Coffeehouse Thread

46 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

2 surreal events today

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    corona_coder

    Apple is suing Psystar the maker of the open computer.  This just shows, you cant trust a proprietary software company.  Psystar should have bundled gNewSense or even Ubuntu.

    The second event strikes close to home.  A niner is featured in Linux Journal.  rj's illegal distro was in Linux Journal.  I cant believe they wasted their time and my bandwidth.  My question is how much did Microsoft pay rj to infect the GNU/Linux world.

    I wrote to Psystar and offered to help them certify gNewSense on their hardware.  As for rj, I urge everyone not to consider his M$ sponsored distro and I have written the FSF and OSI on the legality of his "product"

  • User profile image
    littleguru

    How can a distro be illegal? Doesn't the GPL explicitely allow to change and alter, as long as it stays open?

  • User profile image
    Harlequin

    Can you link us to something you've done? So far we've seen codiplex.com, a bust project. You trying to import BMWs into Canada, probably another bust project.

    Anything? Post us some links.

  • User profile image
    corona_coder

    littleguru said:
    How can a distro be illegal? Doesn't the GPL explicitely allow to change and alter, as long as it stays open?
    A distro is illegal when the developer includes proprietary drivers and software.  Realbasic is not open source, Nvidia and ATI drivers are proprietary hence they are illegal.  Ignore him and he goes away.  It was a neat trick by Microsoft to try and come in the back door, but you have pitt bulls like me and Eben Moglen keeping an eye out.

    Psystar hasnt written me back yet Sad but no matter, the courts will deem Apples EULA illegal.  I do hope they see that gNewSense is the only way to go.

  • User profile image
    littleguru

    corona_coder said:
    littleguru said:
    *snip*
    A distro is illegal when the developer includes proprietary drivers and software.  Realbasic is not open source, Nvidia and ATI drivers are proprietary hence they are illegal.  Ignore him and he goes away.  It was a neat trick by Microsoft to try and come in the back door, but you have pitt bulls like me and Eben Moglen keeping an eye out.

    Psystar hasnt written me back yet Sad but no matter, the courts will deem Apples EULA illegal.  I do hope they see that gNewSense is the only way to go.
    I kind of find the GPL a little bit to strick in that matter. I find it hard to understand that you can only extend a piece of software that is licensed under the GPL by applying the GPL again. I completely and fully understand that that piece of code that was released under GPL should always stay under GPL but why does everything else need to be "GPLed"?

    Why not mix the best of the two worlds: "GPLed" software and proprietary software...

  • User profile image
    Harlequin

    corona_coder said:
    littleguru said:
    *snip*
    A distro is illegal when the developer includes proprietary drivers and software.  Realbasic is not open source, Nvidia and ATI drivers are proprietary hence they are illegal.  Ignore him and he goes away.  It was a neat trick by Microsoft to try and come in the back door, but you have pitt bulls like me and Eben Moglen keeping an eye out.

    Psystar hasnt written me back yet Sad but no matter, the courts will deem Apples EULA illegal.  I do hope they see that gNewSense is the only way to go.
    Repost:

    Can you link us to something you've done? So far we've seen codiplex.com, a bust project. You trying to import BMWs into Canada, probably another bust project.

    Anything? Post us some links.

  • User profile image
    Royal​Schrubber

    Human body needs some kind of kill switch that would activate when brains don't work anymore.. 

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    littleguru said:
    How can a distro be illegal? Doesn't the GPL explicitely allow to change and alter, as long as it stays open?
    Oh don't encourage the silly bugger

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    littleguru said:
    corona_coder said:
    *snip*
    I kind of find the GPL a little bit to strick in that matter. I find it hard to understand that you can only extend a piece of software that is licensed under the GPL by applying the GPL again. I completely and fully understand that that piece of code that was released under GPL should always stay under GPL but why does everything else need to be "GPLed"?

    Why not mix the best of the two worlds: "GPLed" software and proprietary software...
    It's not actually true; there's no restriction in distributing binaries in a distro; as long as you don't claim that bit is open source; otherwise a bunch of network cards, printer drivers, etc. simply wouldn't be there under Linux.

  • User profile image
    littleguru

    blowdart said:
    littleguru said:
    *snip*
    It's not actually true; there's no restriction in distributing binaries in a distro; as long as you don't claim that bit is open source; otherwise a bunch of network cards, printer drivers, etc. simply wouldn't be there under Linux.
    So back to the topic: it isn't illegal then, is it?

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    littleguru said:
    blowdart said:
    *snip*
    So back to the topic: it isn't illegal then, is it?
    Nope. And anyway the GPL is a contract, not a law, so you'd be in breach of contract even if it were true.

    A couple of years ago Linus weighed in on it. Then of course there's Intel's wireless drivers which, whilst open source, also need microcode to be loaded to the card on boot. The microcode is not open source, it's a binary blob and licensed under a specific license.

    You most certainly can redistribute non-GPL code in a linux distro; as long as it's not a derivative work of the kernel or other GPL licensed code. Again Linus clarified this.

  • User profile image
    TommyCarlier

    littleguru said:
    blowdart said:
    *snip*
    So back to the topic: it isn't illegal then, is it?
    I don't think it violates GPL. And even if it did, I don't think the GPL is enforceable in court. Has there ever been a legal dispute where the GPL was successfully used to settle a case?

  • User profile image
    Minh

    RoyalSchrubber said:
    Human body needs some kind of kill switch that would activate when brains don't work anymore.. 
    Leonard Nimoy could've used that switch Wink


  • User profile image
    wkempf

    I'm not sure you know what the word "surreal" means.  Apple suing is certainly not surreal.  EVERYONE not only expected, but KNEW, this would be the outcome from the very instant this clone was released.  The outcome of the lawsuit is maybe in doubt, though I suspect Apple will prevail.

    As for PC-OS, how in the heck do you tie that to Microsoft?  And what's surreal about LinuxJournal having an article about it?  It *IS* a linux distribution.

  • User profile image
    DCMonkey

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    TommyCarlier said:
    littleguru said:
    *snip*
    I don't think it violates GPL. And even if it did, I don't think the GPL is enforceable in court. Has there ever been a legal dispute where the GPL was successfully used to settle a case?
    Yes there has. In Germany mind you; I think all the US cases were settled before trail.

  • User profile image
    Ray7

    Corona Coder said:

    I wrote to Psystar and offered to help them certify gNewSense on their hardware. 


    Sigh.

    No, you didn't.

  • User profile image
    turrican

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.