Slashdot Mirror
Lizard Installer Released Under QPL
coolo wrote in to say that Caldera has decided to release Lizard under the QPL.
Lizard is the installer that they use for their distribution- its
fairly nice looking and appears to be exactly what novices need to
get over that whole install hump. I've heard a lot of good things
about it, so this is a pretty cool thing on their part..
Look again, disk druid isn't a program itself, but part of the installer. It's code is in install.c and install2.c. It's on the CD.
Yet another proof that the "OpenSource" thingy is degrading the whole community. In the end all software will end up under their own license and code sharing made impossible. Thanks Caldera and Troll you are destroying the Linux community!!
"No company or person has any right whatsoever to use copyright to place restrictions on information"
What the fsck do think the GPL is!? Hamster soup! It's a frigging copyright!!! Have you ever read the GPL? I didn't think so...
If no one has the right to place restrictions on information, then I guess the FSF has no right to restrict my proprietary use of gcc now do they? Only the copyright prevents me from withholding the the source code. Hell, Microsoft could replace the VC++ backend with g++ and nothing would stop them!
Next time please engage the brain before trying to think...
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I'm still trying to get my head around all the details on this privacy issue. Basically the QPLs stance on privacy is stated in clause 6 of the QPL
6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following requirements:
c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one.
So in some sense the QPL does protect you privacy. But it doesn't go as far as the GPL, as I stated the GPL allows an organization to freely distribute a modified version of a GPL'd app within that org. I regard this as a flaw in the GPL as it could be used by an unethical company to sidestep the "freedoms" that the GPL is intended to protect.
>It's fine to be more profitable, but not at the
>expense of freedom or privacy
Interesting statement, normally I think of profit as an economist would, that is taking into account the social costs that production incurs so a company that makes a lot of money dumping toxic waste into a stream wouldn't be profitable at all in my view. By the same logic the loss of freedom/privacy is a social cost and a software company that makes money at the expense of this things is a burden on society.
>The patch clause doesn't really matter because
>CVS works that way anyway
There are a number of subtleties you are missing here. Firstly I used the term patch clause, but I should point out that, really the phrase "patch clause" referred to the fact that the QPL stated that the 'diff' and 'patch' programs must be used to generate and merge differences. This clause has now been relaxed to requiring modifications to be distributed seperately. Secondly this clause prevents me from taking bits of a QPL'd app and using them myself, something you should be aware of.
We that's a lot of disagreeing I just feel contrary today.
Oh my god! That church uses the RSV! Don't they know that the only true Bible is the KJV! They will surely burn in hell...
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
The web page you reference is out of date, QT has since been released under the QPL license.
Furthermore you are making up your own definition of free, neither I, nor the Debian Free Software Guidelines nor RMS agree with it.
I almost prefer proprietary to these half-assed licenses. They're not free software, but they pretend to be. At least with proprietary, people know where they stand.
You can't retroactively withdraw rights; otherwise GPL would be worthless. They can make future versions GPL, but that would be foolish.
Qt/KDE has helped enormously in bringing Linux into the mainstream. It has helped grow the Linux community by thousands of users, and new people are using it every day.
How did this thing get up to a 1? The original poster had a point. This guy just trolls.
I would score:1 that last comment. ;) There seem to be a lot of people new to the open-source community that think that the GPL is the only valid license. I'll give you a wake-up call... If you're a company that would like to add things to Linux, then maybe the GPL isn't the right license for you. Hence, them using QPL since they also develop using Qt. Hell, I don't see any companies developing using GTK. Why is that?
That is a critique of the current QPL license. It is quite up-to-date. In terms of "free," I define it to mean it gives me my freedom. Same as RMS. DFSG is flawed. I've spoken to RMS about this, and he considers QPL not to be completely free, but free enough to be "good enough" for now. I don't agree with him about the line for "good enough." DFSG are guidelines. It's possible to find licenses that fall through the loopholes. This is one. You cannot completely quantify freedom; it's too abstract.
Lizard autodetects the graphics card (if it is PCI) and assigns the correct X Server.
/floppy' or something in OpenLinux, you just do cd /auto/floppy or cd /auto/cdrom and the floppy/cdrom will be automounted for you. Including icons on the desktop that will do this and pop up a kfm.
;)
The monitor currently cannot be autodetected.
There are three different partitioning dialogs,
from very easy (whole disk), prepared (by Partiting Magic) and a full featured partitioner.
