Slashdot Mirror
The Two LinuxHQs?
Several people have written in lately to note that LinuxHQ has moved to
Kernel Notes. But the plot thickened recently when
LinuxHQ sprung back to life
looking quite similiar to its predecessor, but with a different
license. Kernel Notes is GPL, copyrighted by the LinuxHQ Project,
but the "New" LinuxHQ is copyrighted by ECS and not GPLd (as
well as not crediting the creator of the nice logo up top).
Can anyone clarify the confusion for us all? I'm getting
a lot of questions about this and a lot of it smells
pretty fishy.
spacetime ain't what it used to be
can someone please post the WHOLE story?
Aside, I'm wondering, does the linuxhq "awards" stuff at the bottom of the CURRENT site apply to the now-kernelnotes site, not THIS linuxhq? Can't the kernel-notes site maintainer do somethign about that?
I would just like to say kernelnotes.org rocks. Jim Pick has done a fantastic job keeping it up to date and accurate. It seems as though Mark is being very selfish and unhelpful, and furthermore has offended many people in the community by going on to copy what Jim has done with the site.
Read the copying terms. They state that the site content is copyright ECS Group and impose various limitations on what can be done with that content.
Now, look at the Changes files for the 2.0 and 2.2 kernels. Both of those are obviously derived from their counterparts which are distributed with the kernel, and even say as much. Unfortunately for ECS, those Changes files in the kernel are under the GPL.
Hmm.
Does this invalidate all information served by the machine?
/.ers?
Or, does it just upset narrow-minded-linux-must-win-at-all-costs
Isn't the whole OpenSource thing about freeing INFORMATION? If it is, then take your linux-bigotted 'tude elsewhere.
If however, information freedom HAS to be tied to ONE OS, let us all know, ok?
Neither side trademarked LinuxHQ, and legally, it is too late to do so. Anyone is free to use the phrase as they see want to. Unlike copyrights, trademarks are not automatically granted to any created content. In fact, if you fail to defend a trademark, it goes into public domain.
Its GPL'ed!
Huh?
This is the first paragraph of the copying terms:
Copyright
Unless otherwise stated, all web content is licensed under the GNU Public License (GPL) copyleft agreement, so you can do just about anything you want with it - so long as you preserve this notice and conform to the terms of the GPL.
More information on the GPL can be found at: www.gnu.org
Then it continues with the GPL below it. There's no violation--except he's a nut trying to make money.
Serves ya right. Today we've had a slew of strange stories about vampires in red hats making exclusive deals and censoring a t.v. miniseries. Even got that do-gooder Jon Katz worked up. Now what does the LinuxHQ conspiracy have to do with all that?
/or commercial entity should be allowed only one domain name, and that domain names should not be tradable. A domain name is like one's street address, or his fingerprint. Search engines wouldn't use domain names but would use something else which is more meaningful if that were law.
It's a little strange that domain names can be bought up and held for ransom. I've been saying here for some time that each person and
Who really gives a crap what the owner of this domain does. He just employed the same tactic others use to try to get rich quick but get praised for if they then sell to the right people.
Visit his site. Run up the hit counter. Let the advertisers come. He should be praised for kicking the lameass linux kernel people out and claiming his turf. That's good old free enterprise, isn't it?
Then visit the RedHat site and try to get to its ftp area or its help area from there. Makes you wonder why you ever went there to begin with. It looks so much like the Microsoft site I have to slap myself when the 404's don't come.
Maybe that isn't the real RedHat site after all. Maybe they have already sold the domain to Microsoft for the right price. Maybe they really are vampires or aliens from outer space.
Uh, just because it's an AC post, it shouldn't have been knocked off in favour of the logged in post.
see how wonderfully well this amazingly fair and unbiased moderation system works.
watch how quickly this post gets moderated down just because it is a disenting opinion.
Um, he's changed the license between when I posted and when you did.
I think he just didn't like that somebody else was doing it. Tho shalt not maintain a better site than thy domain's owner.
Would you please wait to get the whole story first? CmdrTaco is not a definitive source of information.
