Slashdot Mirror

The potential for closed corporate forking is grounds for kicking and forking to GPL?

First of all, arguably the author himself forked when he began to use a new license. He himself created a CDDL fork from the GPL version. This is simply a reversion to the GPL version.

Second of all, the Debian Free Software Guidelines simply do not permit use of the CDDL. More on this at http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/.

Short form: If you don't like their politics, don't run their distribution. Case closed.

ABOUT!!!

EFFFING!!!

TIME!!!

I have DESPISED this man's code since the day I saw it. His BONEHEADED insistence on doing things the Solaris way in Linux, his apparent INABILITY to use a standard build system, and the INSUFFERABLE ARROGANCE he displays through absolutely everything he does are completely INFURIATING.

Think I'm spewing flamebait? Nonsense. Read this bug report about cdrtools. He starts by insisting his misinterpretation of the GPL is correct, goes on to threaten defamation(slander) lawsuits in german courts against Debian, and finishes up calling most the people in the discussion thread "convinced liars". The man is unusable as an open source contributor, and I am ecstatic that more people actually realize this now.

Anyone who kept track of Joerg Schilling, and his prominent ego, was able to clearly see the inevitable fork from quite a distance away.

The interaction of the GPL, MIT, and BSD licenses is well understood and works well.

There's no problem at all linking GPL software with libraries of either. Same goes with the apache license and perl's artistic license.

Sun's license isn't GPL-friendly, and even if there's a question about it, debian needs to find a way around it. This is the way debian works - it's all in the social contract. It's a pain sometimes, but there's distros out there who don't worry so much about licensing issues you can use if you're concerned.

There are a number of copyright holders; see http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn/nonameyet/trunk /debian/copyright?op=file&rev=0&sc=0

It's unfair for the Debian maintainers to criticise Schilling

And Debian is based on releasing only GPL'd or GPL-compatibly-licensed softwares.

Er, no. Debian is based on releasing only software which conforms to the debian free-software guidelines. Says nothing about the GPL in there, other than that the GPL conforms to these guidelines. They also release software under the artistic license, which isn't even free software, according to the FSF's definition, let alone GPL-compatible.

I understand that, but why is it grounds for a package to be removed from Debian?

Because the package, according to the discussion linked to from the summary, contains both code that is licensed under the GPL and code that is licensed under the CDDL.

If all of its code was licensed under one or the other (or under licenses that are compatible with one another) then that would be fine. But according to the discussion, that isn't the case.

I thought that someone already forked this long ago because of problems with Joerg Schilling mucking around with the license? Read the wikipedia entry on dvdrtools. In fact, dvdrtools is already a debian package. Why did they need another fork?

You may be shooting for sarcasm here, but just in case you're not: http://packages.debian.org/stable/

Does Debian have the sun-java5 packages yet? Or will that be present in a year or two?

Yes: http://packages.debian.org/unstable/devel/sun-java 5-jdk

They hit unstable the same say they hit dapper.

Well, yes, leadership works and is needed for most projects. But what one must always have in mind is the difference between Dictatorship and Democracy.

In a large corporation, from the point of view of the employees, the manager is a dictator with almost unlimited powers. This is bad for corporations, because dictatorships are usually less efficient in the long run than democracies. It's good for the leader to be forced to listen to other people, absolute power normally makes a person so arrogant that he becomes unable to see his own mistakes.

The role played by Linus Torvalds, Mark Shuttleworth, or Patrick Volkerding in their respective organizations is "benevolent dictator", which means they have the power to make a decision when the discussions become stuck at a dead end, but they will make efforts to not abuse that power. In the end, the success of a benevolent dictator will depend on his practical management of day-to-day issues.

In this respect, I had misgivings about Debian from the start, because of that "GNU/" that they insist so much on prepending to the "Linux" name. Perhaps Linus Torvalds would have done the Debian team a favor if he had exerted his trademark ownership and prohibited them from using the name like that, but it's too late now. Having principles, specifying them in clear rules, and enforcing those rules, that's good and I admire that. But principles are, by definition, basic and fundamental. To start nitpicking about the name in the very first paragraph of their home page shows a lack of clear vision on the project's purpose and ends. In the same way that arrogance is the downfall of dictators, endless bickering on small issues is a poison for democracies.

