Re: [Cooker] Re: [CHRPM] xv-3.10a-8mdk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > This license is the same as Sun Community License, or the license for > > Yast2. You can look, you can't touch. > > Hey, I said I didn't want to get into a license war. :o) Me too; it's not a war, but it's good to tell what the license allows and what it forbids. Anyway, it's the core of my interest in the free software movement. > My main point was that being non-GPL should not be a bar from the main > distribution if the program is useful or desired. I'm all for educating You're complety wrong! Being non-free (e.g. GPL or equivalent, say, BSD, MIT, artistic, etc) *is* a reason to exclude prog from main distribution. Being "useful" or "desired" is in no way interesting; or else we would ship MS-Office run through Wine!! (for example) > or promoting more open licenses from commercial developers and I think > this guy is half-way there. So instead of "punishing" him, we should > encourage him to change the license. Maybe he's working now and doesn't > need the income? Bitching about his license gets us nowhere. No, his program is here for more than 5 years for sure. He's not half way, he just decided this. "Bitching about his license" -> what can we do then ? Following your thinking, again we should include MS Office in the distrib. The only answer is "no". We have to make some decision following the licenses. This type of license is totally against the spirit of free software. Showing the source brings us nowhere: we can't do anything with this source. More than that, it's perverse, because it puts many persons including you in the wrong direction: compromising because "he made an effort". No! The sources of XV is in no use to the free software movement because we can't take advantage of the good parts of the code, which is the core of interest of this movement. We have to reject it. > > That credit is 100% provided by the GPL. We at MandrakeSoft license under > > the GPL *and* sell our efforts. > > One of the reasons that I personally appreciate Mandrake and other > vendors who do this. Perhaps the reasons that Mandrake does this will > also encourage him the same way, it's worked for others (i.e. Troll's > QT). Maybe. For QT, I don't think so; I think they changed because they saw both the Gnome project and the Open QT (I don't remember its real name) project being a threat to them. -- Guillaume Cottenceau -- Distribution Developer for MandrakeSoft http://www.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] Re: [CHRPM] xv-3.10a-8mdk
Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > ftp://ftp.cis.upenn.edu/pub/xv/xv-3.10a.tar.gz > > > > Location of source. It isn't open in the sense of GPL/BSD/Artistic, BUT > > the source is available and that puts it a cut above commercial > > software. > > In the practical way, yes. > > In the theorical way, no: the first freedom of the GPL, the freedom to > redistribute bugfixed versions, is prohibited. > > This license is the same as Sun Community License, or the license for > Yast2. You can look, you can't touch. Hey, I said I didn't want to get into a license war. :o) My main point was that being non-GPL should not be a bar from the main distribution if the program is useful or desired. I'm all for educating or promoting more open licenses from commercial developers and I think this guy is half-way there. So instead of "punishing" him, we should encourage him to change the license. Maybe he's working now and doesn't need the income? Bitching about his license gets us nowhere. > > I don't begrudge the guy the right to sell his efforts, but at least > > give him credit for supplying the source code along with it. > > That credit is 100% provided by the GPL. We at MandrakeSoft license under > the GPL *and* sell our efforts. One of the reasons that I personally appreciate Mandrake and other vendors who do this. Perhaps the reasons that Mandrake does this will also encourage him the same way, it's worked for others (i.e. Troll's QT). John
Re: [Cooker] Re: [CHRPM] xv-3.10a-8mdk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > ftp://ftp.cis.upenn.edu/pub/xv/xv-3.10a.tar.gz > > Location of source. It isn't open in the sense of GPL/BSD/Artistic, BUT > the source is available and that puts it a cut above commercial > software. In the practical way, yes. In the theorical way, no: the first freedom of the GPL, the freedom to redistribute bugfixed versions, is prohibited. This license is the same as Sun Community License, or the license for Yast2. You can look, you can't touch. > I don't begrudge the guy the right to sell his efforts, but at least > give him credit for supplying the source code along with it. That credit is 100% provided by the GPL. We at MandrakeSoft license under the GPL *and* sell our efforts. PS : could you please quote your emails the *right* way, e.g. write your answers *after* the questions > Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > XV is available with source, but it has a price tag. AFAIK, the GPL does > > > not prohibit the sale of open source software. Not that I'm claiming > > > that XV is necessarily GPL compatible, but it is open, placing it miles > > > ahead of any commercial closed package. > > > > XV is open?? please have a sleep and rethink in the light of some > > extracts of their README file: > > > > XV IS SHAREWARE FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. > > > > You may use XV for your own amusement, and if you find it nifty, > > useful, generally cool, or of some value to you, your registration fee > > would be greatly appreciated. $25 is the standard registration fee, > > though of course, larger amounts are quite welcome. Folks who donate > > $40 or more can receive a printed, bound copy of the XV manual for no > > extra charge. If you want one, just ask. BE SURE TO SPECIFY THE > > VERSION OF XV THAT YOU ARE USING! > > > > COMMERCIAL, GOVERNMENT, AND INSTITUTIONAL USERS MUST REGISTER THEIR > > COPIES OF XV. > > > > [...] > > > > If you use XV in the course of doing your work, whatever your 'work' may > > happen to be, you *must* register your copy of XV. > > > > [...] > > > > Permission to copy and distribute XV in its entirety, for > > non-commercial purposes, is hereby granted without fee, provided that > > this license information and copyright notice appear in all copies. > > > > If you redistribute XV, the *entire* contents of this distribution > > must be distributed, including the README, and INSTALL files, the > > sources, and the complete contents of the 'docs' directory. > > > > -- > > Guillaume Cottenceau -- Distribution Developer for MandrakeSoft > > http://www.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/ > -- Guillaume Cottenceau -- Distribution Developer for MandrakeSoft http://www.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] Re: [CHRPM] xv-3.10a-8mdk
