http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-06-25-006-20-PS
Caldera has changed the license on its OpenLinux Workstation product for the newest version (3.1) to require one license per system the distribution is installed on. The company will provide a certificate of license authenticity it says it expects to find on each system running OpenLinux Workstation. From the ...
What kind of coordinated action can be done ?
Cheers,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 06:43:17PM +0200, Loic Dachary wrote:
What kind of coordinated action can be done ?
Provided they aren't violating any license terms, and I don't believe they are, what action would you hope for?
The point is probably moot anyway; how long do you think that they will last now, with their competitors offering much fewer restrictions?
Tim. */
|| On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 18:43:17 +0200 || Loic Dachary loic@gnu.org wrote:
ld> Caldera has changed the license on its OpenLinux Workstation product ld> for the newest version (3.1) to require one license per system the ld> distribution is installed on. The company will provide a certificate
I don't see a difference between SuSE and Caldera. Both are selling freedom subtracted GNU/Linux systems. SuSE just allows for verbatim copies if you don't take money for it; this is freeware and not Free Software. So Caldera now switched to take money - Microsoft could do the same with their Internet Exploder at any time.
ld> What kind of coordinated action can be done ?
I don't think that there is any action required. Well, Caldera gives a premium example why not to use "proprietarized" versions of GNU/Linux ;-)
Ciao,
Werner
Hi all,
|| On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 18:43:17 +0200 || Loic Dachary loic@gnu.org wrote:
ld> Caldera has changed the license on its OpenLinux Workstation ld> product for the newest version (3.1) to require one license per ld> system the distribution is installed on. The company will provide ld> a certificate
|| On 27 Jun 2001 19:04:07 +0200 || Werner Koch wk@gnupg.org wrote:
wk> I don't see a difference between SuSE and Caldera. Both are wk> selling freedom subtracted GNU/Linux systems. SuSE just allows wk> for verbatim copies if you don't take money for it; this is wk> freeware and not Free Software. So Caldera now switched to take wk> money - Microsoft could do the same with their Internet Exploder wk> at any time.
Yes, this is essentially correct.
But other than the SuSE thing this has raised a lot of publicity already and will potentially raise even more. We should use this opportunity to explain to the public that this is a bad thing.
If things go well we may even point out that SuSE is doing something very similar once the public wrath is coming down on Caldera (as I think it should).
ld> What kind of coordinated action can be done ?
I believe we should encourage people to buy different GNU/Linux distributions and raise our voices. Also we should encourage others to raise their voices.
Below you'll find my reply to some questions Pia Heikkila had for silicon.com in case you're interested.
Regards, Georg
Hi Pia,
|| On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 17:21:17 +0100 || Pia Heikkila PHeikkila@silicon.com wrote:
ph> I am a technology journalist and interested in talking to one of ph> you about software licenses.
We'll be glad to help you any way we can.
ph> Here are my questions: ph> Caldera recently announced it will be charging per seat for their ph> product. It might not breach the GPL but how will the community ph> react?
It is usually hard to guess how the community reacts although I certainly hope they will be upset and let Caldera know this. If Caldera keeps it up, I certainly believe they should prefer products of other companies that do not act against the spirit of our community.
Although Caldera claims not to be parasitic but simply economic, this step shows that they have clearly not yet understood the Free Software movement and philosophy.
Many people may misunderstand the last paragraph, so let me make clear that we are not against commercial use of Free Software. The GPL has deliberately been written in a way that Free Software can even be sold.
But taking away the users' freedoms, as Caldera is doing it in this case, is a step back in digital evolution by about 10 years.
I'm not saying Caldera is necessarily mean-spirited or evil, they may just be ill-informed. If Caldera is interested to learn how they can harmonize their business model with Free Software, we will gladly help them to do so just as we'd help everyone else along this road.
But we should not forget that regardless of the motivation this is a very bad development and motivation really doesn't change the result.
The result in this case is that Caldera is violating the spirit of the community and hurts the giants it is standing on by claiming it was one of them. This should not be tolerated.
ph> What about other Open Source software providers?
I am aware that you are using "Open Source" as a synonym for Free Software here, I would still like to ask you to prefer the term Free Software.
Experience shows that the term Open Source is not only more misleading than Free Software, it is also based on a definition with holes and weaknesses.
A movement can only be as strong as the definition it is based on, so we reommend using the term Free Software or the equivalent term in the local languages.
To come back to your question: I know several companies that have understood Free Software, so I'm quite certain they would not do such a thing.
As for the ones not yet understanding the Free Software philosophy and business models, who may be tempted to do try similar; I ask them to get in touch with us first, so we get the chance to offer alternatives to them and explain how money can be made without breaking the circle of cooperation.
ph> Do you they will go down the same route too?
Was this intended to contain "think" or "fear?" :)
ph> Is Caldera's only objective to make money just like everyone else ph> or championing the case for free software by proving the business ph> case?
Caldera is certainly not "championing the case for free software" as you put it, since they make their money from proprietarizing their product. They have made the step back to being a proprietary software company just like Microsoft.
The fact that they have some lines of Free Software in there doesn't make them a Free Software company. Otherwise we'd have to say that Microsoft was "championing the case for free software" because they are using many lines of FreeBSD code and even ship GPL'ed software to make the transition to Windows easier for some people.
