From: Digestifier To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 04:13:09 EDT Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #25 Linux-Misc Digest #25, Volume #1 Fri, 20 Aug 93 04:13:09 EDT Contents: Re: A question about the SLS sysinstall script's copyright (Byron A Jeff) How about some money for linux...read on (Bo Peng) txconn bug (Philip Brown) Re: INN1.4 under Linux - WOW !!!!!! (Vince Skahan) Re: A question about the SLS sysinstall script's copyright (Michael Kenney) Re: A question about the SLS sysinstall script's copyright (Byron A Jeff) EISA/ISA Configuration Rules (.CFG files) (Mark J Elkins) Re: A question about the SLS sysinstall script's copyright (Byron A Jeff) Re: A question about the SLS sysinstall script's copyright (Steve McMahon) 99pl12 kernel (Joe Klemmer) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) Subject: Re: A question about the SLS sysinstall script's copyright Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 05:50:31 GMT READ THIS ALL THE WAY THROUGH FOLKS! IT'S LONG BUT IMPORTANT! >>>Steve McMahon wrote: >>>[Steve] >>>Peter cannot do that. It's against the GPL. >>[Byron] >>Yes he can. He wrote the scripts. They are his. >> >[Steve] >No he cannot. These scripts were made specifically for the interface >and installation of a GPLed product (linux), hence they fall under the >GPL. If Peter made them for OS/2 or NT it would be another matter, but >not here. [Byron] Let's pull the relavent part of the license and examine it: [ My comments will be in brackets ] ======================== Begin GPL License =========================== These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. [ This is confusing: this paragraph says that if you separately distribute a work - like the SLS installation scripts - the license does not apply. However distributing the sections as part of a whole - Like the SLS distribution - The whole distribution must be on the terms of the license. But see below ] Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program. In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. [ Now is the SLS scripts just an aggregation on the distribution? I don't think so. The scripts are an integral part of the distribution. So it would seem that the License would apply to them. ] ======================== End GPL License =========================== So he can't do it. Very interesting. >It's also against the spirit of the GPL. Take a GPLed software and >start imposing restrictions on its distribution. That's *exactly* what >the GPL is intended to impede. You cannot have it both ways: make >money out of GPL software and then complain when people start making >use of the fact that it's under the GPL. > According to the license you're right. This is what's on the top of the doinstall script in the Slackware distribution: # copyright Softlanding Software 92,93. Distribute freely, don't restrict Kind of ironic. Considering the copyright and implied license I think Patrick can keep on distributing copies of doinstall and sysinstall as he sees fit. So I guess if someone wants to press the case it would seem that Peter could be prevented from distributing SLS unless he releases the restriction. Again here is the relavent GPL section: ======================== Begin GPL License =========================== 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. 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. For example, if a patent [^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - OH OH! ] license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. ======================== End GPL License =========================== Any Compu-legals care to take a crack at it? Kinda sad that Linux has come to this already. I thought we were all going to be able to create, distribute, support, and yes even make money off this wonderful product. So sad that it we humans with our typical failings can't live up to that expectation. BAJ --- Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of... Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel! Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 Internet: byron@cc.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: bo@horus.cem.msu.EDU (Bo Peng) Subject: How about some money for linux...read on Date: 20 Aug 1993 05:54:04 GMT Don't jump up so fast yet. What I mean is perhaps setup some sort of foundation or something like that. Linux is still free with no obligation whatsoever.But, just in case, just in case that some feel like paying something -- again, what- ever they feel appropriate -- for the stuff, the money could be collected and put into good use. A machine dedicated to linux development/discussion? Pay for internet costs for someone? Save simtel-20? Charity? Why not? I haven't used it. But I've decided to go linux way. It's doubtful that I'd ever have time to contribute to its development. If I