ftp://ftp.cis.upenn.edu/pub/xv/xv-3.10a.tar.gz Location of source. It isn't open in the sense of GPL/BSD/Artistic, BUT the source is available and that puts it a cut above commercial software. I don't begrudge the guy the right to sell his efforts, but at least give him credit for supplying the source code along with it. Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > XV is available with source, but it has a price tag. AFAIK, the GPL does > > not prohibit the sale of open source software. Not that I'm claiming > > that XV is necessarily GPL compatible, but it is open, placing it miles > > ahead of any commercial closed package. > > XV is open?? please have a sleep and rethink in the light of some > extracts of their README file: > > XV IS SHAREWARE FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. > > You may use XV for your own amusement, and if you find it nifty, > useful, generally cool, or of some value to you, your registration fee > would be greatly appreciated. $25 is the standard registration fee, > though of course, larger amounts are quite welcome. Folks who donate > $40 or more can receive a printed, bound copy of the XV manual for no > extra charge. If you want one, just ask. BE SURE TO SPECIFY THE > VERSION OF XV THAT YOU ARE USING! > > COMMERCIAL, GOVERNMENT, AND INSTITUTIONAL USERS MUST REGISTER THEIR > COPIES OF XV. > > [...] > > If you use XV in the course of doing your work, whatever your 'work' may > happen to be, you *must* register your copy of XV. > > [...] > > Permission to copy and distribute XV in its entirety, for > non-commercial purposes, is hereby granted without fee, provided that > this license information and copyright notice appear in all copies. > > If you redistribute XV, the *entire* contents of this distribution > must be distributed, including the README, and INSTALL files, the > sources, and the complete contents of the 'docs' directory. > > -- > Guillaume Cottenceau -- Distribution Developer for MandrakeSoft > http://www.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] Re: [CHRPM] xv-3.10a-8mdk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Actually, Netscape is free, just not open source (not counting Mozilla, No, calling it "free" is bad in the respect of the multi-meaning of "free" in the english language (cost=0 and freedom), and also in the respect of the "free software" movement that tries to promote the "freedom". Please use "free of charge" if possible, because it's nothing more than that. -- Guillaume Cottenceau -- Distribution Developer for MandrakeSoft http://www.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] Re: [CHRPM] xv-3.10a-8mdk
Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well, you're right, none of your examples is GPL, that's true. BUT (big > but, in bright blinky colors): Netscape and XV are not free! That's my > point, whereas Apache and many of the IMHO superior replacements, like > ImageMagick, Electric Eyes (ee) ... for xv are. In my hands. (c) Chmou. -- Guillaume Cottenceau -- Distribution Developer for MandrakeSoft http://www.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] Re: [CHRPM] xv-3.10a-8mdk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > XV is available with source, but it has a price tag. AFAIK, the GPL does > not prohibit the sale of open source software. Not that I'm claiming > that XV is necessarily GPL compatible, but it is open, placing it miles > ahead of any commercial closed package. XV is open?? please have a sleep and rethink in the light of some extracts of their README file: XV IS SHAREWARE FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. You may use XV for your own amusement, and if you find it nifty, useful, generally cool, or of some value to you, your registration fee would be greatly appreciated. $25 is the standard registration fee, though of course, larger amounts are quite welcome. Folks who donate $40 or more can receive a printed, bound copy of the XV manual for no extra charge. If you want one, just ask. BE SURE TO SPECIFY THE VERSION OF XV THAT YOU ARE USING! COMMERCIAL, GOVERNMENT, AND INSTITUTIONAL USERS MUST REGISTER THEIR COPIES OF XV. [...] If you use XV in the course of doing your work, whatever your 'work' may happen to be, you *must* register your copy of XV. [...] Permission to copy and distribute XV in its entirety, for non-commercial purposes, is hereby granted without fee, provided that this license information and copyright notice appear in all copies. If you redistribute XV, the *entire* contents of this distribution must be distributed, including the README, and INSTALL files, the sources, and the complete contents of the 'docs' directory. -- Guillaume Cottenceau -- Distribution Developer for MandrakeSoft http://www.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] Re: [CHRPM] xv-3.10a-8mdk
Alexander Skwar wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 08:26:35PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > All I'm getting at is that "non-GPL" (which is what the guy was pushing > > on) is not a good reason to exclude a package. Exclude it for other > > Well, yes, that's what I said, but that's not what I meant. I rather meant, > that un-free programs should be excluded. Excluding every non GPL > application would be way to harsh, granted. I buy argument 1, if it isn't free... Not only would excluding non-GPL code be harsh, but it would pretty much lead to a dysfunctional system... You wouldn't believe the number of packages that have different licenses.
