Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: "Pseudo-Free" Software in Major Distributions?
PugMajere
submitted the following:
"I've been looking into using SSH and rdist to distribute
around 2 gig worth of data to about 1000 machines nightly.
Rdist (v6.1.5) would be perfect for this, as it automatically
forks to send data to multiple machines, but it isn't totally
free software. The problem is with SSH.
To use SSH with rdist you need the server side of SSH on
each of the machines that are running the rdist server.
The licensing fees for this are simply astronomical for
this kind of application. While researching all this I noticed
that Red Hat includes rdist (6.1.5) in its distribution.
I also now know the
rdist license
terms. Rdist isn't free to use in a commercial setting
if it involves another company. So, if you have two
companies running Linux, that are collaborating on some
project, and sharing some of the data using Linux and rdist,
they owe Magnicomp money. My real question here is: Does
anyone else realize this? How many other packages have
similar arrangements that are going to cause major
headaches in the future?"
Debian GNU/Linux stands alone in separating the wheat from the chaff, the free from the non-free. Check it out: www.debian.org.
nice flamebait. now answer the question, you troll.
This is one reason why Debian's (and for the most
part, Red Hat's) committment to free software is
so important. With other distributions, you have
to read *all* the licenses on hundreds of packages, and decide if you're complying or can
comply. (This is also a reason why making up
your own license instead of using the GPL, X, Artistic, or some other established license is
a Bad Thing.)
BTW, there is a free replacement for ssh that's
supposed to be almost usable. psst I think it's
called.
On the SuSE distro, all of the shareware/demoware/home-use-only are in the 'pay' package collection or a self-contained collection that calls out the nature of the package before installation. AFAIK, there isn't any real reminder *after* the installation.
TomK
namffuak@skyenet.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
a xSQDHPI3AaAAoN5T
Hash: SHA1
Rsync supports encrypted authentication, but not actuall encryption of
the data. OTOH IPSec solves all that. Both are covered in the LASG:
http://www.seifried.org/lasg/
- -Kurt Seifried, MCP+I, MCSE
https://www.seifried.org/kurt/
Linux Administrator's Security Guide
https://www.seifried.org/lasg/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
iQA/AwUBN4Qc94b9cm7tpZo3EQJ5eACgvvZLwrUL6Yb4neV
D8oWbjTuxD0/CCap44zmBd+9
=Zc2b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I've heard from multiple sources that this is
being changed.
Debian is fully free. Red Hat tries to be, but sometimes misses. Caldera uses proprietary software, but is very careful about being legal (and claims to be willing to sign agreements with corporate customers guaranteeing legality of use). SuSE and TurboLinux will all stick in software under any license that lets them. Slack is too dated to make this list, and most other distribs I either forgot or are too small. That's the order of use if you care about legality.
"If you download it from MagniComp and read the copyright in the source
distribution, it's a standard BSD license with Michael's text at the".. "distributed under on MagniCorp.com is obviously unfree"
so the BSDL is suddenly "not free"? you linux people need to drag your heads out of your bums. free software == free software == free software. doesnt matter if it's BSDL, GPL, Open Source(tm), or anything else. free is free is free. we can't afford to make enemies of people on the same side as us.
We want to do something by running the code, we know the code can do it, but the people that wrote it quietly decided not to let us. Does *anyone* think this is a Good Thing?
Whether or not you feel that what they're doing is appropriate, knowing in advance that my system is free of such licensing traps is hardly worthless.
Debian distributes the official CD sets in the same way that it distributes the non-free packages, namely through the Internet. As far as I know, Debian does not actually sell any CD sets; everything is make available through the Debian mirrors where the free software section is located along side the non-free section. Both directories are part of Debian. You cannot say one section is distributed, but the other is for only for dissemination. It would be like the N.Y. Times claiming that newspaper stories on pages A1 through A4 are distributed, but stories on pages A5 through A18 are not distributed. Would you believe this? Perhaps your know better; personally, I have trouble believing that Debian is only distributing free packages when both are made available and in the same manner. Let's not also forget that the package selector, which searches for packages on www.debian.org defaults to "ALL", meaning it searches both the free and the non-free sections. There is enough reasons to support the claim that Debian's free software stand is in words only.
"Does *anyone* think this is a Good Thing?"
yes. the free market society is a good thing.
if you cant deal with companies profiting from their capital investments, i suggest you hop a canoe to north korea.
You, sir, are a prophet. The situation is not like that for 'everything', yet, but it will be shortly. In a community where Open and Free are trademarked, did you expect anything less than a colourful ruse?
holier-than-thou?
i thought it was free-er-than-thou....
see also doctrinal purity (n) and fanaticism (a)
Welcome to $Linux$ (Score:1, Funny)
FUNNY? uh
where's the button for +1, Sad Truth.
What are you, stupid? You actually can not see how this answer relates to the question?
Debian cleanly seperates out all non-free applications in their distribution. If it's in the free section it is FREE. No confusion.
Next time try something novel, like thinking.
Yep, and guess what, this happened because:
RSYNC WAS RELEASED UNDER THE **BSD** LICENSE
:)
will cvsup also do Kerberos w/encryption? (I know that cvs itself does)
If you download it from MagniComp, it's a BSD license with the additional restriction tacked on right above it.
therefore not free.
Who needs that ;-)
once again, the cult of 'free software' aka. Open Source aka. OSI Approved(tm) aka.. gets in the way of people completing their work. one of these days you people will realize the utter worthlessness of such petty philosophical arguments.
:)
Am I the only one who just had a visual image of the Emporer in Return of the Jedi saying '[we will crush your] pi-ti-ful alliance' with his Winston Churchill accent?
This software may be freely used and distributed provided it is not sold for profit or used in part or in whole for commercial gain without prior written agreement, and the author is credited appropriately.
Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
The latest file in the src/ directory is dated Nov 9, 1998 and the
It does look like "commercial gain" is a no no without his permission. One important fact here is the MagniComp license does not apply unless you have downloaded the software under the MagniComp license. What I suspect happened is MagniComp purchased the rights to his current code but they cannot retroactively get the rights to previous releases. The original license also allows for redistribution of source with modifications (provided the license is included) which is slightly different than MangiComp's version.
