Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Linux
FSF asks Lindows, "Where's the source?"
By on
April 11, 2002 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
- Tina Gasperson -
Bradley Kuhn, vice president of the Free Software Foundation, says the organization is contacting LindowsOS representatives because the company has not included source code with its "sneak preview" releases. Lindows CEO Michael Robertson says his company will comply with the GPL when the product is released to the public.
Bradley Kuhn, vice president of the Free Software Foundation, says the organization is contacting LindowsOS representatives because the company has not included source code with its "sneak preview" releases. Lindows CEO Michael Robertson says his company will comply with the GPL when the product is released to the public.
Kuhn says a Lindows insider tipped the FSF off to the
possibility of missing source code. Lindows insiders are those who have
registered and paid a $99 fee to receive beta releases of LindowsOS and
other non-public information. LindowsOS is a distribution based on the Linux
kernel, which is licensed under the GNU General Public License. The GPL
states, in part, that the program instructions in their original form as written
by the programmer (source code) must be available to users
of the program. The GPL also requires that users be allowed to copy, modify and
redistribute the program freely, but they must in turn provide the source
code.
Robertson does not deny that the source code for LindowsOS isn't included in either of the two beta releases. "It's a work in progress. We're hopeful our first release will happen around the middle of the year. When we release an official version, all the GPL pieces will be properly distributed."
Robertson doesn't appreciate the negative attention focused on the Lindows project, likening it to "eating your young." He says he is surprised that "some in the Linux community are quick to cast aspersions, with no facts." Robertson points to his contributions to the Open Source community as proof that he has its best interests at heart, beginning with his career at MP3.com.
"We battled for the consumer at every step. We battled for open formats. We fought against secure music schemes. And we made contributions to Open Source software, since MP3.com was entirely LAMP based."
And now that he's working on making the Linux desktop a reality, Robertson says his dedication to Open Source continues. "We've joined KDE League at the highest corporate level. We hosted and sponsored Wineconf 2002. We worked with the project leader to identify the top 25 contributors and paid for roundtrip airfare for all of them, from as far away as South Africa and Norway, to San Diego. There was no registration fee. We also sponsored LPBN.org to broadcast the event.
"We've agreed to sponsor the upcoming Debian conference. Our sponsorship included funds to pay for an awards banquet for all attendees, as well as travel support for some. We've made a large investment in an Open Source company; we've also paid about a million dollars to get code produced ... We've paid these funds to companies as well as individuals."
And, he says, support for Linux and the Open Source community will also come by way of ingenious marketing. "If we can get to 5% market share, an ecosystem of healthy Linux companies will emerge which will be around for the long run. Look at the incredible things that would happen. Hardware manufacturers will ship Linux drivers for their peripheral devices, in the box. Computer stores will dedicate sections of their store. Major OEMs would ship computers with Linux. It's a travesty you can't walk into major retailers today and buy a computer running Linux."
And while the code is important, that is not what it will take to get Linux to "20 million desktops." Robertson says to help more people understand Open Source, better marketing and lobbying is needed. "And yes, battling Microsoft and their huge coffers which influence OEMs, retailers, politicians, and the press in ways you only understand if you talk to them personally, which I have.
"Hopefully, Lindows.com will contribute on each of these fronts, but it will take more than one company. It's a shame that virtually every commercial Linux company has abandoned the desktop. Our goal is to build a company that will give consumers a choice for their operating system. At the same time, we're committed to being a good corporate citizen and being a supporter of Open Source for the long run."
Robertson seems dismayed by the FSF's attempt to enforce the GPL. "No wonder there's virtually no healthy Linux companies. The community seems to attack them when the real focus should be elsewhere."
Robertson says that many of the critical pieces of GPL code that have gone into Lindows have been distributed back to the community already. "Where do you think that Codeweavers got their code for Crossover Office?" he asks.
A high level source at Codeweavers confirms that Lindows has indeed contributed an "enormous amount" of code to the Wine project. But while Crossover Office contains code that was created in conjunction with Lindows, it has also been built on code that was around before Lindows existed. According to the Codeweavers source, Lindows returned modifications to the Wine codebase only because it was persuaded by Codeweavers staff to return it. The Codeweavers/Lindows association was terminated in part because Lindows wanted to be able to keep its Wine modifications private.
Comments
on FSF asks Lindows, "Where's the source?"Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
I don't really know why some would like to run Windows made applications on Linux. If this guy really wants to help the Linux scene, why not try to replace the missing applications by coding or sponsoring the work of someone? In my opinion he just wants to be on the magazines, on the tv, etc.
In this case, I hope MS crashes him down, cause yeah, it smells like he is just a parasite. He's not helping Linux, or hurting MS, just thinking on himself. I don't like his face.
In this case, I hope MS crashes him down, cause yeah, it smells like he is just a parasite. He's not helping Linux, or hurting MS, just thinking on himself. I don't like his face.
You can use GPled code as much as you like without ever making your code public, so long as you do not distribute your derivative work.
In a limited beta, it could be argued that a work is still an in-house software since all the beta testers are technically employees of the company. Thus they are not 're-distributing' the GPLed code.
This said, I believe Lindows isn't helping their case by being so mysterious ..
I advance the following scenario which might explain their position:
- you are writing application X, which currently uses GPL library Y, but for which you eventually intend to use commercial library W which is not available yet. You want to test your code, but since the ultimate goal is to be commercial, you don't want to distribute it.
What do you do? I understand the position of Lindows but conclude that the longer they hold out on giving out the source, the more people are going to get suspicious-- and it will be because, regardless of whether they are legally in the right, they are not following established practice with Linux distributions.
In a limited beta, it could be argued that a work is still an in-house software since all the beta testers are technically employees of the company. Thus they are not 're-distributing' the GPLed code.
This said, I believe Lindows isn't helping their case by being so mysterious ..
I advance the following scenario which might explain their position:
- you are writing application X, which currently uses GPL library Y, but for which you eventually intend to use commercial library W which is not available yet. You want to test your code, but since the ultimate goal is to be commercial, you don't want to distribute it.
What do you do? I understand the position of Lindows but conclude that the longer they hold out on giving out the source, the more people are going to get suspicious-- and it will be because, regardless of whether they are legally in the right, they are not following established practice with Linux distributions.
Re the GPL, right, I wrote hastily.
Re the Insiders being employees, nope, check the Insider's page. They're not.
Regardless of moral issues, they are, right now, in copyright violation of any GPLed code they've redistributed. They're redistributing copyrighted materials, which is illegal without a license, and they're not complying with the license.
Since when did employees start paying to do work?
Lindows insiders are those who have registered and paid a $99 fee to receive beta releases
As a beta tester, I'm an employee of the company? Cool. Where are my 401k and my health care benefits?
Seriously, software beta testers are not employees. And the GPL is not compatible with any kind of beta testing agreements that limit you from getting the source code or redistributing it.
I'm not sure about that. Yes, they have to deliver the source to the beta tester, and the beta tester is not an employee, but you might be able to limit redistribution... just a little.
If you force people to sign an NDA before they receive the binary or source, then you can take legal action against the person if they redistribute the code.
However... I would think that if the person redistributes, the cat is out of the bag. They can't do anything but gouge the leak for damages. The code is out there and free.
They can't supersede the GPL licence with their own to reduce the rights given under the GPL.