Re: [Cooker] Re: [CHRPM] xv-3.10a-8mdk
Alexander Skwar wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 07:32:53PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Not that I want to start a license war... > > > > Neither is Apache, Netscape, and a host of other packages. Not being > > Well, you're right, none of your examples is GPL, that's true. BUT (big > but, in bright blinky colors): Netscape and XV are not free! That's my > point, whereas Apache and many of the IMHO superior replacements, like > ImageMagick, Electric Eyes (ee) ... for xv are. Actually, Netscape is free, just not open source (not counting Mozilla, of course, but it isn't ready for prime time yet). XV is shareware (though thankfully not nagware), but is available in source form. Kind of a pick your poison... OTH, I read the license... apparently XV needs to be licensed for redistribution in a commercial product. NOW that is a reason that I would remove it from the main CD and move it to contrib.
Re: [Cooker] Re: [CHRPM] xv-3.10a-8mdk
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 07:32:53PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Not that I want to start a license war... > > Neither is Apache, Netscape, and a host of other packages. Not being Well, you're right, none of your examples is GPL, that's true. BUT (big but, in bright blinky colors): Netscape and XV are not free! That's my point, whereas Apache and many of the IMHO superior replacements, like ImageMagick, Electric Eyes (ee) ... for xv are. > GPL'd should not be a bar from being on the main distribution. Okay, GPL'd shouldn't be, true, but being unfree should. > Pragmatism falls in line with functionality and some of us like XV, it's > very reliable, unlike some of the others I have seen. It is the reason I > keep using it. Well, do what you do, I don't care :], but try display and ee. They can do more, load faster, and are free. But in the end, it's you who uses the tools. Alexander Skwar -- Homepage: http://www.digitalprojects.com Sichere Mail? Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED] fuer GnuPG Keys ICQ:7328191
Re: [Cooker] Re: [CHRPM] xv-3.10a-8mdk
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 08:26:35PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > All I'm getting at is that "non-GPL" (which is what the guy was pushing > on) is not a good reason to exclude a package. Exclude it for other Well, yes, that's what I said, but that's not what I meant. I rather meant, that un-free programs should be excluded. Excluding every non GPL application would be way to harsh, granted. Alexander Skwar -- Homepage: http://www.digitalprojects.com Sichere Mail? Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED] fuer GnuPG Keys ICQ:7328191
Re: [Cooker] Re: [CHRPM] xv-3.10a-8mdk
Pixel wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Not that I want to start a license war... > > well ... ;p LOL, anytime GPL versus other comes up... > > Neither is Apache, Netscape, and a host of other packages. Not being > > GPL'd should not be a bar from being on the main distribution. > > no, be not being open source, aka not following debian guideline can be. > > apache is free, netscape is not, nor is xv. XV is available with source, but it has a price tag. AFAIK, the GPL does not prohibit the sale of open source software. Not that I'm claiming that XV is necessarily GPL compatible, but it is open, placing it miles ahead of any commercial closed package. I hope you are not suggesting that Netscape disappear from the distro? It's a buggy mess, but it's pretty much the only buggy mess that we have right now. Konquerer is looking pretty darn good though, so I have future hopes of dumping Netscape > > Pragmatism falls in line with functionality and some of us like XV, it's > > very reliable, unlike some of the others I have seen. It is the reason I > > keep using it. > > i really don't the point for xv, open yours eyes and you'll see a whole bunch of > *good* xv replacements. xv should be removed because it is shareware. > > (replacements: ImageMagick, ee, eog, gqview, pixie, gimp, all fully working) I've tried them all. ImageMagick is not GPL either, but is a fantastic program. I love the Gimp, use it all the time, but it's a little heavy for quick image viewing. The others, they've all crapped out too often on me, but I still do use them, it varies. All I'm getting at is that "non-GPL" (which is what the guy was pushing on) is not a good reason to exclude a package. Exclude it for other reasons, such as better alternatives, and all is well in the world. :o) The Unix world is pragmatic: you use what works until there is better, then you switch to better. It's the Microsoft way to force people down a path that suits Microsoft's purpose and not their customers. John