(gasp) Could it possibly be? /. is way too classy for the likes of Bill.
Oh god no.. it might be Bill Gates trolling Slashdot!
Nah..
funny game you're playing
post something stupid, then post two anonymous messages to back it up.
um..
can you say s-o-c-i-a-l--e-n-g-i-n-e-e-r-i-n-g?
Use Diffie-Hellman or its variant, ElGamal. Licensing terms for RSA are nothing short of obscene. I really hope they suffer fourteen months from now, when nobody has to put up with them anymore.
That's nice. Now actually look at those Official CDs. Guess what? rdist is on them (look in the netstd pkg).
Oops.
Just to nitpick, it's more reliable to keep a list of packages that *are* Free, so you don't make unwarranted assumptions about new ones.
Debian contains the exact program in question as part of the netstd package.
RedHat 6.0 includes rdist 6.1.5 with a couple patches. The license says no use for "commercial gain" without written consent. He can sell code that is his or that he is licensed to sell. However he obviously can't change the license on code that he previously released.
You should note though even with a GPL license, the author(s) could sell their current code rights. They have always owned the code and have chosen in the past to allow others to use under the GPL (which they can't take back). It gets a little tricky if they used any previous GPL'ed code or used patches from an outside source. This reminded me of the Mocha (a java decompiler) where the author released a public domain version but later sold his code to Borland for their JBuilder product. That page has some more info and the letter from Borland trying to remove the software (which is still there) if anyone is interested.
OK, Debian ships the free version in the Debian ships the free version. Maybe if you extract
;-).
the red hat source package you can tell what version they ship - they don't install license
files on their system the way Debian does.
Nope. They tag all the packages with the license instead in the header. According to that, the package is under the BSD license. And guess what? If you extract the SRPM, the original, pristine tarball for rdist has the BSD license as its copyright:
[foo@baz rdist-6.1.5]$ more Copyright
Copyright (c) 1992-1998 Michael A. Cooper.
This software may be freely used and distributed provided it is not
sold for profit or used in part or in whole for commercial gain
without prior written agreement, and the author is credited
appropriately.
Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California.
All rights reserved.
(rest omitted--we've all seen the UCB
There are three rsync licenses
I think you mean rdist, but other than that I think you are right. RedHat 6.0 has rdist 6.1.5 with the "commercial gain" clause. Debian has 6.1.3 with a normal looking license. RedHat 5.2 has oen they call "1.0-9" but the readme says version 6.1 and dated May 1994. Their rpm doesn't have a copyright but I assume it is similar to 6.1.3
Do you wish really to persuade me that Debian is not distributing non-free packages, or only to seem to have persuaded me? Then, you certainly have not succeeded. The deciding factor is not whether the CD sets contain free programs, little follows from it; but rather, we like to know if non-free packages are available for download from serves within their control. If true, it is sufficient to conclude that Debian distributes non-free packages. My meaning is modest: should I export weapons to Irak that would be illegal under present US laws; declaring my actions as "unofficial" is of no importance.
Better a GNU/Linux fight than a MSFT consensus anyday pal.
Oops, I meant, first reply to my own post :)
Bake
Good grief, who said he is opposed to profitmaking?
Actually, it will be plastered all over their p*rtal (one of the evil 6-letter words now) soon. That will sure suprise some people.
Stop! I would not dare to describe a collection of GPLed software as 100% free. For this you have to look in the BSD corner. Sorry we just had lots of GPL vs BSD discussions, but I must restate that GPL software is more restricted than BSD software or public domain stuff.
Hi, I'm the original poster. I am afraid I came off as being opposed to Redhat. No, I am not. They just are not quite as committed to that issue as is Debian, that's all. Bake Timmons, timmons@eskimo.com. (I can see it's time to get an account. :)
No! You cant install any deb-package from any official debian distribution channel without getting the words "non-free" displayed several times.
Thats what the original question is about: If people notice when they install non-free software. With debian they do - or most certainly will. I would even go that far to claim those who dont notice these displays ignorant.
Installing non-free software despite being actively warned is out of the responsibility of any distribution.
In so far is declairing certain actions as unofficial of big importance: Debian makes a big effort to actively warn you when they think certain things can be seen in relation to debian that in fact arent official.
It is of course out of question that anyone can install software from doubtfull channels without noticing the legal terms. But again i dont think that this was the intention of the question.
Questions 1,2, and 4 seem to have been answered.. (do man apt-get if you're still confused)
:) ) I can't say how difficult RPMs are, but my suspicion is that Debian packages are more 'confusing' due to the fact that Debian policy specifies more about what goes into a package. That is, you can't just shove stuff into a .tar.gz, ar qc it and then call it a Debian package (well, you can but it's strongly discouraged) Because of this, Debian often requires (minor) Debian-specific tweaks -- for example, getting a program to install in the correct directory. There are a number of Debian programs which make creating a Debian package much simpler by automating common tasks; these are in the package 'debhelper'. 'dh_make' (in the package 'dh-make') will autogenerate the control files for common cases; with simple autoconf-using programs (like gtetrinet :-) ) you often just have to give a section and a description and you're done. (the complexity is there for nasty programs that
#3: while I'm not a Debian developer, I often convert programs to Debian packages for my own use (gtetrinet last night
don't have a proper build system and, eg, don't even honor 'make install')
Daniel
> There's no non-free software on the Debian Official CD.
who are you kidding? its full of software thats only gnufree, not free.
I've been doing some checking, and the source for
:)
rdist 6.1.4 is exactly the same as rdist 6.1.5, with a straight BSD license.
One file (build/ostype) has a different license:
"Copyright (c) 1992-1998 Micheal A. Cooper.
This software may be freely distributed provided it is not sold for profit and the author is credited appropriately."
It shouldn't be too hard taking rdist 6.1.4, replacing build/ostype, and re-distributing it under straight BSD license again. Problem fixed, and unruly author taken out of the loop. Long live the BSD license...
ftpsearch finds several sites where you can find rdist-6.1.4 source code.
