Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the not-just-lizard dept.
haggar writes "Caldera has finally decided to release the source of Lizard, the OpenLinux 2.2 installation tool. The news is reported here. Caldera has been often criticized by the OSS people for not opening up the source of Lizard. " Not only are they releasing Lizard, but NKFS, too.
I wonder how this will be received
by
brennanw
·
· Score: 3
Caldera seems to routinely get a lot of flack from the Linux community because it doesn't include 100% GPL'd software in its distribution. As far as I know, however, only Red Hat and one other (Debian? I think) can actually make that claim. So why is Caldera singled out?
So far, in the (few) responses to this thread, there has been one wholeheartedly positive response and the rest have ranged from "good but not enough" to "oh no it's the Linux Micro$oft, screw 'em, tattoo 'em, watch 'em burn."
Why?
Caldera is distributing their installer under something than the GPL. Heavens! Are you planning to go on a licensing ethnic cleansing rampage? Shall we omit every piece of software that isn't GPL'd? Well, say good-bye to Perl (Artistic) and XFree86 (can't remember that one). Don't bother ever trying to use WINE, because it ain't GPL'd! While we're at it, stop using Netscape immediately, because the source is not avaialable -- it's just free beer. And don't bother using Mozilla when it comes out, because it's distributed under the MozPL...
Now, I'm a big fan of the GPL -- I think it's probably one of the most important licenses out there today -- and I'm certainly happier when a software license is legitimately free software instead of merely "open source" (and there is a difference, yes there is). But the fact remains that long before corporate america became interested in Linux, long before Eric Raymond wrote "The Cathedral and the Bazzar," way back when, there were Linux users who didn't want to distribute their software under the GPL -- for whatever reason -- and chose another license. So it seems to me that the "GPL or die" mentality is simply not possible to apply consistently if you're using Linux.
Some companies seem to have very strong fears as to whether or not the GPL is a good license to use ALL THE TIME, and they're trying to experiment with others that provide many of the same benefits. Some of the licenses are a joke (I consider Apples "open source" license fairly useless, even today) and others need work (TollTech's QT license needed work, and still may need work) but are not horrible. The fact that a great many companies are even considering revealing their source code is something I consider nothing short of amazing, especially considering the state of the software industry at large (UCITA -- need I say more?)
This is not worth a holy war. It's just not worth it. Caldera makes a decent distribution for those of us who don't have the time to become Linux gurus, and if they haven't gone the 100% free software route yet, well, blasting them every time they come close but don't go far enough isn't going to make it happen. So calm down, take a deep breath, and go play with the latest kernel release.
-- Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
Re:I wonder how this will be received
by
scrytch
·
· Score: 2
Actually perl is a special case because you have a choice of Artistic or GPL. The philosophy behind that is "If you make any changes, you better not break it, or if you do, then you better let everyone fix it."
But mostly I am just sick to my stomach reading this crap and it's not limited to slashdot. I thought Free Software was about a choice one made about their own creations, the software they'd use, and if there wasn't an open alternative available, it was about making one. Now it's all about thousands of people whining and ranting and poiting, "gimme gimme gimme". They don't want to write any code to provide free alternatives, they just demand others give away their work for nothing. Demonizing one of Linux's biggest boosters for not giving every single value-add away gratis is just shameful.
-- I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Re:I wonder how this will be received
by
brennanw
·
· Score: 2
No, I understand the difference between Free Software and the GPL very well. The GPL is free software, not all free software is GPL'd. I get that. I am responding mostly to all the people who are screaming "GPL GPL GPL" at the top of their lungs without acknowledging that they're singling out Caldera for a practice that is not terribly uncommon for most Linux distros.
For example, most Linux distros include the linux version of Netscape Communicator, which isn't free software at all -- it's not even open source, as far as I know! _Mozilla_ is, but the current non-beta releases of NS Communicator are simply "free beer", not "free speech."
I get the notion that people want them to releast the code under the GPL because I'm seeing posts that say "yet another stupid license -- why can't they just release under the GPL and be done with it!" and "Caldera will never get the support of the Linux community until they release software under the GPL."
-- Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
Re:I wonder how this will be received
by
alhaz
·
· Score: 2
It's interesting that you should point out RedHat as being "100% GPL"
Nobody has yet seen the source code for the DiskDruid partitioner.
-- This is just like television, only you can see much further.
Re:Hmmm ... yet another license
by
scrytch
·
· Score: 2
Yeah that's what prevented KDE from being released under GPL. Oh wait. It is.
Read. Understand. Post. In that order
-- I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
The piece from Caldera I'm most want them to open is nwclient, that way the community can get it to actually work for once. I got a copy of OpenLinux 2.2 specifically for NDS access months ago, and in their two updates since then, it still won't work for more than a few minutes at a time.
Yeah, they'd have to talk Novell into letting them open it, but having an open client would really help Novell. It won't compromise security, since that's all on the server end for them, and it will allow more users to access Novell servers.
----
--
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Caldera should wake up and smell the coffee
by
RNG
·
· Score: 2
Caldera needs to wake up and realize that the only way to be fully accepted into the Linux community is to contribute (open source software) to the community. They should look at the examples set by VA, RedHat and Suse for a few successful examples of this. It seems that whenever they release a piece of software as open source, they do so reluctantly after some pushing by the community.
We should gently remind Caldera of this fact and point out that having the support of the community is beneficial to all of us (including Caldera). While we're at it, let's remind them of the fact that they need us more than we need them. There are at least 20 other linux distributions out there and while Caldera has some interesting products, they now are in an open market and should play by the rules.
Having said that, it seems that with some prodding from the community, they seem to (occasionally) get this point...
Re:Caldera should wake up and smell the coffee
by
Arandir
·
· Score: 2
"...the only way to be fully accepted into the Linux community is to contribute (open source software) to the community."
All distros are equal, but some distros are more equal than others.
-- A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Re:Caldera should wake up and smell the coffee
by
Deega
·
· Score: 2
While we're at it, let's remind them of the fact that they need us more than we need them. There are at least 20 other linux distributions out there and while Caldera has some interesting products, they now are in an open market and should play by the rules.
There are more people who have NOT chosen a Linux distro than people who have... If you catch my drift. This means Caldera can essentially do whatever they please. Prediction: Caldera goes public after many people find Redhat too archaic. The Linux for the Windows user.
It will bomb among the Linux savvy, but will be a hit in the Windows croud (which is much larger...)
Re:The GPL is not QPL Compatible!
by
Arandir
·
· Score: 2
I've been trying to figure out for months now what people mean by "GPL compatibility". I've finally figured it out. A license is compatible if it can be CONVERTED into the GPL. Thus, BSD and X licenses are are compatible, because they have no clause forbidding an alteration to the license. QPL is not compatible because you are not allowed to alter it.
You have a BSD application. It statically links to a GPL (not LGPL) library. The instant you distribute it, you no longer have a BSD app, it has legally morphed into a GPL app.
But it's a one way street. The GPL specifically forbids altering it's license. If it's good enough for the GPL, why can't other licenses do the same? Or is there only room enough in the free world for one free license?
The QPL, MPL, etc., shouldn't be made GNU compatible. Instead, the GPL should be the one bending a little and specifically allowing linking to other licenses. Why the hell should QPL be the one forced into compatibility? I think it's time for the GPL to be compatible with every other license.
-- A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Agreement on overstretching. I was actually referring specifically to the fact that Linux was released under the GPL., as opposed to the more recent proliferation of "open source licenses" (e.g., Netscape, Apple, Jikes, et. al).
-- ...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Re:Hmmm ... yet another license
by
Ray+Dassen
·
· Score: 2
Lizard uses Qt, so putting it under the GPL would result in another KDE license issue. Qt's license (be it the old non-free one or the new free QPL) is not compatible with the GPL.
'Tho license issues remain, this is good news...
by
CodeShark
·
· Score: 2
I think all of the/. community wishes that people would just stick with the GPL (and LGPL), because that's what got us this far in the first place, however, (IMHO) this press release is still good news. Here's my logic:
One of the reasons Win 3.1X became useful was that it was fairly simple to install, especially compared to the later (bloated) Win9x and WinNT installs.
