Linux and Free Software :: Introducing StudentOS™ (A remastered DSL4.0)

Not sure about GPL3 but I know I did some reading up on the GPL2 a year back and, unless I'm mistaken, it is regarded as sufficient to indicate where the sources may be obtained (I'm not a lawyer) eg a url is enough. Maybe this is just some truism people have absorbed and echoed but I'm pretty sure I saw it definitively somewhere.

So afaik the dsl repos do not have a problem provided info files do indicate where GPL'd sources can be obtained.

Some of the dual licensed code could require care but even SSL turns out to be no problem, though complying with its multiple licensing might seem to imply that anything compiled against its libs and headers has to give a specific acknowledgment to Eric S Young as well as including the SSL licenses, but I'm not sure this appears to be followed very strictly anywhere so perhaps that is not enforceable or something.

btw I see nothing wrong with blogananda either remastering and redistributing dsl or posting about it here, whether or not he is associated with some company. If he happens to do something interesting with this then, as has happened before, any good ideas can simply be merged back into dsl, that's one of the great things about open source and one reason it can both consolidate and spread innovation at the same time rather than trapping it in proprietary chimneys. I don't think it matters (?) whether he has registered a trademark or not.

Since its inception there has been an often tight association between unix and linux and commercial activity, and now of course we have seen a boom in services provided around open source.

Multiple threads can be annoying though blogananda - you will risk incurring Lucky's ire (never a wise thing to do LOL) or getting up someone else's nose if you do that.

Quote

So afaik the dsl repos do not have a problem provided info files do indicate where GPL'd sources can be obtained.

I think this is a matter we need to clarify. I don't know if John has already done this (or not), or if submitters need to maintain sources for all submissions for three years, etc. Could be a hassle if there's any unfulfilled obligation but the GPL has requirements and they have to be met correctly.

Quote

...even SSL turns out to be no problem...

That was one of the reasons I approached Robert about the subject (and other related issues) off-forum. My pending extension(s) aren't compiled against OpenSSL, they *are* OpenSSL and require ssleay copyright information.

Quote

...I see nothing wrong with blogananda either remastering and redistributing dsl or posting about it here, whether or not he is associated with some company....Since its inception there has been an often tight association between unix and linux and commercial activity

I have no problem with remastering. I have several of my own.

I have no problem with redistributing DSL or remasters, so long as those who do it abide by all the terms of the GPL and any other applicable licenses. I think many users don't realize GPL is a double-edged sword especially when it comes to what's really "free" about it, and they equate free only with "free as in beer."

The GPL allows blogananda to sell his remasters, and I would defend his right to do that. Heck, I'd even give him ideas to market those if he wanted. I'm a capitalist pig -- pro-corporation and pro-profit. So I have no problem with him slapping whatever he wants on it as long as he plays by the rules. The GPL is "the rules" for a big part of what he's doing, and he has to play by them if he's redistributing anything to which GPL applies.

The things I had any problem with were:
- posting the same lengthy information in two separate threads (and, IMO, unsuitable threads -- perhaps one of the water cooler threads would be a better place to advertise one's re-distros),
- that someone coming so quickly from outside the community would seem to join it to toot his own horn instead of participate in the community by submitting extensions, and
- the likelihood that he was in non-compliance with the same rules anyone else distributing GPL'ed software has to comply with.

The thing about trademark symbols everywhere is kind of nitpicky, I admit. The irony is DSL *is* trademarked and he left the symbols off all the DSL part of it even though his remasters leave so much of DSL intact. If anything, the thread should read "Introducing StudentOS (A remastered DSL™4.0)" or something like that.

That's arbitrary and a matter of taste as far as how it's done, even though trademarks aren't trivial. The GPL stuff certainly isn't trivial. That's legal stuff. I'm glad he's keen to do the right thing about it, and my impressions of and respect for him have increased because his attitude has been very positive.

(minor edit to clarify)

Quote (lucky13 @ June 14 2008,10:03)

The GPL allows blogananda to sell his remasters, and I would defend his right to do that. Heck, I'd even give him ideas to market those if he wanted. I'm a capitalist pig -- pro-corporation and pro-profit.

...reminds me of the guy who wanted to make his pile from non-profits.

This is venturing way off topic.

Quote

...reminds me of the guy who wanted to make his pile from non-profits.

There's no such thing as "non-profit." Whether you look at the economics from a corporate/aggregate standpoint or from the standpoint of individuals who work for them, non-profits are very much centered on activities that are, of necessity, not selfless but very much focused on fund-raising. At least in the corporate world such activity comes with an exchange of goods or services rather than appeals and grant proposals for cash. The employees of many non-profits are paid salaries commensurate or in excess of what they'd make in the "for profit" sector (which is what we would call "the real world") for the same tasks. I'm not dismissing the work many of them do in the public interest, I just disagree there's a qualitative difference between non- and for-profit. Profitable coporations also act in the public interest by offering goods and services at prices markets can support.

Accordingly, why should I object if Ubuntu is able to capitalize on open source software and lure companies and individuals (and "non-profits") to subscribe to service contracts with Canonical? Or if Sun uses OpenSolaris to push either their hardware or Solaris service contracts or both? Or if John wants to market mini-ITX systems, mini CDs, or USB pendrives ready to go? Or if blogananda can find ways to monetize this thing that interests him?

People don't work to break even, they work to get ahead. If you're not a monk or priest who's voluntarily taken a vow of poverty (which is still about work as "getting ahead" in another way), you go in to work with an expectation that you'll be paid a rate that makes it worth your while. You do this work for that pay or whatever exchange you choose to barter. There's nothing wrong with making money or doing something for the reward of coming out ahead of where you were when you started. Not when an individual does it, not when a company does it, not when non-profits do it by soliciting voluntary contributions. When the siphon dries, people do other things to try and come out ahead or at least make it worthwhile.

That pertains to open source software every bit as much as anything else. The GPL allows for it. The sad irony is, many GPL fans and open source advocates object to it anyway.

Nicely said, although I'd guess the vast majority of us on the board are in it for the hobby. Personally, it seems a bit silly to think about remastering a zillion varieties of DSL for profit, although I guess there's always some idiot who would buy a copy.

Next Page...
original here.