If you force people to sign an NDA to get a copy of the source code, you're in violation of the GPL. The GPL is pretty straightforward:
If you distribute copies of the code or derivative of it, anybody who receives it must have both the right and the ability to redistribute that source.
If you distribute copies of the code or derivative of it, anybody who receives it must have both the right and the ability to redistribute that source.
Denying people the right to redistribute your sources is in violation of the GPL. Denying them the ability to redistribute it (by denying the source, itself) is also a violation.
Actually, the GPL doesn't allow this, either. A couple of people who wrote Quake mods tried essentially this, i.e. making people agree not to ask for the source in exchange for receiving a copy of the (GPLed) binary. Someone or other convinced them that this isn't allowed, because the GPL prohibits distribution under any terms more restrictive than the GPL itself, and this covers making people sign an NDA beforehand.
Nope. The thing with "internal distribution" is that you can make the source available to your own employees, company policy permitting. There are no special clauses for "company internal" uses in the GPL or the LGPL.
The rule is clear: If you distribute the binaries, you must also distribute the source. The exact details as to what the "source" means are explained on www.gnu.org as always.
The rule is clear: If you distribute the binaries, you must also distribute the source. The exact details as to what the "source" means are explained on www.gnu.org as always.
If a company puts gpled software on an Employee's computer, they are not "distributing" it. Hence they do not have to release the code. Same as if I was to take some GPL software, change it, and use it just for myself, I don't have to release any changes.
However, it does not appear that Lindows has done this. Regardless of the relative merits of releasing source code, they need to do so to comply with the licence. They should have offered the source on a seperate cd for some nominal charge plus shipping and handling.
However, it does not appear that Lindows has done this. Regardless of the relative merits of releasing source code, they need to do so to comply with the licence. They should have offered the source on a seperate cd for some nominal charge plus shipping and handling.
If you give the binaries to a user, then you are required to make the source code available. By the GPL, that user is given the right to study, use and modify the source code.
You cannot, in turn, limit that user from re-distributing the source code.
This is the heart of the GPL. All other items are there to support this basis.
The beta testers aren't technically employees of the company if they're paying $99 to be beta testers. If anything, that makes them technically customers.
What a bunch of spoiled brats.
Why not let them FINISH it then you can get your grubby hands on it.
Instead a bunch of pissing and moaning because you dont have what they didnt even have to beta publicly.
Please grow up.
Why not let them FINISH it then you can get your grubby hands on it.
Instead a bunch of pissing and moaning because you dont have what they didnt even have to beta publicly.
Please grow up.
Thats fine with me. Let them finish it, then, *before* they start distributing it. Once they move from coding to distributing the source code *must* follow the binaries. You are right, they didn't have to "beta publicly", and perhaps they shouldn't have. Thats not relevant. What is relavant is that they did "beta publicly" in an illegal manner, and they should a)release the beta source (NOW!) b)appoligize c)appoligize d)appoligize.
Just curious, but can a user waive their right to source code by signing a non-disclosure agreement?
The linux community shouldn't embrace lindows, it would be the worst linux distribution, it would have major security problems and it seems to me as an insider the company is going to give the Linux OS a bad name with their bad practices aimed only on making money.
I think you are on the right track.
The GPL does not require you to release the source every time a keystroke is hit. If they are beta'ing the software solely for the feedback of the product, then so what.
If they enforced a waver making the "beta tester" part of the company, then there is nothing here (unless it stays beta forever). And if not, then we are once again complaining about a mistake on there part, and nothing more. These people had to "pay" to test out this product, it is not something you can just download online, or for that matter upload to everyone else.
As for Lindows, it is not something that I would want to use, or anyone else either.
The GPL does not require you to release the source every time a keystroke is hit. If they are beta'ing the software solely for the feedback of the product, then so what.
If they enforced a waver making the "beta tester" part of the company, then there is nothing here (unless it stays beta forever). And if not, then we are once again complaining about a mistake on there part, and nothing more. These people had to "pay" to test out this product, it is not something you can just download online, or for that matter upload to everyone else.
As for Lindows, it is not something that I would want to use, or anyone else either.
The point is that the GPL requires that if binaries are released then source must be made available. Failure to do so is in violation of the GPL and is therefore illegal.
A closed beta doesn't constitute a "release," in much the same way that you can form a "exclusive organization of developers" with whom to share your GPL'd code, and not be obligated to release code to the public.
Also, it should be noted that while the GPL states that you must make the code available, it DOES NOT state that you have to make the code available free of charge. Lindows could make the source code available at $1,000,000 per copy. As long as it is available if someone is willing to pay that, then they are well within their legal rights. Stallman himself has agreed on this point when The Kompany used this model (though not for $1,000,000/copy it should be noted).
Also, it should be noted that while the GPL states that you must make the code available, it DOES NOT state that you have to make the code available free of charge. Lindows could make the source code available at $1,000,000 per copy. As long as it is available if someone is willing to pay that, then they are well within their legal rights. Stallman himself has agreed on this point when The Kompany used this model (though not for $1,000,000/copy it should be noted).
If I'm under standing this correctly, if you use GPL code to develop software, you have the right to sell the code instead of give it away?
Yes, though of course once I've bought the code, I can distribute it for free to the rest of the world (if I so choose) ... the possibility of someone being this magnamanous of course expands with the userbase.
And as a previous poster has said, Lindows could sell the binaries for $99 and the source for $1m ... still, if someone handed over the $1m, they could then give it away.
Yes. Just because software is under the GPL does not mean you can't sell it. You can act like Caldera ans bundle the GPLed parts with non-GPLed parts and licence the whole package any way you wish (such as a per-seat licence).
If requested you have to provide source in a usable form and for moderate or no cost to the GPLed parts only. (Other licences may have similar terms.)
Example: If you make changes to parts of the Linux kernel, you can sell that to a customer.
1. If the customer never asks for the source, you are not obligated to give it to anyone else.
2. If the customer does ask for the source to the changes, you are required to turn over the source.
3. If the customer decides to give it away or sell your source changes to another company, they can -- even over your objections. They, though, are also obligated to follow the GPL.
If requested you have to provide source in a usable form and for moderate or no cost to the GPLed parts only. (Other licences may have similar terms.)
Example: If you make changes to parts of the Linux kernel, you can sell that to a customer.
1. If the customer never asks for the source, you are not obligated to give it to anyone else.
2. If the customer does ask for the source to the changes, you are required to turn over the source.
3. If the customer decides to give it away or sell your source changes to another company, they can -- even over your objections. They, though, are also obligated to follow the GPL.
1) It's not a "closed" beta. It is open to anyone who pays their insider fee.
2) Even if it were a "closed beta" it is still a release.
3) If you were sharing with other developers, you'd ONLY send the source so as to get feedback on build process, environment factors, etc. Many other reasons too; most fellow developers will accept nothing else.
4) You *do* have to make the source available to everyone that you've made the binaries available to. Lots of people have paid $99 for the preview, but did not get their requisite source!!!
5) The Kompany did not use the model you are presenting. Cheap binaries with exorbitantly expensive source code is NOT legal.
2) Even if it were a "closed beta" it is still a release.
3) If you were sharing with other developers, you'd ONLY send the source so as to get feedback on build process, environment factors, etc. Many other reasons too; most fellow developers will accept nothing else.