Go to www.linuxhq.com yourself, see the COPYING document linked to at the bottom. It seems GPL'ed to me.
Moderation doesn't rank posters but content.
hold onto this thought for a minute.
And in the case where two people post the same data at about the same time and one is an AC (assuming EXACTLY the same data), the AC's post should be the one that is considered redundant because
hmmmm.... certainly sounds like moderation does rank posters over content. so what do you really believe, all contradictions aside?
It was posted first, but it doesn't have added content present in later posts. That's why it became redundant.
Iirc, it had a higher score when the article was new, but it looks like moderators decided it was less valuable than other posts with both the same quote and additional analysis.
and what sparklingly good analysis it was too. i think we are all lucky it got moderated up for that.
LinuxHQ.com back online! (and it's not this site)
The original creator of LinuxHQ has brought his original site back up (with a little bit of an explanation). I wish him luck!.
From now on, this site will be called kernelnotes.org, and I will continue on with my plans for it. The content on this site will always be free, so I have no problems with anybody borrowing it, or enhancing it. I believe the two different sites can develop complementary (not competing) content for the Linux community.
I am glad that this little episode appears to be over. Please give me a few weeks to remove all the references to LinuxHQ in this site.
Any ideas? (aside from installing FreeBSD)
I think you answered your own question (despite disregarding the solution).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The trademark does not apply to content, here or elsewhere.
The trademark *does* apply to LinuxHQ, just as "Slashdot" applies to this site.
Registration has very little to do with whether or not a trademark exists. Registration is nothing more than notice to the world of a claim of trademark, and extends the geographic range of the trademark; actual trademark is valid without registration in the market in which the trademark is used.
If I sell a product underthe name "Zpd" in the western states, and an eastern company files a trademark for "Zpd," its trademark will be valid in the east and those regions where I have no presence. If I'd filed a federal trademark, I could have blocked the eastern usage. Not having done so, the eastern folks get it where I don't use it. However, if they want to come into my market, they'll have to do it under antoher name, or offer me enough for my rights that I'm willing to sell.
And as a note to the other reponse, the GPL has nothing to do with it, nor with any other trademark. The license or copyright deals with the content, not the name. The name is a trademark difference.
hawk, esq.
That's too close to giving legal advice for comfort.
But as a generalization, all work automatically receives copyright protection in Berne convention countries. However, in the U.S., registration is required prior to instituting an action, and better remedies are available if the work was registered prior to the infringement.
Disclaimer: While I am a lawyer, this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice on this or other topics, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
There's a trademark issue here, too. Someone owned a domain name, while someone else used that name to build up a recognized entity, distributed worldwide.
Who owns the trademark? The domain holder, the intellectual property holder, or a combination of the two? I could make arguments for all three, barring an enforceable agreement between the two of them.
And if it's the IP holder, did he abandon the trademark by switching to kernel notes?
Barring the agreement, this isn't clear cut. Unless the answer is "solely the domain owner," any purchasor of the domain might be unable to use it for a page of the same name . . .
Netscape reports to me --"55% of 8k at 8k (stalled)"
:)
da w00t. mtfnpy?
Correct me if wrong, or some kind of stupid proxy in the way but this is what i get:
Copyright
Unless otherwise stated, all web content is licensed under the GNU Public License (GPL) copyleft agreement, so you can do just about anything you want with it - so long as you preserve this notice and conform to
the terms of the GPL.
More information on the GPL can be found at: www.gnu.org
Met Vriendelijke groet/Yours Sincerly
Stijn Jonker
Met Vriendelijke groet/Yours Sincerly
Stijn Jonker
Jim,
:-)
I hope you were referring to *his* website.
Yours is far from silly... I read the site every day or two. It is a fantastic site for information about the kernel.
(although I wish Myrdall would comment a bit more rather than simply say "updates" all the time... I mean "duh"... tell us what happened
Please keep up the excellent work. I might even suggest that you think about how you can delegate portions to other people. At least to the extent that you can say, "Hey John Doe, could you figure out and implement how I can automate XYZ?" I bet you would get several takers, myself included.
Cheers,
-g
- Mark Evans started the site as www.ecsnet.com back in 1996.