Another step towards Win 3.1.x stability was when they finally were able to communicate with Novell Network file servers (although it took stealing code from Novell to do it, (AFAICT) the main reason W4WkGrp and WinNT's network code stabilized as early as it did).
Easy install and "network access" (which was already there, just not NKFS)== the perception by average users that they can migrate to this "new" OS without being a tech guru or the danger of being left with an expensive paperweight until a highly paid tech guru fixes the mess.
Finally, assuming that Caldera is intelligent enough to release the code under any sort of acceptable "Open Source License", the concepts inside the code can be understood, improved, etc., and spread to the wider Linux community -- which makes it immune to single company subversion in my book.
Comments?
-- ...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Re:Hate to break the news to you...
by
Arandir
·
· Score: 2
Here, let me burst your bubble...
Linux does not have any core principles, focus or design. It's just an itch getting scratched.
Pop!
-- A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Redhat is not 100% GPL. Hell, it's not even 100% opensource, let alone free.
My copy of Redhat 6.0 from Cheapbytes contains Netscape Communicator (non-free), Qt (non-GPL) and Xv (shareware), amongst others.
-- A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Re:'Tho license issues remain, this is good news..
by
Ray+Dassen
·
· Score: 2
I think all of the/. community wishes that people would just stick with the GPL (and LGPL), because that's what got us this far in the first place
In this case, GPL isn't an option, as the GPL and the QPL interact badly. GPL with an exception clause to remove that bad interaction would work (but would of course itself not be compatible with pure GPLed code).
Also, I'm sure that there are BSDers in the/. community who will point out that we got this far also in part due to non-(L)GPLed free software.
The GPL and LGPL are good licenses in many circumstances, but they are not the license panacea (no license is).
Slashdot Mirror
Caldera seems to routinely get a lot of flack from the Linux community because it doesn't include 100% GPL'd software in its distribution. As far as I know, however, only Red Hat and one other (Debian? I think) can actually make that claim. So why is Caldera singled out?
So far, in the (few) responses to this thread, there has been one wholeheartedly positive response and the rest have ranged from "good but not enough" to "oh no it's the Linux Micro$oft, screw 'em, tattoo 'em, watch 'em burn."
Why?
Caldera is distributing their installer under something than the GPL. Heavens! Are you planning to go on a licensing ethnic cleansing rampage? Shall we omit every piece of software that isn't GPL'd? Well, say good-bye to Perl (Artistic) and XFree86 (can't remember that one). Don't bother ever trying to use WINE, because it ain't GPL'd! While we're at it, stop using Netscape immediately, because the source is not avaialable -- it's just free beer. And don't bother using Mozilla when it comes out, because it's distributed under the MozPL...
Now, I'm a big fan of the GPL -- I think it's probably one of the most important licenses out there today -- and I'm certainly happier when a software license is legitimately free software instead of merely "open source" (and there is a difference, yes there is). But the fact remains that long before corporate america became interested in Linux, long before Eric Raymond wrote "The Cathedral and the Bazzar," way back when, there were Linux users who didn't want to distribute their software under the GPL -- for whatever reason -- and chose another license. So it seems to me that the "GPL or die" mentality is simply not possible to apply consistently if you're using Linux.
Some companies seem to have very strong fears as to whether or not the GPL is a good license to use ALL THE TIME, and they're trying to experiment with others that provide many of the same benefits. Some of the licenses are a joke (I consider Apples "open source" license fairly useless, even today) and others need work (TollTech's QT license needed work, and still may need work) but are not horrible. The fact that a great many companies are even considering revealing their source code is something I consider nothing short of amazing, especially considering the state of the software industry at large (UCITA -- need I say more?)
This is not worth a holy war. It's just not worth it. Caldera makes a decent distribution for those of us who don't have the time to become Linux gurus, and if they haven't gone the 100% free software route yet, well, blasting them every time they come close but don't go far enough isn't going to make it happen. So calm down, take a deep breath, and go play with the latest kernel release.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
Yeah that's what prevented KDE from being released under GPL. Oh wait. It is.