4) You *do* have to make the source available to everyone that you've made the binaries available to. Lots of people have paid $99 for the preview, but did not get their requisite source!!!
5) The Kompany did not use the model you are presenting. Cheap binaries with exorbitantly expensive source code is NOT legal.
Lindows could make the source code available at $1,000,000 per copy.
It strikes me as odd that there are so many mis-informed opinions over the GPL. You'd expect Linux geeks to have read it over and over and know it by heart, and maybe read it as prayer every evening.
Paragraph 3 of the GPL clearly states you cannot sell the source for a million. You can either: Give it away on the same medium as the binaries (hence no charge), or (3b) sell it separately "for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution".
Unless you are distributing the source on hand-carved gold plates, that's more likely going to be $5 S&H.
/Y
It strikes me as odd that there are so many mis-informed opinions over the GPL. You'd expect Linux geeks to have read it over and over and know it by heart, and maybe read it as prayer every evening.
Paragraph 3 of the GPL clearly states you cannot sell the source for a million. You can either: Give it away on the same medium as the binaries (hence no charge), or (3b) sell it separately "for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution".
Unless you are distributing the source on hand-carved gold plates, that's more likely going to be $5 S&H.
/Y
Unless you are distributing the source on hand-carved gold plates, that's more likely going to be $5 S&H.
:: runs out to hire Tibetan monks to hand-carve source on gold plates ::
Source available [at cost!] on beautiful hand-carved gold plates. $9,999,999.95 + $49.95 Shipping and Handling + $99,999.95 insurance.
Final cost $10,100,099.85. Sorry, COD not accepted.
- Alsee
:: runs out to hire Tibetan monks to hand-carve source on gold plates ::
Source available [at cost!] on beautiful hand-carved gold plates. $9,999,999.95 + $49.95 Shipping and Handling + $99,999.95 insurance.
Final cost $10,100,099.85. Sorry, COD not accepted.
- Alsee
You CAN sell the source code for $1,000,000. Perfectly legal... But if you do that, then you can't distribute object code without the source. (Section 3 only applies to object distributions).
If you always distribute the object code with the binaries, then your obligations under the GPL are essentially finished. On the other hand: Once you sell Object without making the source available, your only other way to satisfy the GPL is to make the source available to "any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution."
You cannot sell the source for more than distribution costs. i.e. you can sell a cd of it for a nominal fee, say 10 bucks (to include burning time and shippint) but it must be a "nominal" distribution fee.
Take a look at Lycoris Desktop/LX. http://www.lycoris.com Even their current beta has a source iso right next to the binary one in their .iso directory. They are playing by the rules and respecting the GPL and making money. And overall they are a more caring company. I'll bet my dollar on their *native* Linux application platform over some emulation crud any day.
IANAL.
Let's see if I can read between the lines from your post. To be an "insider" you not only have to pay an insulting fee to pay to Michael Robertson's beach-front mansion, you also have to click "I Accept" on something that says you:
1) must not make any negative comments about Lindows publicly,
2) waive your GPL-given rights to the source code that they "borrowed"
3) will wear pink underwear while pogo sticking down the street with LindowsOS tatooed on your forehead.
---
I think the worst they can do is block you from downloading any other 'preview' releases, as long as you are not slandering them.
But since USA legal proceedings decisions are based solely on political monetary contributions, it may be a battle you cannot afford. (Just how much did Vivendi pay Michael Robertson for MP3.COM?)
Lindows needs to release the source. If they want to fight Microsoft in the legal arena, fine. If they want to fight the FSF they can go to hell.
Let's see if I can read between the lines from your post. To be an "insider" you not only have to pay an insulting fee to pay to Michael Robertson's beach-front mansion, you also have to click "I Accept" on something that says you:
1) must not make any negative comments about Lindows publicly,
2) waive your GPL-given rights to the source code that they "borrowed"
3) will wear pink underwear while pogo sticking down the street with LindowsOS tatooed on your forehead.
---
I think the worst they can do is block you from downloading any other 'preview' releases, as long as you are not slandering them.
But since USA legal proceedings decisions are based solely on political monetary contributions, it may be a battle you cannot afford. (Just how much did Vivendi pay Michael Robertson for MP3.COM?)
Lindows needs to release the source. If they want to fight Microsoft in the legal arena, fine. If they want to fight the FSF they can go to hell.
waive your GPL-given rights to the source code that they "borrowed"
The problem with this is that THEY don't have a legal right to distribute the code without source. You can argree to waive those rights all day long but if they do not give the source they lose THEIR right to use the source in the first place.
The problem with this is that THEY don't have a legal right to distribute the code without source. You can argree to waive those rights all day long but if they do not give the source they lose THEIR right to use the source in the first place.
Maybe the user can but it strikes me as an irrelavent fine point. The distributor of the binaries built from GPL source can not escape their requirements so easily. A distributor of GPL code has obligations to two groups of people. The first is his downstream users who may or may not be bound by an NDA not to. I suspect if they hard pedal that with FSF owned code they could be in trouble. The other obligation is to the holder of the copyright on the code itself. The GPL says something like "You do not have to agree to this license but it is the only thing that permits you to redistribute this code..."
A point frequently missed by GPL bashers is that the creator of GPL code holds a copyright on his work. The copyright holder can license the code on different terms to different people. It is certainly possible build a proprietary app on GPL ed code provided one has the permission of the copyright holders. The GPL is one way he can LICENSE that work to others. No fancy NDA footwork obviates that other obligation. A copyright holder can even make a case for those NDA's violating the license on his code.
If Lindows.com hasn't negotiated with the copyright holders and isn't distributing source for whatever reason then they are on shaky legal ground.
A point frequently missed by GPL bashers is that the creator of GPL code holds a copyright on his work. The copyright holder can license the code on different terms to different people. It is certainly possible build a proprietary app on GPL ed code provided one has the permission of the copyright holders. The GPL is one way he can LICENSE that work to others. No fancy NDA footwork obviates that other obligation. A copyright holder can even make a case for those NDA's violating the license on his code.
If Lindows.com hasn't negotiated with the copyright holders and isn't distributing source for whatever reason then they are on shaky legal ground.
That's an understatment! If they don't have an agreement, all rights to the derivative work cede to the original authors! (Source: the U.S. Copyright Office).
A user couldn't waive her rights to the source code, as the user isn't the one that licensed the program under the GPL. Releasing the binaries without the source code is a violation of the original authors rights, not the users.
In general, for any code they didn't write that is GPL'd, they are breaking the GPL by asking you to sign away rights that are mandated by the GPL. And in most cases the GPL license is the only thing that gives them the right to use that code.
So, its pretty much a fraud on their part (IMO, IANAL)- they're trying to license something to you they don't have rights to.
The position on any code they did write is quite different- it's their code and they can license it however they want; but the GPL is incompatible with an NDA, so you'd have to resolve that legally, but the question is probably moot here.
So, its pretty much a fraud on their part (IMO, IANAL)- they're trying to license something to you they don't have rights to.
The position on any code they did write is quite different- it's their code and they can license it however they want; but the GPL is incompatible with an NDA, so you'd have to resolve that legally, but the question is probably moot here.
Just curious, but can a user waive their right to source code by signing a non-disclosure agreement?
