Lilux-info

lilux-info@lilux.lu

1 participants
1080 discussions

by Thierry Coutelier

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Next Meeting is scheduled for Thursday 9th of December at 20.00 Location LGL - Luxembourg/Limpertsberg. Use small entrance at the back of the school. - -- Thierry Coutelier -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFBqZqRPOfrcNNQX7oRAuKGAJsFHOvkscEZKpA/7/0d/Nkrgsok3ACgpd/O elQc73aUHUx38JfuYHNMjp4= =HwKt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

20 years, 7 months

Gameconsole

by Alex

Hello Days ago, I watched the booting of a game console in a café and I was positivly surprised, when I saw which OS booted on the machine. It was a linux system. I think it was Red Hat. You have probably already seen those machines. Theys present different simple games using a touch screen. I found (no, Eric sent it to me) the home page of the manufacturer: http://www.meritind.com/ -- <°)))=< Thanks for the fish! Al

20 years, 7 months

PaperJam : "Brevets logiciels: LiLux demande à nouveau au Luxembourg de reconsidérer sa position"

by Serge Marelli

Salut à tous, Le PaperJam publie un article basé sur le CP publié par LiLux la semaine dernière "Brevets logiciels: LiLux demande à nouveau au Luxembourg de reconsidérer sa position" <http://www.paperjam.lu/c/n/l/articles/10523.html> -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Serge Marelli, Luxembourg E-mail : serge.marelli(a)linux.lu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- LiLux - http://www.lilux.lu/ Defending Innovation against Patent Inflation http://swpat.ffii.org/ Free Software Foundation - http//www.fsf.org/

20 years, 7 months

Re: SUN Microsystem goes OPENSOURCE.

by Brent Frère

Hotmail users are not banned from this mailing-list ? :-) Dear, if I'm not wrong, you don't understand what is OpenSource. Please visit http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php. To be OpenSource, Solaris should be distributed in source format, under a licence that is compatible with the principles contained in the OpenSource definition. It is not at all the case yet, as far as I know. Solaris 10 is available for free (as a beer, = gratis) download. You still need to agree on a licence that is not at all OpenSource compliant. You can't (as far as I know) get the source code, so Solaris 10 is downloadable as a freeware. Full stop. It is purely proprietary software. Few last versions of Solaris were also available the same way (or by mail) for 0 or the cost of the shipment. This has never done Solaris an OpenSource neither a Free Software, as defined by the Free Software Foundation (http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) Sun is currently thinking about releasing the source code of Solaris under an OpenSource licence, but hasn't even yet said what kind of licence it will be. "MARCO FARDELLINI" <fardellini(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > SUN Microsystems is going open up today. > > You can be able today to register yourself on www.sun.com and download the > operating system for free. > > Take a look it is quit intersting how SUN presents this new approach. > > Regards, > > Marco -- -- Brent Frère Private e-mail: Brent(a)BFrere.net Postal address: 5, rue de Mamer L-8280 Kehlen Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg European Union Mobile: +352-021/29.05.98 Fax: +352-26.30.05.96 Home: +352-307.341 URL: http://BFrere.net

20 years, 7 months

Re: [gnu.org #215383] Re: [Lilux-info] RedHat conditions of use

by Brent Frère

Ok. Let's summarise the situation. About all RedHat software is released under GPL: (Source: http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/faq/#4) "Except for a few components provided by third parties (for example, Java) all the code in Red Hat products is open source and licensed under the GPL (or a similar license, such as the LGPL)." (Note: RedHat mixes the words OpenSource and GPL, while GPL is a Free Software Foundation licence, not an OpenSource Initiative text, but as OSI recognises GPL as OpenSource compliant, it's not technically false to speak about OpenSource in this case, even if inadequate.) The "Subscription Agreement" that you must accept to purchase RedHat products says clearly that you ARE NOT allowed to run the software on more than one computer, that RedHat has the right to control you and that if you wish to run it on more hosts, you MUST purchase more subscriptions to RedHat network. Source: EMEASubscriptionAgreementEng.pdf from RedHat, version 20031022. "4. REPORTING AND AUDIT. If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed System, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed System. During the term of this Agreement and for one (1) year thereafter, Customer expressly grants to Red Hat the right to audit Customer s facilities and records from time to time in order to verify Customer s compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. [...] Red Hat shall give Customer written notice of any non-compliance, and if a payment deficiency exists, then Customer shall have fifteen (15) days from the date of such notice to make payment to Red Hat for any payment deficiency. The amount of the payment deficiency will be determined by multiplying the number of underreported Installed Systems or Services by the annual fee for such item. If Customer is found to have underreported the number of Installed Systems or amount of Services by more than five percent (5%), Customer shall, in addition to the annual fee for such item, pay liquidated damages equal to twenty percent (20%) of the underreported fees for loss of income and administration costs suffered by Red Hat as a result." Hopefully, the same text has a paragraph that explicitely gives priority to the licence terms of each software component, which is GPL or LGPL: 1. The Software. Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Red Hat Applications (the Software ) are either a modular operating system or application consisting of hundreds of software components. The end user license agreement for each component is located in the component s source code. [...] the license terms for the components permit Customer to copy, modify, and redistribute the component, in both source code and binary code forms. This agreement does not limit Customer's rights under, or grant Customer rights that supersede, the license terms of any particular component. So, explicitely, RedHat says you are ALLOWED to copy all the GPLed or LGPLed software in both source code and binary format, and that this agreement does not change those rights given by license terms. So, where's the trick ? Am I allowed or not to run copies or RedHat software ? The answer is difficult to find (I'm seeking for it since weeks now) but I think I have the answer now (sadly not provided by RedHat): The Free Software definition, as stated on the fsf.org web site, says: "Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). [...] The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job, and without being required to communicate subsequently with the developer or any other specific entity." So, it seems clear that we DO HAVE the right to copy the software, even in binary format, and to run it the way we want without any control from "any other specific entity", neither RedHat themselves. But this is the PRINCIPLE of Free Software, not the wordings of the GPL, which is actually the only text legally protecting the software... So, let's have a look at what we find in the GPL text about this freedom: Source: the GPL: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program)." Damned ! I can understand this two ways: * The GPL only deals with copying, distribution and modification of the sofware, not running the software. Running the program is not covered by this text (not restricted) or * The GPL only deals with copying, distribution and modification of the sofware. By the way, running the program is not restriced (meaning, you can run it on as many computers you want, for whatever purpose, and so on...) In the first understanding, the GPL does not implement the freedom 0 because it just doesn't deal with the right to run the software at all, leaving space for restrictions coming from other texts (such as the RedHat agreement). In the second understanding, the GPL implements the freedom 0 but it is strange to me that it would have been done in such few words ("The act of running the Program is not restricted,") and that it is in contradiction with the beginning of the sentence ("Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License"). So I would assume the right interpretation is the first one. Under this understanding, RedHat has the right to impose whatever conditions they want on the EXECUTION of the software you get from them... You can copy the GPLed software, in both binaries and source forms, but you CAN'T execute it without paying a subscription fee to RedHat. I knew Free Software does not means gratis, but this scheme is new to me. This doesn't destroy the principle of Free Software: as long as the source is available to anybody without having to accept this "agreement", there is room for competition and everybody has access to the source code under the GPL (or LGPL) terms. This also explains the "White Box Linux" initiative: they download the source code, they compile it and they distribute it without restrictions on the execution. This is legal and makes sense now. I would like to have the FSF confirmation of all this, mainly about the lack of implementation of freedom 0 in the GPL. Is it intentional or a mistake ?