Caldera may be having a few more lines of Free Software in it's product than Microsoft, but that's really the only difference.
ph> I would really appreciate your answers. I know I might not get ph> this to you on time as my deadline is tomorrow.
I gave it a high priority and replied right away. Hope it helps. If you have more questions, please don't hesitate to ask.
ph> But in the future, could you email me with any announcements you ph> may have regarding your organization.
We do have two mailing lists you may want to subscribe to. One is the "announcement" list and the other one is for press releases. You'll find both on http://fsfeurope.org/mailinglists.html.
Regards,
Georg Greve FSF Europe, President
I missed the beginning of this thread, but it seems to me they are violating the GPL on a massive scale. Can't we pursue legal action?
-Opus
Georg C. F. Greve greve@gnu.org wrote:
Hi all,
|| On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 18:43:17 +0200 || Loic Dachary loic@gnu.org wrote:
ld> Caldera has changed the license on its OpenLinux Workstation ld> product for the newest version (3.1) to require one license per ld> system the distribution is installed on. The company will provide ld> a certificate
|| On 27 Jun 2001 19:04:07 +0200 || Werner Koch wk@gnupg.org wrote:
wk> I don't see a difference between SuSE and Caldera. Both are wk> selling freedom subtracted GNU/Linux systems. SuSE just allows wk> for verbatim copies if you don't take money for it; this is wk> freeware and not Free Software. So Caldera now switched to take wk> money - Microsoft could do the same with their Internet Exploder wk> at any time.
Yes, this is essentially correct.
But other than the SuSE thing this has raised a lot of publicity already and will potentially raise even more. We should use this opportunity to explain to the public that this is a bad thing.
If things go well we may even point out that SuSE is doing something very similar once the public wrath is coming down on Caldera (as I think it should).
ld> What kind of coordinated action can be done ?
I believe we should encourage people to buy different GNU/Linux distributions and raise our voices. Also we should encourage others to raise their voices.
Below you'll find my reply to some questions Pia Heikkila had for silicon.com in case you're interested.
Regards, Georg
To: Pia Heikkila PHeikkila@silicon.com Cc: "'president@fsfeurope.org'" president@fsfeurope.org, "'press@fsfeurope.org'" press@fsfeurope.org, "'office@fsfeurope.org'" office@fsfeurope.org Subject: Re: Urgent Press Query From: "Georg C. F. Greve" greve@gnu.org Date: 27 Jun 2001 19:35:51 +0200
Hi Pia,
|| On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 17:21:17 +0100 || Pia Heikkila PHeikkila@silicon.com wrote:
ph> I am a technology journalist and interested in talking to one of ph> you about software licenses.
We'll be glad to help you any way we can.
ph> Here are my questions: ph> Caldera recently announced it will be charging per seat for their ph> product. It might not breach the GPL but how will the community ph> react?
It is usually hard to guess how the community reacts although I certainly hope they will be upset and let Caldera know this. If Caldera keeps it up, I certainly believe they should prefer products of other companies that do not act against the spirit of our community.
Although Caldera claims not to be parasitic but simply economic, this step shows that they have clearly not yet understood the Free Software movement and philosophy.
Many people may misunderstand the last paragraph, so let me make clear that we are not against commercial use of Free Software. The GPL has deliberately been written in a way that Free Software can even be sold.
But taking away the users' freedoms, as Caldera is doing it in this case, is a step back in digital evolution by about 10 years.
I'm not saying Caldera is necessarily mean-spirited or evil, they may just be ill-informed. If Caldera is interested to learn how they can harmonize their business model with Free Software, we will gladly help them to do so just as we'd help everyone else along this road.
But we should not forget that regardless of the motivation this is a very bad development and motivation really doesn't change the result.
The result in this case is that Caldera is violating the spirit of the community and hurts the giants it is standing on by claiming it was one of them. This should not be tolerated.
ph> What about other Open Source software providers?
I am aware that you are using "Open Source" as a synonym for Free Software here, I would still like to ask you to prefer the term Free Software.
Experience shows that the term Open Source is not only more misleading than Free Software, it is also based on a definition with holes and weaknesses.
A movement can only be as strong as the definition it is based on, so we reommend using the term Free Software or the equivalent term in the local languages.
To come back to your question: I know several companies that have understood Free Software, so I'm quite certain they would not do such a thing.
As for the ones not yet understanding the Free Software philosophy and business models, who may be tempted to do try similar; I ask them to get in touch with us first, so we get the chance to offer alternatives to them and explain how money can be made without breaking the circle of cooperation.
ph> Do you they will go down the same route too?
Was this intended to contain "think" or "fear?" :)
ph> Is Caldera's only objective to make money just like everyone else ph> or championing the case for free software by proving the business ph> case?
Caldera is certainly not "championing the case for free software" as you put it, since they make their money from proprietarizing their product. They have made the step back to being a proprietary software company just like Microsoft.
The fact that they have some lines of Free Software in there doesn't make them a Free Software company. Otherwise we'd have to say that Microsoft was "championing the case for free software" because they are using many lines of FreeBSD code and even ship GPL'ed software to make the transition to Windows easier for some people.
Caldera may be having a few more lines of Free Software in it's product than Microsoft, but that's really the only difference.
ph> I would really appreciate your answers. I know I might not get ph> this to you on time as my deadline is tomorrow.
