Linuxers April 2005

linuxers@mm.ilug-bom.org.in

123 participants
307 discussions

Re: [ILUG-BOM] WinXp Vs Linux
by sherlock＠vsnl.com 04 Apr '05

04 Apr '05

On Sunday 03 April 2005 14:12, Devdas Bhagat wrote: > On 03/04/05 12:26 +0530, Rony Bill wrote: > > Devdas Bhagat wrote: > > >This depends on the particular contract you sign with the > > > vendor. I spent Sunday rereading the GPL2. I was quite sure earlier I am 100% sure now. The GPL is explicit and absolutely clear. The recepient of gpld software is entitled to his rights as guaranteed by the gpl. The distributor of gpld software has his licence to distribute revoked automatically if he abrogates any of these rights. There is no doubt about this at all. No contract can change this because if the first party offers you a contract violating the gpl (as in preventing you from distributing, modifying, creating derivatives of your copy of the software packages) he automatically has his licence to distribute revoked, and therfore he not you is doing something illegal. > > > > Dear Devdas, by vendors I was refering to the services offered by > > software suppliers who only charge for copying and courier of any > > linux distro from their list, which includes names like Suse, > > Mandrake and more. If the multi-cd packs are a direct copy of the > > original *package* It is illegal if and only if the copy contains software with EULAs and / or, incase of RH any of the RH trademarks and logos. It is not illegal to redistribute gpld software. Irrespective of ANY contract you may have signed. If the contract restricts your rights as assigned to you by the GPL, the right of the first party to distribute is automatically revoked. The affected party in this case is you, and the contributors of the package. If you have given a consideration ( cash, barter, anything), You can ask for a return of the consideration + costs, and return the package to RH. The developers can sue RH for breach of copyright and claim damages. You cant sue for breach of copyright and damages as you are not a copyright holder of a package in the distro although you are affected. The copyright holder cannot sue you. He can only serve a cease and desist notice against you. However incase of the gpl the copyright holder has given you a right so he is not going to serve any cease and desist. So even if you have signed a contract with RH, You can copy and redistribute completely legally subject to removal of EULA packages and trade marks. Happy TM_Logo + EULA package stripping and Happier legal copying. Long live the GPL. > > This depends on the policy of the original vendor wrt the pack. If > the first buyer is restrained from copying and selling the CDs as > is, because they include copyrighted material/trademarks/whatever, > then such redistribution is a violation of contract. > > > provided by the makers, then wouldn't its installation *as it is* > > be a violation of copyrights and thus a pirated one? If any > > company wants to use this *package* it would have to buy it. > > In the case of distributions like Mandrake personal, Gentoo, or > Fedora or ..., the copyright owner states that you can make > unlimited copies of it without restriction provided that their > credits and trademarks stay intact. > > To illustrate, distribution of _RHEL_ by a non RH authorised vendor > is illegal. Absolutely not. Caveat - remove RH trade marks and NVIDIA / winmodem drivers. > > I would check out the particular terms and conditions for that > distribution. No need to. As explained earlier. rgds jtd

1 0

The FLOSS Survey
by Svaksh 03 Apr '05

03 Apr '05

Hello, Check out this FLOSSPOLS project http://flosspols.org/survey/survey_part.php?groupid=sd People who develop, translate, document, promote, maintain websites, moderate mailing lists, etc... for Free/Open software can take part in the survey. -- _svaksh_

1 0

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Linux based Fullproof Gateway/Firewall
by Sameer Niphadkar 03 Apr '05

03 Apr '05

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 aashish kunte wrote : >Dear Linuxers, > > > I want to configure a low configuration machine (Ideally P1 or P2) >With Linux Console Only, Which can work as Dedicated Internet GW/Firewall. > > > Is there any Linux-Flavor Only giving the same ? I believe IPCop is the linux based firewall distribution, though there are plenty of others available as well. > I want only Logs to be mentained along with it ! You can configure any linux distro as a gw/firewall...I may recommend Trustix. > Thanks in advance. > >Aashish Sameer 'You will be what you WILL to Be' -James Allen

1 0

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Invitation
by Vickram Crishna 03 Apr '05

