Hi all,
I guess we are all going off on the wrong foot here.
If Anil wants someone to hack into a linux box which is said to be proprietory, it seems that he is the wronged party since he did not recieve the source along with the binary as per the GPL.
Linux can be as proprietory or as open as you want. It just depends on to whom you distribute the binaries. If you don't distribute, then you can do whatever you want with the sources without giving it out to anyone.
Anyway, from what I see about Anil's requests, he wants someone to hack into a linux box and install some software. This may or may not involve writing any software. It may be more a question of finding out weaknesses in the linux distribution on the box and exploiting them. Doesn't look like any GPL is being violated here though the ethics may be questionable.
Just my $0.02.
Regards, Rajesh
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:17:05 +0530, Rajesh Rajani rajeshr@vsnl.com wrote:
Hi all,
I guess we are all going off on the wrong foot here.
Everyone is. Right from Anil to others who want us to be tolerant ? And just so that I'm not left out, am wrong too. Oh and just so that we can have a little fun this post is released under GPL :P
If Anil wants someone to hack into a linux box which is said to be proprietory, it seems that he is the wronged party since he did not recieve the source along with the binary as per the GPL.
I don't see where he stated that he recvd. a linux binary.
Linux can be as proprietory or as open as you want. It just depends on to whom you distribute the binaries.
Nah ah. proprietory isn't the right word when you modify other ppl's work. The changes are proprietory the original work isn't, unless of course you happen to be RIAA/MPAA or m'be SCO (the ho-ho operation) . Please correct me here.
If you don't distribute, then you can do whatever you want with the sources without giving it out to anyone.
True. perfectly true.
Doesn't look like any GPL is being violated here though the ethics may be questionable.
Unless Anil comes out with any details of the whole thing, its going to remain questionable.
Though I doubt that is what he wants to do, I am in league with Philip who asked Anil the right question a few posts back.
Just my $0.02.
Mine too !
C
Thank you for clarifying. You more or less got it right. My mistake, perhaps, was calling it "proprietary" without explaining how. And frankly I do not completely understand where they may have violated the GPL (if at all). The Linux portion is not proprietary as far as I can tell, but in combination with instructions that are buried on a proprietary (this time the word is correctly used) chip, the code is not available.
We are not doing anything illegal, but we are trying to write third party software to support this device. Unfortunately, the company frowns on anything that they do not control, so we are forced to "hack" into it.
Hope this helps clarify any confusion I may have caused.
Anil Gupte
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rajesh Rajani" rajeshr@vsnl.com To: linuxers@mm.ilug-bom.org.in Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 4:47 AM Subject: [ILUG-BOM] Re: [Commercial]Wanted Linux Hacker
Hi all,
I guess we are all going off on the wrong foot here.
If Anil wants someone to hack into a linux box which is said to be proprietory, it seems that he is the wronged party since he did not
recieve
the source along with the binary as per the GPL.
Linux can be as proprietory or as open as you want. It just depends on to whom you distribute the binaries. If you don't distribute, then you can do whatever you want with the sources without giving it out to anyone.
Anyway, from what I see about Anil's requests, he wants someone to hack into a linux box and install some software. This may or may not involve writing any software. It may be more a question of finding out weaknesses in the linux distribution on the box and exploiting them. Doesn't look
like
any GPL is being violated here though the ethics may be questionable.
Just my $0.02.
Regards, Rajesh
-
Anil Gupte -
Chetan S -
Rajesh Rajani