I expect that the real problem with the Debian project is that they haven't yet gotten to the point of fully defining rules that enable decent and useful conversations while discouraging the less productive kinds of conversations.

Don't take this the wong way... I'm just wondering why you don't use the Debian Packages? :)

Don't take this the wong way... I'm just wondering why you don't use the Debian Packages? :)

I've used both Debian and Fedora Core in recent months and I'm running Ubuntu Dapper at this moment. Multiarch in Fedora seemed overly complicated and I couldn't find much documentation on it. So I stuck with x86 as I have with Ubuntu (even though I have an AMD Athlon64 3500+ CPU).

I didn't even realize Debian had mutiarch in the works till you mentioend it. So I Googled the subject and found that (at least in Debian's case, it's not really ready for prime time anyway).

Not to mention the fact that I've not seen any notable performance boost in x86-64 Fedora or Ubuntu (I've tried it in both).

I thought it wasn't referring to anything in particular, but I think it should have been referring to Debian kFreeBSD. That's the clear migration path for linux users if linux goes belly up.

There's nothing it can't do, you just haven't learned it yet.

...this is Linux/x86-32 support.

Linux is well supported on at least 11 architectures. To claim that a piece of software "runs on Linux" with no further qualifications implies that it runs on them all.

If you're releasing a binary-blob-piece-of-shit that only runs on Linux/x86 (or, even worse, only Linux/x86-32), then you're not "supporting Linux" and should be fucking ashamed of lying so goddamn brazenly. You should at least have the balls to state "runs on Linux/x86-32" if that's what you mean.

(If you're relying on glibc extensions to the standard C library, you should really state GNU/Linux/x86-32, but that's another kettle of fish)

More likely, if all copyright on music is removed, the vast majority of music would only be available on the 'Net,

Uh huh. Because according to you there is no incentive for businesses to provide tangible forms of works that can be downloaded for free on the Internet.

</sarcasm>

Although I agree it is not a Beta in the normal sense (more in the Google sense) the reason it is getting called this is because Debian themselves are calling it that, just look here

I agree we're going to see a lot more customized forks in the world of GNU/Linux, but I disagree that most of them are going to be full operating systems. Instead we're seeing a common core with customized faceplates on it. For example what the Ubuntu folks are doing with Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Xubuntu/Edubuntu. Behind the scenes it is all one OS, but with different faceplates changing how it appears to the user. Debian are doing the same thing.

More control of my computer by me, instead of by someone else.

I keep hearing about stuff like "all your base are belong to thin clients and remote servers" whenever someone mentions the future of OSes and that deeply disturbs me, especially the part about remote storage of data and subscription based access to remotely hosted apps. Forget morphing; I would prefer changing my OS settings as I please. In fact, give me OS the option where I can save my settings to a profile and then load up a profile to fit what I'm doing.

I'll pay more for having everything on my hard drive, under my control, without any need to phone home to authorize further usage of my media, software or OS. Unfortunately we the sheeple are being herded towards the digital corporate nanny state where the corporations decide what we'll get and these little heuristic tricks the OS of tomorrow will do for us, will give us the illusion that we have control.

Funny how it is that to get the kind of extra value I desire, I need to actually pay less. Ok, so I'll purchase a support contract, does that count as "paying more"?

Thanks to a bug in base-config in sarge, apt-setup lines are created as testing. You either end up with a case of Frankenserver, or if you dist-upgrade, a complete etch install.

This was fixed in base-config 2.66 in June 2005. It's too bad that base-config remained at 2.53.10 for both sarge r1 in December 2005 and sarge r2 in April 2006.