Well, I guess technically, yes.. But once they do that, you don't have the right to give them a copy of the code. The GPL makes it clear that if the recipient doesn't have the right to distribute the source code, you can't give them the object code. As the GPL says:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
....
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
In other words: If the recipients can't copy the source code, you can't distribute the object code.
First off, they need not obey the GPL,
only the LGPL,
which only defines releases in a reasonable time frame.
Second, if they had cut their tree when the wine tree was X11, and they've avoided putting new LGPL patches in the tree, they're off the hook.
Please remember this.
only the LGPL,
which only defines releases in a reasonable time frame.
Second, if they had cut their tree when the wine tree was X11, and they've avoided putting new LGPL patches in the tree, they're off the hook.
Please remember this.
First off, they need not obey the GPL,
only the LGPL
I think the FSF is referring to the other parts of
the system like KDE. The GPL
says that you have to give the source code upon
request if you have distrubuted the binaries of a
program covered under the GPL, therefore you have to make
the source available to whoever you distributed
the binaries to. Read it yourself. Since the beta
testers recieved the binaries, they have the right
to request and recieve (for a "reasonable cost")
the source code to any GPL licensed software. If
Lindows is refusing to give it to them, they are
in violation of the GPL and could lose their right
to distribute the binaries. The important parts are in section
3:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
So, as you can see from Section 3 of the GPL,
Lindows is violating the GPL. If the FSF ignored
this, then it could weaken future enforcement of the
GPL
What do you think the Linux kernel is licensed under? IT'S NOT LGPL (stupid). Lindows uses more than just the Wine source code, and I think the FSF is being very very nice to them by not telling them to release the source code to everyone, not just everyone who pays them a stack of cash.
Frankly, I'm not at all impressed with lindows, he probably just isn't releasing the source because it's identical to wine, and they've tricked a bunch of people who don't follow wine.
Frankly, I'm not at all impressed with lindows, he probably just isn't releasing the source because it's identical to wine, and they've tricked a bunch of people who don't follow wine.
Actually, the only people the GPL requires them to release the source code to is the people who have received the binary code. No one else is entitled to receive the source code if they didn't receive the binary code
Hal Duston
No - only if you include the source with the binary. Otherwise you have to make the the source code available to Any third party.
WRONG, idiot. Go READ THE GPL then come back. douche bag.
>Otherwise you have to make the the source code available to Any third party.
WRONG, idiot. Go READ THE GPL then come back.
Section 3 of the <A HREF="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html">GNU General Public License</a gnu.org> requires those who commercially distribute binaries to "Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code" or to "Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code." According to <A HREF="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid">the GPL FAQ</a gnu.org>, "The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you."
douche bag.
Huh?
Yeeeessssss, but.... There's more than just Wine in Lindows, don't you think?
What about KDE, for example? Do you think they'll give their changes to the KDE project? They should because it's GPL'ed.
What about the kernel and GNU (!) fileutils? I hope they're smart enough to remove/modify stuff there, because you always have 'root' privelidges in Lindows, which is a disaster waiting to happen if you can do everything you and I can do as root on our linux boxes. But Linux is GPL and fileutils is GPL, too.
And so on,
and so on,
....
Greetz
What about KDE, for example? Do you think they'll give their changes to the KDE project? They should because it's GPL'ed.
What about the kernel and GNU (!) fileutils? I hope they're smart enough to remove/modify stuff there, because you always have 'root' privelidges in Lindows, which is a disaster waiting to happen if you can do everything you and I can do as root on our linux boxes. But Linux is GPL and fileutils is GPL, too.
And so on,
and so on,
....
Greetz
I strongly suspect that they have made little or no modifications to most core system components.
Seriously, modifying a component maintained by a third party increases maintenance workload and isn't likely to be done unless it is absolutely necessary.
Still, they need to offer to distribute the source code to any GPL'd components they distribute as binaries, whether or not they have modified them. Not having modified them makes it easier, though.
Seriously, modifying a component maintained by a third party increases maintenance workload and isn't likely to be done unless it is absolutely necessary.
Still, they need to offer to distribute the source code to any GPL'd components they distribute as binaries, whether or not they have modified them. Not having modified them makes it easier, though.
For some reason this MP3/Lindows guy thinks bashing on Microsoft is supposed to gain him support in the Linux community? Like we have some sort of bond and should accept everything he does without question. In reality all he is talking about is money and power (I gave this, I gave that). Microsoft has got a lot of it and he wants it. They only way he can get there is by leaching on to something that already has momentum. First it was MP3's and now it is Linux. Sound buisness sence for him but not for the rest of the community or the economy. Given the chance he would take GPL code propriatary if he thought he would get away with it. If he thinks the reason there are no healthy buisnesses is because of the community "eating it's young" he obiously hasn't heard of Red Hat or IBM or numerous other "heathy" Linux companies. What Linux need is stable companies willing to work within the bounds of the GPL where they choose to use it. We do not need fly by night, media mongers looking ot make a quick buck and blame their troubles on everyone else instead of themselves. Free the code - 99.9% of it isn't even Lindows'.
First, IBM is not a Linux company - they use Linux, they provide updates and patches, but they are not a Linux company by any means. Linux is merely one of the operating systems that runs on their main- and mini-frame hardware options.
As for the Lindows code, give the guy a chance - the product hasn't gone gold yet. If they choose to withhold the code until the release of the entire package, how does that harm the Linux community?
By using a product that already has momentum, Lindows is following the safe path for development, which might ensure a higher rate of return than a blue-sky project. It is not a guarantee, but at least it's more than some companies have started out with.
What I see in your comments is someone that doesn't really want Lindows to succeed financially, or in fact at all. The GPL is a great social tool, but it doesn't feed the family, except in increasingly rare instances.
Get off your high horse.
As for the Lindows code, give the guy a chance - the product hasn't gone gold yet. If they choose to withhold the code until the release of the entire package, how does that harm the Linux community?
By using a product that already has momentum, Lindows is following the safe path for development, which might ensure a higher rate of return than a blue-sky project. It is not a guarantee, but at least it's more than some companies have started out with.
What I see in your comments is someone that doesn't really want Lindows to succeed financially, or in fact at all. The GPL is a great social tool, but it doesn't feed the family, except in increasingly rare instances.
Get off your high horse.
Yes he hasn't gone gold but he has charged for and distributed the CD thereby making money off of code that should be given back to the comunity who wrote most of it. I don't object to making money off of Linux as long as one follows the rules and with that being said I support companies like Ximian, Mandrake, Red-Hat, Codeweavers and the Kompany. The Kompany doesn't want to use the GPL anymore and I support them in choosing any licence they feel fit, however they play by the rules and distribute source for all GPL'ed software they produce. I support IBM, Checkpoint, Sun and Veritas which makes many closed source products that run on top of Linux. These are type of companies that will push Linux forward in the future. These are the type of companies that will make sure Linux works as a buisness model. If a company can't take critisism, if they arn't willing to be part of the ecosystem, then they shouldn't be there. So far what I have seen from Lindows is a bunch of huffing and puffing about MS and beta products that have been subpar compaired to production product from the likes of Codeweavers. Linux doesn't need more hype and thats all I see Lindows as.
It's garden variety license violation - end of story. Upon request (after distribution of said binaries) he is obligated to distribute the source code. It's black and white in the GPL.
