Open source stuff

Forum: Linux and Free Software
Topic: Open source stuff
started by: blhandi

Posted by blhandi on July 10 2006,01:54

I have been reading some of the posts regarding supporting 95-98-xp stuff. I have alot of the same emotions. I am trying to start a local support system for software that is open source. Im a big fan and user of Dsl, so I have been collecting open source apps that are runable in dsl and win.( Open office, firefox etc.)

Questions I have are

Are all packages in the base DSL open source?, Certainly some of the mydsl apps are not.

is it 'bad' or contridictory to help M$ people learn and use open source software at other than the operating system level?

Any thoughts and notes would be helpfull.

the site Im using to accumlate my ideas on the project
is www.losug.org
But please be gentel in any comments about it, Its not ready for prime time yet and changes daily.

Thanks

Posted by kerry on July 10 2006,02:56

been covered, do a search.

Posted by mikshaw on July 10 2006,03:08

Quote

Are all packages in the base DSL open source?, Certainly some of the mydsl apps are not.

I don't see why any apps would "certainly" not be open source. That sounds as if you're having a difficult time believing that a desktop could be useable with only open source.
In any case, yes I think it's all open source. There MIGHT be one or two things i haven't noticed, but i have strong doubts about the existence of closed software in DSL.

Quote

is it 'bad' or contridictory to help M$ people learn and use open source software at other than the operating system level?

I don't think it's bad at all. I dunno about contradictory, considering i don't know what it is that it might be contradicting. Perhaps you could rephrase the question a bit.

Posted by blhandi on July 10 2006,12:43

Thanks for the replies.

1) After just a quick look, I found xpaint lists a copy right section and permission to distrbute and use with out cost. I thought that that makes it Freeware, not open source. Would not the gpl, or similar licence be needed?

If the developers of dsl have it as a goal and standard to only include software of a certain set of licenses, than maybe freeware is in it.

I am only trying to educate myself on the concepts and practices of open source, However its done, is fine with me.

2) is it fair to say:

If I can download DSL, then I should be able to redistribute (it in its original form, etc etc ) to others.

If they ask, I would say that the linux kernel and most of the base programs and tools are open source, but that some distributions may include freeware or even shareware.

3) Some of the posts on the w98 topic indicated that no effort should be spent supporting or helping people that rely on win systems.
Is it contradictory to support open source use on a proprietary operating system, when the operating system seems to work to eliminate open source.

4) Off hand dismissals should always be ignored.

Thanks again.

Posted by mikshaw on July 10 2006,18:55

1) The term "freeware", as I understand it, is a general term for any software that is available at no cost. In this definition, open source would fall into that category. Usually open source software is set apart from freeware, however, since it is always open source but not necessarily always free of cost. Also, freeware does not always allow redistribution.

The GPL is just one of several ways to licence open source software. The only thing that is shared by all is the fact that the source code is available to the general public. Depending on its license, the code may be limited in what you are allowed to do with it...you might only be able to modify it for personal use, or you may be able to modify and redistribute with certain other limitations (as with GPL), or you may be able to do whatever you want with it.

All of the binary programs in DSL are released under GPL or GPL-compatible license. You can find out whatever you need to know about their licenses by visiting the websites of the various programs' developers.

2) As the DSL distribution has been released under GPL, you are allowed to modify and redistribute, as long as the redistributed product abides by and remains under GPL license. Some distros include shareware, but DSL does not...it contains NOTHING that cannot be redistributed.

3) I don't believe there is anything wrong or contrary with supporting open source software on proprietary operating systems. I may have misunderstood the purpose of the win98 thread, but i was under the impression that it concerned support of Windows and Windows users by Linux software....in that respect I think it's a waste of time and resources to cater to people who want a windows-like environment just because they don't want to have to learn anything new.

4) Sometimes.

Posted by crusadingknight on July 10 2006,19:53

Quote (mikshaw @ July 10 2006,14:55)

The only thing that is shared by all is the fact that the source code is available to the general public. Depending on its license, the code may be limited in what you are allowed to do with it...you might only be able to modify it for personal use, or you may be able to modify and redistribute with certain other limitations (as with GPL), or you may be able to do whatever you want with it.