I gave it a high priority and replied right away. Hope it helps. If you have more questions, please don't hesitate to ask.
ph> But in the future, could you email me with any announcements you ph> may have regarding your organization.
We do have two mailing lists you may want to subscribe to. One is the "announcement" list and the other one is for press releases. You'll find both on http://fsfeurope.org/mailinglists.html.
Regards,
Georg Greve FSF Europe, President
-- Georg C. F. Greve greve@fsfeurope.org Free Software Foundation Europe (http://fsfeurope.org) GNU Business Network (http://mailman.gnubiz.org) Brave GNU World (http://brave-gnu-world.org)
They are probably licensing only their own proprietary portions of the distribution and not the GPLed parts - i.e., you can distribute the GPLed material freely, but only if you separate it out from the proprietary packages that Caldera added. That would be how they would do it.
- Brian Y., FSF
Werner Koch wrote:
ld> Caldera has changed the license on its OpenLinux Workstation product ld> for the newest version (3.1) to require one license per system the ld> distribution is installed on. The company will provide a certificate
I don't see a difference between SuSE and Caldera. Both are selling freedom subtracted GNU/Linux systems. SuSE just allows for verbatim copies if you don't take money for it; this is freeware and not Free Software. So Caldera now switched to take money - Microsoft could do the same with their Internet Exploder at any time.
This is a too simple answer! Suse and Caldera use the same logic (add prop software to free software), but the results are different: I can copy Suse-Systems as often as I want and put it on many computers, and this is covered by the Suse prop license for Yast. I can not use Caldera in the same way, I have to _buy_ a license for every system on which I want to install Caldera. I don't want to defend Suse, but this is an essential difference in practice. And the normal end user is not able to distinguish, in his/her view Caldera must be the same shit stuff as M$.
ld> What kind of coordinated action can be done ?
I don't think that there is any action required. Well, Caldera gives a premium example why not to use "proprietarized" versions of GNU/Linux ;-)
In my view, Caldera gives us a good example, why the "make-money-with-free-software"-dogma again and again will lead to such "combinations" of freedom and artificial scarcity, in order to make that money the free-software guys promise. I don't want to discuss this again, so just ignore me, but IMHO it is a dangerous trap.
What will happen, if Suse switches to the Caldera model? They will if Caldera succeeds.
Ciao, Stefan
Stefan Meretz stefan.meretz@hbv.org writes:
I don't see a difference between SuSE and Caldera. Both are selling freedom subtracted GNU/Linux systems. SuSE just allows for verbatim copies if you don't take money for it; this is freeware and not Free Software. So Caldera now switched to take money - Microsoft could do the same with their Internet Exploder at any time.
This is a too simple answer! Suse and Caldera use the same logic (add prop software to free software), but the results are different: I can copy Suse-Systems as often as I want and put it on many computers, and this is covered by the Suse prop license for Yast. I can not use Caldera in the same way, I have to _buy_ a license for every system on which I want to install Caldera. I don't want to defend Suse, but this is an essential difference in practice.
Yes, it's a practical difference. It can be very inconvenient, because it may cost you money. But it's not more than that, a practical inconvenience. The fact that you *can* get bitten by this at all, is the fact that Caldera's package is indeed freedom subtracted. But so is SuSE's.
Just because SuSE imposes smaller practical inconveniences for you at this point in time, you see no harm in freedom subtracted packages?
Jan.
|| On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 09:32:14 +0200 || Stefan Meretz stefan.meretz@hbv.org wrote:
sm> want to install Caldera. I don't want to defend Suse, but this is an sm> essential difference in practice. And the normal end user is not able to
But only if you look at the cost. Free Software is not about costs but about freedom and from this point of view there is no difference.
sm> "make-money-with-free-software"-dogma again and again will lead to such sm> "combinations" of freedom and artificial scarcity, in order to make that sm> money the free-software guys promise. I don't want to discuss this
You are ignoring some facts: Cygnus used to be the first Free Software company and they indeed made money from writing and supporting Free Software. ACT is still a good example for a profitbale company running entirley on Free Software. There are other compnaies in Europe which still work.
Well, there a couple of companies out of business, but I doubt that this has to do with their business model. There are thousands of dot-com companies founded at about the same time Free Software business became main stream - and most of them are now bankrupt.
sm> What will happen, if Suse switches to the Caldera model? They will if sm> Caldera succeeds.
Sure. I had a couple of discussions with SuSE employees and there main issue is that GNU is unfriendly to their proprietary extensions ("You need to change this in glibc, so that we can better run ORACLE").
Ciao,
Werner
Caldera has changed the license on its OpenLinux Workstation product for the newest version (3.1) to require one license per system the distribution is installed on. The company will provide a certificate of license authenticity it says it expects to find on each system running OpenLinux Workstation. From the ...
What kind of coordinated action can be done ?
It depends upon how they defined the "certificate". If it turns the system to proprietary, then we need to criticize it; if the certificate is just a means to offer better supports for their customers, and it does not related with the freedom, then I think we have nothing to do with it.
I don't know what packages are contained in the distribution, many distributions have packed a lot of proprietary software in the box, this is what we need to criticise always.
