User Feedback :: Open Source

OK. Lua/Gui scripts. This seems like this is getting personal. Let me get this straight...
The same copyright banner that Klaus Knopper uses on his original works is OK. But it is not OK if I use it

Do you believe in coincidences?
I have to wonder about the genesis of this thread, as I was recently contacted by the Puppy Linux to start uing my Lua/GUI scripts.
But the request was also mysterious, no one identified themseleves. Was it real? Maybe a fake? My response was a polite, "With whom am I corresponding?". Never got an answer. Then this thread starts with seemlingly the same goal or objective.
Ya just have to wonder...

Reminds of recent history, when most everything I wrote was copied by another distro, except they translated it into perl, and of course not giving me, the original author credit.  Would you remove Klaus Knopper's name from his scripts? I think not. Would you rewite some of his scripts into perl and claim it was your original work? I think not. But this is what some wish to do to my original work?

Respecting the work of  the original author and leaving  his copyright banner stand should be respected. If you do a derivative work the original author should be referenced.

Why do you think, the opening asci art DSL logo statesthat it uses Knoppix Technology? Why do you think I leave stand the KNOPPIX image. It is out of respect for the shoulders that I stand on.

For the FOSS movement to thrive, there needs to be respect for original work of others. If a copyright notice offends then I have to wonder of the motivation. For it, the copyright notice, is the same as the work that I have contributed to and extended it capabilites.

So, is the point of this thread to say that Knoppix is not open source  If not what exactly is the point?

Maybe you guys missed the announcement that INSERT linux is starting to use the Lua/GUI scripts from DSL. Or the many other deverative works based on DSL which do give credit.

Second point.

The extensions are not a part of the distribution known as dsl or dsl-n. They are created by the community and as a service to the community we provide the hosting. This is a very distinct separation here. The code that I write provides a framework for the community to build and repackage extensions.
That is why the extension area is a separate download area and a separate fourm area. Do not confuse user contributed extenions with the distribution. The fact that we set standards is to try to protect the community and the integrity of the core distribution of DSL.

And finally...
The distribution known as dsl and dsl-n is covered by the GPL license. All source code is available by request for a handling fee, as per the .GPL and as noted in the same download directory from which the distribution is made available.

Quote

OK. Lua/Gui scripts. This seems like this is getting personal. Let me get this straight... The same copyright banner that Klaus Knopper uses on his original works is OK. But it is not OK if I use it For the FOSS movement to thrive, there needs to be respect for original work of others. If a copyright notice offends then I have to wonder of the motivation. For it, the copyright notice, is the same as the work that I have contributed to and extended it capabilites. So, is the point of this thread to say that Knoppix is not open source  If not what exactly is the point?

No, the point was we can't find any straight-up information. All my work goes under the BSD license for that reason, so that nobody ever has to start this kind of thread. We're not inconsiderate, just confused - and not by your copyright notice, but your lack of explicit copyright terms. On the Knoppix question, how should we know that? We're using DSL, not Knoppix.  

Quote

Maybe you guys missed the announcement that INSERT linux is starting to use the Lua/GUI scripts from DSL. Or the many other deverative works based on DSL which do give credit.

No, we never saw the INSERT announcement, or the other announcements. It seems very unusual to have to google to determine the licensing terms of software.

Quote

Reminds of recent history, when most everything I wrote was copied by another distro, except they translated it into perl, and of course not giving me, the original author credit.  Would you remove Klaus Knopper's name from his scripts? I think not. Would you rewite some of his scripts into perl and claim it was your original work? I think not. But this is what some wish to do to my original work?

Again, you seem to be reading more into this than anyone intended. We're mainly confused due to the lack of BSD/GPL or similiar notice, not the fact a notice is there. Also, about the perl - I got a note on this just yesterday (it's also posted on a few forums, and CPAN). Somebody rewrote my C code (about 5 000 lines, so not much work) as a Perl module, thanking me only briefly in the announcement, no thank you in a README or the like. However, I choose more to be happy that my work was useful to someone else, rather than angry that they chose to rewrite my work in a form that would be usable to a wider audience. I personally belive software patents are a bad thing, but I suppose that part of my opinion doesn't pertain to this thread.

Quote (roberts @ July 06 2006,16:58)

Might your question be better framed, by asking where the License file is? Instead of protesting over a copyright banner?

Quote

the copyright notices on the lua scripts, etc. which form the distribution proper usually just tend to say 'copyright © contributor', without an explicit license. Thus, I've been unable to redistribute any, since I have no idea if I can or can't.

My question still stands as to what the license to those scripts is. (There was never any protest   ). http://distro.ibiblio.org/pub....ces.txt only states that GPL sources will be distributed at need, as required by the GPL, which has no bearing on the discussion.

I have no protests or problems here, I just can't find a straightforward statement of the covering license. I'm currently assuming said scripts are under GPL, but please feel free to correct me. (Since /usr/share/doc/License contains the GNU GPL, and you said '
The distribution known as dsl and dsl-n is covered by the GPL license.'although it could be clearer in the sources if this is the case; I'm used to seeing the info presented by the section "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" of the GPL.)