And you do not need to type 'mount
You have a point, QT does not do much of it, the magic lies within Lizard and the rest of OpenLinux
GPL is fully free software. QPL is a half-assed patchwork demi-free license. Some consider it free enough, and others don't. Red Hat can distribute a modified installer, but cannot for instance incorporate bits of code into their own current installer.
I don't think that the QPL makes any sense for a Linux installer. It's quite specific to libraries such as Qt. Look at these two clauses which claim to control what you are allowed to use the software for:
But this is total nonsense. You don't use an installer program to 'compile, link and run' programs, and you don't use it to develop software with either. You use it to install Linux - but seemingly, this isn't permitted by the licence.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Actually, I suspect that M$ did use g++ 2.6.2 (I think - It was a long time ago) as the backend to VC++ 1.0 b/c both shared the same "Internal compiler error"s on some perfectly valid (if not slightly convoluted) C++ code. Hard to prove that sort of thing though. . .
I will not respond to your personal attacks,
but I will respond to your attacks on the GPL.
Yes the GPL is 'a frigging copyright', but the only restriction it places is that nobody is allowed to place additional restrictions on the work, it's copies, and any derivative works.
Yes, copyright is what gives GPL the legal power to restrict your propietary use of gcc. Think for half a second about what this means. It means you can't place restrictions on gcc or any modifications, that's all. If there weren't copyright laws you wouldn't be able to put restrictions on it either. What the GPL does is simulate a world without copyright. Some people claim that this is hypocritical, but those people are confused. It isn't the copyright that is wrong, it is using it to place restrictions. A restriction stating that no restrictions may be imposed, such as the GPL, is a perfectly valid weapon to combat all that is propietary.
The clause about releasing the source code, however, is at least debatable. If you want to argue that being forced to release the source to derivative works is going too far, then we can argue that.
Microsoft could replace the vc++ back end with gcc today, without violating any licenses or laws. All they have to do is allow vc++ to be freely distributed, and make the source code available.
Hamsters are at least as feathery as penguins. HamLix
Is: http://www.openlinux.org/lizard/
This way it works.
I liked it. The installation at least. I wouldn't recommend the distribution because Caldera seems to go to great lengths to keep you away from the command line. But for the Windows-cum-Linux user, it's a snap to install, and that is a good thing IMHO. John Waalkes jwwalkes@edge.net
Why would they have to release vc++ source code if they included gcc? If they did not modify the code then why? Does the BeOS use gcc? Is BeOS open source?
The Debian or SuSE installs could be evil for a clueless newbie, but all the other distros are brainlessly simple to install.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Get a life. Anyone sets the lisence he want on his work. You have no right, patronizing others. Guess freedom has only one side ...
Entire Internet Slashdotted!
MPG at 11.
Put in the boot floppy or cdrom maybe a difficult task for certain Win9x users, because they have to change the bios setting to boot from A: or CDROM. From their experience, they have to put the CD into the drive, and windows will autoplay it.
GUI or not is not important.
What really make newbies run away: they have to answer certain question they don't understand, such as domain name and correct IP address.
The book inside the SuSE package is a good starting point. But, any users read manual before install?
QPL is not fully free software. Red Hat can, for instance, modify and use lizard. However, they have no way to incorporate fragments of Lizard code into their license because of the patchwork clause.
they wouldn't have to release the source just for 'including' gcc. They would have to release the source if they cut and paste code from gcc into vc++, making vc++ a derivative work of gcc.
As far as BeOS, porting something GPL'd to an operating system most certainly does not force that operating system to be GPL.
Hamsters are at least as feathery as penguins. HamLix
If it is under the QPL anyone is free to modify the program, recompile, and distribute modified binaries (under reasonable conditions like you have to include a copy of the text of the QPL license).
The distributor must also make available the source code. (In two parts, as an unmodified version of the original code and then seperately the changes that have been made, the redistributor could include a script to merge these two for convenience).
Basically it is similar to the GPL.
KDE is GPL or better. QPL is one of the worse (half-assed demifree) licenses.
