I was wondering if Slackware would include an ftp install method in some future version similar to FreeBSD, NetBSD, Redhat. I realize ftp has some serious drawbacks compared to NFS or CD install but I found it quite handy when I wanted to give FreeBSD and NetBSD a try. If not ftp, what about the possibility of opening up an public NFS server that will export the latest stable version of Slackware since many of us may not have an extra machine to set up NFS on. It could just run off the same machine as the ftp server for Slackware, right? Just a couple of thoughts.
Thanks Patrick Ken J.
Where is 2.4pre -Linus didn't go home since Feb 2?
on
Linux 2.3.48 Released
·
· Score: 2
Read this . Look in the middle of the page. He said he would release 2.4 pre as soon as he got home. I guess he didn't go home yet;) Actually I would rather see more development than an unstable release, but it would be good to get a new approximate time for the 2.4pre from linus. Maybe March, April, RSN.. etc
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 07:13:47 -0500 (EST) From: Macki <macki@2600.com> To: dvd@2600.com Subject: Press release - Anti-MPAA event planned
February 2, 2000
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DAY OF ACTION PLANNED AGAINST MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION IN 100 CITIES
Members of the hacker and open source communities worldwide, along with various civil liberties groups, are planning a massive leafletting campaign on Friday, February 4 to call attention to the recent attempts by the Motion Picture Association of America to shut down thousands of websites.
Lawsuits have been filed against hundreds of people, as well as an Internet Service Provider and a magazine, for having information the MPAA wants to keep secret.
The controversy centers around a computer program known as DeCSS, thought to be written by a 16 year old in Norway. The program defeats the encryption scheme used by DVD's which prohibits them from being viewed on non-approved machines or computers. It also enables DVD's from one country to be played in another, contrary to the wishes of the movie industry. It does NOT facilitate DVD piracy - in fact, copying DVD's has been possible since their introduction years ago. In its press releases on the subject, the MPAA has claimed that this is a piracy issue and they have subsequently succeeded in getting injunctions against a number of sites that had posted the program in the interests of free speech.
This is in effect a lawsuit against the entire Internet community by extremely powerful corporate interests. The lawsuit and the various actions being planned promise to be a real showdown between two increasingly disparate sides in the technological age. The consequences of losing this case are so serious that civil libertarians, professors, lawyers, and a wide variety of others have already stepped forward to help out.
Friday's action will be coordinated in 74 cities throughout North America and 26 cities in other parts of the world. Leafletting will take place outside theaters and video stores in these cities - all of which participate in a monthly "2600" gathering. 2600 Magazine has been named in two lawsuits regarding the DeCSS program and has joined with the the growing number of people who will fight these actions by the MPAA until the end.
The lawsuit has been filed by the Motion Picture Association of America, Columbia/Tristar, Universal City Studios, Paramount Pictures, Disney Enterprises, Twentieth Century Fox, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, and Time Warner Entertainment.
Here is another article. Also has a quote from Ransom Love of Caldera that basically dodges the DVD question. He didn't really say what he thought about the current cases. What we need now is someone like Bob Young, Larry Augustine and maybe even someone from IBM's linux division to publicly condemn the actions of the DVD-CCA and MPAA. IBM would be unlikely though since they have interests other than Linux like DVD on PC's with WINDOWS installed.
The most important thing that people should know is when the court date is set for, or if one has been set at all. So when is it Jon? This info will be needed to prepare for a show of support, getting more t-shirts and disks ready, etc.
This is not a question for Jon, but about this XMovie program. As I understand it, decss is included in the binary version of the player. Is that legal? I mean can you make a free player so long as you don't post source. Did XMovie use DeCSS directly or recreate it using CSS info available on some websites. What if you do the reverse enginneering yourself and release a free binary only player. Somehow I doubt the XMovie developers signed an NDA with these css people.
If you want to petition for freely licensed specs for decoding then that is what the petition should be. If you want reference code for these codecs that should be in the petition. Sorenson should be the one to recieve the petition for their codec info or code. I just think we need to ask the right people for the right info, and realize what we already have available. The file formating info for Quicktime is already here, and we have free libraries and programs that can read it.
