I could just get used to the way one interface works and go with that. Also I really really want a non-interactive installation process made easier. Both for installing Linux and software at later dates. To pop the disk into the cd-rom and a floppy w/ my config settings would be fantastic.

    But IMO all code should be GPL. I don't expect everyone else to use GPL for their code but it's certainly what I use on the stuff I code. Even LGPL bugs me. If there was a stricter form of GPL I'd love that.

  • SUSE ditributes commercial programs or at least they did in 6.0. I use Redhat now. They just had a directory called commercial or something. This is where they put software like adobe acrobat reader, and some other utilities that were not free or had odd liscences. Redhat can do the same thing. Heck all distros can. Just have a directory that is for non GPL/BSD/free software.

    One thing nice about the suse installation is that it used to gie you information on each package by pressing one of the F keys or something. This was the same as rpm -qpi command that told you the vender and the liscense and other such information.

    It would be nice if Redhat would add one thing to there installation. That woud be the ability to tell what a package is before installing it. Right now you have basically groups and sublists.

  • > you just don't get to steal their stuff.

    How can anyone say that with a straight face when SuSE's business is primarily redistributing software written by others? They seem perfectly happy to "steal" Linus's stuff, "steal" the FSF's stuff, hell, even "steal" Red Hat's stuff in the form of RPM, but now suddenly other people "stealing" their stuff would be so terrible?
  • I wonder whether we'll see more of the course taken by my neighbors at Tripwire here in Portland, as described in this article [oregonlive.com]. They have taken what was becoming an accepted and widely specified standard "free" security program, wrapped it up in a proprietary package and repositioned it for a corporate market supposedly "uncomfortable" taking on such a program. This orphans the many sites using tripwire, and encourages splitting the code trees on other similarly situated programs to avoid this outcome in the future.

    I think the open source model is strong enough to withstand this sort of dynamic, but it's something to keep an eye on.

    -------
  • I feel that you are too quick to jump to conclusions. I feel that there is insufficient information available to attribute ANY intention to the author, and fee any degree of certainty about it.
    OTOH, that's just talking about his intentions. The effect is that this is another license that needs to be understood if the software is to be used. There are good alternatives that don't require this. So there is no sufficiently good reason to use it.
  • You are not the first person that I have heard say good things about SUSE. But proprietary installers make me twitchy. I feel that they could grow into the basis of a totally proprietary system (in practice, if not in law). It wouldn't matter if you could download the latest Linux system if there were no way to install it.

    Just as an example: It's obviously legit to compress the software before letting folk download it. Now suppose you create a proprietary compression tool, that uncompresses the software into a form that your proprietary installer finds very useful. The info is there, so GPL has been observer. But nobody else can use it without a HUGE amount of work. (Maybe you can get a patent on the algorithm used to reassemble it into a working kernel...It doesn't need to be better, just different, so lets rotate all the bytes 4 bits, and claim that it improves compression!)... etc.

    Before you say this is paranoia, look at the current problem with GIF's, and all the hassle that this is causing the open source folk.
  • Untainted by capitalism doesn't have a thing to do with it. I bought ALL of the distros that I have installed (about 5 so far). Red Hat has seemed a bit on the bleeding edge, actually. But they don't have a proprietary installer. I consider that dangerous. I consider it significantly more dangerous than a proprietary editor, or windowing environment. (see above for a fuller explanation).
  • The problem here is that this concern has more than one dimension. You are trying to spread them out along a line. If you want to use the color metaphor, you will probably need at least the color wheel, and possibly the entire spindle (vertical for a light-dark axis).

    Things out near the edge would be more pure representations of their attribute. Things more central would be more of a mixture. (Where do you put the Netscape License? The Java Community License? The...)

    I suppose that in this scenario verticality (light/dark) would reflect the degree of "threat" used to enforce the claim, where darkest could be things like Delta Tao's license (was): "We'll think nasty things about you (if we can be bothered)", and brightest would be like some of the offerings the inquisition came up with: "Your soul will be tortured forever, but just to be sure you know what we mean, here's a sample."
    (It's probably good that the end-points be beyond the likely scope of actually encountered events)...Delta Tao made that difficult!

