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.
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