Best, Frederic
|| On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:30:23 +0800 (CST) || Hong Feng fred@mail.rons.net.cn wrote:
hf> to proprietary, then we need to criticize it; if the certificate is just hf> a means to offer better supports for their customers, and it does not
The certificate is in fact the license terms of their proprietary "extensions" which now does not allow to use one "license" on more than one box.
hf> I don't know what packages are contained in the distribution, many hf> distributions have packed a lot of proprietary software in the box, this
I am not sure but I guess that this proprietary stuff is now essential for Caldera like the proprietary YaST is for SuSE.
Werner
The certificate is in fact the license terms of their proprietary "extensions" which now does not allow to use one "license" on more than one box.
Now I see. If so, I think we need to critisize it in public media, and inform our community not use it.
I am not sure but I guess that this proprietary stuff is now essential for Caldera like the proprietary YaST is for SuSE.
I think RMS offered a nice idea when he was in China last May, i.e. make a list or table list all the so-called "Linux" distributions, and index the distances of them to our pure GNU/Linux by marks, and publish the indexing result on www.gnu.org.
According to Linux Journal, May's issue, there are 188 distributions now, so I think this work could be a little bit time consuming, but really worth to do now.
Best, Frederic
Hi Frederic!
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 11:25:22PM +0800, Hong Feng wrote:
I think RMS offered a nice idea when he was in China last May, i.e. make a list or table list all the so-called "Linux" distributions, and index the distances of them to our pure GNU/Linux by marks, and publish the indexing result on www.gnu.org.
Yes, that would be a really good idea!
Bye, Marc _______________________________________________________________________________
email: marc@greenie.net email: m.a.eberhard@aston.ac.uk, web: http://www.aston.ac.uk/~eberhama/
Hi Marc:
I think RMS offered a nice idea when he was in China last May, i.e. make a list or table list all the so-called "Linux" distributions, and index the distances of them to our pure GNU/Linux by marks, and publish the indexing result on www.gnu.org.
Yes, that would be a really good idea!
if all of us in the mailing list like this idea, then we need to draft a set of criteria to evalute the freedom degrees of the distributions. Any comments on the criteria are welcome to send me to collect.
Best, Frederic
Hi Frederic!
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 12:58:27AM +0800, Hong Feng wrote:
if all of us in the mailing list like this idea, then we need to draft a set of criteria to evalute the freedom degrees of the distributions. Any comments on the criteria are welcome to send me to collect.
- Basic and most important freedoms:
- Can the distribution be copied and passed on to someone else?
- Can it be used on different computers at the same time?
- Does it include the full source code for all necessary components for a minimal system installation?
- Is that source code covered by a free software licence?
- For finer distinctions for similar distributions:
- Which percentage of the packages/programs/disk space consists of free software?
- How essential are non-free packages for the normal use of the system in the distribution?
- What is included in the "default system setup" of the distribution?
Hmmm, there are probably many more things to be considered here!
Bye, Marc _______________________________________________________________________________
email: marc@greenie.net email: m.a.eberhard@aston.ac.uk, web: http://www.aston.ac.uk/~eberhama/
|| Hong Feng fred@mail.rons.net.cn:
if all of us in the mailing list like this idea, then we need to draft a set of criteria to evalute the freedom degrees of the distributions. Any comments on the criteria are welcome to send me to collect.
I'd guess this would be pretty simple.
If we are to give it a "pure GNU/Linux" stamp, it must contain Free Software only. So every package on the distribution must qualify according to the Free Software definition of the FSF.
This of course includes setup programs and such.
Regards, Georg
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
If we are to give it a "pure GNU/Linux" stamp, it must contain Free Software only. So every package on the distribution must qualify according to the Free Software definition of the FSF.
Not to be picky or anything, but that would imply to me that it just contained the linux kernel and programs owned by the GNU...
Might want to see how other ppl react ..
John Tapsell writes:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
Software only. So every package on the distribution must qualify according to the Free Software definition of the FSF.
Not to be picky or anything, but that would imply to me that it just contained the linux kernel and programs owned by the GNU...
Why? Apache is not GNU software, but it clearly qualifies as free software in the sense of Stallman, just not as copyleft , nor as compatible with the GNU GPL.
Klaus Schilling
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Klaus Schilling wrote:
John Tapsell writes:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
Software only. So every package on the distribution must qualify according to the Free Software definition of the FSF.
Not to be picky or anything, but that would imply to me that it just contained the linux kernel and programs owned by the GNU...
Why? Apache is not GNU software, but it clearly qualifies as free software in the sense of Stallman, just not as copyleft , nor as compatible with the GNU GPL.
ARGHHH!!
I am I really the only person that thinks the saying "Pure GNU/linux" seems to imply it contains GNU programs??
Does anybody understand what I am saying!?
/me goes to the moon and back for fun
Klaus Schilling
John Tapsell wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Klaus Schilling wrote:
John Tapsell writes:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
Software only. So every package on the distribution must qualify according to the Free Software definition of the FSF.
Not to be picky or anything, but that would imply to me that it just contained the linux kernel and programs owned by the GNU...
Why? Apache is not GNU software, but it clearly qualifies as free software in the sense of Stallman, just not as copyleft , nor as compatible with the GNU GPL.
ARGHHH!!
I am I really the only person that thinks the saying "Pure GNU/linux" seems to imply it contains GNU programs??
Does anybody understand what I am saying!?