In other words, anyone who installed Debian sarge and blindly did apt-get update; apt-get upgrade unknowingly upgraded themselves to etch, except for packages that required dist-upgrade or manual installation (i.e. kernels).

it's been too long since Sarge imo

If you think a year and a half was a long time (Etch is due out in December), I'll remind you that there was almost 3 years between Woody and Sarge.

it's been too long since Sarge imo

If you think a year and a half was a long time (Etch is due out in December), I'll remind you that there was almost 3 years between Woody and Sarge.

I'm sorry, but ESR is simply wrong. There's no window that will close in 2008. Linux is unstoppable.

- It's growing exponentially
- The applications are becoming compelling
- It's growth is down-turn immune
- Can't be stopped with money

Linux is growing exponentially, not just the user base, but applications. As the market has proven many times, it's the applications that count in the end (which is why Linux should embrace non-free binaries). Check out Debian package growth:

        http://telemetrybox.org/tokyo/
        http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/deb-usabi lity-list/2004-March/000277.html

2000 - 2000
2002 - 9000
2004 - 12000
2006 - 19000 (in Ubuntu)

Fedora isn't doing too badly either, with over 6,000 packages available (in extras, mostly).

With Fedora or Ubuntu, I can now install with a few mouse clicks 10X more applications than can be found in all the software stores in the world, and many of these freebies rock. It's crazy, unstoppable growth.

The standard killers that cool technologies face in trying to overturn an entrenched dominate player don't apply to Linux. Microsoft can't buy Linux out. They can't sue Linux to death. They can't under-cut prices and force Linux into bankruptcy.

But, ESR has a good point about wooing the proprietary software and content developers.

Because OSI complied to microsoft's demand and didn't evaluate the license, we won't know their stance about it.
On the other hand the FSF has shown what they're thinking about it.

Although both institutions (read: ESR and RMS) are known to have divergent point of view, this hints about how much this license can be free, and what one should think before starting his own project using this kind of licensing (something for which knowing OSI, FSF and DFSG's stance can be genuinly useful, as some other /. signaled).

I know that most /.ers think that it's best to stick to known licenses that are widely used, documented and proven (including tested in court), and most of the time the debate is only about the duality BSD vs. GPL (Should we allow the code to be forked into a proprietary branch or not), and that's maybe what most home-brewed projects do.

But there are a lot of place (I've whitnessed some), particulary those big places that are new to the open-source concept, that don't automatically trust GPL and consider it proven (they've usually never heard of Groklaw, or the numerous cases of GPL-violation that were successfuly resolved). They don't start with a small subset of preferences (BSD/GPL), but do extensive - but, alas, sometime un-educated - researchs about everything they can encounter, they often start considering obscure licenses that the average OSS user has never heard of, often on the account of some higher hierarchy member or some beancounter that are affraid to 'lose control', and may end up using a solution that will turn up to be not as useful as expected.

It is in such case that organisations like OSI can come handy to help choose and discern among the huge diversity of licensing scheme.

Sun have finally seen the light, and have created packages that allow distributors to include Java in their operating systems: https://jdk-distros.dev.java.net/.

After a few back-and-forths with Sun's legal department, even Debian have packaged it for their non-free section: http://packages.debian.org/src:sun-java5. Users can simply install the sun-java5-plugin package. In a few days time, the packages will be eligible for inclusion in the forthcoming Debian 4.0 ("etch") release.

To the question: "What is Debian?" their answer is:

The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system. This operating system that we have created is called Debian GNU/Linux, or simply Debian for short.

If it was such a small part, why is it so important [..]

[..] and why (in the past 15 years, not counting the time when the Hurd was already in development) has there been nothing to replace it?

... genuinely free when it is easy enough to create that anyone can and will create it as they need.

By its very goal, that of making complexity easier to use and reuse, software will get this easy to produce.

http://wiki.ffii.org/IstTamaiEn

thru the application of abstraction physics we can create, in analogy, a calculator capable of outputing an application as its result. Capable of prompting the user for refined information it needs to do so.

autocoding project:
http://lists.debian.org/lsb-discuss/2002/01/msg001 05.html

http://freshmeat.net/projects/victor1/

On the shipping, yes,they are on the CD.