Dear Friends, We publish LinxPlus, the biggest Polish magazine devoted to Linux (10,000 copies, http://www.linux.com.pl). After a long argument we have decided to place the DeCSS code on our CD, as well as some other useful information. If you have any comments/advice etc. regarding this, please contact me. As far as I know this is going to be the first time someone has published this code on a CD on such scale.
..how many of these defendant actually have that much money to give to these guys. Ok split the damages 71 ways or maybe 500 ways and it might almost be a sane amount but then how are you going to send bills to a few hundred John Does in different countries? How much money is MPAA or DVD CCA and whoever else willing to spend to unmask these people. Sure they have a lot of money but it is going to start eating into profits eventually. It could take quite a bit of $$$$ to bride all the officials in say Russia for example which doesn't exactly have the most cozy relationship with the US right now for a number of reasons including the major one, Chechnya.
is included and I suspect a copy of the GPL in on one of those sheets. Compliance with GPL is probably why they did that. Remember you can publish section of GPLed code and in and medium even a T-shirt so long as you also have access to the full source as well as the GPL copyright. Again great job Copyleft I wonder if they are going to get sued too.:(
Check out this link to copyleft . I am think I am about to make my first purchase from them. I wonder will a cop bust me if I walk down the street with this T-shirt on;) By the way part of the profits from this go to the EFF for their defense.
Why aren't they in college yet? Wasn't Bart about 9 or 10 when it started? How come they are still in grade school? What is their problem? Is their growth been stunted from all the radiation? Are they drinking enough milk?
Yeah, yeah I know it is just a TV show but still it is pretty silly when you think about it.
With programs like this. Bounce Spam I also understand that some unix and linux email programs have a "bounce" capability built in. I guess some might say this increases the problem by increasing the amount of traffic and bandwidth used. But my guess is that the spammer's servers and network would be the only ones to suffer any real slowdown and then maybe they would stop.
Story at Wired Story at Zdnet Story at Cnet I thought Wired and ZDNet were good. Cnet only seemed interested in the DVD CCA had to say. As usual ZDNet has a place to post responses. Go to it!
Copyright 1994-1999 FreeBSD, Inc. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE FREEBSD PROJECT ``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 views and conclusions contained in the software and documentation are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing official policies, either expressed or implied, of the FreeBSD Project or FreeBSD, Inc.
This was taken straight from http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license .html
I would guess the license contained on the ftp site would take precedence but why the two licenses. Did the recently decide to put the ad clause back in? That seems like a strange thing to do.
It sort of depends on what you mean by "in" BSD.
on
FreeBSD at COMDEX
·
· Score: 1
If you mean on a BSD CD then you are wrong. This is what I suggested. Don't put the driver in the main kernel. Just put it on the ports collection CD. BSD has no problems with GPL code on their ports. You do realize that you can create a device as a seperate module for FreeBSD just like linux right? This is called a KLM formerly LKD and allows the use of binary only in BSD as well. If you want to put it directly into the kernel then you are half right. The new BSD kernel code would have to be GPL, but actually nothing in the revised version of the BSD license prevents changing the license even to a GPL license. Now that wouldn't be a nice thing to do without permission but it would not be illegal at least with the new BSD license without the advertising clause anyway.
Stallman says you cannot link a non-GPL program against a GPL library or program. In this case The program is GPLed (yes a driver is a program) and the libraries are BSDed. As I said before you are allowed to compile and use as many GPL tools you want on any system. You are linking GPL to non-GPL code. People even use GNU stuff on Solaris Tru32 or even on windows. The windows libraries are closed but the tools are open. Stallman said you could not release code as closed source that is linked to GNOME/GTK if GNOME/GTK was GPL. Fortunately GNOME/GTK have portions of the code LGPLed so that commercial apps are possible. Also as the previous poster said Linus has made a linking exception with his code, so binary drivers are possible. Stallman didn't like this and called it a mistake. Anyway the point is moot the the program is the driver module and the library is the BSD code. Maybe I am wrong and the kernel makes links back into the kernel driver but how can that be if it is dynamically loaded and there is no source available. In the case of OSS it must be a one way link from the module into the kernel not the other way around right?
