Re: Does linux use GPL or not??
*** REPLY SEPARATOR *** On 7/08/00 at 21:57 David Johnson wrote: snip In some countries, the copyright is some of the most frequently violated. Most of the microsoft (and other commercial software..) are pirated. Have you heard about Linux pirated?? There is no point in pirating Linux. It is already free with no cost. There is nothing wrong with purchasing a $80 boxed set of Redhat and making a million copies of it, selling them for $1 each. There may be a trademark violation if these copies are sold as "official" Redhat distributions, but there is still very little reason to do this. Overall, there is very little incentive to pirate Linux. It is a completely different class of software than Windows. As I like to say, "you can't steal what is free". Sorry, but I have to point this out because it is misleading, if you buy a boxed set of RH software, and go about duplicating it, then selling it, I am afraid your are breaking the law , RH does not give anyone the right to duplicate its boxed set AFAIK and understand, ask [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can however duplicate the downloadable ISO till your hearts content, you would still have to be careful of word usage when selling though Also I really wish people did interpret free as "freedom" not free as in "free lunch" or "beer"
Re: Does linux use GPL or not??
On Mon, 07 Aug 2000, Greg Wright wrote: Sorry, but I have to point this out because it is misleading, if you buy a boxed set of RH software, and go about duplicating it, then selling it, I am afraid your are breaking the law , RH does not give anyone the right to duplicate its boxed set AFAIK and understand, ask [EMAIL PROTECTED] You are right. I was thinking in terms of the GPLd kernel and not all the rest of Redhat's distribution. I was sloppy. Sorry for the confusion. Also I really wish people did interpret free as "freedom" not free as in "free lunch" or "beer" A quibble of words. In the context of the discussion, it is clear that my use of the word "free" referred to the lack of price. The purpose of software piracy is not to grant certain distribution permissions to the end user, but to avoid a monetary price. -- David Johnson _ http://www.usermode.org
RE: Public Domain and liability
It is my understanding that State government is not bound by the same "public domain" requirements as the Federal government in 17 USC 105. That is, because States are not explicitly included in the exclusions of who can hold copyrights, States have the right to copyright their works. Given that, what are your thoughts on States using an open source license on software they develop? -Original Message- From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 8:27 PM To: John Cowan Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; License Discuss Subject:RE: Public Domain and liability Good point, John. I was thinking more in terms of works being "released to the public domain" by expiration of copyright or some other operation of law. You are exactly correct. The federal government cannot claim copyright to its own works so those works are public domain works at their inception under copyright law (one caution: a patent may be obtained). As a practical matter and aside from military or national security uses, the Federal government acts as a market player (rather than a software developer) so the vast majority of software programs used by or created for the Federal government are works licensed to the government from private sector sources and university research. Of course, these works usually do not by operation of law immediately become public domain works. Rod -Original Message- From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 7:58 PM To: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; License Discuss Subject: RE: Public Domain and liability On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: Strictly speaking, this discussion is theoretical since I know of no public domain works that are software programs. (This is not to say that there is not any source code in the public domain). Software programs written by U.S. government employees within the scope of their employment are surely in the public domain. For example, see the software programs linked to http://mapping.usgs.gov/www/products/software.html . As a specific example, http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/pub/tools/misc/reform.c is the source code for a public-domain program (though not explicitly dedicated to the public domain within the code itself). -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] C'est la` pourtant que se livre le sens du dire, de ce que, s'y conjuguant le nyania qui bruit des sexes en compagnie, il supplee a ce qu'entre eux, de rapport nyait pas. -- Jacques Lacan, "L'Etourdit"
RE: Does linux use GPL or not??
-Original Message- From: Greg Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] SNIP Sorry, but I have to point this out because it is misleading, if you buy a boxed set of RH software, and go about duplicating it, then selling it, I am afraid your are breaking the law , RH does not give anyone the right to duplicate its boxed set AFAIK and understand, ask [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you duplicate the printed media (manuals) this is illegal. However, the CD-ROM in *most* box-set is the same as the downloadable ISO, so you can copy it freely as the content (which is all you copy) is GPL'd. Of course, in the case of some distro's one or more CD-ROM edition has non-GPL components included, and these may not be copied. You can however duplicate the downloadable ISO till your hearts content, you would still have to be careful of word usage when selling though You could say "RedHat Linux 6.2 GPL", just don't use the word 'Official', which implies they get the technical support. Also I really wish people did interpret free as "freedom" not free as in "free lunch" or "beer" Yes, people are free to do what they want with it - including copy sell it, as long as it is all GPL'd, as it is in many distributions (eg Debian) SamBC
RE: Does linux use GPL or not??