- then he renamed it to be www.linuxhq.com in 1997.
- in August 1997, he shut it down with no warning. Everybody was wondering where it went. The site was too much work to maintain.
- in September 1997, I contacted him, and he agreed to give me the site content. I took over the site, and he granted me the right to take ownership of the content. He held on to the domain name (as a service to me, I thought at the time).
- I ran the site from September 1997 until a few weeks ago - not hearing from Mark Evans the entire time.
- four weeks ago, he sent in a request to the Internic to change the nameservers to his own. I got one of the automated notices from the Internic, and asked him what was going on. I got no reply.
- the next weekend, I finally got a message from him stating that he was transferring control of the domain in two weeks to a well-known Linux company (who's identity will remain under wraps, because they didn't have a clue about what was going on). He thanked me for the work I had put into the site.
- the following Monday, I contacted that company. I asked what was going on, and how come they hadn't contacted me about the content? They got back to me very quickly, and told me that they hadn't realized that I was running the site (not Mark), and that they didn't want to undermine the work I was doing.
- the next day, Tuesday, May 18th, I got an angry 1-line letter from Mark - apparently because I contacted the company. He then pulled the domain off the air. I had to drop everything, and register kernelnotes.org so that the site wouldn't die.
- Yesterday, Sundary, June 6th, he resurrected his old site from 1997, with some updates. Since it seems apparent I won't be getting linuxhq.com back, I decided to permanently rename the site I was doing to kernelnotes.org.
As far as I'm concerned - this whole ordeal is over with now. I haven't been treated fairly, but I'm not going to harbour any hard feelings - it's just a silly little website. I've got bigger fish to fry.Cheers,
- Jim
Yeah, it probably isn't the best license for web pages. I only chose it because that's what the kernel uses - and it seemed compatible.
Cheers,
- Jim
I wouldn't be surprised if I've got a bit of flakey hardware. Unfortunately, it's only crashed a few times, and there weren't a lot of clues left behind.
I'll probably end up moving the site to another machine. But I'd still like to figure out the instability problems.
Cheers,
- Jim
I'll agree the maintenance has been bad. I'm trying to do better. Things seem to break faster than I can fix them though. :-)
For example, the htdig search engine has been broken for quite a while. It would probably only take me 4 hours to fix it - but there always seems to be something more important going on.
The server has been quite unstable lately too - that's my top priority to figure out at the moment. It's colocated, without 24/7 support, so if it crashes on the weekend, it's ugly. I'm going to try to backtrack to 2.2.6 on the machine.
Any ideas? (aside from installing FreeBSD)
I've got 2 sites lined up where I can move the content to, or make mirror sites - but I haven't had the time yet to do that.
Cheers,
- Jim
Well, he did copy some pages that I (and others made).
:-)
I don't really care though. I'm not going to enforce things. I needed a license, so I just picked the GPL because it matched the kernel sources. I probably should have just made my stuff public domain.
Most of the pages are derived from pages Mark originally made, so he does have some claim on them.
I see he's now changed the license on his site to the GPL. That's good.
Legally speaking, he still doesn't have the right to change the copyright notices though. When I took over the site, he assigned copyright to me. He hasn't contacted me in order to do the reverse.
Still, I don't care. I hereby grant Mark Evans permission to change the copyrights on the content he is stealing.
Cheers,
- Jim
sure it looks suspicious and the "replacement" has been not done the "clean" way, but until now nothing that wrong happend to take this kind of action against author.
so i recommend "normal" operation (i.e. browse this page which you are interested in) for now.
hany
Is the HTML code the "source code"? If so, does that mean that if I print the page and give it to someone, they can demand that I give them the HTML code? So I'd be legally obligated to keep a copy of the HTML around (since it might no longer exist on the web site)?
I'm all in favor of GPL-like licenses, but in this case I think something else is needed.
