Re: Does linux use GPL or not??

[kmself]

On Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 05:59:04PM +0100, SamBC wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Kristiono Setyadi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> >
> > 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

The TurboLinux clustering software is, I believe, an example of this.

-- 
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: Does linux use GPL or not??

[kmself]

On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 09:57:48PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Aug 2000, Kristiono Setyadi wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote:

> > 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".

There is a possible incentive, if it's believed that by practicing
"embrace and extend" tactics, a specific distributor could gain a
stranglehold on the Linux market.

It's also possible to effectively pirate the brand or trademarks of a
Linux distribution.  Several years ago, RedHat practiced some pretty
liberal branding and distribution agreements, which were later
significantly tightened up.  There's a branding statement on their
website (the URL keeps drifting, I'll find it on request though) which
goes into length on what can and cannot be done with the "RedHat" brand.
Generally it's ok to refer to RedHat as an inspiration for a
distribution, but this cannot be done in such a way that the "RedHat"
mark or text stands out from other body text.  So you have CheapBytes
selling a RedHat 6.2 CD for $4.95, but that's just "RedHat 6.2", not
bold or otherwise distinctive type.

-- 
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: Does linux use GPL or not??

[kmself]

On Mon, Aug 07, 2000 at 09:57:48PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Aug 2000, Kristiono Setyadi wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote:
> > 
> > > If you modified the kernel and distributed it under a different
> > > license, you will get in serious trouble. It is not a crime exactly,
> > > but a copyright violation. When you go to court it will be to a civil
> > > court not a criminal court.
> > 
> > What about the other version of Linux (like RedHat, Slackware, etc.)?
> > Can we say that the Kernel of the Linux have been changed?
> 
> All of the different Linux distributions use the same kernel. Some will
> use different patches or modifications that the others don't, but all
> of these patches are also under the GPL. So far, the kernel has not
> forked, and I doubt that it will unless there is a technical reason to
> do so.

Not strictly true, nor relevant to the discussion.

What all Linux distributions *do* use is a kernel which is derived from
the one Linus Torvalds (and other kernel hackers) have released under
the terms of the GNU GPL.  Ownership of copyright transmits  through
derived works (the laywers here may want to wordsmith that, but I
believe the gist is correct).  

The various Linux kernels, and the distributions they are distributed
with, contain copyrighted code written by Torvalds and others.  The
license by which the code is allowed to be distributed is the GPL.  All
kernels need not be identical.  They are, however, a set of derived
works under copyright law.

IANAL.

-- 
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: Does linux use GPL or not??

[David Johnson]

On Wed, 09 Aug 2000, SamBC wrote:

> > You cannot do whatever you want with GPL software... Only public domain
> > has that distinction, and even there you can't claim authorship.
> 
> I overstated - you can do *most* what you want - most people wouldn't want
> to do the things they can't!

Well, one real biggy you can't do is incorporate the code into your own
project unless you are also using the GPL. For some people this is no
problem, while for others it is a major hurdle.

-- 
David Johnson
_

RE: Does linux use GPL or not??

[SamBC]

Sometimes I overstate I guess...

> -Original Message-
> From: David Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2000, SamBC wrote:
>

>
> The Redhat boxed set contains proprietary and non-redistributable
> software (and some proprietary but still redistributable software). I
> had overlooked this in my earlier post, as I have never acquired Redhat
> from anywhere other than Cheapbytes :-)

I never bought a boxed distro myself...

>
> But to quibble even more, *every* distribution contains non-GPL
> components, the most prominant of which is XFree86. Dozens or hundreds
> of others exist in all distros.

I guess I was committing the heinous semi-crime of using GPL as a synonym
for redsitributable - sorry!

>
> > > 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.
>
> I seem to recall that Redhat was urging distributors not to use the
> "Redhat GPL" wording. (I can't remember what wording they
> did want) Personally, I never liked the "GPL" suffix, as it implies that
> everything included is under the GPL. "GPL" should not be used as a
> synonym for "redistributable".

'Download Version' perhaps...

>
> > > 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)
>
> [sputter - sputter - choking on my Sierra Nevada Pale Ale - sputter]
>
> You cannot do whatever you want with GPL software... Only public domain
> has that distinction, and even there you can't claim authorship.

I overstated - you can do *most* what you want - most people wouldn't want
to do the things they can't!


SamBC

RE: Does linux use GPL or not??

[David Johnson]

On Tue, 08 Aug 2000, SamBC 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]
> 
> 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.

The Redhat boxed set contains proprietary and non-redistributable
software (and some proprietary but still redistributable software). I
had overlooked this in my earlier post, as I have never acquired Redhat
from anywhere other than Cheapbytes :-)

But to quibble even more, *every* distribution contains non-GPL
components, the most prominant of which is XFree86. Dozens or hundreds
of others exist in all distros.

> > 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.

I seem to recall that Redhat was urging distributors not to use the
"Redhat GPL" wording. (I can't remember what wording they
did want) Personally, I never liked the "GPL" suffix, as it implies that
everything included is under the GPL. "GPL" should not be used as a
synonym for "redistributable".

> > 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)

[sputter - sputter - choking on my Sierra Nevada Pale Ale - sputter]

You cannot do whatever you want with GPL software... Only public domain
has that distinction, and even there you can't claim authorship.

-- 
David Johnson
_

RE: Does linux use GPL or not??

[SamBC]

> -Original Message-
> From: Kristiono Setyadi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
>
>

>
> 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: Does linux use GPL or not??

[SamBC]

> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>

>
> 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??

[David Johnson]

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
_

Re: Does linux use GPL or not??

[Greg Wright]

*** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***

On 7/08/00 at 21:57 David Johnson wrote:



>> 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??

[David Johnson]

On Mon, 07 Aug 2000, Kristiono Setyadi wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote:
> 
> > If you modified the kernel and distributed it under a different
> > license, you will get in serious trouble. It is not a crime exactly,
> > but a copyright violation. When you go to court it will be to a civil
> > court not a criminal court.
> 
> What about the other version of Linux (like RedHat, Slackware, etc.)?
> Can we say that the Kernel of the Linux have been changed?

All of the different Linux distributions use the same kernel. Some will
use different patches or modifications that the others don't, but all
of these patches are also under the GPL. So far, the kernel has not
forked, and I doubt that it will unless there is a technical reason to
do so.

> 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".

-- 
David Johnson
_

Re: Does linux use GPL or not??

[Kristiono Setyadi]

On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote:

> If you modified the kernel and distributed it under a different
> license, you will get in serious trouble. It is not a crime exactly,
> but a copyright violation. When you go to court it will be to a civil
> court not a criminal court.

What about the other version of Linux (like RedHat, Slackware, etc.)?
Can we say that the Kernel of the Linux have been changed?

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??
Thank you.


--
"La vraie definition de la science, c'est 
qu'elle est l'etude de la beaute du monde"
--

Re: Does linux use GPL or not??

[David Johnson]

On Mon, 07 Aug 2000, Kristiono Setyadi wrote:
> I still confused with this GPL or non-GPL.
> First, I want to ask about Linux.
> Does Linux use a GPL or not?

Yes (sort of). Linus Torvalds licenses the kernel under the GPL.
However, he also includes a statement that it is permissable to link to
kernel routines from non-GPL programs. Thus it is a slightly modified
GPL. So it is rather like the LGPL in some ways.

> If someone distributed it (Linux, I mean..) with no GPL, can we called
> this a crime?

If you modified the kernel and distributed it under a different
license, you will get in serious trouble. It is not a crime exactly,
but a copyright violation. When you go to court it will be to a civil
court not a criminal court.

 -- 
David Johnson
_