Of course this particular solution isn't very nice, but then neither is underhandedly changing the license on a package.
Bas Vermeulen
But that's not the BSD license! That's a BSD-license with an addendum that makes it
;-).
;-).
non-free.
You're right. Sorry about that--I'm an idiot who posted before he actually read
Actually, I've done more checking, and rdist-6.1.4 is the same as 6.1.5, but under the *BSD license. Looks like time for Debian and RH to fork the code
SSH is great, but if you're looking for a free/Free soultion you won't find a finnished one, at least I couldn't. If you need encryption take a look at Free/SWAN. It's a Linux implimentation of IPSec. The 1.0 version does not support kernel 2.2.x but the CVS tree does, and by all reports the current snapshots are quite stable. Others have mentioned some other interesting soultions as well. Good luck.
Think free speech, not free beer. :b
Don't you ever get tired of that bullshit? Why don't you just say what you mean instead of lying? You would have saved yourself ten years of crap.
You're lying. Debian distributes plenty of non-free software. They don't even have the honesty to call it gnufree.
Ah, free software at it's finest.
This is a simple and clear answer. I don't like being a pirate. I act as the software enforcer at work and I don't want to be a hypocrite, so I didn't use non-free stuff when I couldn't afford it (and did mostly fine). I liked looking in the mirror and not seeing an asshole. Now that I can afford commercial packages, I get them. Accelerated X kicks ass on my G200 and my Thinkpad (I love it and I wish I had gotten one years ago) and I think that it is worth the money, for instance. If you too don't want to be an asshole, Debian is a solid choice.
If this sounds weird, you clearly haven't been doing this very long.
Yes, I have a comment: thank you for making a useful contribution to the discussion. Really. We need more of that.
My suggestion:
I would see if you could get some sort of a deal from the ssh people. I have done stuff like this (getting deals for unusual situations) with IBM for years, and they don't like doing it, but if a)they understand (and the ssh people are not dumb) and b)they would like the revenue (sure, why not) and c)you actually have a point (and the poster seems to), you can usually work out a deal. You would be surprised how much you can get negotiated working with peers when you and they are clearly not trying to screw one another.
Go back to your microscope slide before your pores ooze slime all over the floor, oh primitive, insignificant syphillictic spawn of the tiniest amoeba in existence. Your puny intellect is not needed here.
I noticed this comes from the "Scrutinize your licenses department." I would advise the authors of slashdot to scrutinize their own license first.
Have you ever read it? It is very small, but you must acknowledge your use of slash on your website. Ridiculous...ever see this clause in Apache? You shouldn't, cause it doesn't exist.
-AC
GNULIX!!!!!!
You really should use multicasting for such large software distributions. This saves you a lot of work, bandwidth and thereby $$$.
Can any of the free software available use multicast? (cfengine?) Otherwise that is something that *has* to be written.
rsync works somewhat differently from rdist but it's often an adequate (or even superior) replacement
lsh, an ssh replacement seems to be coming along nicely
Hmmm... I didn't know that rdist was under that license; I always thought it was an ancient BSD program :(
As several other people have pointed out, you can probably use rsync instead, and rsync is newer and probably better maintained these days anyway. rsync comes with Red Hat.
There is a free version of SSH 2.0 under development at:
http://www.net.lut.ac.uk/psst/
It is under the GPL, but is not finished yet. I don't know how usable that is.
If you need encryption/security, you have at least 2 free options for an rsh/rcp type program:
- Use Kerberos rcp which can encrypt data. You will have to install a Kerberos server, though, and client software
- Use a SSL version of rcp. (SSLeay or OpenSSL, I don't know what's popular these days)
You will always find the program copyright for a package in /usr/doc/packagename/copyright
No more wondering what the terms are of the software you are using.
To my knowledge, Debian is the only distribution to offer a Virtual Richard M. Stallman. This gadget emails you once a month with a list of the non-free software on your system; future versions are expected to include inspiring quotes from the Fearless Leader encouraging the user to cast off his or her chains and live in a Free Software world. :-)
:-)
I have it installed out of curiosity
Daniel
1) rpm -qi rdist says it's BSD
2) previous post says the license changed 11/98
3) ls -l rdist says rdist binary was created 8/98
Is there any proof offered from the original poster that his statement is true, or is he just trying to flame Red Hat?
This would not have happened if you were using Debian, because Debian considers the
/usr/man/man8/rdistd.8.gz /usr/bin/rdistd /usr/bin/rdist /usr/man/man1/rdist.1.gz
license of each package for compliance with the The Debian Free Software Guidelines, the
document that later became the Open Source Definition.
Um, Bruce, before you get all holier-than-thou, you might want to make sure you know what you're talking about.
[foo@baz foo]$ dpkg -S rdist
netstd:
netstd:
netstd:
netstd:
[foo@baz foo]$
Yep, that's right. Debian ships with rdist as well. It ships a BSD-licensed version, just like Red Hat does. Apology accepted.
Um, no. Please actually verify your FUD before you start spreading it. The Red Hat packaged rdist is under the BSD license. So's the one in the netstd pkg.
And no, I couldn't get a copy of that tee-shirt, I wasn't one of some inner circle or something.
So I say, screw 'im. Wrap a conditional trigger system (etc) around rsync, and bury rdist. I'd do it, except I don't sysadmin any more.
-- Perry
[Sorry about the AC posting, but I don't post enough to be worth it to get a signon.]
While it is true that Debian distinguishes between free and non-free software according to the DFSG, this does not imply that Debian is only distributing free software. Far from it. Three weeks ago I counted 334 non-free packages in potato. If we add the contrib packages that depend on non-free software, say another 150 packages (don't know the exact number), it will be true to say this: Debian distributes about 484 non-free packages. This is contrary to Debian's 'social contract' which begins with the phrase "Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software" (then goes on to explain that 100% free software means free + non-free software! )
rsync is more like rcp than rdist. In particular, rsync does not support a configuration file, nor does it support copying files to multiple machines at the same time.