Debian has a non-free repository
Suse has a NON-GPL kernel

The phrase at the bottom is confusing:

"All of the application software installed by default is Free Software. In addition, we install some hardware drivers that are available only in binary format, but such packages are clearly marked in the restricted component."

From this link:
http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/components

"The restricted component is reserved for software that is very commonly used, and which is supported by the Ubuntu team even though it is not available under a completely free licence. Please note that it may not be possible to provide complete support for this software since we are unable to fix the software ourselves, but can only forward problem reports to the actual authors.

Some software from restricted will be installed on Ubuntu CDs but is clearly separated to ensure that it is easy to remove. We include this software because it is essential in order for Ubuntu to run on certain machines - typical examples are the binary drivers that some video card vendors publish, which are the only way for Ubuntu to run on those machines. By default, we will only use open source software unless there is simply no other way to install Ubuntu. The Ubuntu team works with such vendors to accelerate the open-sourcing of their software to ensure that as much software as possible is available under a Free licence. "

(the bolding is mine) That the same procedure used by pretty much all distrib, requiring user intervention to install those, and allowing users to install those.

RMS doesn't recommand any major distro for this reason: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/08/msg029 01.html

Well, here's what the Debian people say (in a section titled "Quality of implementation") -- I've marked the important part :) :

People often say how they came to Debian because of apt-get, or that apt is the killer app for Debian. But apt-get is not what makes the experience so great: apt-get is a feature readily reproduced (and, in my opinion, never equalled), by other distributions -- call it urpmi, apt4rpm, yum, or what have you. The differentiating factor is Debian policy, and the stringent package format QA process (look at things like apt-listchanges, apt-list-bugs, dpkg-builddeps, pbuilder, pbuilder-uml -- none of which could be implemented so readily lacking a policy (imagine listchangelog without a robust changelog format)). It is really really easy to install software on a Debian box.

This resembles cargo cult (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult) religions: that is, apt-get is the visible aspect of Debian's policy system, the same way that cargo-cult practices saw runways and other characteristics as the source of western goods ("cargo"), and built their own replicas, complete with fake wooden headphones for control towers. In the same way, other distributions have created the shallow visible aspect of Debian's packaging infrastructure, without addressing the deep issues of policy. Worse: the conflicts of technical requirements and marketing / economic imperatives often work at cross purposes. Less perversely for most GNU/Linux distros than for proprietary software, but still clearly present.

Red Hat, Mandrake, and other distributions in the class have really massive base installations. Why? I do believe it's because it's a PITA to install software. Even with RPM, it's a kludgey procedure, impossible to codify. With Debian, it was a breeze.

So the killer app is really Debian policy, the security team, the formal bug priority mechanisms, and the policy about bugs (namely: any binary without a man page is an automatic bug report. Any interaction with the user not using debconf is a bug). As the Wiki page Why Debian Rocks (http://twiki.iwethey.org/Main/WhyDebianRocks) puts it:

This is the crux, the narthex, the throbbing heart of Debian and what makes it so utterly superior to all other operating systems. Policy is defined. It is clear. It is enforced through the tools you use every day. When you issue apt-get install foo, you're not just installing software. You're enforcing policy - and that policy's objective is to give you the best possible system.

What Policy defines are the bounds of Debian, not your own actions on the system. Policy states what parts of the system the package management system can change, and what it can't, how to handle configuration files, etc. By limiting the scope of the distribution in this way, it's possible for the system administrator to make modifications outside the area without fear that Debian packages will affect these changes. In essence, Policy introduces a new class of bugs, policy bugs. Policy bugs are release-critical -- a package which violates policy will not be included in the official stable Debian release.

Let me reiterate, because that is the whole secret: A package which violates policy will not be included in the official stable Debian release.

Actually, it doesn't, because Debian is pronounced with a short 'e' sound.

Check it.

i386 netinst image.

That's the minimal network install image, which makes for a quick dl and then gets just what you need.