20 years, 7 months

Re: [gnu.org #215383] Re: [Lilux-info] RedHat conditions of use

by \"Brent Frère\" ＠ bfrere . net via RT

20 years, 7 months

Re: [gnu.org #215383] Re: [Lilux-info] RedHat conditions of use

by \"Brent Frère\" ＠ bfrere . net via RT

20 years, 7 months

Business Review Article

by Steve Clement

Sorry for the zipped PDf but I can't be bothered :) STEve C -- ION Network Solutions Steve Clement Unix System Administrator 209, rue des Romains L-8041 Bertrange Tel: +352 261 276-2 Fax: +352 261 276-9 mailto:steve@ion.lu http://www.ion.lu

20 years, 7 months

Re: [gnu.org #215383] Re: [Lilux-info] RedHat conditions of use

by novalis＠fsf.org via RT

That's what I was asking for. Here's the relevant piece: 1. The Software. Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Red Hat Applications (the "Software") are either a modular operating system or application consisting of hundreds of software components. The end user license agreement for each component is located in the component's source code. With the exception of certain image files identified in Section 2 below, the license terms for the components permit Customer to copy, modify, and redistribute the component, in both source code and binary code forms. This agreement does not limit Customer's rights under, or grant Customer rights that supersede, the license terms of any particular component. On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 01:58 -0500, \"Brent Frère\" @ bfrere . net via RT wrote: > I'm not understanding your sentence (lack of english knowledge for > sure), but if you are asking for the exact text provided by RedHat, you > can find it here and in attachement: > http://home.bfrere.net/EMEASubscriptionAgreementEng.pdf > > novalis(a)fsf.org via RT wrote: > > >Can someone show me some language here? > > > > -- -Dave Turner GPL Compliance Engineer Support my work: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=novalis&p=FSF

20 years, 7 months

Re: [Lilux-info] RedHat conditions of use

by Brent Frère

Patrick Kaell <sparc(a)kayoon.net> wrote: > Patrick Useldinger wrote: > > Maybe this acticle makes is clearer: > > http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/11/18/1540233 > > Thanks for the link. But I have already read this article. The problem > is that there also exist articles which claim the opposite. And the > "White Box Enterprise Linux" effort would not make much sense if there > were not any restrictions on the binaries. > > Greetings, Patrick Kaell Indeed, the problem is that RedHat imposes restrictive conditions on copying or running copies of its "softwares" (you can understand it as their binaries). But if RedHat publish the exact sources of all the software and patches on their ftp server, how could they disctinct a host running a copy of RedHat binaries with a host running the compiled sources found on their web site and published under the GPL ??? Or RedHat DOES NOT publish the exact sources matching their binaries, and then they ALSO violate the GPL !!! So, trying to understand those conditions as applying on the binaries only does not lead to a solution. The problem remains here that RedHat has the right to put conditions on the use of their SERVICES (such as RedHat Network) but in NO CASE on the GPLed software ! (Just as reminder, my point here is not to find a way to run RedHat software for 0, but to make sure if I advice the use of RH Linux, I advice legal software. I also wish to know if the Sun's statement "RedHat Linux is proprietary OS" is right or not). -- -- Brent Frère Private e-mail: Brent(a)BFrere.net Postal address: 5, rue de Mamer L-8280 Kehlen Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg European Union Mobile: +352-021/29.05.98 Fax: +352-26.30.05.96 Home: +352-307.341 URL: http://BFrere.net

20 years, 7 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

Lilux-info