    Then after you place each license you could look up it's CMYK number (or RGB or HSV, depending on your preference) and try to figure out what this meant. But similar things would be chunked together!
  • At that point the distro's will come from outside the US. Possibly from Japan or China (Turbo-Linux?) Could be as bad a the auto-import problem. From our point of view.
  • Naw, I think speaker configuration would be a better thing to add. I know this sounds like it's out from left field, but that's just how I am. I hate having to recompile a kernel each time I up/down grade. RedHat 5.2 is still the best RedHat distro.
  • That's why if you live in the U.S. you click on the "No, I'm not in the US" button (if there is one) for encryption laws. Sort of like the "Do not enter if under 18" signs. That or buy from outside of the country so the distro won't be crippled by anti-encryption laws. As if the feds will notice if you run the wrong damn OS.
  • That's probably why the phrase was "good *company* (note the singular) such as Redhat *and* Debian..." thereby implying that "company" referred only to RH.

  • The point he made was that he didn't like a proprietary installer *on top of* the rest of the distro. Borland, CIV:CTP, et al. do not do this. They are mostly proprietary works.

  • "...and that the name of the copyright holders be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to the distribution of the software with specific, written prior permission..."
    (The copyright holder is David Markley.)

    This strikes me as the more dangerous clause. You can't distribute this package without publicizing it (how will people know your distribution exists if you don't tell them?). You have to use David's name when you publicize the distribution. You must have written permission before using his name this way. In effect, you can't distribute this package without getting David's permission.

    My guess is that the writer took the clause "the name of the copyright holders not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software with out specific, written prior permission" and eliminated the double negative. The English language, of course, is not as simplistic as Boolean logic.

    (PREACH target = "THE CHOIR")If you want your software to be free, use the GPL - it's had lots of eyeballs look it over and most of its bugs are gone. (/PREACH)
  • That's not the point. If I have to ask you for your permission to distribute your software, then it is -=*NOT*=- free. Software which is not free can become quite a burden. I could probably buy the rights to the software in question from the original programmer for $100,000 - he gets the money, and I get to be the person that people have to ask for permission. Then I file a lawsuit against EVERYONE who has distributed this software without permission. I would get my $100K back in a hurry - for example, what do you think Red Hat would pay me if I threatened to publicize my lawsuit a day before their IPO?

    I know this is not a real likely scenario, but I use it to make the point that software is either free or it isn't, and non-free software has the potential to bite you in the butt if you don't treat it like non-free software.

  • Most of that free non-GPL software is in an XFree86 style license... i.e. do anything you want with it as long as you keep the (c) notice. :) So, it's even more free than GPLed code.

  • Here Here!I'm glad to see that someone has intelligence enough to say these things. I only wish I could've been the one posting it. I Feel that a company such as RH and Debian, are doing the right thing. They have a real working ethic about the way Linux is supposed to be, but are applying it to a business model. This is changing the face of many things, including other businesses practices. I think this is a good thing. One should NEVER say that Debian, RH, or even Suse is anything like MS. I agree that bad business is bad business, but as we have seen with MS, what goes around, comes around. We must unite, stop worrying about which distro is better, and try to make all distro's better with our utilities, apps, pathes, and our attitudes towards the goals that linux is attempting to acheive. Becoming a useable OS (note: i did not say distrobution) while maintaining the Free software model. It takes patience, tolerance, and honesty to work with so many thousands of other people in the world. Why spend time squabbling over what distro is the best. GPL has no distro it subscribes to. Keep it free!
    - JaqBOT

  • Yes it is Free software.

    The BSD license allow to take a program and to make it proprietary and this is also free software. You seem to be confused between Free software (with a license like GPL,BSD,X,Artistic...) and Copylefted software (mainly the GPL). The latter don't allow you to make it proprietary contrary to some of the former . But don't do the mistake of thinking that the two aren't compatible, Copyleft is a subset of Free Software, not a different set.
  • "Ask a common guy on the street whether something he gets without paying for is free"

    Even if there wasn't the problem of free speech and free beer this program is not free in both case.