I don't personally share your assessment that the GNU GPL won't put food on the table - I don't think that there's evidence in either direction at this moment. However I will say that with economic analysis, there's nothing in the GNU GPL that keeps profit from being made and that there are models that could very well be leveraged to produce profit with the GNU GPL.
But, that's all beside the point. The code is licensed under the GNU GPL - end of story. If he doesn't like it, he's got to rewrite 90% of the system.
I don't personally share your assessment that the GNU GPL won't put food on the table - I don't think that there's evidence in either direction at this moment. However I will say that with economic analysis, there's nothing in the GNU GPL that keeps profit from being made and that there are models that could very well be leveraged to produce profit with the GNU GPL.
But, that's all beside the point. The code is licensed under the GNU GPL - end of story. If he doesn't like it, he's got to rewrite 90% of the system.
I agree and disagree...
Agree: Bashing Microsoft is no badge of support for Linux or open source. It's just bashing Microsoft. (Personally, I'm pro-open source and against Microsoft only out of necessity; they work against open source in unethical and illegal ways. If they competed fairly, I'd have no qualms with them.)
Agree: Lindows seems to be too sensitive. They should chill out.
Agree: This is a clear violation of the GPL.
Disagree: So what? I'm willing to give them some slack for the short term -- but only because they're new and as a gesture of confidence that they will be supportive in the future.
(Having said that, it's not may say if they release the source or not...it's the copyright holders who used a GPL/GPL-style licence.)
Agree: They should not wait till they officially ship LindowsOS to release the source.
Disagree: It is a *good* *thing* that they are not a company focused on technology and are honestly focused on marketing. Linux (and open source) needs both good tech and good marketing -- so far we've been tech heavy and marketing light.
Agree: Bashing Microsoft is no badge of support for Linux or open source. It's just bashing Microsoft. (Personally, I'm pro-open source and against Microsoft only out of necessity; they work against open source in unethical and illegal ways. If they competed fairly, I'd have no qualms with them.)
Agree: Lindows seems to be too sensitive. They should chill out.
Agree: This is a clear violation of the GPL.
Disagree: So what? I'm willing to give them some slack for the short term -- but only because they're new and as a gesture of confidence that they will be supportive in the future.
(Having said that, it's not may say if they release the source or not...it's the copyright holders who used a GPL/GPL-style licence.)
Agree: They should not wait till they officially ship LindowsOS to release the source.
Disagree: It is a *good* *thing* that they are not a company focused on technology and are honestly focused on marketing. Linux (and open source) needs both good tech and good marketing -- so far we've been tech heavy and marketing light.
If the object code is ready for release, then the source code is ready for release (by the terms of the GPL).
As for their crying that "We're the good guys, we're using GPL code, so don't bash us for violating the GPL 'cause you'll be bashing the good guys!":
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."
-- I forget which founding father
You people are so pathetic.
"99.9% of it isn't even Lindows'."
Your right, just like microsoft when you start out, you steal and idea and borrow some code , then lable it your own. then it take 2-3 years of figuring out how to re-write or change thing enough so it look like yours. and also so no one figure out how lame it is and steals it from you.
Your right, just like microsoft when you start out, you steal and idea and borrow some code , then lable it your own. then it take 2-3 years of figuring out how to re-write or change thing enough so it look like yours. and also so no one figure out how lame it is and steals it from you.
For the record, i have posted a couple of Lindows-friendly comments here before...
Listen - do you want to Linux to succeed on the desktop or not? Then stop harassing the brave few who tries. There is absolutely no reason not to expect that they will release the code when they release their product for the general public, and in the mean time they have already contributed millions worth of free software code.
This kind of bickering contributes to a negative perception of a company who needs position self to make for a larger penetration of Linux software. These things spread to the mainstream press, and from the mainstream press to the consumers and investors.
You don't like a dumbed down installation process or logging in as root? Then don't use it. But don't shoot an effort to spread Linux to a wider segment in the foot.
I'd like to go over the line here for once, and say that this narrow-minded geek mentality is a display of such an incredible lack of practical judgement and of plain idiocy.
If Linux doesn't have 40% marketshare on the desktop in four years, as it should have on its technical merits - Microsoft is not going to be the one to blame.
Listen - do you want to Linux to succeed on the desktop or not? Then stop harassing the brave few who tries. There is absolutely no reason not to expect that they will release the code when they release their product for the general public, and in the mean time they have already contributed millions worth of free software code.
This kind of bickering contributes to a negative perception of a company who needs position self to make for a larger penetration of Linux software. These things spread to the mainstream press, and from the mainstream press to the consumers and investors.
You don't like a dumbed down installation process or logging in as root? Then don't use it. But don't shoot an effort to spread Linux to a wider segment in the foot.
I'd like to go over the line here for once, and say that this narrow-minded geek mentality is a display of such an incredible lack of practical judgement and of plain idiocy.
If Linux doesn't have 40% marketshare on the desktop in four years, as it should have on its technical merits - Microsoft is not going to be the one to blame.
There is absolutely no reason not to expect that they will release the code when they release their product for the general public,
Then why don't they do it right away? Remember that they pulled out of their CodeWeaver cooperation just in order to keep things secret.
and in the mean time they have already contributed millions worth of free software code.
So if I contribute a lot to the betterment of my community, am I then allowed some occasional burglary?
You don't like a dumbed down installation process or logging in as root? Then don't use it. But don't shoot an effort to spread Linux to a wider segment in the foot.
The point is not about spreading Linux at any price (e.g. by making it as dumb and insecure as Windows), but to spread something better than Windows. If 90% of all users prefer dumb and insecure software, we have to educate the users, not adapt the software.
Then why don't they do it right away? Remember that they pulled out of their CodeWeaver cooperation just in order to keep things secret.
and in the mean time they have already contributed millions worth of free software code.
So if I contribute a lot to the betterment of my community, am I then allowed some occasional burglary?
You don't like a dumbed down installation process or logging in as root? Then don't use it. But don't shoot an effort to spread Linux to a wider segment in the foot.
The point is not about spreading Linux at any price (e.g. by making it as dumb and insecure as Windows), but to spread something better than Windows. If 90% of all users prefer dumb and insecure software, we have to educate the users, not adapt the software.
> Then why don't they do it right away? Remember that they pulled out of their CodeWeaver cooperation just in order to keep things secret.
Partly for practical reasons probably, but frankly, also probably also because they gain a competetive advantage with the effort they use in developing these solutions. As long as they release the code when they start selling it, I don't think anyone should have problem with that. You get the code with the distributed product - that should be good enough.
> So if I contribute a lot to the betterment of my community, am I then allowed some occasional burglary?
Well, no. But there is also a matter of how you deal with it. I have the disctinct impression though, that Lindows plans to play quite fair in this department. If you look in their "warehouse" under the respective products, you will see that credits are made to the relevant projects, and links are made ready to download the code.
I would not be surprised however, that they may have some parts proprietary and that is probably the reason for friction with Codeweavers. Michael Robertson is probably not a free software advocate per se.
>The point is not about spreading Linux at any price (e.g. by making it as dumb and insecure as Windows), but to spread something better than Windows. If 90% of all users prefer dumb and insecure software, we have to educate the users, not adapt the software.
I'm not convinced that this is a good strategy. We haven't realistically got the manpower or incentive to make many millions of people in homes and offices learn commandline, locate packages etc...
A much more realistic goal IMO is to make something that they want to use.