No. AcceleratedX sucks shit. It crashes a few times a day on my machine. ...They don't support their piss poor glibc-based version of the Xserver, which I use, which means that i wasted 90 dollars.
----------------- ------------ ---- --- - - - -
----------------- ------------ ---- --- - - - -
Your honor is perfectly understandishable.
- A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
We're likely to be voting very soon about removing the non-free software from our primary servers and placing it on a machine with a different hostname. If this happens it will still be available to everyone as it is now, but hopefully it will help stop silly comments like "Debian distributes non-free software" from popping up all over the place.
From the ssh COPYING file:
--------------------------------------------------
(b) You may use the program for non-commercial purposes only, meaning that the program must not be sold commercially as a separate product, as part of a bigger product or project, or otherwise used for financial gain without a separate license. Please see Section 2, Restrictions, for more details.
--------------------------------------------------
And...from the ssh FAQ:
--------------------------------------------------
3.2 May I legally run ssh?
The UNIX version of ssh 1.2.27 may be used freely for non-commercial purposes and may not be sold commercially as a separate product, as part of a bigger product or project, or otherwise used for financial gain without a separate license. The definition of "commercial use" is generally interpreted as using ssh for anything that would generate financial gain, such as logging into a customers system to do administration, or providing ssh as a secure login to your partners or vendors.
In email between Data Fellows and the maintainer, the following questions were asked and answered:
================================================== =============
= ===============
S: Steve Acheson, FAQ Maintainer
P: Petri Nyman, F-Secure SSH Product Manager for Data Fellows
S)Can a company use the 1.2.26 release of the SSH software freely for
S)internal support and administration without violating the license
S)agreement?
P)You can freely use it for internal support and administration of your own
P)equipment located in your premises.
S)Does connecting from one machine to another via SSH to
S)read email, do work, etc, violate this agreement?
P)No, unless you provide this ability to a third party or connect to a third
P)party's computer to provide a service.
S)Does connecting from a purchased PC client SSH software to a non-licensed
S)SSH server violate the agreement?
P)No.
S)Does connecting to a remote site, that is not company owned, but company
S)administered, via SSH to do administrative work violate the agreement?
P)Yes. You need a commercial license for that.
===============================================
--------------------------------------------------
So, I'd say that it's at least legally questionable if you use ssh to connect to client machines, or vice-versa.
--
Take a look inside. I don't have Linux installed right now (in the process of clearing out a nasty and cobwebby install), so I can't say how to do it -- but look and see, I remember it was extremely easy.
If you'd like to email me for more, feel free, but I seem to recall there's also some documentation on the Debian web site.
- the FAQ,
- the Debian Packaging Manual
I assume that #2 is what you were referring to, but I don't know.--Matthew
Heh. I've used libio before, it's another reason to use iostream. Unless you really need all the nifty operator-overriding functions of C++, or are working with templates, and for some reason functions and macros aren't good enough for you... All libio has ever done for me is slow my code down.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
However, a decent answer to this question would involve trying to look for a solution, maybe something like SSLrdist would be appropriate. It's based on SSLeay, USC rdist, and stuff from NetBSD. So it looks free to me, and that's a good place to start. Comments?
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Btw, an interesting tidbit from Magnicomp.com's ftp server: What this means is they've taken something under the BSD license and made their fork proprietary. Of course, the Magnicomp.Com-unmolested code under the BSD license will remain free.
Whilst optimised for use with CVS repositories, you might want to consider CVSup.
On a more practical note, this is a perfect example of why the BSD licence is dangerous. One Brett Glass should pay attention to this situation.
So, you choose the have 1,000 points of failure vs 1? I can configure one thing on one machine, or 1 on 1,000. Seems an easy answer to me.. Pushing it out is better and easier, and can provide more redundence. Better choice would be to have 2 'push' servers, that 'pull' from eachother regularly to keep eachother in sync. Then have the 'primary' do pushing, and the 'secondary' check up to ensure the data is in fact correct..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Hmm.... rpm present the license for each package... /var/spool/license and make it the users responsibility to read the licenses for the software installed, if you don't agree with a particular one... use the magic rpm -E.
No thanks... the install time would be impossible... Microsoft presents one for its OS (pluss the annoying apps that come with, can we say IE), and then one for any other seperate application/suite that you install.
Maybe, have the licenses installed to something like
-I just work here... how am I supposed to know?
Use teraterm on NT instead. It is free (as in beer) and provides a a perfectly good telnet client and even a free ssh1 client using ttssh. It is wise to look at alternatives before spending money :)
Alex.
-- Thorin sits down and starts singing about gold.
I am a bit perturbed that there was no mention of 6.1.5 or the license change on the rdist developers list. The first I heard of 6.1.5 was some note on the list asking for help with 6.1.5.
"even if the person behind MagniComp is the individual who did the work at USC (one Michael Cooper)" It is the same person. Michael Cooper left USC for Sun. MagniCorp is (I think) his own corporation for stuff he has done that is not concerned with Sun.
If someone wants a copy of rdist 6.1.4 I can send it.
I apologize for being a bit irresponsible in my post. Though I am a Debian user, I should not let that interfere with my support for Redhat. As has been pointed out to me, Redhat is as committed to free software as Debian. They just goofed on rdist, just as Debian has goofed in the past. Thanks to those who corrected me.
Hi Bruce,
While you may have written the scripts that were used to build ``bo'' CDs, I think we should probably credit Andreas Jellinghaus, who did an almost total rewrite for ``hamm'' (a.k.a. Debian 2.0).
I then maintained that set of scripts, but there has since been another rewrite by Steve McIntyre (for ``slink'', a.k.a. Debian 2.1), with contributions from a whole bunch of people on debian-cd@lists.debian.org.
Apart from that, you are correct in saying that the Official Debian GNU/Linux CDs contain only software that meets the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Cheers, Phil.
P.S. rsync ? I think you mean rdist. rsync is GPL. Debian's rdist is rdist-6.1.3 (usc.edu:/pub/rdist) which is BSD.
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
Does this mean that the Debian rdist is the older BSD rdist which uses -Server option? If so, I've been looking for it everywhere. I'm going to have to try Debian out.