Re: [Cooker] Re: [CHRPM] xv-3.10a-8mdk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Alexander Skwar wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 03:34:25PM +0200, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: > > > We have to at least move it to the contribs (I say at least because it > > > falls into the commercial app category (as being a shareware) so it must > > > go theorically in the commercial CD's). > > > > That be to harsh IMHO. The author is fair enough to provide the source code > > free of charge, and his license is quite fair, again IMHO. Contrib is good > > enough, but at least get it of the GPL (!!) CDs, because it ain't GPL. > > Not that I want to start a license war... > well ... ;p > Neither is Apache, Netscape, and a host of other packages. Not being > GPL'd should not be a bar from being on the main distribution. no, be not being open source, aka not following debian guideline can be. apache is free, netscape is not, nor is xv. > Pragmatism falls in line with functionality and some of us like XV, it's > very reliable, unlike some of the others I have seen. It is the reason I > keep using it. i really don't the point for xv, open yours eyes and you'll see a whole bunch of *good* xv replacements. xv should be removed because it is shareware. (replacements: ImageMagick, ee, eog, gqview, pixie, gimp, all fully working)
Re: [Cooker] Re: [CHRPM] xv-3.10a-8mdk
Alexander Skwar wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 03:34:25PM +0200, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: > > We have to at least move it to the contribs (I say at least because it > > falls into the commercial app category (as being a shareware) so it must > > go theorically in the commercial CD's). > > That be to harsh IMHO. The author is fair enough to provide the source code > free of charge, and his license is quite fair, again IMHO. Contrib is good > enough, but at least get it of the GPL (!!) CDs, because it ain't GPL. Not that I want to start a license war... Neither is Apache, Netscape, and a host of other packages. Not being GPL'd should not be a bar from being on the main distribution. Pragmatism falls in line with functionality and some of us like XV, it's very reliable, unlike some of the others I have seen. It is the reason I keep using it. John
Re: [Cooker] Re: [CHRPM] xv-3.10a-8mdk
Xavier Bertou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Just one (general) remark. Maybe you don't care, but I think Mandrake > might loose some of its users going this way. I use Mandrake for some Personally I don't care, that's for sure, but I'm in no way representative of MandrakeSoft. Also I don't think that losing some users is more important than educating people about the goodness of free software. > computers I administrate as it is easy to install and has a lot of > things we need (such as journalized fs, etc.) out-of-the-box. > However, I'm becoming more and more woried (ok, I'm french, still some > work to do with my english) about some choices in Mandrake. xv is a > standard. Removing it would do more harm that anything else. Some A standard for what? SCO was once a standard of Unix on PC's. Solaris a standard for Unix workstations.. xv is a standard for many Unix's, well, that's right; it's now quite of a standard on the distrib's because at the beginning there was no alternative. But we have to be consistent with what we want to do, what we promote. Do we want to build an OS, like many others do, or do we want to help building an open source OS? Even in MandrakeSoft, the ideas are very different; I want to precise that my opinion is in no way the opinion of all the MandrakeSoft team; my opinion is that Free Software (I'm not talking about Open Source Software) is very important for people and we should promote it. The very logical thing when an alternative to a "standard" like xv appear, is to get rid of xv, and promote a free replacement. Another example is StarOffice. -- it's becoming sort of a standard and we were stuck with their proprietary file format. Fortunately it's probably changing with the opening of their source. [...] > My advice would be: "leave old things alone", meaning don't modify > things that newbie won't use. Put kterm and eterm entries, but not Many people here want to remove twm and fvwm1 from the distrib; at least me and Pixel want to leave it but many people are telling that we are newbie oriented so.. .. -- Guillaume Cottenceau -- Distribution Developer for MandrakeSoft http://www.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] Re: [CHRPM] xv-3.10a-8mdk
Submitted 26-Jul-00 by Xavier Bertou: > Don't put strange default behaviour for things such as vi that no > newbie will ever use. That's an unfair generalization. One of the first progams I ever launched was vi as a FreeBSD newbie. A few weeks later, I "graduated" to Redhat 5.2 and later to Mandrake 6.0. While I may not have been a "typical" newbie, vi was one of the few commands I knew about without having to find a manual. (And FreeBSD's default sh prompt is pretty scary for a newbie, let me tell you :) vi is mentioned in any halfway decent linux book, and newbies will generally know about it and want to try it. They may move on to other editors, such as Emacs or jed, but they know that vi will be on 90% of the systems out there because it can run even when only the root partition is mounted. -- _ _|_|_ ( ) *Anton Graham /v\ / <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /( )X (m_m) GPG ID: 18F78541 Penguin Powered!