Read. Understand. Post. In that order
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
The piece from Caldera I'm most want them to open is nwclient, that way the community can get it to actually work for once. I got a copy of OpenLinux 2.2 specifically for NDS access months ago, and in their two updates since then, it still won't work for more than a few minutes at a time.
Yeah, they'd have to talk Novell into letting them open it, but having an open client would really help Novell. It won't compromise security, since that's all on the server end for them, and it will allow more users to access Novell servers.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Caldera needs to wake up and realize that the only way to be fully accepted into the Linux community is to contribute (open source software) to the community. They should look at the examples set by VA, RedHat and Suse for a few successful examples of this. It seems that whenever they release a piece of software as open source, they do so reluctantly after some pushing by the community.
...
We should gently remind Caldera of this fact and point out that having the support of the community is beneficial to all of us (including Caldera). While we're at it, let's remind them of the fact that they need us more than we need them. There are at least 20 other linux distributions out there and while Caldera has some interesting products, they now are in an open market and should play by the rules.
Having said that, it seems that with some prodding from the community, they seem to (occasionally) get this point
I've been trying to figure out for months now what people mean by "GPL compatibility". I've finally figured it out. A license is compatible if it can be CONVERTED into the GPL. Thus, BSD and X licenses are are compatible, because they have no clause forbidding an alteration to the license. QPL is not compatible because you are not allowed to alter it.
You have a BSD application. It statically links to a GPL (not LGPL) library. The instant you distribute it, you no longer have a BSD app, it has legally morphed into a GPL app.
But it's a one way street. The GPL specifically forbids altering it's license. If it's good enough for the GPL, why can't other licenses do the same? Or is there only room enough in the free world for one free license?
The QPL, MPL, etc., shouldn't be made GNU compatible. Instead, the GPL should be the one bending a little and specifically allowing linking to other licenses. Why the hell should QPL be the one forced into compatibility? I think it's time for the GPL to be compatible with every other license.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Agreement on overstretching. I was actually referring specifically to the fact that Linux was released under the GPL., as opposed to the more recent proliferation of "open source licenses" (e.g., Netscape, Apple, Jikes, et. al).
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Lizard uses Qt, so putting it under the GPL would result in another KDE license issue. Qt's license (be it the old non-free one or the new free QPL) is not compatible with the GPL.
- One of the reasons Win 3.1X became useful was that it was fairly simple to install, especially compared to the later (bloated) Win9x and WinNT installs.
- Another step towards Win 3.1.x stability was when they finally were able to communicate with Novell Network file servers (although it took stealing code from Novell to do it, (AFAICT) the main reason W4WkGrp and WinNT's network code stabilized as early as it did).
- Easy install and "network access" (which was already there, just not NKFS)== the perception by average users that they can migrate to this "new" OS without being a tech guru or the danger of being left with an expensive paperweight until a highly paid tech guru fixes the mess.
- Finally, assuming that Caldera is intelligent enough to release the code under any sort of acceptable "Open Source License", the concepts inside the code can be understood, improved, etc., and spread to the wider Linux community -- which makes it immune to single company subversion in my book.
Comments?...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Here, let me burst your bubble...
Linux does not have any core principles, focus or design. It's just an itch getting scratched.
Pop!
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Redhat is not 100% GPL. Hell, it's not even 100% opensource, let alone free.
My copy of Redhat 6.0 from Cheapbytes contains Netscape Communicator (non-free), Qt (non-GPL) and Xv (shareware), amongst others.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
In this case, GPL isn't an option, as the GPL and the QPL interact badly. GPL with an exception clause to remove that bad interaction would work (but would of course itself not be compatible with pure GPLed code).
Also, I'm sure that there are BSDers in the /. community who will point out that we got this far also in part due to non-(L)GPLed free software.
The GPL and LGPL are good licenses in many circumstances, but they are not the license panacea (no license is).