We can place demands. I don't want companies to do unethical things. I don't want nasty business tactics. I don't want FUD. Companies should contribute something to the world; not drain it. If a company starts peddling software under a partially free license as free software, I will get upset. Most people don't mind proprietary; they do mind half-assed licenses designed to confuse. I won't place a judgement call on whether this is an accurate assesment in this scenerio, but people to have the right (and even responsibility) to expect responsible, ethical behavior from businesses.
actually, my first install was suse 5.3, and i thought it was pretty easy...right after i got done with it. :) partitioning gave me the willies at the time, because it wasn't something i'd ever done before, and i had no desire to bugger up the rest of my hard drive. after i got done, i thought "that was it??" the suse book helped alot...i've never understood what some people find so confusing about it.
debian (2.0) went fine until package selection time..._that_ confused the hell out of me.
i've got a copy of caldera 2.2, although i haven't installed it yet. i have, however, read the manual...and if i'm understanding it correctly, lizard looks great for someone completely clueless, but if you've any desire to customize as you install...like go through which packages you at install, you're screwed.
also, i rather like having 'the kitchen sink,' as the caldera puts it, rather than the 1 cd of programs they provide.
as for why there's so much talk about the install, i think it's because once you get up and running there's just not that much difference between any of the distros...not that i've seen anyway.
"The things we wizards have to put up with."--Jethro Bodine
You have the freedom to not use Lizard (or other QPL'ed stuff) and instead write your own. Nobody have taken that right away from you, and it's the only freedom applicable.
Your attack on Caldera's choice of license is an attack on their freedom to choose a license they are comfortable with.
pmitros: Even if I simply reindent the code to a different style, patch will consider it a completely new program.
This is irrelevant the QPL does not require modifications to be created with the diff utility and applied with the patch utility.
pmitros: If I decide to take a file for the "list" widget, copy it over, and modify it to make a "tree" widget, the patch program will also not be able to deal.
Again irrelevant the QPL does not require the use of the patch utility.
ac: I've spoken to RMS about this, and he considers QPL not to be completely free, but free enough to be "good enough" for now.
I think you are putting words in RMS's mouth, he publicly stated that the QPL was a free software license, I have not seen evidence that he has retracted this statement.
ac:DFSG are guidelines. It's possible to find licenses that fall through the loopholes.
Agreed.
ac:This is one
Not according to my interpretation or Bruce Perens or the Debian developers
You defined free:
ac:I define it to mean it gives me my freedom. Same as RMS.
This definition is not useful and it is not the same as RMS, his definition for free is:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
You cannot take GPL code, modify it, and incorporate it into another license either.
It is the GPL that cannot be used with other free software licenses, not the other way around. For example, the Artistic license is pure public domain code (no restrictions at all), but I can't take a GPL program and incorporate it into say, the X11 source code because the GPL is only compatible with the GPL. The best license is Artistic, which allows sharing.
Some people I guess will always just bash TT, Caldera, and KDE. Oh, well - life goes on.
I cannot use fragments of GPL code in say, a BSD artistic program either.
I've heard a lot of good things about it, so this is a pretty cool thing on their part
This shouldnt be a cool thing. This should be expected from a company that sells _open_source_ software.
We need more newbie-friendly tools to be open. That way, we can make other, similar newbie tools.
--
QDMerge 0.21!
how to invest, a novice's guide
I just tried that link, and I was redirected to http://localhost/lizard, which of course replied with a 404 file not found. Is anyone else experiancing the same problem?
Nice! Anyone want to build a RedHat or Mandrake distribution that uses Lizard as the installer? I volunteer! That would be swwwweeeeet.
But you can go to http://www.openlinux.org and click on the "Lizard" link from there.
...
Bitchslapped? Give Rob a bitchslap from bitchslapped.com.
those little stickmen remind me of Blair Witch Project. I was scared I was lost in the woods. Then I remembered I could just hit "back". Whew!!
\begin{sarcasm}
Yes! Kill them! Kill, kill, kill!
GPL or die!
\end{sarcasm}
At least they GPL their stuff. I always thought Caldera was along for the ride because DOS didn't work out.
Stupid QPL. Come on Caldera we want software under the GPL not some half-ass wanna be
You don't exist. Go away. --SysVinit Halt
Wasn't Lizard GPLed a month or two ago? Or am I thinking of Lisa? It's pretty dark in here right now, so shed some light on this subject, please.
As soon as Caldera GPL's Lizard, Debian will come out of the woodwork and make press releases about GPL not being kosher with Qt.
I don't understand the full impact of the
QPL. Can RedHat remove the Caldera logo and
add its own? or include both?
Why? What advantage does the GPL afford you that the QPL does not?
The standard for source RPM's is to use pristine sources (the original code), plus any modifications as patches. Then they are combined in the .spec file. So this is a valid way to comply with the QPL. Of course modified binary RPM's are okay too.
Most people couldn't install a monitor let alone an operating system. Having installed countless win9X, NT, and Linux systems I would say that linux is easier to install then NT and harder then win9X.
Most people would rather buy a new pc then to install or upgrade their software.
War is necrophilia.