Re: [Cooker] Re: [CHRPM] xv-3.10a-8mdk
Xavier Bertou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Just one (general) remark. Maybe you don't care, but I think Mandrake > might loose some of its users going this way. I use Mandrake for some sorry man, i don't want the morning to look me the morning in the mirror and say 'ho sh*** do i work for some classic company to do closed source software'' -- MandrakeSoft Inchttp://www.mandrakesoft.com San-Francisco, CA USA --Chmouel
Re: [Cooker] Re: [CHRPM] xv-3.10a-8mdk
> No kidding. Free is important. We now have many other good stuff -- and I > know what I'm talking about, as a long-run xv user.. Just one (general) remark. Maybe you don't care, but I think Mandrake might loose some of its users going this way. I use Mandrake for some computers I administrate as it is easy to install and has a lot of things we need (such as journalized fs, etc.) out-of-the-box. However, I'm becoming more and more woried (ok, I'm french, still some work to do with my english) about some choices in Mandrake. xv is a standard. Removing it would do more harm that anything else. Some default Mandrake configurations are also against standards. It took some time to understand why the scrollbar was enabled by default whereas xterm man was saying the opposite (/etc/X11/Xresources). Then I was quite surprised by the choice of "unset wrap" in default vimrc. Maybe it's better for newbies (but are there vim-using newbies ?), but it is something unusable for anybody not used to. These choices will make me think twice before installing a Mandrake. Of course, it's nice to have Mandrake becoming more than just a "better configured RedHat". But if it's becoming explicitly a "newbie configured Linux", I won't use it anymore. I guess something in-between is needed. My advice would be: "leave old things alone", meaning don't modify things that newbie won't use. Put kterm and eterm entries, but not generic Xterm entries which contradict the man. Don't put strange default behaviour for things such as vi that no newbie will ever use (a newbie using vi should know about line length). Don't remove standards that are still used on all other unices. Then, for all the extra-stuff, ok, let's go for blinking purple and pink Eterms! ;) And maybe it could be nice to have differents iso images for different users. I installed M7.1 with only the first CD (didn't want to burn the second one), and I was quite surprised libstdc++-devel was not on it. Maybe a good reflexion upon the 1000? packages and a more subtle organisation would be usefull. Is it necessary to install 3 different CD burners softwares ? And so on... Just my 0.02$
Re: [Cooker] Re: [CHRPM] xv-3.10a-8mdk
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 03:34:25PM +0200, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: > We have to at least move it to the contribs (I say at least because it > falls into the commercial app category (as being a shareware) so it must > go theorically in the commercial CD's). That be to harsh IMHO. The author is fair enough to provide the source code free of charge, and his license is quite fair, again IMHO. Contrib is good enough, but at least get it of the GPL (!!) CDs, because it ain't GPL. Alexander Skwar -- Homepage: http://www.digitalprojects.com Sichere Mail? Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED] fuer GnuPG Keys ICQ:7328191
Re: [Cooker] Re: [CHRPM] xv-3.10a-8mdk
David Walluck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Alexander Skwar wrote: > > > What are the reasons that xv is in the main distribution and not in the > > contrib area? > > I'd have to say (IMO), it is still the most functional of any of the > similar programs that Mandrake provides. But it's no free software. We HAVE to promote free software -- or else who would do that job? ;-) No kidding. Free is important. We now have many other good stuff -- and I know what I'm talking about, as a long-run xv user.. We have to at least move it to the contribs (I say at least because it falls into the commercial app category (as being a shareware) so it must go theorically in the commercial CD's). -- Guillaume Cottenceau -- Distribution Developer for MandrakeSoft http://www.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] Re: [CHRPM] xv-3.10a-8mdk
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Alexander Skwar wrote: > What are the reasons that xv is in the main distribution and not in the > contrib area? I'd have to say (IMO), it is still the most functional of any of the similar programs that Mandrake provides. -- Sincerely, David Walluck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