really like it, I...uh... feel like paying something back. If nothing else, just to make myself feel better. ;-> Seriously, this whole deal of internet/anonymous ftp/usenet/linux is wonderful. Almost too good to be free (hey! besides tax...). Thinking that Chinese consider it a great previlage paying (if I remember it right) ~$40 for 1k of incoming e-mail (about average monthly salary), I do feel a little guilty. I know, there'd be lots of technical difficulties. Perhaps there're a few lawyer linuxers out there? Bo Peng ------------------------------ From: philb@cats.ucsc.edu (Philip Brown) Subject: txconn bug Date: 20 Aug 1993 05:53:27 GMT Has this bug been addressed? If I am running txconn, and then start up an additional trsh or something, txconn dies. (this is with txconn on the other side of the modem, and me activating trsh from this side) -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Don't move, Penelope.. I want to remember you just the way you are now. Puzzled." philb@cats.ucsc.edu philb@soda.berkeley.edu ------------------------------ From: vince@victrola.wa.com (Vince Skahan) Crossposted-To: news.software.nntp Subject: Re: INN1.4 under Linux - WOW !!!!!! Date: 19 Aug 1993 21:56:20 -0700 rsalz@rodan.UU.NET (Rich Salz) writes: >>upcoming support for, overview files in nn? >I believe this is being worked on by the nn folks. You can get a >prototype done by Geoff Collyer from world.std.com:src/news/nn.dist.tar.Z this fine example does indeed work well under linux :-) It seems quite a bit slower to me at first glance when entering the newsgroup, but it's only a "proof-of-concept" anyway...but it *does* work. -- ---------- Vince Skahan --------- vince@victrola.wa.com ------------- One living dinosaur and it has to be Barney - lame! lame! lame! lame! - 'the Lame List' on "Almost Live" 7/4/93 ------------------------------ From: kenney@stein.u.washington.edu (Michael Kenney) Subject: Re: A question about the SLS sysinstall script's copyright Date: 20 Aug 1993 06:17:02 GMT In article <930819232631.23132@lambada>, Steve McMahon wrote: >In article <1993Aug20.015821.15839@cc.gatech.edu> byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes: >>In article <930819205847.23148@lambada>, >>Steve McMahon wrote: >> >>>Peter cannot do that. It's against the GPL. >> >>Yes he can. He wrote the scripts. They are his. >> > >No he cannot. These scripts were made specifically for the interface >and installation of a GPLed product (linux), hence they fall under the >GPL. If Peter made them for OS/2 or NT it would be another matter, but >not here. > Huh???? Does this mean if I package up some GPL code with tar (not GNU tar) that all of a sudden tar falls under the GPL. Sounds like a lot of nonsense to me. >It's also against the spirit of the GPL. Take a GPLed software and >start imposing restrictions on its distribution. That's *exactly* what >the GPL is intended to impede. You cannot have it both ways: make >money out of GPL software and then complain when people start making >use of the fact that it's under the GPL. > He is not imposing any restrictions on GPLed software ... there are many other ways to install Linux. What he is restricting is people taking the SLS install scripts and using them in their own distributions ... what is so unreasonable about that? Jeez. These GPL Fundamentalists need to lighten up :-) ---- Mike Kenney UW Applied Physics Lab mikek@apl.washington.edu ------------------------------ From: byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) Subject: Re: A question about the SLS sysinstall script's copyright Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 06:20:02 GMT In article <1993Aug19.070534.6725@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca>, John Henders wrote: >elkins@aerospace.aero.org (Michael Elkins) writes: > >>Oops! Ok, so *almost* everything! I was thinking more along the lines that >>most of the software was under the gnu copyleft... Freely modifiable and >>re-distributable (ooh! two new words). > > I don't see where Peter said you can't modify or distribute his >scripts. He just seems to be saying you have to label them as his and >not your own. I fail to see much difference between that and any other >part of linux. This is a part of Peter's statement: - Note also that the copyright notice has been clarified in the - NOTICE to explain that the installation scripts (but very - little else) in SLS are copyright Softlanding Software. - Using them to roll your own distribution, tearing off the - SLS name, and putting in your own, is not permitted. These - scripts "are" SLS, and any distribution built using them - must be called thus. Doing otherwise constitutes taking - credit for the work of others. Since Slackware has made this mistake, - it is currently frozen until it develops it's own installation - and administration system. My points: 1) Patrick did not tear off anything from the installation scripts. I just looked the distribution and the copyrights and banner labels are intact. When doinstall is run they clearly state that its an SLS installation script. 