Deleted
This would not have happened if you were using Debian, because Debian considers the license of each package for compliance with the The Debian Free Software Guidelines, the document that later became the Open Source Definition.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Yeah rdist. It's getting late. Thanks for the verification.
Bruce Perens.
I got rsync and rdist confused in more than one posting. Sorry. Time to go to sleep.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
The Debian Social Contract was not written to eliminate non-free software from the face of the earth, but to keep it out of Debian's "main" directory. The contrib and non-free directories aren't an official part of Debian.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
The Official CD ISO 9660 images do not contain non-free software. They do contain an old BSD version of rsync.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
That, sir, is why we're so "fanatical" about licenses. To protect you from exactly what you described.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I checked. There's really an addendum to the Red Hat version that makes it non-free. Extract the source package and look just before the usual BSD license text.
Bruce Perens.
Rsync is GPLed, and a lot more efficient than rdist for most purposes -- the debian ISO mirror process is one good example.
If you do go with rdist-style distribution, check into sdist, which might (I can't recall with any certainty) have a more liberal license than rdist, and uses SSH.
For the SSH portion, there are troubles. Free implementations of ssh are underway (the ssh1 license allows some levels of commercial use, ssh2's is too restrictive to be commercially useful), but taking their time.
rsync does indeed have a configuration file, and it's pretty easy to set up an rsync server. The rsyncd.conf file looks a lot like an smb.conf file (probably because Andrew Tridgell and Paul Mackerras wrote the sucker) and by jamming a simple shell script into the crontab on different machines you can mirror data pretty easily.
Agreed, that reading licenses during an install for each package, separately presented, would be a kind of legalistic hell. The point I'm trying to make, and I think you've picked up on, is that usable mechanism should be put in place. I'd like a universal mechanism, capable of provided all types of licenses and covering all situations, including installs, upgrades, etc.
The Norton Anthology of English Literature, 4th Ed., Vol 2
It's nice to see so many folks chiming in with comments about ssh & rdist replacements; the competition to build a better mousetrap sometimes seems a bit ridiculous, but then you run into a situation like this and you're grateful.
Unfortunately, being able to name a replacement is not the point. The point is that someone out there is not going to know that there is a licensing distinction for some piece of software including on one of the distros and they're going to violate the terms of the license. And they're going to get caught. And they're going to raise a stink. Not that this is a real problem; I think all of the distributions should band together to develop some universal mechanism for informing users when they are installing a "pseudo-commercial" licensed product.
I think that rpm, yast, apt and whatever tools that are used to install packages should be modified to present the license to a user when it varies from the license used by a majority of the distribution. Or that a user should have to read/accept each license in kind.
The Norton Anthology of English Literature, 4th Ed., Vol 2
The plan is to remove the GCC requirement. The new exception will be
// As a special exception, you may use this file as part of a free software
// library without restriction. Specifically, if other files instantiate
// templates or use macros or inline functions from this file, or you compile
// this file and link it with other files to produce an executable, this
// file does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be covered by
// the GNU General Public License. This exception does not however
// invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be covered by
// the GNU General Public License.
Why is this marked as Flame Bait! Debian seperates Free from Non-Free Software.. It also has the Debian Free Software Guidelines which cleans up some of the confusion... This is not FlameBait, this is truth! if you want 100% Free Software - gather it yourself, or use debian.
--
Marques Johansson
displague@linuxfan.com
Marques Johansson
redhat has a track record of knocking non-free software off their cd's if given an alternative.
has anyone considered informing them? or is it just more fun to piss and moan about it here?
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
> .. has a similiar directory structure for their RPMS. Why does this make Debian superior?
Most people are somewhat i386 centric? Debian is rather anal about licenses.
> 1. how does one upgrade a debian box if a security issue is found with a package?
Either grab the deb and install it manually, or use dselect/apt to work out if there are any updates and install them (see next question).
> 2. What exactly does apt-get update actually do (it seems to just change a few gzipped files on my machine representing the directory structure of the debian ftp site)
That's what it does - it updates the list of avalible packages. To upgrade all the upgradeable packages, use "apt-get upgrade". To upgrade/install a specfic package, use "apt-get install foo".
> Does ir get packages which have been changed due to security related issues?
No. If you have the security updates archive locations (security.debian.org and proposed-updates) in your sources file, then doing "apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade" should do the right thing.
> 3. DOes anyone have a script/howto for making debs. RPMS seem really easy, but the stuff for debs on the debian site seemed a litte too confusing.
I found the easiest thing was to just do it. It's sometimes instructive to look at the diff files of existing packages to see how they do things. A good starting point is to use dh_make to put in a skeleton which works for packages configured using autoconf (ISTR the potato version broke - if it's still broken, try the one from slink). Use lintian to check for errors in the built debs - it's very useful.
> 4. Has the debian open-source manual been released, yet?
Pass. There's a whole bunch of debian manuals - take a look at the Debian Documentation Project for more info (it's linked from the devel section of the web site).
"THIS SOFTWARE IS SOLD AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND"
My personal favorite is the clause that usually comes right after this: "including implied warranties of merchantability and fitness." In other words, the software isn't actually worth enough to sell (but worth far too much to give away! Programmers would starve!), and even if it were, it's not useful for any particular purpose, anyway.
If manager types read these things, they'd go nuts. Wait! We just spent how many thousands of dollars? And all we have is crates full of coasters and many copies of the same useless software that is collectively worth somewhat less than a penny?
But the LGPL also have problems; it isn't suitable for embedded systems customers, who have, in effect, been paying most of the bills for gcc development (via Cygnus support contracts). Switching libio to the LGPL would not be acceptable to the people that are doing or paying for most of the work.
The current license (GPL with special exception) requires that at least one .o file be compiled with gcc. But the LGPL has many more requirements: the executable must be shipped in linkable form, and there are other requirements as well.
Switching libio to the LGPL will make matters worse for many. Some other solution is needed.