HTH.

If Excel is over, point out to me a good replacement for it on my Mac. ... There isn't one.

• Debian PowerPC
• Open Office Mac
• Gnumeric OSX

Gosh, that was easy. I don't have a machine to test the above, but I'm sure at least one of them would work well. Running Debian would be the easiest way to get an alternative if it has been made to work with your current machine (x86 or PowerPC). Any are sure to run better and be more frequently updated than the two year old kludge that is Office of OSX:

Both Office v. X and 2004 Standard Edition run non-natively on Intel Macs through the Rosetta Emulation layer. Microsoft does not intend to update Office 2004 for Intel Macs, and has announced that the next version of Office for Mac will have universal binaries, capable of running natively on both PowerPC and Intel Macs.

Excel doesn't require Windows...

Wooo-hoo! Freedom and choice in crappy and expensive software. My horizons in non free have been broadened. M$ emulation is everywhere.

It's non-free and non-free and not open source and not GPL compatible.

I'm about as likely to use this shared-source "GPU" as I am to use XFree86 4.4.

I'm even less likely to contribute to it.

I feel the Free software/open source community should vigorously discourage any restrictions on usage, rather than distribution, of the software.

It already does... this license doesn't count as Free software under almost any definition (e.g., Debian Social Contract). As such it's not part of the Free software community.

The Debian Free Software Guidelines say:

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

Therefore, this license is considere non-free by Debian.

That's an interesting datum, since XMMS (well, XMMS2, actually) is in the middle of a re-write because the XMMS code is said to be quite inflexible. And it reportedly has a lot of bugs.

Actually, the GPL'ed output of bison it was considered a feature for some time. Enough time for byacc to gain ground. The exception was inserted because of the existence of byacc ment that the ability to use bison was no longer a incentive to release code as GPL.

The appropriate popularity comparison would be between byacc and bison.

Bison (GNU's version of YACC) used to have the restriction that the output of Bison, since it was a large amount of code, was GPL. As a result, nobody used Bison except for GCC, because the liscence was untenible.

I fear that GPLv3, by trying to force RMS's notion of "Liberty" more strongly (anti-DRM provisions, anti-closed-hardware provisions) will be a repeat: GPLv3 based software will only be used by the real FSF zealots. Everyone else will avoid it.

Perhaps we should expand the old joke a bit.

Windows XP Home patches: http://www.ubuntu.com/
Windows XP Pro patches: http://www.gentoo.org/
Windows NT4 patches: http://www.debian.org/
Windows 3.1 patches: http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/

This way we can troll both sides of the fence.

Simple, stay away from micro$hit. Download a true operating system here or here rather than an purchasing and using and inoperable system such as winblow$.

I know that the the Ubuntu numbers that are usually reported are silly, because they are based on Distrowatch, which as 10 year Linux user, was a site I had never been to before questioning the Ubuntu installation numbers, and being refered there.

I also know that you have no interest in getting into a "measuring" contest -- because fedora is not about that. BUT if it were about that -- what do you think is a good way to measure "popularity" of a distro? Any numbers that say that DSL is more popular that Debian, automatically get's questioned in my book. Don't get me wrong, I love DSL, and Debian and even Distrowatch -- I'm just not ready to believe that what is being reported is an accurate representation of who's running what.

I think this is a fantastic idea! GNU should fork FreeBSD into GNU-BSD!

http://packages.debian.org/stable/admin/vrms

Virtual Richard M. Stallman

The vrms program will analyze the set of currently-installed packages on a Debian GNU/Linux system, and report all of the packages from the non-free tree which are currently installed.

Future versions of vrms will include an option to also display text from the public writings of RMS and others that explain why use of each of the installed non-free packages might cause moral issues for some in the Free Software community. This functionality is not yet included.

This looks to be a pretty good tutorial.

As well as mkinitrd, there are some cool tools coming along that help build an initrd.
Here is one I have used, and although it's very early in it's development cycle.
http://yaird.alioth.debian.org/

Are there any more that are actually easy to use?