Joined: Feb. 2007
||Posted: June 14 2008,10:03
|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.
|...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.
|...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)
"It felt kind of like having a pitbull terrier on my rear end."
-- meo (copyright(c)2008, all rights reserved)