If FreeBSD along with any other BSD feels the need to include GPL drivers to make the system more attracive and complete why not just do what they do for GPLed windows managers, compilers, internet tools and so forth. Just create a port and put it in the ports collection. If you do it as a KLM which is similar to a linux kernel module you wouldn't need to worry about a GPL violation or infecting the main FreeBSD kernel source. If a user want's to use certain devices why not give the user the option of deciding if running a GPLed module in a BSD kernel is acceptable to him/her. Users of *BSD have had the option of using commercial drivers like OSS just as linux users have had. That is not illegal is it, so why should a GPL module be. Many don't like having to pay for drivers, so they use an open driver like ALSA or the basic OSS/Free driver. The idea is to give the user a choice.
The problem may be getting a FreeBSD developer who is willing to do the port even if the source is GPL. However, if *BSD users were so dead set against the GPL then no GPL software would ever get ported to any of the BSDs. So why should drivers be any different? For example the SBLive code is out there and under the GPL. The code could be ported as an independant module. The same goes for the Digi modem that Brett mentions. The system does not depend on these types of devices to boot so there is no need to put directly into the kernel. Now I can see this could become a problem for essential devices like IDE, SCSI, and floppy controllers etc. But fortunately FreeBSD has very good support in this area. Remember simply putting GPL code on the same cd as other source does not cause the entire source to become GPLed.
I can see where this could turn into a slippery slope. How many drivers that are GPL ports is too many? But perhaps FreeBSD is already facing this problem right now. The default window manager for FreeBSD is KDE. That is GPLed. The compiler is gcc or perhaps now egcs. Those are also GPLed. In fact while a considerable amount of the FreeBSD cdrom and ports collection is covered by the BSD license, a considerable portion of it is not. I do not look on this as a problem. Linux and *BSD based systems should be allowed to share each others tools. Linux distros have no problem containing BSD programs. This is good. FreeBSD does the same thing with its ports collection. This is also good.
The only thing is I get the feeling that BSD users don't like using GNU or GPLed utilities sometimes. Having a system created entirely from programs based on your favorite license is an idealistic goal, but is it realistic? Is the FreeBSD team really going to be able to rewrite the equivalent of GCC. And what next, Gnome, KDE etc. One might argue that desktops are not a part of the core system but it would be hard to say the same for the compiler. How about the shell? That is a core tool right? Many users of BSD initially start with BASH instead of the csh. Does that mean that they are doing something wrong? Absolutely not! Bash is a tool and if it makes like easier so be it. What if a Linux user wants to use Python or Perl. Does that violate the GPL. No! Ok enough rambling. My point is a driver for a modem or a soundcard is tool. If users want to make use of GPLed code in BSD even for driver modules that should be fine. BSD developers need not do the port, but that doesn't mean the code is not there for the porting.
Why don't Microsoft and others like Yahoo and whoever else just use the TOC protocol that the TiK program uses. That way the only way that AOL could stop them is by either shutting down all the TOC servers or else change the TOC protocol and not release the changes. They would be within their rights to do either of these but they would also risk making a number of Unix based AIM clone users mad as well.
I know AOL didn't exactly make too many friends when they took down their Tik and TOC pages, but TiK and other clients like GAIM still work. Blocking all Unix based clients probably would generate bad press and make AOL look worse than they already do. But that is not to say I don't believe they wouldn't make such a stupid move.
Microsoft and Yahoo do want to use the extra feature of OSCAR but if it a choice between interoperating with AOL users with limited features or not working at all I would think they would choose the limited route. Of course since Tik and TOC are covered by the GPL Microsoft and Yahoo would have to release their source which may be the other problem. But again it would be better than nothing, right?
My impressions of BSD's
on
Which BSD?