    It's not free speech because of the reasons given by the others posters.

    And it's not free beer in all case. For non-profit use it is free beer but for profit use it is not free.

    So this software is free only in specific conditions that you must check before using it. Ask a common manager if this software is free. He may say yes until he got a suit because he used it in a case where it is not free any more.
  • How does adding the extra wording help?

    The end user of the distribution is still precluded from doing commercial work with your software.

    And what about non-linux (*BSD) distributions?
    Will you include them?
  • It's only YAST.

    Every other piece of work SuSE does goes back into it. XFree86 is only one example.

    I get quite angry at how everybody is quick to chastise SuSE for YAST, without doing even the tiniest bit of research as to what else they've done. I've been using SuSE for a while now, and I love it. I've always hated RedHat, but not for any dumb MS comparison. I installed it many times and everything just plain annoys me, from the installer to the stupid X only control panel. Hmm, so I have to do some remote administration... Too bad, gotta have X.

    YAST also puts the software you install into the menus of whatever window managers you're using. It's quite useful, but not necessary.

    You can do everything you need without it, but I use it. And I simply do not care that it's not open-source. It's still free.

    Oh yeah, my point. SuSE *does* work on a lot of open-source software. They simply don't shove that info into your face everytime you hear of them.

    And if you don't like it, don't buy or download it. Use RedHat and never ever use Civ:CTP, Borland's software (if they do it), Codewarrior, or any other piece of useful software that isn't specifically GPL'ed.

    Meanwhile, I'll be using it, because it works.
  • "I'm a faithful user of program foo. All of a sudden, program foo++ shows up on the market. Here's the problem. If foo was under a BSD license, there's no reason foo++ has to be free software. So now foo++ costs $400, and if we want the new features, we've got to reimplement them."

    Ï don't really see a problem with this. It is irrational to believe that one is entitled to free software. The original foo would still be available, and noone could stop you from using it, so your right to use that software would not be affected in any way.

    However, if you changed that to read "I'm a faithful, LONGTIME CONTRIBUTER OF CODE TO THE FOO PROJECT. All of a sudden, program foo++ shows up on the market, sporting a bunch of new features, and costs $400....", then I can see a reason for complaining. I think it would bother me quite a bit if someone else started making money off a code base I played a large part in developing, while keeping their additions proprietary, and not compensating me and the other major contributors.

    I'm not saying this is what happened with rdist - I'm unfamiliar with the particulars there - but the scenario doesn't seem that unlikely with a BSD style license.

  • and what exactly is the RMS "virus" ? The ability to share code. This is a good thing IMHO..whether you call it virus or not is immaterial.
  • yes BSD style is 'more free'
    however The GPL ensures that it stays free, BSD doesn't have the forever free clause

    I am willing to concede my freedom to lock up code, in echange for nobody else being able to lock it up.
  • >GPL leads to GnuGree code.
    >BSD leads to free code.
    >Your choice.
    actually GPl leads to GnuFree code
    BSD leads to Free or Closed code, and it isn't your choice

  • RDist is free with Linux (Score:4)

    by Mike Cooper ( 69915 ) on Saturday July 17, 1999 @09:31AM (#1797775)
    I'm the Founder/Owner/President/Primary Developer for MagniComp.

    I've recently been made aware of the discussions on this site regarding the licensing terms of RDist. It came as a bit of a shock to learn about the trouble with our RDist license agreement.

    I have always been a free/open software supporter and have always intended to make sure RDist was freely distributable by all like minded groups. This definetely includes all the Linux distributions both free and for-profit. The trouble is, the license agreement was originally written long before Linux rose to it's current stature.

    After reviewing our RDist license agreement I can easily see where there's a problem with the Linux groups. So I have updated the RDist License Agreement [magnicomp.com] to clearly state it's fine to distribute as part of any Linux distribution.

    I welcome any and all feedback on this and other topics.

    - mike

Slashdot Top Deals

Life is cheap, but the accessories can kill you.

Close