Oh, sorry, I should've read this before posting. You're right. How about "Certified 100% Free by the FSF"?
/me goes to the moon and back for fun
Yikes! Have you been smoking something? ;p
John Tapsell tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk writes:
I am I really the only person that thinks the saying "Pure GNU/linux" seems to imply it contains GNU programs??
Maybe you're the only person here who hasn't read (or grasped) http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html?
When I say GNU/Linux, I do that because I find freedom important. The only place users are to read about freedom in relation to software is at www.GNU.org.
Jan.
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, you wrote:
John Tapsell tapselj0@cs.man.ac.uk writes:
I am I really the only person that thinks the saying "Pure GNU/linux" seems to imply it contains GNU programs??
Maybe you're the only person here who hasn't read (or grasped) http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html?
When I say GNU/Linux, I do that because I find freedom important. The only place users are to read about freedom in relation to software is at www.GNU.org.
oh jeez I give up
Jan.
-- Jan Nieuwenhuizen janneke@gnu.org | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org
Hi,
Why? Apache is not GNU software, but it clearly qualifies as free software in the sense of Stallman, just not as copyleft , nor as compatible with the GNU GPL.
it is true that GNU/Linux system is not identical to all software from GNU Project plus Linux kernel. Many software in public domain could be also a part of GNU/Linux as an operating system, like TeX.
On the other hand, a "Pure GNU/Linux" with only GNU tools and Linux kernel could reside at the original point of the spaces, with the criteria as the dimensions we are discussing, we could put the current distributions into various "clouds" we constructed spaces. And finally we could measure the "distance" how far a distribution from the original point of the space, sth like Minkovsky distance, just possibly with more dimensions other than 4, and the weight of each dimension could not be the same.
Best, Frederic
it is true that GNU/Linux system is not identical to all software from GNU Project plus Linux kernel. Many software in public domain could be also a part of GNU/Linux as an operating system, like TeX.
Our goal, starting in 1984, was to develop a complete operating system, to which we gave the name GNU. This called for many components. In some cases we found free components that could do the job, but many of the components we had to write. The components we wrote, or that we recruited people to develop and contribute specifically to GNU, are GNU software. GNU, the system, includes all of them.
GNU/Linux is the combination of GNU (the GNU system) and Linux (the kernel). The GNU software packages come into the combination as parts of GNU.
Our goal, starting in 1984, was to develop a complete operating system, to which we gave the name GNU. This called for many components. In some cases we found free components that could do the job, but many of the components we had to write. The components we wrote, or that we recruited people to develop and contribute specifically to GNU, are GNU software. GNU, the system, includes all of them.
GNU/Linux is the combination of GNU (the GNU system) and Linux (the kernel). The GNU software packages come into the combination as parts of GNU.
That's why I will put GNU tools plus Linux kernel at the original point of the space. GNU/Linux plus public domain packages like TeX will slightly get a bigger space around the original point.
Rgds, Frederic
GNU/Linux is the combination of GNU (the GNU system) and Linux (the kernel). The GNU software packages come into the combination as parts of GNU.
I have notised Linux Standard Base 1.0 is published at www.linuxbase.org, I am not quite sure what does it mean. I will read the specification and come back my comments to you this Friday.
Best, Frederic
John Tapsell wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
If we are to give it a "pure GNU/Linux" stamp, it must contain Free Software only. So every package on the distribution must qualify according to the Free Software definition of the FSF.
Not to be picky or anything, but that would imply to me that it just contained the linux kernel and programs owned by the GNU...
Might want to see how other ppl react ..
Not at all! Many many non-GNU programs are Free. Mozilla, the GIMP, Freenet, Abiword, Star Office, I could go on forever...
I'd guess this would be pretty simple.
If we are to give it a "pure GNU/Linux" stamp, it must contain Free Software only. So every package on the distribution must qualify according to the Free Software definition of the FSF.
Yes, the principle should be simple and easy to operate.
This of course includes setup programs and such.
Setup program will be one of the focus to check. Another dim area is to check the license of the device drivers inside the kernel. I think packages and applications are easier to check than these two.
Best, Frederic
Hi all,
* Hong Feng fred@mail.rons.net.cn [20010629 00:58 +0800]:
if all of us in the mailing list like this idea, then we need to draft a set of criteria to evalute the freedom degrees of the distributions. Any comments on the criteria are welcome to send me to collect.
We could consinder the guidelines set up by the Debian project. They mark all non-free packages clearly. Even a Virtual RMS is included in form of a little tool called vrms. This gives you a list of all non-free packages currently installed on your system.
Regrads Lutz -- Lutz Horn lh@lutz-horn.de For PGP information see header.
|| On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 18:30:09 +0200 || Lutz Horn lh@lutz-horn.de wrote:
lh> We could consinder the guidelines set up by the Debian lh> project. They mark all non-free packages clearly. Even a Virtual lh> RMS is included in form of a little tool called vrms. This gives lh> you a list of all non-free packages currently installed on your lh> system.
Please note that the "level of freedom" for Debian packages is determined by the Debian Free Software Guidlines, which are not satisfactory. If we are going to do something like this, we need to apply the Free Software definition of the FSF.