-Original Message- From: Kristiono Setyadi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] SNIP What about the other version of Linux (like RedHat, Slackware, etc.)? Can we say that the Kernel of the Linux have been changed? They do not modify the kernel (except for the odd proprietary patch which is unusual). However, they distribute under the GPL also (mostly), and they charge for documentation, support, and media, not for the software itself In some countries, the copyright is some of the most frequently violated. Most of the microsoft (and other commercial software..) are pirated. Have you heard about Linux pirated?? The only way Linux would be pirated was if someone tried to distribute it with different license terms, which they wouldn't want to do anyway. Copying it as much as you like is perfectly legal. That's one of the points of free software and opensource!! SamBC
Re: Design Science License
Terry Hancock wrote: Is anyone familiar with this license and/or OSI's relationship to or opinion of it? The DSL was submitted for OSI approval last January; there has yet to be a reply. Like others had mentioned on this list around that time, it seems that OSI might not be actively approving licenses anymore -- so lack of OSI approval should not necessarily be a negative influence in deciding which license is best for your needs.
License Approval Process
To the Open Source community: The board of directors of OSI, which has responsibility to approve licenses, is composed of volunteers. They are doing their best to catch up with the backlog of submitted licenses. Given their other activities, this is taking more time than we'd like. I hope you can all be patient. As OSI's new executive director, I am taking seriously the job of processing license review requests in a timely manner. At last month's board meeting, six licenses were discussed and two approved (the CNRI license submitted by Python and the Apache license submitted by the Apache Software Foundation). The board has scheduled a meeting later this month to review licenses, and they plan to meet on a regular basis in coming months to try to work their way through the backlog of submitted licenses. The community can help by considering carefully whether a new license is really needed. There are several very good licenses already approved. Will "yet another" license help? Make sure you clearly explain your objectives for creating your new license when you submit it for approval, so that the OSI board can prioritize appropriately. We're also trying to improve our procedures so that we can update our web site more frequently as new licenses are submitted for review and then either approved or disapproved. If any of you know of someone in the California Bay Area who'd like to be OSI's webmaster, please let me know. OSI always welcomes suggestions for improvement. Please feel free to contact me, or you may write directly to members of the board of directors. /Larry Rosen Executive Director, OSI 650-366-3457 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.rosenlaw.com www.opensource.org
RE: Public Domain and liability
I think it may be a very good idea. In fact, some states are developing free software...especially state-run universities. It's fairly well-known that the contributions of the Univeristy of Illinois and UC-Berkeley are significant in regards to Internet software. States, of course, will not give away all (or even most) of their intellectual property, but I think some have made significant contributions as a result of the software development projects at universities, which often are sponsored by Federal grants. Rod -Original Message- From: Brice, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 10:23 AM To: 'Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.'; John Cowan Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; License Discuss Subject: RE: Public Domain and liability It is my understanding that State government is not bound by the same "public domain" requirements as the Federal government in 17 USC 105. That is, because States are not explicitly included in the exclusions of who can hold copyrights, States have the right to copyright their works. Given that, what are your thoughts on States using an open source license on software they develop? -Original Message- From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 8:27 PM To: John Cowan Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; License Discuss Subject:RE: Public Domain and liability Good point, John. I was thinking more in terms of works being "released to the public domain" by expiration of copyright or some other operation of law. You are exactly correct. The federal government cannot claim copyright to its own works so those works are public domain works at their inception under copyright law (one caution: a patent may be obtained). As a practical matter and aside from military or national security uses, the Federal government acts as a market player (rather than a software developer) so the vast majority of software programs used by or created for the Federal government are works licensed to the government from private sector sources and university research. Of course, these works usually do not by operation of law immediately become public domain works. Rod -Original Message- From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 7:58 PM To: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; License Discuss Subject: RE: Public Domain and liability On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote: Strictly speaking, this discussion is theoretical since I know of no public domain works that are software programs. (This is not to say that there is not any source code in the public domain). Software programs written by U.S. government employees within the scope of their employment are surely in the public domain. For example, see the software programs linked to http://mapping.usgs.gov/www/products/software.html . As a specific example, http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/pub/tools/misc/reform.c is the source code for a public-domain program (though not explicitly dedicated to the public domain within the code itself). -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] C'est la` pourtant que se livre le sens du dire, de ce que, s'y conjuguant le nyania qui bruit des sexes en compagnie, il supplee a ce qu'entre eux, de rapport nyait pas. -- Jacques Lacan, "L'Etourdit"
BH Fonts and XFree86
I got pulled into a discussion on a non-software mailing list regarding fonts. It was claimed that redistributing the Lucida fonts was illegal. This surprised me since these are included with XFree86, which I still consider to be freely redistributable. The dispute involved trying to acquire these fonts in order to reproduce the style of a certain publisher. Copying part of the legal notice that comes with the XFree86 source regarding the Lucida fonts from Bigelow and Holmes: NOTICE TO USER: The source code, including the glyphs or icons forming a par of the OPEN LOOK TM Graphic User Interface, on this tape and in these files is copyrighted under U.S. and international laws. Sun Microsystems, Inc. of Mountain View, California owns the copyright and has design patents pending on many of the icons. ATT is the owner of the OPEN LOOK trademark associated with the materials on this tape. Users and possessors of this source code are hereby granted a nonexclusive, royalty-free copyright and design patent license to use this code in individual and commercial software. A royalty-free, nonexclusive trademark license to refer to the code and output as "OPEN LOOK" compatible is available from ATT if, and only if, the appearance of the icons or glyphs is not changed in any manner except as absolutely necessary to accommodate the standard resolution of the screen or other output device, the code and output is not changed except as authorized herein, and the code and output is validated by ATT. Bigelow Holmes is the owner of the Lucida (R) trademark for the fonts and bit-mapped images associated with the materials on this tape. Users are granted a royalty-free, nonexclusive license to use the trademark only to identify the fonts and bit-mapped images if, and only if, the fonts and bit-mapped images are not modified in any way by the user. Questions: Is it permissable to redistribute the Lucida fonts? Is an electronic document considered software? Is it permissable to distribute printouts using these fonts? Thanks, -- David Johnson _ http://www.usermode.org
RE: Public Domain and liability
On Tue, 08 Aug 2000, Brice, Richard wrote: It is my understanding that State government is not bound by the same "public domain" requirements as the Federal government in 17 USC 105. That is, because States are not explicitly included in the exclusions of who can hold copyrights, States have the right to copyright their works. Given that, what are your thoughts on States using an open source license on software they develop? Given that you're asking for thoughts and opinions: mine is that they should be public domain only. When taxpayers' money is used to create anything, everyone should benefit. It doesn't matter to me if they are individuals, corporations, altruists or selfish scum, they all paid to get the software developed. -- David Johnson _ http://www.usermode.org
Re: StarOffice under the GPL ?
On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 01:36:06AM -0300, petruzza wrote: I heard and read about Sun will release the source of StarOffice suite in october. Someone know that is truth ? What you think about ? This step will make SOffice better ? faster like Netscape, when the source was freely ? I think that change will shake like a hurricane with other companies and her suites, more than when Sun buys StarDivision. StarOffice will be released under the GNU General Public License and the SISL (a Sun-written variant of the Mozilla Public License) on October 13, 2000. Info: http://www.openoffice.org/project/www/press/sun_release.html -- Karsten M. Self [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netcom.com/~kmself Evangelist, Opensales, Inc.http://www.opensales.org What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Debian GNU/Linux rocks! http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/K5: http://www.kuro5hin.org GPG fingerprint: F932 8B25 5FDD 2528 D595 DC61 3847 889F 55F2 B9B0 PGP signature
Re: StarOffice under the GPL ?
On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: StarOffice will be released under the GNU General Public License and the SISL (a Sun-written variant of the Mozilla Public License) on October 13, 2000. Actually SISSL is quite different from Mozilla. It uses some common definitions which is why is appears similar at first, but it is much less restrictive overall than the MPL. There *is* a Sun Public License modeled after the NPL, pretty much s/Netscape/Sun/, which Netbeans was released under (www.netbeans.org). SISSL has been submitted to OSI for approval and is being considered. Brian