·
· Score: 2
Well I have played with the install on all three BSD and I will give you a quick warning off the bat. OpenBSD's install is definitly not for the beginner. I found the install process for NetBSD and FreeBSD both to be much easier, with FreeBSD being the most automated. OpenBSD has a very odd way of setting up partitions. NetBSD has some similarities to OpenBSD as far as partioning goes but somehow NetBSD seemed easier. Those nice text menus I guess. Neither NetBSD nor OpenBSD are going to do a lot of post installation setup for you, running XF86Setup automatically for example. For that you need FreeBSD. FreeBSD takes up two floppies to boot instead of one floppy like the others. All three have ftp install processes which is what I was using, but only OpenBSD and FreeBSD include DHCP support during the FTP install. I find the BSD bootloader nicer than LILO and easier for the newbie at least. NetBSD however has a way to set which partitions are on the menu and label each one. FreeBSD uses the partition type as the label but I wasn't sure how to modify the boot menu. NetBSD seems to boot the fastest. NetBSD and OpenBSD put their base dist in a single file and the kernel in a single file and the X stuff all in one file, with the option of getting small split files. FreeBSD only offers them the small split file way. FreeBSD's ports collection is impressive and generally will stay ahead of the other with some interesting exceptions. For example FreeBSD has ported KDE as of 1.1.1 but NetBSD is up to 1.1.2. Those are just a few of my general impressions of the BSD's but I would suggest trying them out and see which one you like. FreeBSD and NetBSD get my vote over OpenBSD because security is not as critical and I find the install and setup easier. Also NetBSD and FreeBSD both can be downloaded from ftp.cdrom.com and OpenBSD was oddly absent Hmmm?
Simply post it all over the web, scatter it across a large number of web sites with the proper GPL license, delete all traces of their license and wait for their response. Let them initiate the court battle, not the Linux developers. Sure that puts developers and ftp owners on the defensive, but the burden of proof would be for Corel to produce which would be harder than Corel defending itself against a suit from a developer or the FSF.
They say the OS was the problem and not Apache or Samba so how about giving FreeBSD or some other BSD a try. Linux isn't the only open source operating system out there. On the bright side it is good news for Apache. It is as fast as Zeus.
Slashdot Mirror
I was wondering if Slackware would include an ftp install method in some future version similar to FreeBSD, NetBSD, Redhat. I realize ftp has some serious drawbacks compared to NFS or CD install but I found it quite handy when I wanted to give FreeBSD and NetBSD a try. If not ftp, what about the possibility of opening up an public NFS server that will export the latest stable version of Slackware since many of us may not have an extra machine to set up NFS on. It could just run off the same machine as the ftp server for Slackware, right? Just a couple of thoughts.
Thanks Patrick
Ken J.
Read this . ;)
Look in the middle of the page. He said he would release 2.4 pre as soon as he got home. I guess he didn't go home yet
Actually I would rather see more development than an unstable release, but it would be good to get a new approximate time for the 2.4pre from linus. Maybe March, April, RSN.. etc
2 February 2000
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 07:13:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Macki <macki@2600.com>
To: dvd@2600.com
Subject: Press release - Anti-MPAA event planned
February 2, 2000
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DAY OF ACTION PLANNED AGAINST MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION IN 100 CITIES
Members of the hacker and open source communities worldwide, along with various civil liberties groups, are planning a massive leafletting campaign on Friday, February 4 to call attention to the recent attempts by the Motion Picture Association of America to shut down thousands of websites.
Lawsuits have been filed against hundreds of people, as well as an Internet Service Provider and a magazine, for having information the MPAA wants to keep secret.
The controversy centers around a computer program known as DeCSS, thought to be written by a 16 year old in Norway. The program defeats the encryption scheme used by DVD's which prohibits them from being viewed on non-approved machines or computers. It also enables DVD's from one country to be played in another, contrary to the wishes of the movie industry. It does NOT facilitate DVD piracy - in fact, copying DVD's has been possible since their introduction years ago. In its press releases on the subject, the MPAA has claimed that this is a piracy issue and they have subsequently succeeded in getting injunctions against a number of sites that had posted the program in the interests of free speech.
This is in effect a lawsuit against the entire Internet community by extremely powerful corporate interests. The lawsuit and the various actions being planned promise to be a real showdown between two increasingly disparate sides in the technological age. The consequences of losing this case are so serious that civil libertarians, professors, lawyers, and a wide variety of others have already stepped forward to help out.