Could a VPN like vpnd work for you? you could create a private IP network inside it and use unencrypted free tools inside an encrypted tunnel. Just a thought :)
These can effectively replace ssh: as to rdist, wouldn't rsync do? You could stunnel it if you felt it necessary.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The license terms look similar to those for MySQL. That is, it's free of charge when a person, company or org puts it on its own machines, regardless of who uses the machines. Payment and/or negotiation are required for redistribution.
As with MySQL, you seem to be welcome to build resale solutions around it without anyone getting paid, so long as your app leaves it to the customer to obtain and install rdist themselves separately.
The terms are weird and tortuous, but they do not seem to require payment for commercial or business-to-business use per se.
Richard assured me in Paris that all the necessary permissions have been granted for the glibc maintainers to change the libio license to LGPL.
You should use rsync instead. It's faster, and support SSH.
As long as it is clearly documented, I don't have a problem with this. Most companies will pay $$$ for the free software (remember the Cygnus tools?) if it comes with some level of support. We aren't talking about personal usage here.
However, if the software is distributed in a RPM or similiar package, I believe that it should be a requirement of the distribution that the description in the package clearly states that "if you use this for commercial use, please read the license file" or such.
It's alright that someone gets paid for their work.
Jason
p.s. Does anyone know how to change the email address of a slashdot account? I've since moved ISPs.
No one has seen what you have seen, and until that happens, we're all going to think that you're nuts. - Jack O'Neil
> mid-sized environment. Sometimes time is
> cheaper than money -- use Linux. Sometimes
> money is cheaper than time -- use Microsoft,
> but be aware that you will probably spend
> more time than you ought maintaining things.
My employers, who I am trying to subvert from within ;) , use Netware file servers, NT application (email, web, DNS/DHCP) servers and '95 on the 230-ish clients (including ~35% laptops). Shock result:
I'm running the webservers -- I can't do anything about NT *yet*, but Apache performed exactly as the previous poster described in comparison with IIS. IIS 'works' approximately out of the box, whilst Apache will *not* work until you've at least read and understood the .conf files. However there's been loads of issues with IIS (security holes, exploits, old-fashioned bugs etc) and ours crash the server or grab 100% of the CPU every few weeks. Apache 1.3.* OTOH has required zero maintenance since started.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Hi,
* ****
We use at the company I work for on about 1000 desktop workstations. It works great and makes life a hell of alot easier for us CSA's.
Cheers
***************************************
Superstition is a word the ignorant use to describe their ignorance. -Sifu
We've got nearly 500 systems (Irix, Solaris, Linux, Unicos & ConvexOS) running it here. It makes host management a dream.
As for the author, well... Mark is a little backwards in his views on how to develop things. He's afraid of using patch, doesn't see the point in a CVS repository (he doesn't even use RCS), etc. So it can be difficult to get him to incorporate things; but it does happen.
Be realistic though. You shouldn't try and get *him* to add things; you should develop the addition yourself along with a discussion of how to implement it on the mailing list. If he likes the idea he'll add it to a future version.
cfengine is a GNU project which easily replaces rdist. It uses its own protocol rather than relying on a seperate program (ie: rsh or ssh) to transfer the data. Encrypted transfers are an option in the most recent (v1.5) version.
Check it out at the cfengine home page
I don't know who MagniComp is, but the version of rdist included with RedHat is 6.1.3 from University of Southern California and is distributed under the BSD license.
MagniComp appears to have forked their version off the USC source tree and "hijacked" the license. This is possible with the BSD license, which is why some of us feel that the GPL is better. The However, they definitely can't lay any claim on the version of rdist that comes with RedHat... even if the person behind MagniComp is the individual who did the work at USC (one Michael Cooper), that version had not yet been hijacked, so it's safe.
1: Ssh1 is not that expensive, just ssh2.
2: You don't need the server stuff on your 1000
hosts, just on the central one. Just have the
clients pull the files from the server (eg from
a cron job, like we do here).
3: Use rsync instead of rdist - it's much better.
Cameron Simpson, DoD#743 cs@cskk.id.au http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/
It may not be flaimbait but it certainly is not on topic since it does not address the original question.
---
It looks like the author, Michael Cooper, sold the software to MagniComp (and perhaps works there since his email address is now @MagniComp in recent documentation versions). The license that rdist is distributed under on MagniCorp.com is obviously unfree because of for-profit distribution restrictions and use restrictions.
/usr/doc/rdist-6.1.5, just a README which does not contain a license. The man pages don't have licenses either. Grr.
One thing to consider is that RedHat may have paid MagniComp or Mr. Cooper to recieve rights to distribute rdist under the terms of the BSD license or another nonrestrictive license, instead of MagniComp's regular EULA. However, I can't verify this because my (RedHat binary) copy does not include a copyright or license file in
If you download it from MagniComp and read the copyright in the source distribution, it's a standard BSD license with Michael's text at the top saying you can't make any money from distributing or using it, without an agreement in writing from him. According to the changelog, the copyright notice was changed in November of 1998.
"THIS SOFTWARE IS SOLD AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND" This is the new way of saying, "This software is not guaranteed to function in any way." These are both software license phrases found on almost all packages. This is how Microsoft can produce highly disfunctional code, sell it and force you to pay for "upgrades". If software were cars it would be like buying a car then buying an upgrade to fix the "only turns left 4 out of 7 times" bug.
In the auto industry, they have lemon laws. If the law defended the software purchaser the same way, MS would be long gone. They have had a memory leak problem in every version of windows so far. That is a design fault. They should have a recall of all those versions. Being they have known about the errors and allowed them to continue to be distributed, this should be criminal negligance.
Rant, rave, gripe, etc..
>> Just my personal opinion, not legal fact.
In a place beyond time and space, in a land far better than this, look for me there...
Unfortunately, yes. The courts have traditionally held that licenses *are* enforceable.
The Berne convention, the basis for most international copyright laws, states that all original works are automatically copyrighted and that the author, unless she specifically waives certain rights by declaring otherwise, is entitled to every protection under the copyright law, including the right to redistribute the work.
Basically, without the license, you have NO right to copy the work or really even to use it, except under "fair use" exemptions. What entails "fair use" is somewhat vague...and depends greatly on the type of work in question.