2) The copyright notice on doinstall clearly states # copyright Softlanding Software 92,93. Distribute freely, don't restrict Patrick did that. So can a copyright on a distributed work be later modified especially when the distribution copyright plainly states that is can be distributed freely? 3) Then there's the matter of the GPL. See my other post. From my reading of it Peter's scripts have to GPL'ed or he can't distribute it. By putting a non redistribute copyright on the scripts he's violating the GPL. Patrick followed the GPL almost to the letter (he didn't put in the scripts that he had modified them and the date modified - an oversight I'm sure). 4) Lastly I think Peter oversteps his copyright (old and new) by saying that any distribution that includes his code must be called SLS. As long as there is a copyright attribution and a Banner attribution on execution for the SLS code, the claim of "taking the credit for the work of others" is negated. Patrick does both in Slackware. In fact in the ANNOUNCE file is the following statement: "This release is based largely on the SLS system, but has been enhanced and modified substantially." I guess this constitutes taking credit for the work of others.... By the same token I don't think he should be able to slap the SLS name on Linux. Both statement seem ridiculous to me. Slackware was particularly pointed out that's why I'm directing my responses based on it. Patrick did everything right. The more I read and the more I think about it, Peter is doing everything wrong. But he'd better be careful because by my reading on the GPL he's in violation. And if that's the case then he can't distribute Linux because it is a GPL'ed product. BAJ --- Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of... Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel! Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 Internet: byron@cc.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: mje@mje99.posix.co.za (Mark J Elkins) Subject: EISA/ISA Configuration Rules (.CFG files) Date: 19 Aug 93 20:51:45 GMT Where is it written how to create an EISA '!ISA0001.CFG' file so I can import it into a cfg.exe file and have it show pretty switch settings on Tiwanese hardware that I can afford? I guess what I'd really like is some dume question/answer script that will generate a '.CFG' file for me. Anyone know of such a program?... or where I can get the 'rules' from? Anyone got a selection of ready made ones?.. for cards such as... Specalix AT-IO Card, WD8013EBT (with the single 3 settings jumper - how would I do the Software settings???), Dumb Tiwanese 2 serial & 1 parallel - whith a few jumpers, typical Clone Super VGA card and Adaptec 1542C ??? Thanks. -- . . ___. .__ Olivetti Systems & Networks, Unix Support - Africa /| /| / /__ UUCP: uunet!olsa99!mje (Mark J. Elkins) / |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS mje@olive.co.za (Postmaster) Tel: +27 11 456 3125 ------------------------------ From: byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) Subject: Re: A question about the SLS sysinstall script's copyright Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 06:49:30 GMT In article <251q8u$bfl@news.u.washington.edu>, Michael Kenney wrote: >In article <930819232631.23132@lambada>, >Steve McMahon wrote: >>In article <1993Aug20.015821.15839@cc.gatech.edu> byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes: >>>In article <930819205847.23148@lambada>, >>>Steve McMahon wrote: >>> >>>>Peter cannot do that. It's against the GPL. >>> >>>Yes he can. He wrote the scripts. They are his. >>> >> >>No he cannot. These scripts were made specifically for the interface >>and installation of a GPLed product (linux), hence they fall under the >>GPL. If Peter made them for OS/2 or NT it would be another matter, but >>not here. >> > >Huh???? Does this mean if I package up some GPL code with tar (not >GNU tar) that all of a sudden tar falls under the GPL. Sounds like a >lot of nonsense to me. No. Not exactly - If your code is just going along for the ride and is not integrally attached to the rest of the code - then no the GPL doesn't apply. - However if your code is an integral part of a distribution with GPL'ed code then the whole distribution must be under GPL. SLS definitely applies here as the scripts are an integral part of the distribution. Lesson: If you have your own code and you need to attach it to Linux, then you'll have to bundle and distribute it separatly. > >>It's also against the spirit of the GPL. Take a GPLed software and >>start imposing restrictions on its distribution. That's *exactly* what >>the GPL is intended to impede. You cannot have it both