Friday's action will be coordinated in 74 cities throughout North America and 26 cities in other parts of the world. Leafletting will take place outside theaters and video stores in these cities - all of which participate in a monthly "2600" gathering. 2600 Magazine has been named in two lawsuits regarding the DeCSS program and has joined with the the growing number of people who will fight these actions by the MPAA until the end.
The lawsuit has been filed by the Motion Picture Association of America, Columbia/Tristar, Universal City Studios, Paramount Pictures, Disney Enterprises, Twentieth Century Fox, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, and Time Warner Entertainment.
Contact:
Emmanuel Goldstein
(631) 751-2600 ext. 0
See 2600
DVD-DeCSS Report: Fade to Black
Legal Report: DVD Desperadoes
Here is another article. Also has a quote from Ransom Love of Caldera that basically dodges the DVD question. He didn't really say what he thought about the current cases. What we need now is someone like Bob Young, Larry Augustine and maybe even someone from IBM's linux division to publicly condemn the actions of the DVD-CCA and MPAA. IBM would be unlikely though since they have interests other than Linux like DVD on PC's with WINDOWS installed.
The most important thing that people should know is when the court date is set for, or if one has been set at all. So when is it Jon? This info will be needed to prepare for a show of support, getting more t-shirts and disks ready, etc.
This is not a question for Jon, but about this XMovie program. As I understand it, decss is included in the binary version of the player. Is that legal? I mean can you make a free player so long as you don't post source. Did XMovie use DeCSS directly or recreate it using CSS info available on some websites. What if you do the reverse enginneering yourself and release a free binary only player. Somehow I doubt the XMovie developers signed an NDA with these css people.
If you want to petition for freely licensed specs for decoding then that is what the petition should be. If you want reference code for these codecs that should be in the petition. Sorenson should be the one to recieve the petition for their codec info or code. I just think we need to ask the right people for the right info, and realize what we already have available. The file formating info for Quicktime is already here, and we have free libraries and programs that can read it.
Try this link.
Here I found this on opendvd.org
Dear Friends,
We publish LinxPlus, the biggest Polish magazine devoted to Linux (10,000 copies, http://www.linux.com.pl).
After a long argument we have decided to place the DeCSS code on our CD, as well as some other useful information. If you have
any comments/advice etc. regarding this, please contact me.
As far as I know this is going to be the first time someone has published this code on a CD on such scale.
..how many of these defendant actually have that much money to give to these guys. Ok split the damages 71 ways or maybe 500 ways and it might almost be a sane amount but then how are you going to send bills to a few hundred John Does in different countries? How much money is MPAA or DVD CCA and whoever else willing to spend to unmask these people. Sure they have a lot of money but it is going to start eating into profits eventually. It could take quite a bit of $$$$ to bride all the officials in say Russia for example which doesn't exactly have the most cozy relationship with the US right now for a number of reasons including the major one, Chechnya.
is included and I suspect a copy of the GPL in on one of those sheets. Compliance with GPL is probably why they did that. Remember you can publish section of GPLed code and in and medium even a T-shirt so long as you also have access to the full source as well as the GPL copyright. Again great job Copyleft I wonder if they are going to get sued too. :(
Check out this link to copyleft . ;)
I am think I am about to make my first purchase from them. I wonder will a cop bust me if I walk down the street with this T-shirt on
By the way part of the profits from this go to the EFF for their defense.
Why aren't they in college yet? Wasn't Bart about 9 or 10 when it started? How come they are still in grade school? What is their problem? Is their growth been stunted from all the radiation? Are they drinking enough milk?
Yeah, yeah I know it is just a TV show but still it is pretty silly when you think about it.
With programs like this.
Bounce Spam
I also understand that some unix and linux email programs have a "bounce" capability built in. I guess some might say this increases the problem by increasing the amount of traffic and bandwidth used. But my guess is that the spammer's servers and network would be the only ones to suffer any real slowdown and then maybe they would stop.