I would preferably find solutions that doesn't compromise security of course, but to the extent it doesn't, i'm convinced that we will still be better off in this department than if Linux remains a fringe phenomenon... In any case security is not a goal in itself, but a means to practical value. There will always be a trade off between security and usablity. The winner should be chosen with regard to maximum practical value.
Linux is to spread free software, which will prevent monopoly locks and and a anti-democratic use of software, and this should be a overriding concern. Problem is, this is pipedream without commercial entrenchment, which is what "dumbed-down" solutions provide.
On a related note, though, I don't share a despise for making sofware that accomodates the needs of non-techincal users. This is merely a different set of tasks to make software perform - ones that deals in human relations, which as matter of craft and inguinity don't stand back to techical task in terms of being interesting and of practical value.
Partly for practical reasons probably, but frankly, also probably also because they gain a competetive advantage with the effort they use in developing these solutions. As long as they release the code when they start selling it, I don't think anyone should have problem with that. You get the code with the distributed product - that should be good enough.
> So if I contribute a lot to the betterment of my community, am I then allowed some occasional burglary?
Well, no. But there is also a matter of how you deal with it. I have the disctinct impression though, that Lindows plans to play quite fair in this department. If you look in their "warehouse" under the respective products, you will see that credits are made to the relevant projects, and links are made ready to download the code.
I would not be surprised however, that they may have some parts proprietary and that is probably the reason for friction with Codeweavers. Michael Robertson is probably not a free software advocate per se.
>The point is not about spreading Linux at any price (e.g. by making it as dumb and insecure as Windows), but to spread something better than Windows. If 90% of all users prefer dumb and insecure software, we have to educate the users, not adapt the software.
I'm not convinced that this is a good strategy. We haven't realistically got the manpower or incentive to make many millions of people in homes and offices learn commandline, locate packages etc...
A much more realistic goal IMO is to make something that they want to use.
I would preferably find solutions that doesn't compromise security of course, but to the extent it doesn't, i'm convinced that we will still be better off in this department than if Linux remains a fringe phenomenon... In any case security is not a goal in itself, but a means to practical value. There will always be a trade off between security and usablity. The winner should be chosen with regard to maximum practical value.
Linux is to spread free software, which will prevent monopoly locks and and a anti-democratic use of software, and this should be a overriding concern. Problem is, this is pipedream without commercial entrenchment, which is what "dumbed-down" solutions provide.
On a related note, though, I don't share a despise for making sofware that accomodates the needs of non-techincal users. This is merely a different set of tasks to make software perform - ones that deals in human relations, which as matter of craft and inguinity don't stand back to techical task in terms of being interesting and of practical value.
I was going to write something similar...good post.
Lindows made a mistake, though a pretty big one. They probably wanted something like a focus group or test market. If they had kept it in company it wouldn't have been a release and it wouldn't be an isue. Testing a product before public release is just good bussiness practice ( especialy if you are selling your product to non programmers who can't fix there own problems). Then as long as they release the source when they release to the public they're legal. Unfortunately the fail to realize that calling release purchasers "insiders" does not prevent it from being a release!
So, how do you plan on "educating" the people, huh? Do you foresee taking an office manager and setting him/her down behind a Linux console and teach him/her the fine art of chmod, or perhaps recompiling a kernel? When are you Linux jackasses going to learn that there are more non technical people than there are geeks? If you want to see Linux take off, then you will have to convince THESE people, not more techno-geeks! Getting Linux on the non-tech user's desktop should be paramount, not demanding someone's head when they don't strictly adhere to the "GPL"'s of the world. New Linux users have been bitching about this for years. Those in the Linux communities think that they (individually) know what is best for the Linux world. And that dogma includes... no stupid users! Well let me tell you something, sunshine. There are no "smart" newbies. If Lindows can get a realistic alternative to the unwashed masses, then let them! Unless, of course, you can do it better.
Do you foresee taking an office manager and setting him/her down behind a Linux console and teach him/her the fine art of chmod, or perhaps recompiling a kernel?
You're an idiot.
In a real office, the "Office Manager" doesn't do anything like that with their WinNT desktop. They don't apply patches, they don't do anything that requires maintenace of a computer.
Why not? Because they're not allowed, that's why.
because that's the job of the IT department.
You're an idiot.
In a real office, the "Office Manager" doesn't do anything like that with their WinNT desktop. They don't apply patches, they don't do anything that requires maintenace of a computer.
Why not? Because they're not allowed, that's why.
because that's the job of the IT department.
I'm an idiot? You seemed to have missed the whole point, but I'm the idiot? I will concentrate on responding to you rather than throwing insults.
So what you are saying is that if you don't have the ability to update your system, then you shouldn't be allowed to run Linux or an NT-kernel O.S.? Just type your memos and go home, huh? Well listen, sunshine... in a REAL office environment, the secretary (or Office Systems Technologist or better yet, Office Manager) handles almost all of the day to day system maint. Do you think the "Mom and Pop" rental companies ('U-REN-CO' comes to mind) or small shops have the budget for a full time, overpaid Linux or MS geek? NO! So who ends up with the responsibility? That's right... either the sec. or somebody's kid. You can damn well bet that the owner is not going to unless it is a technology based shop. It is a basic fact of late 80's and early 90's downsizing.
Now, like I said before, if you want to expand Linux onto a larger market than the geek community, then certain allowances will have to be made to the non-technical users, which, again, no Linux geek seems to want. "If it's not going to be used by geeks, then it shouldn't be used at all because normal users are too stupid!" is the basic mantra of the elitist Linux community and THAT will be the downfall of their precious group. And I can't wait to see it happen, just so I can witness some of these Linux jackasses fall from their high horse and come down here with the rest of us simple users!
So what you are saying is that if you don't have the ability to update your system, then you shouldn't be allowed to run Linux or an NT-kernel O.S.? Just type your memos and go home, huh? Well listen, sunshine... in a REAL office environment, the secretary (or Office Systems Technologist or better yet, Office Manager) handles almost all of the day to day system maint. Do you think the "Mom and Pop" rental companies ('U-REN-CO' comes to mind) or small shops have the budget for a full time, overpaid Linux or MS geek? NO! So who ends up with the responsibility? That's right... either the sec. or somebody's kid. You can damn well bet that the owner is not going to unless it is a technology based shop. It is a basic fact of late 80's and early 90's downsizing.
Now, like I said before, if you want to expand Linux onto a larger market than the geek community, then certain allowances will have to be made to the non-technical users, which, again, no Linux geek seems to want. "If it's not going to be used by geeks, then it shouldn't be used at all because normal users are too stupid!" is the basic mantra of the elitist Linux community and THAT will be the downfall of their precious group. And I can't wait to see it happen, just so I can witness some of these Linux jackasses fall from their high horse and come down here with the rest of us simple users!
Maybe what YOU don't get is that most Linux people aren't out to "win at all costs"...
If Linux ended up beating Windows but ending up BEING Windows (closed source, unstable, security-exploit prone), then where exactly is the benefit?
The arguement of "cut him some slack, he's the best chance to beat Microsoft" is both specious and uninteresting.
If Linux ended up beating Windows but ending up BEING Windows (closed source, unstable, security-exploit prone), then where exactly is the benefit?
