Sorry for any confusion on this matter. It looks like some people read the license, but I will point out a few parts for those who haven't yet: In the first paragraph of the license it states:
"Any product provided along with the Software that is associated with a separate end-user license agreement is licensed to you under the terms of that license agreement."
Also, later in the license it says:
"GPL Software" is not owned by Lineo and is distributed to you by Lineo for your use. GPL Software is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, Version 2, June 1991, a copy of which accompanies this EULA"
and:
"Lineo will provide source code for any of the components of the Software licensed under the GNU General Public License. To obtain such source code, send email to embedix-support@lineo.com"
Unfortunately, the mail account for embedix-support@lineo.com was unmanned yesterday and today. However, we are actively working on manning it and making the source code available on our FTP site. This will be in the form of Source RPM files. I am leaving town tonight, but it should happen in my absence, sometime this week.
In general, Embedix Linux consists of software which comes under a variety of licenses (including GPL, Artistic, BSD, and Lineo's own EULA). Our intent is to comply fully with all the different licenses (and have the EULA act as a boilerplate for the whole collection). So, in answer to an obvious question: "Can I take Embedix Linux and copy the whole thing freely?", the answer is No. However, you CAN take the GPL parts and redistribute them as per the GPL.
Lineo is very committed to GPL, including funding of OpenSource activities, and direct development on several GPL components (for example, see http://busybox.lineo.com/)
Because as it stands, KDevelop did not suite my needs. KDevelop was missing 1 feature which made it unusable for my purposes. This is very much the problem mentioned earlier about 90% of the work being done. I am extremely grateful that the KDevelop team produced all the work it did. However, paying money to the KDevelop project won't do me any good (outside of giving me a warm feeling for supporting OpenSource).
I openly invited any of the core KDE developers to take the project. None did. Lineo didn't have time to do the project itself. This is merely another form of contract work, and CoSource allowed me to find and pay a contractor for something that was important to me.
I'm not sure what is sleazy about that. The feature that we are funding will be GPL, and it should benefit many others besides Lineo. I don't see the downside of this for anyone. Nor any "unfairness" (that isn't inherently present in OpenSource development, because some make money and the original authors often don't).
Here's another article that is somewhat more detailed (and dare I say, more accurate). The president of Lineo already responded (see above), but I think it's important to point out that we're not just targeting settops. We're making an embedded distribution, and an embedded systems development platform. We just happen to have our own application on settops as well.
See http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/9309d. htm for an article about some of MS' tech tying. Don't let news of MS summary judgement motions fool you. All parts of Caldera's case are alive and well. (Not that I'm biased)
I have no intention of starting a flamewar, but it's exactly this type of holier-than-thou attitude that keeps the majority of the Linux distributions from converting to dpkg. Caldera VERY seriously considered switching to dpkg several times, but members of the Debian project have historically been too inflexible in their release schedules for a downstream vendor to count on making their own targeted ship dates.
This inflexibility is done in the name of technical excellence, and maybe it achieves that goal (excepting of course for dselect - sorry, couldn't help it:) I'm sure that Debian is an excellent distribution. However, their desire for purity conflicts with the type of pragmatism that is essential to running a distribution company as a business. Different strokes for different folks.
If you want you can add the features that you like in dpkg to RPM if you want. Then the vast majority of Linux users could benefit from them.
Caldera paid RedHat money to develop a package manager. RedHat later produced RPM. These facts are pretty much uncontested. However, RedHat and Caldera disagree over whether the money paid to RedHat was used to produce RPM. Caldera shipped RedHat's distribution (with Caldera customizations) in the Fall of 1995, at the same time RedHat was shipping it's first releases with RPM. Since then, Caldera and RedHat have parted ways, and Caldera has had its own distribution for a few years now.
Caldera derives from the Corsair project at Novell, which originated in 1993, which I believe predates RedHat by some years.
Slashdot Mirror
The source code has been posted on our FTP site for weeks now.
