Michael Robertson Interview about Lindows

unclegus writes "I ran across this article talking about Michael Roberston and Lindows. Says a "Sneak Preview" will be available in a few weeks. Release 1.0 will be $100 for single user ..." Dan Gillmor, the author of it, has said that it appears to be the real thing - I'll be interested in getting my hands on it.

Comments

Re:Is this legal?

[danielrose]

No, it is not a violation of the GPL. They could provide it as a patch, or pre-compiled kernel modules.

IIRC the GPL says nothing about if your software "depends" on a GPL'd piece. If your software is integrated (ie. same code type deal) you are in trouble.

Re:Is this legal?

[bconway]

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but only changes to GPL sofware need to be released. They can do whatever they want with Wine (not GPL), and if they made any kernel changes they will be released. I dunno who told you that about bash, but it's incorrect, RMS has no say in who uses or packages bash as long as no changes are made or those changes are released. Something being reliant or using GPL software means absolutely nothing in regards to the GPL.

Re:Interdev under Linux

[tenman]

I understand your dependence on Interdev. Trust me I know what it is to not be able to remember all the function names. But There are up and coming IDE's that will be able to keep up with the features of Interdev. I understand that ximian is producing a .NET system for the linux systems, and ChilliSoft has had it possable to run ASP pages on linux for years now.
Microsoft coddles you, and while i'm not saying that is a bad thing, it does make you that much more dependent on them.
I used to get paid to write ASP pages. I use to use interdev, and the whole VStudio. Now I write my pages in Java, I use Eclipse, and I don't have to worry about nimda. Tomarrow, I'll be able to do the same on Lindows

vmware does it

[yerricde]

Is [creating a Linux kernel module] a GPL violation?

No. Linus has allowed binary-only modules into the kernel provided they communicate with the kernel using well-defined APIs. For instance, the vmware package includes a binary-only kernel module.

If Apple can't make BASH the MacOS X command line shell (apparently they asked, RMS said no, that would be a violation)

I don't see how it would be a violation under the "mere aggregation" clause of the GPL.

Re:sign up for the sneak preview

[Frag-A-Muffin]

I forgot to mention that it'll cost you $99 for a one year membership to become a lindows.com 'insider'. Bleh .. the audacity to ask me for money before they have a product! I might have to change my mind.

Re:Is this legal?

[inerte]

That would depend of what libraries they are using and what licenses these licenses are released.

And later (if you clicked on the link) you can read:

"I just found out that a company has a copy of a GPL'ed program, and it costs money to get it. Aren't they violating the GPL by not making it available on the Internet?

No. The GPL does not require anyone to use the Internet for distribution. It also does not require anyone in particular to redistribute the program. And (outside of one special case), even if someone does decide to redistribute the program sometimes, the GPL doesn't say he has to distribute a copy to you in particular, or any other person in particular.

What the GPL requires is that he must have the freedom to distribute a copy to you if he wishes to. Once the copyright holder does distribute a copy program to someone, that someone can then redistribute the program to you, or to anyone else, as he sees fit."

So basically... there are several cases:

1) They do not break the GPL and make a true software without using or modifying libraries (could happen, depending on the licenses);

2) They break the GPL, and don't release the source code to anyone outside Lindows.com, so:

a) Without the sources, might be more difficult to know what library they used/modified;

3) The text that I copied and pasted from gnu.org applies. They can modify GPL and do NOT release the sources. "What the GPL requires is that he must have the freedom to distribute a copy to you if he wishes to". Just don't wish :-)

Many more possible cases, but I just pointed a few more likely to happen. Anyway, the usual IANAL surrounds my comment :-)

Re:Interesting work, from a technical aspect

[mwalker]

I have a reply to your comment, and a reply to your .sig.

First, your comment:
Yes, Microsoft will try to outrun you be rev'ing their software faster. It's called churn; they live and die by it. But they also do... much nastier things to make your code stop working (like the Stealth Virus I just linked to). It all depends on how much of a threat they think you are.

Second, your .sig:
Slashdot does tell you when Editors are moderating your posts. In the Slashdot messaging system, you can turn on "notify me of moderation", and every time an Editor moderates one of your posts, you will get a message saying that "a User gave your comment a score of blah blah blah". This is because Editors are actually called "Users" at Slashdot. You can read more about this if you like, but basically, this is a solved problem.