The arguement of "cut him some slack, he's the best chance to beat Microsoft" is both specious and uninteresting.
security exploit prone? you're a fucking idiot
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 12:26 PM
How is code that nobody has seen exploit prone? It is a beta so i'm sure right now it IS unstable, and RIGHT NOW it probably has huge security holes. That the company might just want to fix before making the code public. I understand public scrutiny exposes holes very fast, but WHILE STILL IN ACTIVE DEVELOPMENT, I don't think a COMMERCIAL application would benefit from this scrutiny.
Maybe what YOU don't get is that most Linux people aren't out to "win at all costs"...
They aren't??? Then why all of the MS trash talking in EVERY forum imaginable? I'm all for alternatives but Linux, right now, IS NOT an alternative on the normal user's desktop. Some Linux users like it that way. That's fine. But don't trash MS for having a crappy O.S. unless you have something better to offer. If you do have something better to offer, then by all means, put it out there. But don't be suprised when users want to be able to do certain things that are taboo to Linux users. Removing the dependance on command line driven software is one item that will help expand Linux onto the desktops that it covets, but , "YOU CAN"T DO THAT!!! It will create this security hole and remove this functionality, etc". New users LOATHE the command line interface!!! It is a simple FACT! Get used to it!
If Linux ended up beating Windows but ending up BEING Windows (closed source, unstable, security-exploit prone), then where exactly is the benefit?
I agree but the Linux community cannot have it both ways. You either have a system that is so secure that only geeks can use it or you open it up a bit and let your grandmother work with it! If someone in the GPL community can find a way to do both, it would be a great accomplishment. I don't believe that the OpenSource community would allow the main Linux desktop O.S. (whatever that proves to be) to remain "closed source" for long. Just look at what happened to Lindows. They release a "not-really-a beta" version of their stuff without the source and we saw the uprising that happened because of that.
The arguement of "cut him some slack, he's the best chance to beat Microsoft" is both specious and uninteresting.
I'm not saying do nothing. I'm saying that if the Linux community is going to closely watch every major piece of GPL software to make sure that they are following "the rules", what makes them different from MS or the gov't? At least MS has an argument for this! You have to pay for Windows, so they should watch their assets closely. However, Lindows is only available to a select few... as a beta... for a trial period! And you folks are on them like vultures on a carcass. "Where's the source... where's the source?". Why does the Linux community want it so bad? I'll tell you why, and the makers of Lindows know this too. If they did release the source earlier, then someone would have beat them to their own release! That's right! Someone would have made another distro that mimics Lindows just because it is allowed in the Linux world. What a pathetic existance. If I were the Lindows CEO, I would tell the whole GPL community to kiss my ass for treating me like that! I would have closed as much of the source as I could and GPL released the source that I couldn't (which is already out there). I would then turn my back completely on the OpenSource community for being a bunch of "Brutus" clones (William Shakespeare, Julius Caeser).
They aren't??? Then why all of the MS trash talking in EVERY forum imaginable? I'm all for alternatives but Linux, right now, IS NOT an alternative on the normal user's desktop. Some Linux users like it that way. That's fine. But don't trash MS for having a crappy O.S. unless you have something better to offer. If you do have something better to offer, then by all means, put it out there. But don't be suprised when users want to be able to do certain things that are taboo to Linux users. Removing the dependance on command line driven software is one item that will help expand Linux onto the desktops that it covets, but , "YOU CAN"T DO THAT!!! It will create this security hole and remove this functionality, etc". New users LOATHE the command line interface!!! It is a simple FACT! Get used to it!
If Linux ended up beating Windows but ending up BEING Windows (closed source, unstable, security-exploit prone), then where exactly is the benefit?
I agree but the Linux community cannot have it both ways. You either have a system that is so secure that only geeks can use it or you open it up a bit and let your grandmother work with it! If someone in the GPL community can find a way to do both, it would be a great accomplishment. I don't believe that the OpenSource community would allow the main Linux desktop O.S. (whatever that proves to be) to remain "closed source" for long. Just look at what happened to Lindows. They release a "not-really-a beta" version of their stuff without the source and we saw the uprising that happened because of that.
The arguement of "cut him some slack, he's the best chance to beat Microsoft" is both specious and uninteresting.
I'm not saying do nothing. I'm saying that if the Linux community is going to closely watch every major piece of GPL software to make sure that they are following "the rules", what makes them different from MS or the gov't? At least MS has an argument for this! You have to pay for Windows, so they should watch their assets closely. However, Lindows is only available to a select few... as a beta... for a trial period! And you folks are on them like vultures on a carcass. "Where's the source... where's the source?". Why does the Linux community want it so bad? I'll tell you why, and the makers of Lindows know this too. If they did release the source earlier, then someone would have beat them to their own release! That's right! Someone would have made another distro that mimics Lindows just because it is allowed in the Linux world. What a pathetic existance. If I were the Lindows CEO, I would tell the whole GPL community to kiss my ass for treating me like that! I would have closed as much of the source as I could and GPL released the source that I couldn't (which is already out there). I would then turn my back completely on the OpenSource community for being a bunch of "Brutus" clones (William Shakespeare, Julius Caeser).
You don't sound like you are. When I first write code I get it functional, then it's tested and modified, and only THEN do I spend time getting it readable and presentable. The code as I develop it is inscrutable and rather useless, the code when I'm finished is clean and very readable. Would I want people reading my ugly code? Would they get anything out of it? Should I spend time cleaning it while still developing core functionality?
I don't think the linux community should really tell these people how to code. I certainly wouldn't appreciate it if someone told me that I should constantly update documentation while I develop when decisions are going to be reversed five more times and most of the effort will be wasted. Especially when you're looking at getting a product together for commercial release, you don't want to waste the time to do things five times when you only need to do them once.
I don't think the linux community should really tell these people how to code. I certainly wouldn't appreciate it if someone told me that I should constantly update documentation while I develop when decisions are going to be reversed five more times and most of the effort will be wasted. Especially when you're looking at getting a product together for commercial release, you don't want to waste the time to do things five times when you only need to do them once.
hm, if you are indeed a programmer, you must be a lousy one. What is the biggest thing that you programmed so far? 300 lines? what a defense, "would you please be patient until I clean up myself?", LOL
Go back to your little visual basic project, you "programmer".
Go back to your little visual basic project, you "programmer".
hey look... a troll {YAWN}. Boy, you mud-slinging trolls sure are... {yawn}... entertaining...
I defy you to find me a professional quality linux music creation or manipulation program - they don't exist. They're impossibly complex programs that are only justifiable in a commercial situation where you have a large audience - windows or mac, either one has quality music software - but the *nix community has diddly-squat. Same with image creation, GIMP has some promise, but it's no Photoshop. If your os won't run pro quality music or image software, it cannot become my only os, period.
"If 90% of all users prefer dumb and insecure software, we have to educate the users, not adapt the software."
That, in a nutshell, is why Linux will fail. You don't educate markets, you sell markets what markets want. As long as the developer community takes the position of "We'll tell you what you want", customers will not be listening.
So dang frustrating how brilliantly clueless developers can be about how markets work. Windows is exactly as secure as the market demands it to be - witness the numbers of people who turn off the default security settings in Outlook and IE. Linux shouldn't attempt the desktop as an OS until the Linux OS community can get their head around why, exactly, AOL is the number one ISP in America. It isn't built for smart people and, more critically, it goes out of the way to make novices feel smart. The Linux community goes out of their way to step over each other in some sick Alpha male contest to express how damn smart they are to each other rather than help out people with less technical saavy.