Sorry for any confusion on this matter. It looks like some people read
the license, but I will point out a few parts for those who haven't yet:
In the first paragraph of the license it states:
"Any product provided along with the Software that is associated with a
separate end-user license agreement is licensed to you under the terms of
that license agreement."
Also, later in the license it says:
"GPL Software" is not owned by Lineo and is distributed to you by Lineo
for your use. GPL Software is distributed under the terms of the GNU
General Public License, Version 2, June 1991, a copy of which accompanies
this EULA"
and:
"Lineo will provide source code for any of the components of the Software
licensed under the GNU General Public License. To obtain such source code,
send email to embedix-support@lineo.com"
Unfortunately, the mail account for embedix-support@lineo.com was unmanned
yesterday and today. However, we are actively working on manning it and making the source code available on our FTP site. This will be in the
form of Source RPM files. I am leaving town tonight, but it should happen
in my absence, sometime this week.
In general, Embedix Linux consists of software which comes under a variety
of licenses (including GPL, Artistic, BSD, and Lineo's own EULA). Our
intent is to comply fully with all the different licenses (and have the
EULA act as a boilerplate for the whole collection). So, in answer to
an obvious question: "Can I take Embedix Linux and copy the whole thing
freely?", the answer is No. However, you CAN take the GPL parts and
redistribute them as per the GPL.
Lineo is very committed to GPL, including funding of OpenSource
activities, and direct development on several GPL components
(for example, see http://busybox.lineo.com/)
Because as it stands, KDevelop did not suite
my needs. KDevelop was missing 1 feature which
made it unusable for my purposes. This is very
much the problem mentioned earlier about 90%
of the work being done. I am extremely grateful
that the KDevelop team produced all the work
it did. However, paying money to the KDevelop
project won't do me any good (outside of giving me a warm feeling for supporting OpenSource).
I openly invited any of the core KDE developers
to take the project. None did. Lineo didn't have time to do the project itself. This is merely another form of contract work, and CoSource allowed me to find and pay a contractor for something that was important to me.
I'm not sure what is sleazy about that. The feature that we are funding will be GPL, and it
should benefit many others besides Lineo. I
don't see the downside of this for anyone. Nor
any "unfairness" (that isn't inherently present
in OpenSource development, because some make
money and the original authors often don't).
Here's another article that is somewhat more detailed (and dare I say, more accurate). The president of Lineo already responded (see above), but I think it's important to point out that we're not just targeting settops. We're making an embedded distribution, and an embedded systems development platform. We just happen to have our own application on settops as well.
See http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/9309d. htm
for an article about some of MS' tech tying.
Don't let news of MS summary judgement motions
fool you. All parts of Caldera's case are alive
and well. (Not that I'm biased)
I have no intention of starting a flamewar, but it's exactly this type of holier-than-thou attitude that keeps the majority of the Linux
:) I'm sure that Debian is an excellent distribution. However, their desire for purity conflicts with the type of pragmatism that is essential to running a distribution company as a business. Different strokes for different folks.
distributions from converting to dpkg. Caldera VERY seriously considered switching to dpkg several times, but members of the Debian project
have historically been too inflexible in their
release schedules for a downstream vendor to
count on making their own targeted ship dates.
This inflexibility is done in the name of technical excellence, and maybe it achieves that goal (excepting of course for dselect - sorry, couldn't help it
If you want you can add the features that you like in dpkg to RPM if you want. Then the vast majority of Linux users could benefit from them.
Tim Bird
Caldera paid RedHat money to develop a package manager. RedHat later produced RPM. These facts are pretty much uncontested. However, RedHat and Caldera disagree over whether the money paid to RedHat was used to produce RPM. Caldera shipped RedHat's distribution (with Caldera customizations) in the Fall of 1995, at the same time RedHat was shipping it's first releases with RPM. Since then, Caldera and RedHat have parted ways, and Caldera has had its own distribution for a few years now.
Caldera derives from the Corsair project at Novell, which originated in 1993, which I believe predates RedHat by some years.
Tim Bird