Open Source
Forum: User Feedback
Topic: Open Source
started by: sankarv
Posted by sankarv on July 05 2006,09:07
Is DSL or any of its applications are open source?just want to know if it is so.
Posted by pr0f3550r on July 05 2006,09:53
Can you see the sources? I can't
Posted by kerry on July 05 2006,10:54
yes and no, so were going to have to bill you.LOLIt depends on what application you use and what the auther released it under. You'll know right away if you use it and have to agree or accept something.
Posted by sankarv on July 05 2006,11:06
kerry im unable to follow you. pls explain more.
Posted by kerry on July 05 2006,11:29
First you have to grasp what open source is, look here-> < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source >DSL uses application/programs that are made by others, depending on how the person released the program to the community, it might or might not be considered open source. You would have to look at the source package(original) to see how it was released. It's all not somthing you should really be concerned about unless your a purist who only wants to use open source programs or are intending to repackge and do something with it.
Posted by mikshaw on July 05 2006,14:04
As far as I know, everything in DSL proper is open source. The sources are not available within the distribution due to the size limit, but they are available either from the original authors of the applictions, or by request in the rare occasion that the source has been modified to work in DSL (e.g. firefox, xtdesktop).Everything that has been added in the way of DSL-specific tools is script, and therefore inherently open source.
MyDSL extensions are a dfferent story. Since they are built and maintained by users rather than DSL developers, they may or may not be open source. I can pretty much tell you with confidence that they are mostly open source and generally built from either unmodified source code or from prebuilt open source binary packages of which the source is available through debian repositories of the original authors' websites (one reason why it's so important to include a proper info file with extensions). There are one or two, such as opera, that are not open source but still redistributable.
None of this is fact, but a pretty good guess. =o)
Posted by crusadingknight on July 05 2006,17:35
This has actually been something which has startled me - 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. (And assume they default to being proprietary IP of their creator.)
Posted by humpty on July 05 2006,23:38
Some of DSL and MyDsl's are GPL or LGPL.This is better than 'open source'. It's 'free software'.
< http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html >
quote:
" the legal status of ``open source'' is the same as that of ``free software'': there is no legal constraint on using it."
Posted by WDef on July 06 2006,08:52
Even worse than the question of what is or is not actually open source or GPL/LGPL is the vexed issue of possible patents.However in practice that is not going to be an issue until someone starts suing someone, and the targets for a law suit in practice need to be a corporation with deep pockets.
Posted by pr0f3550r on July 06 2006,15:18
| Quote (crusadingknight @ July 05 2006,13:35) |
| This has actually been something which has startled me - 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. (And assume they default to being proprietary IP of their creator.) |
Very much spot on, crusadingknight!
This is exactly what keeps me from redistributing and contributing to DSL. I have tons of mydsl's that I have created for myself, but I refuse to give them away until the mantainers respect what they themselves had stated:
| Quote |
| MyDSL:Acceptable Extension Policy Extension Submission All extension submissions must adhere to the following rules: (..cut..) * The info file must give us the location of the "source" of this application. Source being defined here as a "known location of origin". If the application being submitted was compiled from source code, then the source code actually used to build the application can be submitted with the extension, or the exact version number and a location where it is available for download must be clearly stated in the info file. Include your ./configure file, and Makefile alongside the extension. (..cut..) * Any submission may be denied admission into the MyDSL repository at our discretion. Reasons may include items incomplete, personalized, semi-functional, or deviant from known repositories and sources. |
In my view DSL is not free software, but I use because it works.
Posted by roberts on July 06 2006,18:19
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.
Posted by crusadingknight on July 06 2006,20:34
| 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.
Posted by roberts on July 06 2006,20:58
The license files for both docs and software has been in place well before I joined this project. Take a look in /usr/share/doc/License and < here. >
This subject has been reviewed and has been found to be acceptable by the FSF.
Who said anything about patents?
I was only talking about respect of other's work.
Might your question be better framed, by asking where the License file is? Instead of protesting over a copyright banner?
Posted by humpty on July 06 2006,21:57
>> Ya just have to wonder...I would like to hear from the guy the stirred his up,
sankarv - why did you want to know?
Posted by crusadingknight on July 07 2006,01:57
| 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.)
Posted by mikshaw on July 07 2006,02:42
As I see it, a script, which is inherently open source due to its plain text content, needs only a copywrite notice and not a license. Since there is a copyright notice included, in plain text, you know who the author is and where to go for permission to reuse, modify, and/or redistribute it.It baffles me that there is any issue at all about this subject.
Posted by sankarv on July 07 2006,03:41
guys i just asked to get enough knowledge about the License and nothing much. Possibly i may customize applications for my desktop if its open source . thats it.
Posted by pr0f3550r on July 07 2006,09:55
Whoever started the thread has adked a legitimate question. There's no point warming up, unless you are very insecure of what you're doing.About Knoppix: is it free software? I don't think so, yet I use it because it's good.
Nobody is blaming DSL mantainers, but this is something that all distros sooner or later have to go through.
About source availability, this is less important than the confusion about copyrights issue.
I ask you all a question: is or is not DSL a binary rework of Knoppix? Or do you develop from a CVS?
Knoppix is itself a binary rework and I expext DSL to be the same.
All binary reworks sooner or later are questioned about copyright and licence issues.
I am a very bad developer but I have long been lurking debian-legal mailing list to know about the issue.
About Puppy: I have never managed to make it work but the amount of documentation deserves respect.
I expect that both DSL and Puppy developers contributing to this thread will show a bit more maturity
and less personal insults.
Posted by mikshaw on July 07 2006,18:28
The Knoppix distribution is released under the GPL, and therefore is free:| Quote |
| If not otherwise specified, the software on the CD falls under the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE. |
| Quote |
| Individual packages, as specified by the GPL, may fall under another license (for example Netscape). |
DSL doesn't contain the non-free, non-open-source software that can be found in Knoppix, and so it is entirely open source, and entirely free. This doesn't mean that it is all GPL, however, so it is expected that you contact the author of any script you wish to use for more than personal use. As far as I know, all included binaries are GPL or compatible with GPL (MIT, BSD, etc).
Posted by John on July 08 2006,03:31
My scripts, the ones that have my name on them are GPL v2, you can reuse them according to the terms of that license.Okay, so this thread doesn't go down in a pit of ashes I am going to close it.