Hi, Well after some reading and brainstorming I think I will amalgamate several of the ideas mentioned here, so I sincerely thank all who gave their suggestions/warnings/opinions. The AV Linux ISO Image is a unique non-commercial presentation media so I will stop calling it non-GPL since that evokes a lot of negative connotations and simply declare that it contains 'mixed licenses'. A PDF document on the desktop will indicate exactly which parts of AV Linux are GNU GPL having inherited those portions from Debian unchanged and describe by package name the exact packages which are commercial and non-free. All non-free licenses will be readily accessible in a 'Non-Free Licenses' folder within the user's home folder. As-provided the ISO Image is not redistributable to honor the commercial licenses however removing the clearly indicated packages makes it fully GNU GPL and therefore redistributable.
I am sure this is too much of a compromise for some people but it is a huge improvement over the somewhat ambivalent methodology employed previously. To be brutally honest if the full weight of the GPL was wielded by a particularly ravenous lawyer I would guess that MANY Linux Distributions would be in peril, some very popular and well-known. For anyone interested AV Linux 5.0.2 will be released later this month. I had high hopes for incorporating CinCV 2.2 but I understand there are a lot of proposed changes and relatively few developers to make them. Hats off to Einar and the other developers working hard on the upcoming version. -GLEN > Well like everyone else who has chimed in on this I am not a lawyer > either. > Since you are basically doing a Debian remaster look at the model they use > for free and non free repositories. I think what's throwing smoke in > everyone's eyes is your wording, a "non gpl linux distribution" That sets > off my alarm bells right away. When closer observation shows you are not > doing anything nefarious or overtly > sinister. Commercial distributions have been releasing proprietary drivers > as part of their releases for years. The important distinction being that > say for example suse last time I used it offered the instalation option of > an entirely free (FOS) install or installing proprietary drivers. > Perhaps > it's really a disclaimer you need tobe making rather than saying that you > have this liscence model which as you have just found out can be a very > thorny subject. Might I suggest you seek the council of the Debian > maintainers on the right way to do that. > > On another note and I can't recall specifically where I found this out > but > it was from a maintainers list, and that is if you do a gpl distribution > you > are technically required to have the source code for each gpl > program/package available. An iso image is not source code. I think busy > box > deals with this violation all the time because manufacturers will use it > for > a tv , pvr router whatever and only release binary firmware upgrades etc. > > I think what you are doing is outstanding and I truly commend you for your > endeavor. But if I were you in an ideal world and had the abundant time > required I would perhaps consider the following. > > 1) A live disk distribution is good for most demo applications but for > video > editing it's just not practical. So assume that anyone wanting to > seriously > use your product is going to install it. > > 2) Be compliant to the letter with re distributing gpl packages and > maintain > your own repositories for each maintained package. This will allow you to > tweak say for instance template files for or initial settings. Perhaps > consider demo files for tutorials . > > 3) Look at the Debian model for free and non free packages. Integrate > yourself with aptitude to refresh your own Eco system as well as that of > your Debian base install. Allow the option for a free/ non free install . > > 4) Keep up the good work ! > > Kind Regards > Daniel Jircik > > On Thursday, October 6, 2011, <i...@bandshed.net> wrote: >> Well then I'm in good company! Thanks for sharing that raffa! >> >> -GLEN >> >> >>> On 10/06/2011 11:29 PM, i...@bandshed.net wrote: >>>>...is everyone greeted with such 'hospitality'?...lol >>> >>> No, only special fellows in the same shoes as Cinelerra. :-) >>> Guess why Cinelerra is not included in Debian and Ubuntu? :-) >>> >>> Ciao! >>> Raffaella >>> >>> PS: a hint to the answer: >>> http://cinelerra.org/docs/wiki/doku.php?id=cinelerrafileslicensestatus >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Cinelerra mailing list >>> Cinelerra@skolelinux.no >>> https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cinelerra mailing list >> Cinelerra@skolelinux.no >> https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra >> > _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing list Cinelerra@skolelinux.no https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