Except that they wouldn't be taking ANY of the code from GCC. VC++ is just a frontend to MS's compiler. It just runs the software in the background. GCC could probably be a drop in replacement. They would not need to change the licensing on their software at all.
Beware Partition Magic LE in the Lizare install.
I blew up my MBR/FAT because PM-LE does **NOT**
support disks > 4GB! Lizard was a complete bust.
Had to rebuild using LISA.
1) The QPL sucks as it is incomptible with the GPL.
2) The QPL sucks as it doesn't protect your privacy.
3) The QPL sucks due to the patch clause.
Or does it?
Yes the GPL may be incompatible with the QPL. In spite of this RMS has stated that the QPL is a free software license, furthermore the QPL is compliant with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
If the GPL is incompatible with the QPL, that means the GPL is making it difficult to distribute free software, and by extension the FSF is acting against the best interests of software customers by reducing the amount of free software available. Hardly an admirable trait in an organization the claims to support free software, rather they appear to be trying to create a software license monopoly.
Yes,the QPL does not "protect your privacy", but is protecting you privacy not equivalent to reducing the freedoms of software consumers for the benefit of corporations that do not want to share? The privacy loophole in the GPL allows corporations to make their own secret changes to GPL'd source code and not share those changes. Why couldn't an unethical corporation exploit this loophole in the GPL, saying "You can use this software and as a bonus you become a member of my organization, [in small print no you don't get the source we are not required to give it to you under the terms of the GPL]"
Yes the QPL requires source code to be distributed in two parts the original and the modifications. This will benefit the entity that QPLs rather than GPLs their code by making it unlawful for others to borrow bits of source code and by making it more difficult for others to fork the code. It is still legally possible for others to fork the code, it requires software engineering skills rather than being prepared to commit a criminal act.
Nevertheless this characteristic of the QPL suggests an organization will profit more from QPLing rather GPLing their code. Is this "higher profitability of free software companies" really a bad thing? It could act as an incentive encouraging more companies to profitability produce free software.
If you guys dislike non-GPL software so much, then why don't you get busy and write a GPL'd X server or web browser instead of complaining about someone elses contribution?
TedC
Most parts of KDE are under GPL, not QPL
Some like parts of KOffice are under artistic.
The qt-2.0.1 is under QPL.
Frank
You definitly can make installation
;)
easier:
The lizard detects dhcp on it's own and
gives you the dhcpd output as defaults.
It doesn't give you the network page if
it can't find network cards.
It detects sound on it's own - it took
a while to get my sound card running under
Debian...
You can play tetris while the packages are
copied...
All of life is about trading services and physical resources with other members of our species (and, arguably, with other species). We are acting not out of benevolence, but out of self-love. I will give you this-for-that, is the nature of any transaction. Some will claim altrustic exceptions. However, I even dispute these exceptions. I will give you 'Z' at no cost because it pleases _ME_(including the example from the famous story "The Man Who Was Nailed To A Tree"). If I spend my time and sweat creating 'Z' then I have the perfect right to restrict or dictate the use of 'Z' in any way that pleases me. I am not forcing you to use 'Z.' If you require the use of a product that performs the functions of 'Z' but cannot abide by my restrictions, then spend your own time and sweat. Create your own 'Z.'
Neopets - the best free game on the Int
X11 is used on more systems than gcc, emacs, bash, or any other GPL product - and it's not GPL :)
Old news on Slashdot, yet again.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
well, i havent used it, but the screenshots make it look useful and full-featured enough.
But I don't care how i have to install my *nix, I'm just waiting for desktop applications. That's all that I really care about...
"I want peace on earth and good will toward men." "We're the U.S. government. We don't do that sort of thing!!"
Diskdruid is not open source at all, not under any license.
I hear it pretty often from people, that the Linux distributions are hard to install. Especially some feel that the lack of a GUI install makes it really hard.
I'm not understanding a bit of that. RedHat Linux (which I use) has the easiest install I've ever seen. And other distributions (Debian and Slack which I've also run) are good as well. The procedure is: Put in the boot floppy, answer the questions, and reboot.
You can install most Linux distributions using one or two floppies, and a network connection or a CD. Now why is that said to be hard ?
Especially in sharp contrast to the NT install, which I've also been thru quite a few times...
To install NT, you need the right kind of hardware (meaning ATAPI CD-rom and a motherboard that doesn't have controllers NT choke on (like NOT Asus P2B-DS)), you need DOS running and able to access the CD drive, and _then_ you can maybe start the GUI install. Wow!
I'm sure one can boot an NT install from CD, if one has the right hardware again, but still, the problems with unsupported devices and crap like that remain.