Check out #linux on undernet or any other Linux chat channel. Go in and ask "Hey, can anyone help a newbie that is stuck" and see what happens.
RB
That, in a nutshell, is why Linux will fail. You don't educate markets, you sell markets what markets want. As long as the developer community takes the position of "We'll tell you what you want", customers will not be listening.
So dang frustrating how brilliantly clueless developers can be about how markets work. Windows is exactly as secure as the market demands it to be - witness the numbers of people who turn off the default security settings in Outlook and IE. Linux shouldn't attempt the desktop as an OS until the Linux OS community can get their head around why, exactly, AOL is the number one ISP in America. It isn't built for smart people and, more critically, it goes out of the way to make novices feel smart. The Linux community goes out of their way to step over each other in some sick Alpha male contest to express how damn smart they are to each other rather than help out people with less technical saavy.
Check out #linux on undernet or any other Linux chat channel. Go in and ask "Hey, can anyone help a newbie that is stuck" and see what happens.
RB
Your mistake is simply this: you believe a free market exists in a monopoly situation. Thats like using g=9.8m/s^2 in freefall. You let go, but the damn thing doesn't fall, and you can quote Newton's laws of gravitation all day long. Newton (or Adam Smith:The Wealth of Nations) wasn't wrong, *you* are.
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? Are you being geeky for the hell of it or are you trying to make a point? "HEY LOOK... I CAN QUOTE A PRINCIPLE!!!". Big deal.
Onto the discussion...
As bad as the Linux community hates to admit it, this is as free of a market as we are likely to get for a VERY long time. There will never be a totally "free market" ever again. If MS were to go bellyup tomorrow... other corps would come in and take its place. Get over it! Learn how to deal with it. More importantly, learn how to make it work for you! For this discussion, if you make a product that non-tech users can get around in, do their work with and talk to their relatives with, you will have a goldmine and a pretty nice product... no wait, that's MS. I can hear the Linux fruits now, "Oh dear lord, let's not try to emulate the good parts of their product! Let's reinvent the wheel... again. But this time, we'll do it right. No, it won't be like the last 100 opportunities we've had! Yes, we'll all get along this time!" {grins slyly}. Can the Linux community get over it's own "who's got the biggest penis here?" mentality? NO... because these Linux geeks have built themselves up to such a self-serving ferver that the only way to fix it now is to bring them down to the normal user's level, which would, in the end, server to destroy their fragile egos!
Don't like it... tough!
Onto the discussion...
As bad as the Linux community hates to admit it, this is as free of a market as we are likely to get for a VERY long time. There will never be a totally "free market" ever again. If MS were to go bellyup tomorrow... other corps would come in and take its place. Get over it! Learn how to deal with it. More importantly, learn how to make it work for you! For this discussion, if you make a product that non-tech users can get around in, do their work with and talk to their relatives with, you will have a goldmine and a pretty nice product... no wait, that's MS. I can hear the Linux fruits now, "Oh dear lord, let's not try to emulate the good parts of their product! Let's reinvent the wheel... again. But this time, we'll do it right. No, it won't be like the last 100 opportunities we've had! Yes, we'll all get along this time!" {grins slyly}. Can the Linux community get over it's own "who's got the biggest penis here?" mentality? NO... because these Linux geeks have built themselves up to such a self-serving ferver that the only way to fix it now is to bring them down to the normal user's level, which would, in the end, server to destroy their fragile egos!
Don't like it... tough!
You don't like a dumbed down installation process or logging in as root?
And you want to know WHY we don't like it? It's a security risk, and it could even be more insecure than windows 9x. This would not leave idiots at large companies with a good impression of linux, and they would think all linux is that way.
I'd like to go over the line here for once, and say that this narrow-minded geek mentality is a display of such an incredible lack of practical judgement and of plain idiocy.
You're just anrgy because you're stupid, and we don't like you. Get a real distribution and come back after reading the manpages 10 times.
If Linux doesn't have 40% marketshare on the desktop in four years, as it should have on its technical merits - Microsoft is not going to be the one to blame.
No, Linux should have 50% marketshare now, but stupid people, greedy companies, and folks like you who don't like any accountability have kept it from happening.
Now, let me ask you a question: What is the point of having the main operating system be a expencive , closed source linux operated by a lying jerk? We'll be right back to the way things are now, only everyone's opionon of Linux will be "no-change", and the chances to get the public to change again will be much less.
And you want to know WHY we don't like it? It's a security risk, and it could even be more insecure than windows 9x. This would not leave idiots at large companies with a good impression of linux, and they would think all linux is that way.
I'd like to go over the line here for once, and say that this narrow-minded geek mentality is a display of such an incredible lack of practical judgement and of plain idiocy.
You're just anrgy because you're stupid, and we don't like you. Get a real distribution and come back after reading the manpages 10 times.
If Linux doesn't have 40% marketshare on the desktop in four years, as it should have on its technical merits - Microsoft is not going to be the one to blame.
No, Linux should have 50% marketshare now, but stupid people, greedy companies, and folks like you who don't like any accountability have kept it from happening.
Now, let me ask you a question: What is the point of having the main operating system be a expencive , closed source linux operated by a lying jerk? We'll be right back to the way things are now, only everyone's opionon of Linux will be "no-change", and the chances to get the public to change again will be much less.
There is no "SHOULD" to marketshare. And frankly, its not interesting. Make Linux good, and people who want good software will use it for what its good for. That's all.
Every time people talk about what people "should" use, I get pictures of them walking into a persons home and formatting their hard drive. "Sorry, you SHOULD be using this."
Give it up. If Linux is on 5, 50 or 95 percent of machines five years from now is something I care not one bit about. What I do care is that in 5 years it is a stable, well-crafted, secure, and ultimately OPEN SOURCE platform.
Every time people talk about what people "should" use, I get pictures of them walking into a persons home and formatting their hard drive. "Sorry, you SHOULD be using this."
Give it up. If Linux is on 5, 50 or 95 percent of machines five years from now is something I care not one bit about. What I do care is that in 5 years it is a stable, well-crafted, secure, and ultimately OPEN SOURCE platform.
The GPL isn't suddenly waived because of some company's business situation. If they flout the GPL so early on because it's more convenient, how will they act later on?
"I'd like to go over the line here for once, and say that this narrow-minded geek mentality is a display of such an incredible lack of practical judgement and of plain idiocy."
You're right - you went right over the line.
Buddy, if people had your attitude years ago - GNU/Linux never would have gotten even a foothold and you probably never would have even heard of it. It's precisely that geek stubbornness that makes Free Software work. Your attitude amounts to simply wanting to give
You're right - you went right over the line.
Buddy, if people had your attitude years ago - GNU/Linux never would have gotten even a foothold and you probably never would have even heard of it. It's precisely that geek stubbornness that makes Free Software work. Your attitude amounts to simply wanting to give
Community obligations
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 12:25 AMThey're not attacking you. They're asking you to live up to the obligations that come with the code you're using. You have distributed binaries based on GPLed code. You're not offering to distribute source, as the GPL clearly requires of you. Why not?
If you're using GPLed code and not distributing source, you're not part of the community; you're a parasite on it.
#