03 Apr '05

At 3:20 PM +0530 4/1/05, Satya wrote: >On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 08:51:43PM +0530, Sajid ali Baig wrote: >>The message was sent accidently .i apologise for the same. > >hi5 is a notorious address-book harvester. They usually send email like >this with no warning to the poor user, who then has to go apologise to >his boss, various lists, etc. > >How the hell they can access your address book, I don't know. Mine's >usually in ~/.mutt/aliases. if they can get at it, something's very >wrong. > >>Kenneth,were u not taught manners in school?????????? > >Was that really necessary? While flaming is a common and not unexpected feature of nerdie maillists, it doesn't take all that much restraint to keep annoyance within limits. I also have no idea how hi5, Ringo and all the other weirdo address book managers (that call themselves network facilitators) floating around on the net do their viral marketing, but I don't really care either. I know they do, which is all I want to know, so I ignore the mails from my friends and acquaintances that invite me to join these things. Hopefully that keeps me from seeming to be an offender. If someone contacts me offline or with a direct personal mail, I explain my stance privately. Remember, a cruel or angry word can't be taken back, nor is an apology worth the bytes or mindspace it consumes. -- Vickram

2 1

Re: [ILUG-BOM] WinXp Vs Linux
by sherlock＠vsnl.com 03 Apr '05

03 Apr '05

On Friday 01 April 2005 19:56, Rony Bill wrote: > sherlock(a)vsnl.com wrote: > >In effect the commercial distros companies are providing expertise > >not just software and they are fully justified in charging what > > ever they please. And you can have a completely legal parasitic > > existence by the above methods. In fact you can provide better > > services and charge more (after RTFM) than them. > > > >So then happy legal copying and installing of RH, Suse, whatever. > >If you ask me i would tell you to use Debian and avoid the pain > >trying to remove logos while simultaneously not providing word > >of mouth advertising and a ready-to-eat client to your competitor. > Thanks for the information. It does clarify that one cannot simply > copy and install a full pack of a paid linux distro without YOU CAN COPY A COMMERCIAL DISTRO. And as i said earlier you are one biased character who will selectively pick miniscule portions of a discussion and twist it around to your ridiculously biased opinion. I really mean every word of the above sentence. I have come across a few characters in my time but you take the cake. > stripping it off its copyrighted material, something that may be > usefull for an organisation for full driver support and manual > reference. Trade marks are marks which identify certain qualities and attributes of the product in a very easy and recognisable way. It's called branding. Companies spend plenty of money to make the link between the trade mark and these qualities and attributes. If someone copies the product with these Trade marks that someone is misleading the public into believing that those qualities and attributes are still in the product. In this case (RH believes) the quality is in the service and manuals. Remove these and substitute it with an ignorant windoze certified zombie cd in hand and you have a disaster in the making.And the manual costs money to create. You are most welcome to read the manpages and make your own manual. Of course that would be hard work and to me it seems that work is a FOUR letter word to you. > usefull for an organisation for full driver support and manual > reference. use legal software in my comps even > though its very easy to use the pirated ones. Oh dear me what a wonderful model citizen you are. Lets nominate you for the Padma Bhushan. Do me a favour please go pirate billy boys stuff. > What I don't like is > the unnecessary hype about linux being free and the way people > attack microsoft for making money. People dont attack M$ and billy baba for making money. They are attacked for making money ILLEGALLY. And piracy. They have been convicted on both counts time and time again. UNDERSTAND? > I do admire Bill Gates for the > way he set up an international empire right from a small shed. > Ultimately every software company wants to make money and capture > the market. Without doubt. After all pirates of a feather flock together. > > I will get the debian cds and try it out. Please dont. I think pirated billybaba software is best for you. rgds jtd

3 4

Re: [ILUG-BOM] WinXp Vs Linux
by Vickram Crishna 03 Apr '05

03 Apr '05

At 12:22 PM +0530 4/2/05, Rony Bill wrote: >sherlock(a)vsnl.com wrote: > > >> In effect the commercial distros companies are providing >expertise not just software and they are >> fully justified in >charging what ever they please. > >What I don't like is the unnecessary hype about linux being free and >the way people attack microsoft for making money. I do admire Bill >Gates for the way he set up an international empire right from a >small >shed. Ultimately every software company wants to make money and >capture the market. I guess that depends on how you define 'company' - if you mean commercial organisation, then you are probably right. However, there are very many non-profit and not-for-profit organisations (the latter being 'companies' in the legally Indian sense of the word) who develop and make available software that is intended to benefit its users. Upfront payment is not the issue here - it is the overall benefit to the community that drives such organisations and their people. While BG did a great commercial job, his first foray resulted from scamming IBM into buying a piece of software that the fledgling MS had not developed. This is sometimes called arbitrage in the commercial world, and the people who do it on a large scale are sometimes called robber barons. They succeed because they conceal information. The money is made from concealing and causing to be concealed such information. GNU/Linux has developed from a basically different approach to life and society. -- Vickram

1 0

Re: [ILUG-BOM] File Locking using smbmount-disclaimers and top-posting
by Svaksh 03 Apr '05