Regards, Georg
Hi all
* Georg C. F. Greve greve@gnu.org [20010628 19:00 +0200]:
|| On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 18:30:09 +0200 || Lutz Horn lh@lutz-horn.de wrote:
lh> We could consinder the guidelines set up by the Debian lh> project. They mark all non-free packages clearly. Even a Virtual lh> RMS is included in form of a little tool called vrms. This gives lh> you a list of all non-free packages currently installed on your lh> system.
Please note that the "level of freedom" for Debian packages is determined by the Debian Free Software Guidlines, which are not satisfactory. If we are going to do something like this, we need to apply the Free Software definition of the FSF.
This is correct. But at least they care about the problem and provide an easy way to determine if a system contains non-free software even if this is measured by their own guidelines. I guess it's difficult enough for a project the size of Debian GNU/Linux to get all people pulling in one direction. I remember discussions last year about dropping support for the non-free packages altogether. This resulted in some heated arguments :-)
But since we are talking about criteria here, one would be if the distribuor cares about the idea of free software or if he produces a "value-added" distribution. Of all the mainstream distributions I know about (RH, SuSE, Debian, Slackware?) Debian GNU/Linux is the only one actively informing their users about the notion of free software.
Another criteria could be the naming of the game. I think Debian GNU/Linux is a shining example when it comes to naming the distribution correctly :-)
Regards Lutz
On Thursday 28 June 2001 13:20, Lutz Horn wrote:
Hi all
- Georg C. F. Greve greve@gnu.org [20010628 19:00 +0200]:
|| On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 18:30:09 +0200 || Lutz Horn lh@lutz-horn.de wrote:
lh> We could consinder the guidelines set up by the Debian lh> project. They mark all non-free packages clearly. Even a Virtual lh> RMS is included in form of a little tool called vrms. This gives lh> you a list of all non-free packages currently installed on your lh> system.
The concept of some way of comparing licenses in distros is a very good one. Perhaps in the Brave GNU world newsletter, there should be a link to a page where the license types in distros are summed in a table.
(this is a far more generalised and therefore useful discussion now that the Caldera-bashing - as much as they deserve bashing).
eg: Slackware 7.1: Apache 123, BSD 35345, GPL 345345, MPL 3345345.
I'm sure that distros would see this as an issue to compete on, and if the metric is there, they'll use it.
Also: Apache license, like BSD, is not as "free" as GPL since it doesn't prevent someone enhancing a peice of code, and keeping the "enhancements". In some circumstances it might be deemed to be a good thing to be less "free" to encourage uptake of a standard eg: TCP/IP, Vorbis Ogg. But long term the GPL is superior since it allows evolution, without competing proprietary forks.
Jeff Davies
Hi Jeff,
* Jeff Davies jeff@llandre.freeserve.co.uk [20010629 11:27 -0400]:
Apache license, like BSD, is not as "free" as GPL since it doesn't prevent someone enhancing a peice of code, and keeping the "enhancements".
The Apache license is a free software license. It is not a copyleft license which allows the "enhancements" you describe. Following http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html it is not even compatible with the GNU GPL.
Regards Lutz
"Georg" == Georg C F Greve greve@gnu.org writes:
Georg> Please note that the "level of freedom" for Debian packages is Georg> determined by the Debian Free Software Guidlines, which are not Georg> satisfactory. If we are going to do something like this, we need to Georg> apply the Free Software definition of the FSF.
Out of curiosity: what exactly are the problems with the Debian Free Software Guideline? I would suspect them to be mostly related to section 4 (Integrity of The Author's Source Code), right? Are there any other problems?
Gruß, Lars
Greetings Hong!
"Hong" == Hong Feng fred@mail.rons.net.cn writes:
I think RMS offered a nice idea when he was in China last May, i.e. make a list or table list all the so-called "Linux" distributions, and index the distances of them to our pure GNU/Linux by marks, and publish the indexing result on www.gnu.org.
Yes, that would be a really good idea!
Hong> if all of us in the mailing list like this idea, then we need to Hong> draft a set of criteria to evalute the freedom degrees of the Hong> distributions. Any comments on the criteria are welcome to send Hong> me to collect.
I too really like the general idea, but I'm not sure whether a list or a table with simple marks is the right approach (such things usually tend to oversimplify and to mislead people).
What might be better is a simple webpage with distributions categorized by the following criteria:
a) Consists entirely of Free Software
b) Free-Software-only version is available
c) Can be turned into Free-Software-only without too much of a hassle
d) Difficult or impossible to use without non-free software
(Distributions that fall into group `a' would be preferred, whereas anything below `b' would be discouraged. It might also be preferrable not to mention d-rated distributions at all.)
Along with each distribution could then also be a general description, remarks about their Free Software friendliness, etc.
Gruß, Lars
Hi all,
* Lars Weber me@lars.in-berlin.de [20010628 19:05 +0200]:
What might be better is a simple webpage with distributions categorized by the following criteria:
a) Consists entirely of Free Software
b) Free-Software-only version is available
c) Can be turned into Free-Software-only without too much of a hassle
d) Difficult or impossible to use without non-free software
This should include the way updates for packages are provided and which tools are needed to add them to the system. As far as I know even SuSE uses RPM these days put adding updated RPMs to the system _not_ using yast could be a little bit of a problem.