ways: make >>money out of GPL software and then complain when people start making >>use of the fact that it's under the GPL. >> > >He is not imposing any restrictions on GPLed software ... there are many >other ways to install Linux. What he is restricting is people taking >the SLS install scripts and using them in their own distributions ... >what is so unreasonable about that? It would be unreasonable if someone did that and said or implied they wrote the scripts themselves. However in the Slackware distribution, which Peter decided to pick on, the copyright notices, banners, and announce file clearly state that it's based on SLS. And worse than that when Patrick took the SLS scripts they were clearly labeled as freely distributable. Now Peter said that any distribution that use his scripts must be named SLS. not just the scripts, the whole distribution. Is that resonable, especially when the scripts used are clearly labeled as SLS scripts? And by saying that you cannot release GPLed software because of his restriction, Peter IS in fact violating the GPL. Lastly the GPL flatly states that if you cannot resolve the copyright conflict with the GPL, then you can't distribute GPLed code at all. SLS should be pulled. (no smiley). Of course this is all moot. All the other distributions will have their own scripts. But it's an interesting excercise is seeing how the GPL works.... > >Jeez. These GPL Fundamentalists need to lighten up :-) I'm the worst kind, a new convert. "KNEEL DOWN BEFORE THE GPL OR DIE, INFIDEL!" ;=) BAJ --- Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of... Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel! Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 Internet: byron@cc.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: steve.mcmahon@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Steve McMahon) Subject: Re: A question about the SLS sysinstall script's copyright Date: 20 Aug 93 07:19:09 GMT In article <251q8u$bfl@news.u.washington.edu> kenney@stein.u.washington.edu (Michael Kenney) writes: >In article <930819232631.23132@lambada>, >Steve McMahon wrote: > >>No he cannot. These scripts were made specifically for the interface >>and installation of a GPLed product (linux), hence they fall under the >>GPL. If Peter made them for OS/2 or NT it would be another matter, but >>not here. >> > >Huh???? Does this mean if I package up some GPL code with tar (not >GNU tar) that all of a sudden tar falls under the GPL. Sounds like a >lot of nonsense to me. > No, tar is not made specifically for the interface and installation of a GPLed product, and is not packaged with it. >>It's also against the spirit of the GPL. Take a GPLed software and >>start imposing restrictions on its distribution. That's *exactly* what >>the GPL is intended to impede. You cannot have it both ways: make >>money out of GPL software and then complain when people start making >>use of the fact that it's under the GPL. >> > >He is not imposing any restrictions on GPLed software ... there are many >other ways to install Linux. What he is restricting is people taking >the SLS install scripts and using them in their own distributions ... >what is so unreasonable about that? > His scripts fall under the GPL. If one says: `but I wrote this and worked hard on it', well then distributing GPLed softwate is the wrong field for such person. Remember, Linus, Eric, H Lu, and others worked hard too, that's how the GPL works. Peter can certainly separate the scripts from SLS and market them as an add-on package like Motif, that's another thing. >Jeez. These GPL Fundamentalists need to lighten up :-) > Well, let's say Peter is allowed to restrict the distribution of SLS and prevent others from selling packages based on it. What if he hikes the price tomorrow to $299.99? With an internet account, you may not mind, but others will. The GPL, however, makes sure that free software like linux remains available to the masses. -Steve ------------------------------ From: Joe.Klemmer@f370.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Joe Klemmer) Subject: 99pl12 kernel Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 00:08:52 -0500 I was wondering, since I've been out of touch with c.o.l for a while.... When Peter posted the boot disk for 99pl12 he mentioned that it would only be for the 3.5 disks and that the 5.25 would remane 99pl9 "for obvoius reasons." What might those "obvious reasons" be? Thanks, Joe ------------------------------ ** FOR YOUR REFERENCE ** The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is: Internet: Linux-Misc-Request@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.misc) via: Internet: Linux-Misc@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites: nic.funet.fi pub/OS/Linux tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux End of Linux-Misc Digest ******************************