You're thinking about shared source - see < the Open Source Definition >. (Just in particular "Free Redistribution", "Derived Works", and "Integrity of The Author's Source Code.")

Quote (blhandi @ July 09 2006,21:54)

4) Off hand dismissals should always be ignored.

Actually, I think kerry's trying to prevent the return of a recent thread about the topic which got close to flamy. However, I think that line of discussion is finished now.

Posted by kerry on July 10 2006,21:32

Yes crusadingknight,you got me pegged. i do think this was all covered in the other thread. i believe we should trust that robert and jhon know what there doing and that they are following all the procedures required to make there distro redistributable for others to use. if someone intends to do something else with DSL rather than use and share it, i believe they should ask robert or jhon directly, instead of asking on the forum to see what they can get away with copying, not that that might be the intention. alot of work goes into making most linux " free " but there are people out there that do take advantage.

TO: the orignal poster, i did take a look at your web page and i do think if your going to use DSL as your offical club cd, you should show some repect to the creater's by atleast acknowledging them somewhere on the site. maybe even a link to the main site instead of just to the apps. you make it seem as if you did all that work. RUDE

Posted by mikshaw on July 11 2006,04:48

While GPL allows modifcation and redistribution of modified source, it does not provide exemption from adherence to copyright, which in my opinion is more important than the software license. The copyright states who the original author is, and should NEVER be altered, ignored, or removed.

Posted by blhandi on July 11 2006,12:21

So Far,

1 DSL,
1.1 no problems with redistributing to local friends without mods, etc.
1.2 If Im going to use DSL as a method of demonstarting other open source freeware apps, then I should promote dsl as a thanks. Great idea, thanks. (All of the big apps on my CD will be win copies. The dsl part allows me to introduce linux (and dsl) to an audiance that will likely never see or use it.)

2 Open source and freeware
2.1 I understand the concepts from reading and research.
(you know, free as in freedom not free beer, etc)
2.2 I am trying to predict how I can explain this to simple win users who are not developers. I seems that the vast majority of what the licenses do it protect the authors from other authors, be they corporate or individual. On the simple end user level it appears much simpler.
2.2.1 Only the user can determine the software's usefulness for their purpose. If it Breaks, you get to keep both pieces.
2.2.2 If you give it to others, make sure its in its original form and includes the license.
2.3 if there are other considerations for the private end user, for a true gpl software, I would like to hear about it.
2.4 The requirements for the developers etc, is interesting but beyond what Ill need to explain to others I will be helping. (It also seems to get complex and emotional)

3 My motivation came from helping xp sufferers with basic use of their system. Three months after they bought their system, up came a notice that they had to buy a license for word. I want to be able to give them a copy of abiword and contacts for help. It seems that very little on an "off the shelf" pc these days is not a trick or trap to the novice user.
Im sure this has been covered a great deal, AND I know that this group are not the ones they are able to fool.

Anyway thanks for the info. I consider this group the experts on most of this. Ill stop talking and keep reading for help I need on how to distill it for my grandparents, neighbors, etc.

Thanks again.

Posted by kerry on July 11 2006,13:37

missed my point, here's a visual from your site < http://www.handigadgets.com/losug/clubdisk.htm > ->

" The Club CD is a Bootable disk. If its left in the drive it
might try to boot into a Live-CD version of DSL Linux, with most,
if not all of the applications available to try. "

to something like

" The Club CD is a Bootable disk. If its left in the drive it
might try to boot into a Live-CD version of DSL Linux( I would like to send a thank's to robert and jhon for providing DSL), with most,
if not all of the applications available to try. "

You know respect, i'm not saying promote it, but you could spare a little space to acknowledge the creators of your " club cd ".

Posted by kerry on July 11 2006,14:18

one last thing, i think you should go to the ubuntu site and order some cd's(there free) to pass out to all those windows users, then they wouldn't have all those problems with windows. i ordered another 20 to pass out to everyone who want's them. they also contain windows apps so they can get use to them first.-> < https://shipit.ubuntu.com/ >