So even it the format used for the packages (RPM) and the tools to deal with them (rpm - the command line utiliy) are free, this will not bring the distribution into a) or b) above if the system will fail if you alter config files by hand while using a non-free tool (yast), that wrecks up your handiwork, at the same time. I would consider this a case of d) since the original distribution can only serve as a base installation to build a free system on. If you can only turn the system into a free one by not using the distribution specific tools and features, the whole distribution should be considered non-free.
Regards Lutz
"Lutz" == Lutz Horn lh@lutz-horn.de writes:
What might be better is a simple webpage with distributions categorized by the following criteria:
a) Consists entirely of Free Software
b) Free-Software-only version is available
c) Can be turned into Free-Software-only without too much of a hassle
d) Difficult or impossible to use without non-free software
Lutz> This should include the way updates for packages are provided and Lutz> which tools are needed to add them to the system. As far as I know Lutz> even SuSE uses RPM these days put adding updated RPMs to the Lutz> system _not_ using yast could be a little bit of a problem.
Maybe better classifications would be:
c) Includes non-free packages that can be easily removed
and
d) Uses non-free software as an integral part of the distribution itself
Gruß, Lars
>> I think RMS offered a nice idea when he was in China last May, i.e. >> make a list or table list all the so-called "Linux" distributions, >> and index the distances of them to our pure GNU/Linux by marks, >> and publish the indexing result on www.gnu.org. > >Yes, that would be a really good idea!
if all of us in the mailing list like this idea, then we need to draft a set of criteria to evalute the freedom degrees of the distributions.
I've already worked out some criteria. The question is, do we have someone here who wants to look at the distributions and collect the information? If someone wants to do this, then I can show you the criteria I had in mind, and maybe others can make useful suggestions. However, if there is no one here who wants to do the work, discussing the criteria now would not lead anywhere, so we may as well do other things instead.
I see no need to even try to review 188 distributions. We should aim to review Debian, the major commercial distributions, and any noncommercial distributions that we have a reason to want to recommend.
We volunteer to do that work (us being I and linux developer friends). We have several months' free time due to a semester break and high bandwidth.
Em
// OLDSIG "All bad art is the result of good intentions." - Oscar Wilde
/* START NEWSIG */ Processor: (n.) a device for converting sense to nonsense at the speed of electricity, or (rarely) the reverse. - Tonkin's First Computer Dictionary
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Richard Stallman wrote:
>> I think RMS offered a nice idea when he was in China last May, i.e. >> make a list or table list all the so-called "Linux" distributions, >> and index the distances of them to our pure GNU/Linux by marks, >> and publish the indexing result on www.gnu.org. > >Yes, that would be a really good idea! if all of us in the mailing list like this idea, then we need to draft a set of criteria to evalute the freedom degrees of the distributions.I've already worked out some criteria. The question is, do we have someone here who wants to look at the distributions and collect the information? If someone wants to do this, then I can show you the criteria I had in mind, and maybe others can make useful suggestions. However, if there is no one here who wants to do the work, discussing the criteria now would not lead anywhere, so we may as well do other things instead.
I see no need to even try to review 188 distributions. We should aim to review Debian, the major commercial distributions, and any noncommercial distributions that we have a reason to want to recommend. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discussion
The issues that we want to compare are:
* Does the Internet distribution include non-free software. If so, how much?
* Does the distributor distribute any CDs that are 100% free software?
* If non-free software is included, is it labeled clearly as non-free?
* Does the distributor express any regrets for the inclusion of non-free software?
* Does the distributor state that freedom is a goal?
* Does the distributor develop software? If so, how much free software development does it do, and what kind of software? And does it develop any non-free software? Any non-free software that goes in the distribution?
* Does the distributor call the system GNU/Linux?
It's vital to look at CD products, not just at what is available on the Internet. However, it's not necessary to look at all the CD products of a given company. It's enough to look at the ones that come closest to satisfying our goals, and you can probably tell which those are before getting them.
The FSF can pay for buying copies of CD products if that is necessary. However, it could be that we could make contact with someone who reviews products for a magazine, and look at his copies for this. Does anyone know somebody to ask? It might be possible to find someone who can help in this way by looking at some of the "Linux" magazines, or other magazines, to find the author of a product review column.
Could you ask your friend to get in touch with me directly?
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 09:54:28AM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
The issues that we want to compare are:
Does the Internet distribution include non-free software. If so, how much?
Does the distributor distribute any CDs that are 100% free software?
If non-free software is included, is it labeled clearly as non-free?
Does the distributor express any regrets for the inclusion
of non-free software?
- Does the distributor develop software? If so, how much free
software development does it do, and what kind of software? And does it develop any non-free software? Any non-free software that goes in the distribution?
It's difficult to apply these tests to Debian.
1. They include non-free but say that "it's not part of Debian".
2. Debian developers develop free software mostly privately, not inside Debian. (with the exception of Debian-specific software like dpkg or apt). So you don't know how much free software they develop, as it's not signed as made by Debian project, but as made by individual Debian developers.
It's difficult to apply these tests to Debian.
It is not really difficult, it just requires answers more complex than "yes" or "no". The point here is to collect the information and present it to the public. We can adjust the details of how we present it, to achieve our goals and fit what we need to say.
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 09:54:28AM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
- Does the distributor express any regrets for the inclusion
of non-free software?
Excuse me, while this point may already have been discussed, IMHO this is a subjective Point. Anyone should decide for him/herself if [s]he is fine with non-free Software.
