On 14/12/06 22:55 +0530, Rony wrote:
krishnakant Mane wrote: Hi Krish,
when people (at least a few) can pay for non-free crap ware which gives them no transperency, why should they not pay for some thing which gives them total freedom to do what ever with the copy they buy. for example if one buys a copy of debian gnu/linux and wishes to make copies and install on many computers he is free to do so and that's right. because "I paied for my copy so I have every right to do what ever I want with my copy".
If you buy a Debian CD, you are paying for the media, not the software, so you are free to make copies. If you buy an RH Enterprise Linux CD, you cannot make copies and distribute the same.
You can make copies. You cannot redistribute because there is material copyrighted to RH which isn't distributable.
You are allowed to take all the RPMS, remove the RH specific stuff and make your own ISOs.
now where does the issue of total ownership goes? so the point should not really be cost. the point should be what you get and what you can do with it. people must realise that gpl gives them every right including copying the cd and installation on various locations.
People will copy and install linux cds if they work and do what is expected from them. At present they don't.
Mine do.
Could you tell me how many PCs you installed with Ubuntu 6.06 can play VCDs with proper sound? Mine does not even after installing codecs and
Mplayer works for me. <snip>
FOSS companies ( Not individual comtributors ) who make distros should make good distros that work in the user's environment, not their OSS labs. This point should not be confused with proprietary issues as the
They do have a list of supported hardware. If you can ensure that the devices are in that list, your applications should work. Don't blame the distro for not supporting the latest and greatest versions of hardware available in the Indian market.
Devdas Bhagat