Story at Wired
Story at Zdnet
Story at Cnet
I thought Wired and ZDNet were good. Cnet only seemed interested in the DVD CCA had to say. As usual ZDNet has a place to post responses. Go to it!
The FreeBSD Copyright
e .html
Copyright 1994-1999 FreeBSD, Inc. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE FREEBSD PROJECT ``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 views and conclusions contained in the software and documentation are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing official policies, either expressed or implied, of the FreeBSD Project or FreeBSD, Inc.
This was taken straight from
http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-licens
I would guess the license contained on the ftp site would take precedence but why the two licenses. Did the recently decide to put the ad clause back in? That seems like a strange thing to do.
If you mean on a BSD CD then you are wrong. This is what I suggested. Don't put the driver in the main kernel. Just put it on the ports collection CD. BSD has no problems with GPL code on their ports. You do realize that you can create a device as a seperate module for FreeBSD just like linux right? This is called a KLM formerly LKD and allows the use of binary only in BSD as well. If you want to put it directly into the kernel then you are half right. The new BSD kernel code would have to be GPL, but actually nothing in the revised version of the BSD license prevents changing the license even to a GPL license. Now that wouldn't be a nice thing to do without permission but it would not be illegal at least with the new BSD license without the advertising clause anyway.
Stallman says you cannot link a non-GPL program against a GPL library or program. In this case The program is GPLed (yes a driver is a program) and the libraries are BSDed. As I said before you are allowed to compile and use as many GPL tools you want on any system. You are linking GPL to non-GPL code. People even use GNU stuff on Solaris Tru32 or even on windows. The windows libraries are closed but the tools are open. Stallman said you could not release code as closed source that is linked to GNOME/GTK if GNOME/GTK was GPL. Fortunately GNOME/GTK have portions of the code LGPLed so that commercial apps are possible. Also as the previous poster said Linus has made a linking exception with his code, so binary drivers are possible. Stallman didn't like this and called it a mistake. Anyway the point is moot the the program is the driver module and the library is the BSD code. Maybe I am wrong and the kernel makes links back into the kernel driver but how can that be if it is dynamically loaded and there is no source available. In the case of OSS it must be a one way link from the module into the kernel not the other way around right?
If FreeBSD along with any other BSD feels the need to include GPL drivers to make the system more attracive and complete why not just do what they do for GPLed windows managers, compilers, internet tools and so forth. Just create a port and put it in the ports collection. If you do it as a KLM which is similar to a linux kernel module you wouldn't need to worry about a GPL violation or infecting the main FreeBSD kernel source. If a user want's to use certain devices why not give the user the option of deciding if running a GPLed module in a BSD kernel is acceptable to him/her. Users of *BSD have had the option of using commercial drivers like OSS just as linux users have had. That is not illegal is it, so why should a GPL module be. Many don't like having to pay for drivers, so they use an open driver like ALSA or the basic OSS/Free driver. The idea is to give the user a choice.
The problem may be getting a FreeBSD developer who is willing to do the port even if the source is GPL. However, if *BSD users were so dead set against the GPL then no GPL software would ever get ported to any of the BSDs. So why should drivers be any different? For example the SBLive code is out there and under the GPL. The code could be ported as an independant module. The same goes for the Digi modem that Brett mentions. The system does not depend on these types of devices to boot so there is no need to put directly into the kernel. Now I can see this could become a problem for essential devices like IDE, SCSI, and floppy controllers etc. But fortunately FreeBSD has very good support in this area. Remember simply putting GPL code on the same cd as other source does not cause the entire source to become GPLed.
I can see where this could turn into a slippery slope. How many drivers that are GPL ports is too many? But perhaps FreeBSD is already facing this problem right now. The default window manager for FreeBSD is KDE. That is GPLed. The compiler is gcc or perhaps now egcs. Those are also GPLed. In fact while a considerable amount of the FreeBSD cdrom and ports collection is covered by the BSD license, a considerable portion of it is not. I do not look on this as a problem. Linux and *BSD based systems should be allowed to share each others tools. Linux distros have no problem containing BSD programs. This is good. FreeBSD does the same thing with its ports collection. This is also good.
