Re: [Cooker] a pure RMS compliant Linux-Mandrake distro (only GPL packages)
What do you mean by looking after? dave On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, you wrote: Hi, In Bordeaux some people criticized us for delivering non-free software like Netscape in our first CD that we label "GPL Edition" is its standalone version. Now we have a (rather funny) idea : why not trying to see if it's possible to build up a 100% GPL product? This would involve removing anything but GPL-ized stuff, that is XFree86, apache, etc. Does anyone here is interested in looking after this product? -- "Pixel, il faut mettre un peu de chaleur dans tes contacts humains" (c) Titi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Registration #182490 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= LINUX - Why? Cause I dont do windows or ovens! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Re: [Cooker] a pure RMS compliant Linux-Mandrake distro (only GPL packages)
"Geoffrey Lee" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, In Bordeaux some people criticized us for delivering non-free software like Netscape in our first CD that we label "GPL Edition" is its standalone version. Now we have a (rather funny) idea : why not trying to see if it's possible to build up a 100% GPL product? This would involve removing anything but GPL-ized stuff, that is XFree86, apache, etc. so you want to have a distribution that contains only GPL licensed stuff? how aobut open-sourced software? Yes we want only GPL ; it's a sort of "joke" is you prefer ; a test to build up a gpl only distro, in order to see if it's possible or not. apache's license is incompatible with GPL ... Does anyone here is interested in looking after this product? not if godo setuff like apache is removed. i need it ;) it would mainly be a "unusable" distro I think, but maybe it's worth the exercise. -- "Pixel, il faut mettre un peu de chaleur dans tes contacts humains" (c) Titi
Re: [Cooker] a pure RMS compliant Linux-Mandrake distro (only GPL packages)
Armisis Aieoln [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What do you mean by looking after? doing it. -- "Pixel, il faut mettre un peu de chaleur dans tes contacts humains" (c) Titi
Re: [Cooker] a pure RMS compliant Linux-Mandrake distro (only GPL packages)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not that I want to get into a license flame war, but a distribution that is entirely GPL is not going to be incredibly useful: no Perl, no Apache, a good chunk of the kernel (take a look at some of the sub licenses), no QT, no KDE, etc. The concept of an all GPL distribution sounds great on the surface, Debian couldn't pull it off, but many of the apps and services we rely on are simply not GPL'd. All in all, why bother? As long as the software is freely distributable and free of charge, who cares? It's better to encourage OSS development through patience rather than force, but the GPL is not the only license that would encourage this. Of course. We highly support license that are mostly `compatible' with GPL, which includes MIT, BSD, LGPL, Artistic, QPL, MPL, etc. This project would be a RMS-"test" if you prefer. -- "Pixel, il faut mettre un peu de chaleur dans tes contacts humains" (c) Titi
RE: [Cooker] a pure RMS compliant Linux-Mandrake distro (only GPL packages)
so you want to have a distribution that contains only GPL licensed stuff? how aobut open-sourced software? Yes we want only GPL ; it's a sort of "joke" is you prefer ; a test to build up a gpl only distro, in order to see if it's possible or not. ah, then it is not possible i think ... apache's license is incompatible with GPL ... Does anyone here is interested in looking after this product? not if godo setuff like apache is removed. i need it ;) it would mainly be a "unusable" distro I think, but maybe it's worth the exercise. i think that, i wold be more interested in a "open-source" distribution or better still, a "free" distro where "free" is the "free" as defined by the Free Software Foundation. that would mean no Qt libs, or pine ... -- "Pixel, il faut mettre un peu de chaleur dans tes contacts humains" (c) Titi
Re: [Cooker] a pure RMS compliant Linux-Mandrake distro (only GPL packages)
Kaixo! On Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 02:25:08PM +0200, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: Of course. We highly support license that are mostly `compatible' with GPL, which includes MIT, BSD, LGPL, Artistic, QPL, MPL, etc. Of all those only LGPL is compatible with GPL. All them are free software (or at least open source), but that doesn't imply licences compatibility (on the other hand that doesn't really matter as long they are separate programs). This project would be a RMS-"test" if you prefer. So be careful about wording too; and don't talk about compatibility when that isn't the case; and take care of not calling anything (L)GPL "open source" either (while it is; RMS strongly states that is more than just that, it is also free (libre) software. Which for that I agree with him completly btw) -- Ki ça vos våye bén, Pablo Saratxaga http://www.srtxg.easynet.be/PGP Key available, key ID: 0x8F0E4975
RE: [Cooker] a pure RMS compliant Linux-Mandrake distro (only GPL packages)
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, Geoffrey Lee wrote: i think that, i wold be more interested in a "open-source" distribution or better still, a "free" distro where "free" is the "free" as defined by the Free Software Foundation. that would mean no Qt libs, or pine ... No pine? Great I guess I can't write e-mail then:( You know the reason I am not using DFebian is exactly that reason. What about freedom as in freedom of choice. I hope Mandrake will always allow users to pick the mailer that best suits them, instead of trying to push some religion on them. I just want to write e-mail. Save the religious debates for some other day. Some people may not think that GPL-free is more free than BSD-free of QT-free, or insert your license here-free. If I wanted a GPL-only distribution I would be using Debian. And If I wanted a religion I would look elsewhere than a Linux distribution or the top of a cereal box.