I hadn't visited LinuxHQ from the "before time". Of course, an AC has pointed out the that changes to the 2.0 and 2.2 files were "obviously" derived from the change lists distributed w/ the kernels (and GPLed), yet they have the ECS copyright. /.'ed, I can't get in to verify this. :-(
Again, w/ the site
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
It seems to me, from quickly looking over the new LinuxHQ site that a LOT of it is similar, if not identical to, kernelnotes. Since kernelnotes is GPLed, LinuxHQ has some other copyright & distribution limitations, and it can probably be argued that kernelnotes existed with the content and layout (especially the identical content and layout of pages like "linux distributions"), and therefore linuxhq, by re-releasing GPLed material under another, more restrictive licenes, is now violating the GPL.
IANAL, and I don't even pretend to play one.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
any ideas on where i might get this? ftp.apostols.org has been down for about a month, and i haven't been able to find any mirrors.
I just checked on LinuxHQ and there is a reference at the bottom of the page to a COPYING file. It states that, unless otherwise noted (and I didn't see any other notices), the material is covered by GNU GPL. There is even a copy of the GPL on the copying page. Did I miss something?
I want all of the power and none of the responsibility.
Hostname %Loss Rcv Snt Last Best Avg Worst
14. pinky.x25.net 27% 56 76 130 108 127 252
15. ecs-128.ecsnet.com 58% 32 76 576 320 733 1125
16. evans11.x25.net 50% 38 76 523 266 726 1132
Now, I personally feel that the linuxhq.com thing was a fiasco, but I admire the diplomacy on the part of kernelnotes. An explanation from the linuxhq guy (Mark Evans) is here. He says he wants it to be better maintained, but I always thought it was well maintained. Well, whatever.
... is archived here:e k/0227.html
http://www.tux.org/hypermail/linux-kernel/this-we
The people who are responsible for the creative content generate the real value, and are the geese that lay the golden eggs. The existing backlog of creative content is always a finite resource, no matter how big a backlog that is. It doesn't matter if we're talking about programmers, authors, musicians, painters, actors...
If kernelnotes now has the people who made LinuxHQ great, then kernelnotes will prosper and LinuxHQ will fade unless they have their own talent (which is, as yet, unproven). In the mean time, if the original creative team that won the award (even if it's only for collating data, there's a lot of valid creative effort in good organization and an intelligible presentation. Ask Tim O'Reilly...) is at kernelnotes, then they should get the "cool site" award. The new linuxhq can earn its own, if it's up to it.
Yes, it is. Your protection is better if you submit the work to the copyright office as well, but in legal theory the second you write something it has your copyright.
D
----
I just visited linuxhq.com (between apparent spasms of slashdot effect) and there is a link "COPYING" at the bottom of the page (sorry I can't get the URL, the site has gone down again). This link leads to a page which says everything is GPL'd unless stated otherwise. So where's the beef?
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Here's something interesting - queso gives the following output for www.linuxhq.com:
204.57.81.139:80 * NetBSD 1.3.x
Hmmm...
Oops - linuxhq.com is down as of 1am JST... Time for a switch to T1 perhaps?
You're in luck. Last time I mentioned queso on
Unless otherwise stated, all web content is licensed under the GNU Public License (GPL) copyleft agreement, so you can do just about anything you want with it - so long as you preserve this notice and conform to the terms of the GPL.
http://www.linuxhq.com/copying.html
Only 'flamers' flame!
I thought he didn't like some of the stuff that was being done with LinuxHQ, but he's basically copied Kernelnotes and hasn't given them any credit. My impression is that he needs to grow up. That may not be the case, but that's the impression i get.
Therefore, it must not have been noticed before the other because it has a lower score.
Uh, just because it's an AC post, it shouldn't have been knocked off in favour of the logged in post.
Or maybe the timestamps were just screwed up.
kmj
kmj
The only reason I keep my ms-dos partition is so I can mount it like the b*tch it is.
It's confusing but the copyright notice in linuxhq.com
:)
has been just changed to GPL. See http://www.linuxhq.com/copying.html
What's happening?
It is interesting, that now there is no explanation link, the one from earlier today is now 404.
;-)
/., in the list of other important sites under the banner.
The About link has no info on the overall situation. There seems to be nothing explaning, as well as no more asking for support.
Perhaps some damage control in fighting the fires from the mailbox??