03 Apr '05

On Apr 2, 2005 12:25 AM, Keith Fernandez <keith(a)rilinfo.net> wrote: > Regards, > Keith Fernandez > -------------------------- > Reliance IDC > DAKC > Navi Mumbai > 022-30374188 > -------------------------- > Disclaimer: > This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain > privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have > received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the > original. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited Hello Keith, Kindly refrain from top-posting. Top posting an answer breaks the flow of conversation and you don't know what is being referred to which is confusing. It is more commonly accepted etiquette to narrow down the original message to only the relevant information, and then **following** that information with one's reply, which is considered proper etiquette when participating in conversations on mailing lists. Secondly, your disclaimer is pointless for a public mailing list. Use a different (free) email account if your company insists on tagging each outgoing message. -- _svaksh_ Notre Bene : I assume you are new to this list like me and this request is from one newbie to another. It is not meant to start a flame war.

1 0

Re: [ILUG-BOM] WinXp Vs Linux
by sherlock＠vsnl.com 03 Apr '05

03 Apr '05

On Saturday 02 April 2005 12:46, Devdas Bhagat wrote: > On 02/04/05 11:39 +0500, sherlock(a)vsnl.com wrote: > > Nope. You are eliminating the case of derived work. It does > > concern itself with binaries too. A binary is a derived work of > > the source - as are modifications, bugfixes, enhancements etc. > > The GPL only states that in case of derived work, the source code > must be made available. Like I said, the GPL is only concerned with > ensuring that source code is always available for distributed GPLed > software. No. Here is part of the preamble "Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it." It clearly separates software and source code for the software, and allows you to access and distribute both. The para also makes it amply clear about trying to remove those rights - contract or no contract. Infact RH cannot sign a contract abrogating your rights as granted to you by the developers and is a sitting duck for any developer wanting to sue if they have signed such contracts. Please note IANAL. > > > Therefore the terms of the gpl apply to the binaries too. Also > > "distributing" includes putting a binary into a flash rom and > > sticking it inside your gizmo and selling the gizmo. (I had too > > do some talking with some distributors of embedded products here > > on this issue.) This action (selling the gizmo) is distribution > > and requires gpl compliance. Therfore source code must be made > > Right. However, the effort of putting the binary into the Gizmo is > chargable. As is the hardware. Sure. I am not disputing the right to charge for the first copy (the wrapper is really superfluos), I am disputing anyones right to restrict the rights avaialable to me under the gpl. > > > available. You can make copies of the binary hex file from the > > prom and use as you deem fit without any copyright violation. > > Even if "opening this parcel means that you agree" to whatever. > > The reason is that the gpl licence has given you a right the > > moment the act of giving and taking takes place. Adding wrappers > > - physical or software does not change the fact of distribution. > > There is no way that anyone (RH, Novell, Microsod whoever) can > > circumvent this - thank god. > > But RedHat is not trying to circumvent this. > > > > Linux distributors take the GPLed source, package it, build it > > > into binaries, and test those. > > > That is a service. RedHat et al charge for that service. Since someone has paid for the first copy RH have already recieved what ever they deemed fit for it. Subsequent copies does not involve RH in any way at all. > > > > > > When you "buy" RedHat ES/AS versions, you are paying for their > > > compiling and testing services, not for the software itself. > > > This _support_ purchase is a contract, which states that you > > > may not install the software from those binaries on more than > > > one system. > > > > That is a violation of the gpl and will not stand in a law court. > > No it isn't. The RedHat contract has been FSF approved. RedHat > _charges_ for their effort in building a binary. They are saying > that they will build a binary for you provided that you do not > redistribute it... > . RH cannot do that. Links to FSF approval of the contract please. Couldnt find any on the FSF site (so maybe more smoke from RH). RH has a copyright on the distro. That is sure. But I am permitted by the gpl to copy binaries and install and use and obtain the source and do as i please subject to the terms of the gpl without paying a paisa to RH. Note in the case of Suse the YAST tool is not gpl compliant. So if you copy Suse for sale you will have to remove Yast. No problem if you give it free tho. What redhat may imply in their contract is that they will not support more than the number of machines stipulated in the contract and that you are prohibited from installing the distro on other machines and obtain service from redhat on the additional machines. > > This is a separate argument from the GPL itself. The contract is > for the effort that RedHat puts into building the distribution. > > To put it another way, RedHat provides binaries as a service to its > customers. They charge for that service. They have an additional > clause in the service contract that states that you may not > redistribute the binaries. This is part of the service contract, > and does not constitute a violation of the GPL itself. It does. The GPL preamble above is clear as light. > > > I have not read the contract but if you have one please post it. > > We can takeon redhat on this. The binary IS a derived work of > > the source. If the source is gpld so is the binary. > > Distributing the binary would be a violation of your support > contract. It is not a GPL violation. Maybe RH can terminate your support. But they cannot stop you from copying and redistributing after stripping the logos. > This is in the area of > contract law, not copyright law. RedHat does not impose additional > restrictions on redistribution via copyright/EULAs. It does impose > restrictions via contract, a contract which you willingly enter > into when you purchase support from RedHat. The contract itself is probably illegal as RH (or anyone else) does not hold the rights on individual programs and would have to obtain rights from individual contributors to allow them to override the gpl. Which is what dual licence is all about. The economics of such an excercise is ofcourse a different story. They cannot impose restrictions by contract stuff released under the gpl as is expressly stated in the preamble. I am quite sure about this as i follow GL daily and the gpl was discussed ad nauseum. Once released under GPL, nobody can by contract / DMCA or any means change the terms. rgds jtd