Besides, if you're an experienced Linux user, you can do a lot of clever tricks during the install, by using the shell which is available in most installers. You can never become experienced enough to do that under NT.
It's been some time since I installed Win95. In fact I've only really done it once. That one was fairly easy, given that I had the hard-drive partitioned correctly and all the right hardware.
Ever tried installing Win9X/NT on a disk that had a non-DOS partition ? Well, if you have you already know what I'm talking about.
Come on people. Entering the right IP address is no easier in a GUI than it is in ncurses.
I'm not pissed off about Caldera making a GUI install. I think it's nice. I'm just pissed off by the ignorance and unfounded accusations posed by lusers with too thick sunglasses.
'guess I'd better stop now...
People, at least read the QPL. It is less then two pages long. And covers (all of the OSS guidelines) It is basicly the BSD license with the clause that you must distribute the source with any modifcations. Oh and that you must provide the source to anyone who ASKS for it. Sounds like a "Good Thing" (tm) to me.
-- You can be a geeklord too
When I tried to install RH 6 + 5.2 on my Digital Ultra 2000 Laptop, RH installer froze consistantly when probing for the mouse. Lizard made Caldera an easier install than some Windows installations. IP information, Monitor information, and the rest of the time I'm playing Tetris. It certainly made life easier.
"oohhh... I didn't know Schopenhauer was a philosopher!"
Why does everyone go on and on about installing? I've only installed Redhat, but that's almost easier than installing damn-Windows..
Are the other dists more difficult to install, or what?
Besides, is it suitable for a newbie to run anything else than Redhat? I mean, if the systems difficult to install, wouldn't it be even more difficult to use?
"the only restriction it places is that nobody is allowed to place additional restrictions on the work, it's copies, and any derivative works."
There a lot more restrictions than that! Go read it.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
i read it before, and i just read it again
the only restrictions i see is that you cannot make a derivative work, and then put it under a different license. You are free to use, distribute, and modify, so long as everybody you distribute it to has the same rights you did. Perhaps i missed something? feel free to point out whatever restrictions you are thinking of.
Hamsters are at least as feathery as penguins. HamLix
Fine. But it's still a proprietarry license. Doesn't grant me the freedom I want. I'm tired of these half-assed licenses. I'm tired of ESR, who's never written a program worth jack (his biggest countribution is the utility fetchmail) certifing all of these as "Open Source." They're not, and pmitros.mit.edu/patchwork.html explains why.
I cannot use fragments of QPL code in other projects, make certain type of changes that would be ackward as patches, and a number of other things. It doesn't grant me myy freedom and is quite proprietary.
The people who are flipping out over the QPL really need to get a CLUE. The QPL license is less then two pages long and uses simple words that a 5th grader could understand.
l
QPL resembles the (current (no advertising clause)) BSD license. The only differnces I saw was that they require you (like the GPL) to redistribute any modifications you make to the GPL'ed source code back to the community.
read it yourself: http://www.openlinux.org/lizard/qpl.html
If you think Linux is easy to install compared to Win98, well you are right. If you think Linux is as easy to install as it could be well check out:
http://www.openlinux.org/lizard/screenshots.htm
p.s. some people need to get off their jihad trip.
-- You can be a geeklord too
Lizard is written with QT and I am sure with your attitude, you probably hate QT also.
The Lizard logo looks pretty cool. I think we shouldn't diss Lizard too much. I've always used Slackware and I still do, but there's nothing wrong with an easy install. After booting Linux, everything should be very flexible (like Slackware), but you install a distro only once in a long time and Lizard doesn't seem inflexible compared to other installers. But it would still look better with a GTK look :) Use what you want to and be happy, if it sucks, you can always switch to another distro.
looks like their doin the new one in QT 2.0 (or whatever vers the Qt tk is for KDE 2.0), so you can have different widget themes for your LInux installations! who wouldda thunk it? :P But really, Linux installs and software etc is gettin good a LOT faster than M$ ever could do, and i figure in 1 year it will surpass windoze in ease of use (ya know, like setting up hardware...GUI frontends to all our admin needs...its already gettin there :) )
"There is no spoon" - Neo, The Matrix
Looking at the code I see some easter eggs, something to do with user name specific stuff, what do they do?
Caldera says the new OpenLinux 2.3 detects your soundcard automtically. Anyone tried this new thing already? Or did they release it this friday??
Anyway, I will get a copy of that OL 2.3. Too bad it'll cost me more than 50 bucks here in Finland
Sigged!