If software licenses were held to be unenforceable, however, this would be GREATLY *hurt* the free software movement, which actually depends on these licenses. Remember that the GPL, and other similiar licenses are just that: they are software liceneses and they do place restrictions on how software can be copied, modified and distributed. The fact that these restrictions are designed to protect people's rights to redistribute and modify free software is completely irrelevant.
The real question is not whether software licenses are enforceable per se, but whether or not *certain provisions* of these licenses are enforceable, such as restrictions about who and who cannot use a program.
I would say that distribution and copying can be controlled under copyright, but personally I would argue that if someone has *paid* for a license to use a program then that person cannot be denied the right to use the program under fair use, but if someone was *given* a program, but the license does not allow distribution to that particular person (or company) then they *could* be denied the right to use the program.
For a complete discussion by an excellent copyright attorney, you should check out "The Software Developer's Complete Legal Companion" by Thorne D. Harris III (Prima Publishing).
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, so this represents only a laypersons opinion. You should consult a lawyer if you really need to.
My journal has hot
MySql is another bad one and it doesn't even attempt to follow the SQL standards!
Use PostgreSQL instead.
As for mirroring multiple machines, the best way to do this is to use rsync along with SSH 1.2.27 and the blowfish encryption which uses less CPU time. Also make sure to turn on compression in rsync, -z I believe.
--
Michael Dillon - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Michael Dillon - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Check the website for my Internet
I think that any distro that is not completely free (speech) should have a clearly visible and accessible list of what is not OSS, so that any corporate employee that is trying to implement something like this does not suddenly run into trouble when they discover that they indeed cannot use such and such software in that manner. As far as I know, no such list is included or easily findable. I don't believe this poses much of a problem to individual home users, since most of that type of use falls under the legal part of the license, however this could be disastrous for small company that had trusted an employee to get something together, only to realize that this employee over looked a critical license issue, because, as a previous poster noted, this could be disastrous in the future, when Linux is much more widely used in corporate (high license adherence) enviroment.
Just my thoughts on this.
posted by Untainted
There's a non-Magnicomp rdist that's greater than version 6.1.0 out there? How intriguing. The only one I was able to track down (and which prompted this posting) was the 6.1.5 version.
Time to do some more investigating.
Later: By the way, ftp.usc.edu/pub/rdist says "RDist_MOVED_TO_www.MagniComp.com"
Oh well.
Again, thanks for making my point again.
The GPL covers this:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
The issue with commercial software is that you have already -paid- for it; thus, under the uniform commercial code, people have certain expectations of what you can and can't do with it. So, they're changing the UCC. :P
One of my favorite comics, an old Fifth Wave I think, has a person paying for software with a check that says that it is presented as is and that it's cashing functionality isn't guarenteed. :-)
Basically this means that you can't make commercial software on linux that uses libio unless you use a GNU compiler.
G NU_C++_Iostream_Library/libioIntroduction_ to_Iostreams.html
-----------------------
http://www.cygnus.com/pubs/gnupro/4_libs/c_The_
Licensing terms for libio
Since the iostream classes are so fundamental to standard C++, the Free Software Foundation has agreed to a special exception to its
standard license, when you link programs with libio.a.
As a special exception, if you link this library with files compiled with a GNU compiler to produce an executable, this does not cause the
resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why
the executable file might be covered by the GNU General Public License.
The code is under the GNU General Public License (version 2) for all purposes other than linking with this library which means that you can
modify and redistribute the code as usual; remember that, if you do, your modifications, and anything you link with the modified code, must
be available to others on the same terms.
The enforceability of shrink-wrap or non-wrap license agreements certainly remains, at least, an open question. While at least one Circuit Court (the Seventh) has found them to be enforceable, several others have not enforced shrink-wrap provisions for various reasons. Recent District Court cases in other Circuits have characterized the Seventh Circuit position as "the minority view."
In short, I respectfully dissent from the second sentence of the message to which I respond.
I note, with interest, that recent efforts to add a new article 2 to the UCC were directed to precisely this question, which would tend to support OSS non-wrap licenses. It is ironic that these proposals were largely rebuffed without much analysis by the open source community, precisely because the proposals were also supported by IP holders.
It is important to recall that, at least, the Stallman view --which eschews the notion of public domain free software in favor of GNU-like licenses-- depends upon the enforceability of Copyrights and related license agreements.
In my legal practice, I am more and more frequently asked by clients (one or more a month now) to review ALL licenses of incorporated or embedded open source code and to advise or opine as to the specific obligations arising from the mix of software and the manner in which it the software is mixed with putatively proprietary code.
Unsurprisingly, clients' first question is whether (and if so, how much and how) code must be distributed in open source or at least offered for distribution. They are often surprised that there may be serious questions whether the software can be distbuted at all!
As it turns out, these questions are rarely easy ones to answer, even after assuming that the agreements are all fully enforceable. On the other hand, the failure to perform such an analysis can lead to substantial downsides such as the suggested example.
In the not so distant past, before x11amp became xmms, I made a xmms port to AIX. Then before I had a chance to roll the changes back into the common source 4front took over and closed the CVS server. Just recently they made an OSS port to AIX. Now, there isn't any 'need' for a direct output plugin since you just use the OSS plugin in xmms. The only problem is that there seems to be a conflict of interest on the part of 4front because they are trying to sell copies of OSS for $30. I get the feeling from the complete lack of response from them that they are not interested in the direct output plug-in because it could cause competition for their proprietary (for sale) OSS driver. Look at the message you get when you try to download a cripple ware OSS driver.
Please fill out this form before downloading Open Sound System The evaluation copy of OSS comes with a FREE limited time evaluation license which is activated on the day you install OSS. The software will only work for a limited time and has to be unloaded and reloaded into the operating system periodically. You may contact 4Front Technologies for technical support.
I had a presentation just a month ago for my own company and a few other companys we cooperate with in the aerospace business, regarding the use of Linux in some projects.