3 2

ParallelKnoppix 2005-04-01 Released
by Gaurav Mishra 02 Apr '05

02 Apr '05

ParallelKnoppix is a remaster of Knoppix that allows setting up a cluster of machines for parallel processing using the LAM-MPI and/or MPICH implementations of MPI. Getting the cluster up and running takes less than 15 minutes, if the machines have PXE network cards. Get it from here http://pareto.uab.es/mcreel/ParallelKnoppix/parallelknoppix-2005-04-01.iso ftp://volcano.uab.es/pub/parallelknoppix-2005-04-01.iso http://pareto.uab.es/mcreel/ParallelKnoppix/parallelknoppix-2005-04-01.iso.…

1 0

Re: [ILUG-BOM] WinXp Vs Linux
by sherlock＠vsnl.com 02 Apr '05

02 Apr '05

On Saturday 02 April 2005 11:05, Devdas Bhagat wrote: > > >In effect the commercial distros companies are providing > > > expertise not just software and they are fully justified in > > > charging what ever they please. And you can have a completely > > > legal parasitic existence by the above methods. In fact you can > > > provide better services and charge more (after RTFM) than them. > > >rgds > > >jtd > > > A couple of points that you appear to have missed. > The GPL concerns itself with source code. Not binaries, not > support, nothing else. Nope. You are eliminating the case of derived work. It does concern itself with binaries too. A binary is a derived work of the source - as are modifications, bugfixes, enhancements etc. Therefore the terms of the gpl apply to the binaries too. Also "distributing" includes putting a binary into a flash rom and sticking it inside your gizmo and selling the gizmo. (I had too do some talking with some distributors of embedded products here on this issue.) This action (selling the gizmo) is distribution and requires gpl compliance. Therfore source code must be made available. You can make copies of the binary hex file from the prom and use as you deem fit without any copyright violation. Even if "opening this parcel means that you agree" to whatever. The reason is that the gpl licence has given you a right the moment the act of giving and taking takes place. Adding wrappers - physical or software does not change the fact of distribution. There is no way that anyone (RH, Novell, Microsod whoever) can circumvent this - thank god. > > Linux distributors take the GPLed source, package it, build it into > binaries, and test those. > That is a service. RedHat et al charge for that service. > > When you "buy" RedHat ES/AS versions, you are paying for their > compiling and testing services, not for the software itself. This > _support_ purchase is a contract, which states that you may not > install the software from those binaries on more than one system. That is a violation of the gpl and will not stand in a law court. I have not read the contract but if you have one please post it. We can takeon redhat on this. The binary IS a derived work of the source. If the source is gpld so is the binary. > It has no conditions on the sources, other than the license the > code shipped with (GPL/MPL/anything else). > > RedHat will not stop you from building your own > RPMs from source, and installing those, so long as you do not > redistribute RedHats trademarked material along with those. If the logo is part of the binary there could be a potential problem as you cannot compile in non gpl code along with gpld code. I am not sure that the logo = code. My guess is that the court will rule in favour of the logo and hold cloners liable if they do not remove the logo. Which IMO is very fair to the trademark holders. > > If you do not want to pay RedHat, you can download their source > RPMs and then build your own distribution. When you are doing so, > you have to remove RedHats trademarks and logos, since you are not > RedHat. You can replace those with your own logos if you want. > > Also, there is generally no non-copyrighted material in a Linux > distribution. All the software is copyright to its author(s). > > > organisation for full driver support and manual reference. I am > > not against companies that charge or make money. I try my best to > > encourage people to buy legal software and did manage to convince > > a few. I use legal software in my comps even though its very easy > > to use the pirated ones. What I don't like is the unnecessary > > hype about linux being free > > Linux itself is free to redistribute, as source code. And binaries too as binary=derivative of source. rgds jtd

2 1

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Linuxers April 2005