The _objective_ Point of this is discussed in wether non-free Software is clearly labeled. The (still subjective) Point in the cite shouldnt be "ranked" or mentioned in any comparison.
again, IMHO.
-mc
Hi,
Yes, one of the problems that the comparison would necessarily face is that of keeping objectivity. So far, our preferred strategy would be to list relevant sources on this subject, rather than attempting to condense our subjective impressions in the first person, and then eventually to summarise these sources.
Assuming that the accumulated information is (on average) unbiased, the resulting summary should be a reasonable expression of the actual opinion of the distributor - who, I may add, is invited to involve themselves as much as they wish in the comparison process. Should the distributor find the sources used or the summaries made unfair or inaccurate, this should be taken into account.
The point of this is to accurately define the distributor's overall point of view (rather than their actions, ie. actual content of their software/ packaging) on the question of freedom. Following which, the individual reading the comparison may decide for him/herself if [s]he is fine with the distributor's attitude ;-)
Em
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Rico -mc- Gloeckner wrote:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2001 at 09:54:28AM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
- Does the distributor express any regrets for the inclusion
of non-free software?
Excuse me, while this point may already have been discussed, IMHO this is a subjective Point. Anyone should decide for him/herself if [s]he is fine with non-free Software.
The _objective_ Point of this is discussed in wether non-free Software is clearly labeled. The (still subjective) Point in the cite shouldnt be "ranked" or mentioned in any comparison.
again, IMHO.
-mc
-- | Rico -mc- Gloeckner | mc@na.sow.as | {ICQ:99798577} | | http://1048576735 | mc @ irc.tu-ilmenau.de | sms@ukeer.de | | :wq
// OLDSIG "All bad art is the result of good intentions." - Oscar Wilde
/* START NEWSIG */ Processor: (n.) a device for converting sense to nonsense at the speed of electricity, or (rarely) the reverse. - Tonkin's First Computer Dictionary
Excuse me, while this point may already have been discussed, IMHO this is a subjective Point. Anyone should decide for him/herself if [s]he is fine with non-free Software.
This is a question of ethics, on which people can disagree. The Free Software Movement has a position on this question; in fact, our position is the focus of all our activity. We advocate the replacement of non-free software with free software.
This main purpose of making this comparison of distributions is to spread awareness of that ethical position, and help people who agree with it to act on it.
Comparing what the distributors *say* about the issue of freedom is an important aspect of this. They are free to choose what to say, and it makes sense therefore for us to judge them by the choices they make.
The people who read this comparison are free to disagree with our views, but that is their worry, not ours. Our job is to do as good as possible a job of promoting them.
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 10:33:14AM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
Excuse me, while this point may already have been discussed, IMHO this is a subjective Point. Anyone should decide for him/herself if [s]he is fine with non-free Software.[...]
Comparing what the distributors *say* about the issue of freedom is an important aspect of this. They are free to choose what to say, and it makes sense therefore for us to judge them by the choices they make.
[...]
While iam fine with the wording of this paragraph, i still find that comparisons of this kind should be held objective, not prejudiced. I partly felt offended by the wording i cited in my previous Mail - i feel happy when you guys tell me, what the distributors {think, say} about the issue of Freedom, however -PLEASE- leave it up to my personal opinion how important this is to me.
Having said that, one might notice that you (RMS, FSFE) play an important role in this part and and should be aware of the importance of Objectiveness.
IMHO it would be important enough if the comparison was made objective, but in some post- or preamble the Importance of Freedom were raised in words.
-mc
Rico -mc- Gloeckner wrote:
On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 10:33:14AM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
Excuse me, while this point may already have been discussed, IMHO this is a subjective Point. Anyone should decide for him/herself if [s]he is fine with non-free Software.[...]
Comparing what the distributors *say* about the issue of freedom is an important aspect of this. They are free to choose what to say, and it makes sense therefore for us to judge them by the choices they make.
[...]
[omissis]
IMHO it would be important enough if the comparison was made objective,
We are not objective, we are definitely factious! We are on the freedom side ;-)
but in some post- or preamble the Importance of Freedom were raised in words.
CiaoG.
Hi,
I've already worked out some criteria. The question is, do we have someone here who wants to look at the distributions and collect the information? If someone wants to do this, then I can show you the criteria I had in mind, and maybe others can make useful suggestions.
pls tell me your criteria.
However, if there is no one here who wants to do the work, discussing the criteria now would not lead anywhere, so we may as well do other things instead.
I could do this, and I think this is a valuable job to do. If the job will spend a lot of time which goes beyond one people, I could ask help from others in the mailing list.
I see no need to even try to review 188 distributions. We should aim to review Debian, the major commercial distributions, and any noncommercial distributions that we have a reason to want to recommend.
I have notised that Debian 3.0 is frozen, so if you agree, I could start on Debian 3.0, once all the packages inside Debian checked one by one, then we could start to other major commercial distributions checking. I think finally the index or a diagram could be developed.
Best, Frederic
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 at 23:25, Hong Feng wrote:
The certificate is in fact the license terms of their proprietary "extensions" which now does not allow to use one "license" on more than one box.
Now I see. If so, I think we need to critisize it in public media, and inform our community not use it.
That sounds the right approach. We should expose them and request the community to ignore them whatever might be their goodies.