The only thing is I get the feeling that BSD users don't like using GNU or GPLed utilities sometimes. Having a system created entirely from programs based on your favorite license is an idealistic goal, but is it realistic? Is the FreeBSD team really going to be able to rewrite the equivalent of GCC. And what next, Gnome, KDE etc. One might argue that desktops are not a part of the core system but it would be hard to say the same for the compiler. How about the shell? That is a core tool right? Many users of BSD initially start with BASH instead of the csh. Does that mean that they are doing something wrong? Absolutely not! Bash is a tool and if it makes like easier so be it. What if a Linux user wants to use Python or Perl. Does that violate the GPL. No! Ok enough rambling. My point is a driver for a modem or a soundcard is tool. If users want to make use of GPLed code in BSD even for driver modules that should be fine. BSD developers need not do the port, but that doesn't mean the code is not there for the porting.
Why don't Microsoft and others like Yahoo and whoever else just use the TOC protocol that the TiK program uses. That way the only way that AOL could stop them is by either shutting down all the TOC servers or else change the TOC protocol and not release the changes. They would be within their rights to do either of these but they would also risk making a number of Unix based AIM clone users mad as well.
I know AOL didn't exactly make too many friends when they took down their Tik and TOC pages, but TiK and other clients like GAIM still work. Blocking all Unix based clients probably would generate bad press and make AOL look worse than they already do. But that is not to say I don't believe they wouldn't make such a stupid move.
Microsoft and Yahoo do want to use the extra feature of OSCAR but if it a choice between interoperating with AOL users with limited features or not working at all I would think they would choose the limited route. Of course since Tik and TOC are covered by the GPL Microsoft and Yahoo would have to release their source which may be the other problem. But again it would be better than nothing, right?
This was posted with Mozilla M11 nightly for 11-07-99.
That what this was posted with.
Well I have played with the install on all three BSD and I will give you a quick warning off the bat. OpenBSD's install is definitly not for the beginner. I found the install process for NetBSD and FreeBSD both to be much easier, with FreeBSD being the most automated. OpenBSD has a very odd way of setting up partitions. NetBSD has some similarities to OpenBSD as far as partioning goes but somehow NetBSD seemed easier. Those nice text menus I guess. Neither NetBSD nor OpenBSD are going to do a lot of post installation setup for you, running XF86Setup automatically for example. For that you need FreeBSD. FreeBSD takes up two floppies to boot instead of one floppy like the others. All three have ftp install processes which is what I was using, but only OpenBSD and FreeBSD include DHCP support during the FTP install. I find the BSD bootloader nicer than LILO and easier for the newbie at least. NetBSD however has a way to set which partitions are on the menu and label each one. FreeBSD uses the partition type as the label but I wasn't sure how to modify the boot menu. NetBSD seems to boot the fastest. NetBSD and OpenBSD put their base dist in a single file and the kernel in a single file and the X stuff all in one file, with the option of getting small split files. FreeBSD only offers them the small split file way. FreeBSD's ports collection is impressive and generally will stay ahead of the other with some interesting exceptions. For example FreeBSD has ported KDE as of 1.1.1 but NetBSD is up to 1.1.2. Those are just a few of my general impressions of the BSD's but I would suggest trying them out and see which one you like. FreeBSD and NetBSD get my vote over OpenBSD because security is not as critical and I find the install and setup easier. Also NetBSD and FreeBSD both can be downloaded from ftp.cdrom.com and OpenBSD was oddly absent Hmmm?
Simply post it all over the web, scatter it across a large number of web sites with the proper GPL license, delete all traces of their license and wait for their response. Let them initiate the court battle, not the Linux developers. Sure that puts developers and ftp owners on the defensive, but the burden of proof would be for Corel to produce which would be harder than Corel defending itself against a suit from a developer or the FSF.
They say the OS was the problem and not Apache or Samba so how about giving FreeBSD or some other BSD a try. Linux isn't the only open source operating system out there. On the bright side it is good news for Apache. It is as fast as Zeus.
Regards.
Ken J.