I'm proud to have educated them properly about non-free commercial licenses and most of all the different SSH licenses. There were a few UNIX gurus attending this seminar completely unaware of the SSH2 commercial license. I guess they have fixed their 'legal-bug' by now an obtained the necessary licenses.
An interesting discussion came out when we discussed the use of 'telnet'. Windows NT do have a telnet client in their distribution but it's to crappy so we have to use 'Reflection for Windows' instead. With Linux/UNIX, telnet is just taken for granted and kind of 'for free' when using this OS:s.
The license cost for the commercial 'Reflection for Windows' is so horrible expensive that we could buy server and client licenses for SSH2 for less money to ALL workstations. That means a server license on each workstation. This made a real difference to the bean counters.
//Pingo
--- Linux or FreeBSD, it's like blondes or brunettes. I like both. ---
Thanks for the tip.
We tried TeraTerm a moment ago with SSH and it does have what's required. Feels stable and solid.
//Pingo
--- Linux or FreeBSD, it's like blondes or brunettes. I like both. ---
With that being said...
Commercial use of SSH generally requires a license. But there are non-commercial allowances in both SSH1 and SSH2. The trouble is what the definition of "non-commercial" includes. SSH2 is very restrictive and pretty much discounts any use of the suite near anything "commercial" in any manner. SSH1 allows for greater leeway:
The file named COPYING that is included in the distribution reads:
The interpretation I get from this is that a Commercial enterprise may use SSH1 as long as it is not a part of a specific service. Administration of local servers is OK. Services that include "Remote secure backups of your systems for pennies a day!" or "Checking accounts now come with secure online banking!" that includes SSH1 as its method of secure communications do not fit in the "non-commercial" license.Once again, it would be wise to point out that it seems the folks selling SSH later decided against this kind of policy. SSH2's license is much more restrictive and reserves "non-commercial" licensing to personal use and educational use as part of academic research and/or teaching (note: educational institutions don't get to use it for administration).
But you're not out of the legal woods yet. SSH1 uses a whole slew of libraries and intellectual property that adds additional layers of license concerns. Thankfully, most of them are cleared by allowances for use of those properties in SSH1.
Two big concerns that aren't covered include IDEA and RSA. IDEA is easy to get around by not including it in your compile (opting for Blowfish instead). RSA is a tougher issue. You'll have to look at it yourself if you're still trying to figure it out (I luck out with a license granted to the US Government for RSA since a partial Gov't grant helped develop it at MIT).
Gotta agree with a lot of posts above.
1) Use ssh 1.x not 2.x if cost is an issue.
2) If rdist, then use 6.1.5 with ssh.
3) Consider rsync with ssh.
I've used combinations of the above for several host-to-host tasks in several situations. Anything from zapping around system updates to zapping around content updates.
Gotta say it always does what I need it to, given a wee bit of scripting, and it's relatively cheap.
-M
You seem to have missed the point of my comment. Let's say Redhat (Microsoft, etc) steels an installer from Installs R Us. I have no idea what the licenseing conditions of this installer are. So long as I agree to the license provided by my vendor, isn't he responsible for the copyright infringement?
This re-raises the issue:
Are software licenses legal or enforcable.
It's one thing when Microsoft has a license which states that by clicking on this button, you sign your soul over to bill, but I never clicked such a button when I installed my Redhat 5.2. Would this make Redhat responsible for license violations. Can you enforce a contract which one side has never even seen? I suspect the ideas of software licenses will have to be revisited by the legislature at some point (Scary thought).
I am an idealist. I am also a software pirate. I blatently pirate anything that Micro$oft has ever created. But I do pay for software that I use, and that I like. Even when I "don't have to"
For example, I download a copy of a game from one of my sites. If I like the game, if I play it often, I go out and purchase the game. Why? Because I want the company that made the game to prosper and make more good games that I can enjoy.
I purchase Linux distros. I purchase Loki software products (Civ:CTP for Linux) Why? Esp. when I have high speed (T-1) access to FTP sites with every commercial software product ever released? Because I believe in supporting the work of indeviduals and companies who create useful and entertaining software. I will not pay for Software That Sucks(tm) even if I am forced to use it to be able to use Software That Doesn't Suck(tm) (ie: I will pay for a game, then take it home and run it on a machine running a pirated copy of Windows.)
I liken it to Robin Hood. Steal from the rich, and give to the poor. I have gigabytes of MP3's on my system. Some of which are from my own personal CD collection, the majority are tracks I have downloaded from the Internet. Yet I still went out last night and purchased Moby's latest CD. Why? I know I can download it from my friends in #t1mp3 (EF-Net) But Moby makes great music, and I wish to support him. So I buy the CD. (Of course, the first thing I did upon getting home was use Audio Catalyst to rip it to mp3 and put it in my archive. Others might listen to the mp3's and decide that they like Moby too, and go out and purchase his CD. Or they might just pirate it. Their choice, at least I am allowing others to experience his music.)
Am I right? Probably not. Can I sleep at night? Most definately.
Support Software That Doesn't Suck(tm) Go buy a copy of Civ:Call To Power (for linux)
... has a similiar directory structure for their RPMS. Why does this make Debian superior?
Maybe you can help me out with this one:
1. how does one upgrade a debian box if a security issue is found with a package?
2. What exactly does apt-get update actually do (it seems to just change a few gzipped files on my machine representing the directory structure of the debian ftp site) Does ir get packages which have been changed due to security related issues?
3. DOes anyone have a script/howto for making debs. RPMS seem really easy, but the stuff for debs on the debian site seemed a litte too confusing.
4. Has the debian open-source manual been released, yet?
thanks,
Or fork over a little money to the folks that would make a free program that would do the same thing. Better than grabbing you by telling you everything works, then forcing you to fork over big bucks to a company you can't get away from to fix what's broken. hmm...
Stupid trolls.
Those packages are made for Mandrake but should work for Red Hat too... I've found lynx_ssl, mod_ssl, pgp, open_ssl and ssh!!!
Check ftp://ftp.sunet.se/pub/ Linux/distributions/mandrake-crypto/
oh, how sweet it is
if you strive to fail and you do, are you a winner? YES!