On the overall "look and feel", I see he trimmed down the main menu, it fits on a single page now.
But, its still pretty much the same content and pretty much the same style.
I think Jim Pick has done a excellent job, in producing one of the major resources of the Linux world. After it was languishing, and nearly died out, he stepped in, made some changes, and breathed it back to life. For 2 years, his site has been the resource I want in my bookmarks. Heck, that's where I found out about
Anyway, rather than going on and on.. we all know what we're going to on this one..
Jim Pick has done a nice job for two years
/. link were to kernelnotes.org
building a solid reputation for a useful
Linux community site, LinuxHQ. My guess is that
Mark Evans will be attempting to cash in on
the LinuxHQ name as either an ad banner site
or auctioning the domain name.
It would be nice if my
tim
Those who can do. Those who can't sue.
Yes, I know this is off topic, but this whole thread will probably be moderated down off the map soon, anyway. :)
Note that I haven't read the more recent /. moderation instructions since I have no interest in being a moderator, so this info may even be incorrect... :(
Good Work. :)
-- Bad Manager! No doughnut! -- Dogbert
It looks similar but at the same time is newly created another web site... Or I missed someting?
> 5 points for 3 days is too much for most
> people...they're just trigger happy
from what i see, the moderation work pretty much ok, although there is a *slight* tendency to prefer linus positive comments.
certainly, remarks which beg to be moderated down tend to be ignored, which, IMHO, is good.
btw, i've tagged this post as [M]eta in accordance with the alt.fan.pratchett guidelines, which may bb becoming relevant to the continuining debates on moderation here.
i'm assuming that all posters here don't need to be told how to find out how to search a newgroup for faq's. anyone who doesn't know can reread the new user faqs in the appropriate place.
dave (RTF!@#$%$^&M goddamnit!)
. difference between the two sites. A General Public License violation. A License that has been available for the last 15 years which is more than half the lifetime of the consumer computer market.
The Linux trademark was purloined once before and it failed thanks to the GPL. Check out LinuxMall.com. They have the article. It dates back a few years.
Note also since LinuxHQ/REview/Resources/Today are sites about different topics with similar names. It is the License that matters!
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
GPL applies to copyrightable content, be it code, traditional writing, etc. It DOES NOT cover trademark issues, which are quite different. For instance, although Red Hat distributes software under the GPL, the name "Red Hat", their funky little logo, and anything else in the tradedress that identifies the product as having come from Red Hat is trademarkable and not covered by the GPL. This limits anyone else's ability to use those trademarks in non-RedHat products. Similarly, the name and tradedress of "LinuxHQ" likely do not fall under the GPL which applies (applied?) to the content, unless this was explicitly stated on the site.
I like your {M]eta tag!
So I checked out both LinuxHQ.com and kernelnotes.org and I'm still confused (no comments from the peanut gallery... Rob.). Is the old LinuxHQ guy back at LinuxHQ again or still operating kernelnotes?
Please, oh please straighten out my purty head!
Dan
I have looked into linuxhq.com and now it says:
"For information regarding copying and distribution of this material
see the COPYING document."
This COPYING document is exactly the GPL. Have they changed it or did I miss something ?
Simple as that. Don't go to the web site and it won't stay up long. The author says he's looking for support on the LinuxHQ is Back Online page, so if nobody helps, the site cannot continue.
Since kernelnotes.org and linuxhq.com are now quite clearly two totally separate entities, shouldn't the link on Slashdot be changed to read 'Kernel Notes' (the LinuxHQ link currently points to kernelnotes.org)? I suppose to be completely nonpartisan, Rob should include a Kernel Notes AND a LinuxHQ link :)
For what it's worth, I've always found what is now known as Kernel Notes to be up to the minute and informative.
Umm... not really the insightful and informative comment that I hoped my first non-anonymous post would be, but there ya go.
Whats you standpoint on the copyright messages on the bottom of web pages...
I've been told that its ok to just slap one up with out any legal documentation?
Is this true?
................
=1000101
At least Jim Pick gave me credit for that logo someplace.. this is about the 8th time my stuff has been taken without giving me credit lately
-sigh-