Re: [Cooker] a pure RMS compliant Linux-Mandrake distro (only GPL packages)
"Geoffrey Lee" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: i think that, i wold be more interested in a "open-source" distribution or better still, a "free" distro where "free" is the "free" as defined by the Free Software Foundation. that would mean no Qt libs, or pine ... I don't know for Pine -- but for Qt, RMS clearly said in the conference in Bordeaux that now it is "free" software. -- "Pixel, il faut mettre un peu de chaleur dans tes contacts humains" (c) Titi
Re: [Cooker] a pure RMS compliant Linux-Mandrake distro (only GPL packages)
damn , i wish that i had been able to go, it would have been damn great. so the QPL is now "free" ? i still don't like the idea how you have to distribute stuff in patches. hope that they fix it soon anyway. //Geoff
RE: [Cooker] a pure RMS compliant Linux-Mandrake distro (only GPL packages)
umm, use /bin/mail (i really love it, just have to patch it so that i get a From: header ;) a "free" distribution would be nice, and put proprietary stuff or just "open sourced" stuff somewhere else. maybe a "free" one woudl be nice, either as defined by the FSF, or you can use debian's definition?
Re: [Cooker] a pure RMS compliant Linux-Mandrake distro (only GPL packages)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: no Perl nope, perl is GPL *or* artistic, aka compatible with gpl...
Re: [Cooker] a pure RMS compliant Linux-Mandrake distro (only GPL packages)
On Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 09:50:43AM -0400, David Walluck wrote: On 12 Jul 2000, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: This project would be a RMS-"test" if you prefer. Why not do a BSD-test then? I think it ridiculous. Some people might I think that's the whole point... a distro that only contains GPLed software is going to be missing a whole lot. I think it's a great idea for a joke distro. :) -- Graham Percival
RE: [Cooker] a pure RMS compliant Linux-Mandrake distro (only GPL packages)
The people at Mandrake have more to worry about. Before tacling this, maybe work on categorizing rpms like ebain does instead of placing them all in one dir. And do some work on rpmfind as well. On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, Geoffrey Lee wrote: umm, use /bin/mail (i really love it, just have to patch it so that i get a From: header ;) a "free" distribution would be nice, and put proprietary stuff or just "open sourced" stuff somewhere else. maybe a "free" one woudl be nice, either as defined by the FSF, or you can use debian's definition?
Re: [Cooker] a pure RMS compliant Linux-Mandrake distro (only GPL packages)
David Walluck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The people at Mandrake have more to worry about. Before tacling this, maybe work on categorizing rpms like ebain does instead of placing them all in one dir. And do some work on rpmfind as well. Personnally I dislike the fact of categorizing the packages under various subdirectories. (and I remember last time I talked about this here I had the same reaction from other people) I think that the `Group'-ing is made for that. When you know the name of the package you want to query/install/update/etc it's a pain to have to provide the correct directory name. -- Guillaume Cottenceau -- Distribution Developer for MandrakeSoft http://www.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
