steppenwolf1984 Posted September 12, 2005 Report Share Posted September 12, 2005 Ok, ok, I may be a little slow on the uptake but I just found out that Mepis is questionable on Open Source lines. That some of the Mepis specific code is no longer open and only was open briefly. I can ignore the donations to the US Military from Mepis, and the Mepis grumbles about the GPL, but to actually have your Linux distro as a semi-closed-source may just cause me to ditch the best distro (at least during the early infatuation stage) ive installed in a while ; in terms of quick configuration and usability.... Am trying to keep politics out of my software, when possible, but any linux distro that doesnt release source is kinda heading towards disqualification as a linux distro, aint it? Meaning Linux as GNU?Linux, and Debian style linux; I know the Linux part is basically just the kernel.... Any feedback or info on this?!?! [moved to "Everything Linux" by arctic] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramfree17 Posted September 12, 2005 Report Share Posted September 12, 2005 as long as they provide source for all of the GPL components of their distro then they are not in violation of GPL. if i am not mistaken Mandriva also does the same thing for their commercial offeriings but they make sure that the downloadable versions are all composed of GPL software. ciao! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theYinYeti Posted September 12, 2005 Report Share Posted September 12, 2005 Not quite: All software developped by Mandrake/Mandriva has always been, and will always be, under the GPL license. Yves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted September 12, 2005 Report Share Posted September 12, 2005 Am trying to keep politics out of my software, when possible, but any linux distro that doesnt release source is kinda heading towards disqualification as a linux distro, aint it? As long as it's got the linux kernel it's a linux distro, and as long as it releases any derivatives of GPL programs it writes under the GPL license, it won't run into any legal issues. It can keep it's own, non-derivative work under whatever license it wants. IMHO, there's nothing wrong with that, as long as they obey the rules they're fine by me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramfree17 Posted September 12, 2005 Report Share Posted September 12, 2005 Not quite: All software developped by Mandrake/Mandriva has always been, and will always be, under the GPL license. i dont know if this was a reply on my answer so i read it back and there is indeed a possibility that my answer can be interpreted two ways... by semi-closed source offering i was talking about the distros that they are selling and not the projects that mandrivasoft is sponsoring/developing (e.g. urpmi). just clarifying things.. ciao! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenwolf1984 Posted September 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2005 Hmn, reading over the GPL it seems that there is room for flexibility. What I understood from the accusations had to do with the Mepis Installer primarily... an excellent install tool in this case, that has had its source code withdrawn. Will check a bit further, but perhaps the accusations were either premature, or a misunderstanding of what the GPL actually says. The GPL is included in their manual so.... am curious now though about how much of the Mepis code is available, and why it was parts of it were withdrawn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulSe Posted September 13, 2005 Report Share Posted September 13, 2005 I agree with what tyme said. What I don't get though is why they think it's necessary to have proprietary elements in their distro. It is possible that they had no choice in that they were using purchased code, but I doubt. I don't mind proprietary code where it is necessary (although imagine how much better graphics in Linux would be if nVidia and ATI made their drivers OSS), but I can't think of any valid justification for it to exist in MEPIS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenwolf1984 Posted September 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2005 Not sure exactly what this means, but heres a link to the source code, given in an official Mepis Users PDF.... ftp://mirror.mcs.anl.gov/pub/ No sign of Mepis there. Personally I dont mind things like Adobe 7 on a distro or the nvidia drivers and stuff that pop up from "proprietors" but I worry when something like the system installer (which is really a great advance, rivalled only by an MDK installer) is removed from the open source community, and answers are either not forthcoming or evasive... Either I'm misunderstanding the GPL or something fishy is really going on.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qchem Posted September 13, 2005 Report Share Posted September 13, 2005 It's not uncommon for things like this to happen, people want to protect their IP and possibly make money (in general). YAST in SuSE was closed source for a very long time, it was something that made the distro unique and I had no problems with it being closed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenwolf1984 Posted September 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2005 Just did some further checking and it seems to stem from a KDE developer being obnoxious in his request for code from Mepis' Warren....who subsequently went off on the manners of some open source folk and that the GPL produces this kind of behavior. Cept that was in 2003 and there are still no links for the code...although GPL gives the code owner SIX MONTHS to supply it. As I thought, the GPL covers a lot of ground best translated by a lawyer. Its not so much whether the installer is closed or open but of making the status clear... before people think theyre dealing with the "usual" conditions usually applied when discussing Linux and the GPL, and come up with a brick wall when they need the code for the installer or other vital component of an OS.... Wondering what , if anything , is more recent regarding open source status. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmpatrick Posted September 13, 2005 Report Share Posted September 13, 2005 That's kind of an interesting point. I'm sure mepis has a click through license agreement and I would bet it's the standard GPL. The issue is whether that license agreement(GPL) applies to the installer itself which is not really being installed in the sense that one would normally mean it; i.e the installer is run once to install the OS which is clearly under the GPL. I assume the mepis developer has taken the position that he retains the copyright on his installer. You would have to parse through the click through license to see if this issue is specifically addressed. If it isn't, I think a good argument could be made that the GPL should cover the installer as well absent some kind of general disclaimer in the click through license. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenwolf1984 Posted September 14, 2005 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2005 Im starting to feel like Karen Silkwood asking "Why do I glow in the dark?"...LOL. There seems to be a link to Trolltech and their non-GPL Qt license where they have two libraries avialable, a GPL compliant one and a nonGPL compliant, "closed source" one, for developers who wish to use it. An excellent point though, about the installer not being part of the distro once its installed. As for copyrights, the kernel is copyrighted by Linus, but he didnt PATENT it so as to prevent others from utilizing it freely in devlopement. A copyright allows him to claim intellectual ownership and to protect the name. Its not only common, its smart. Strange thing is, Mepis Lovers user board got downright frigid when I posted a request for info on source code. A "this is NOT the place for such things" attitude that struck me as a bit over the top and cultish. Actually got some discussion from Mepis.org however. Top Debian figures like Bruce Perens freely mention Mepis as a distro from the Debian fold, and many "complaints" are based on misunderstanding of open source, free and the GPL conditions. Don't people at Mepis Lovers know that such stonewalling, "Problem?What Problem? Theres no problem" tactics actual create more FUD than asking a simple question, like : Is source code available for the installer, or Is the distro still using a GPL license? Makes me glad theres a user board like this one where we can discuss just about anything....well, ANYTHING actually.... and occaisonally argue if it helps to illustrate different sides of an issue. Its got a funky ' Mandriva users....its not just for Mandriva users anymore....' feel. Keep on rocking in the free world Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmpatrick Posted September 14, 2005 Report Share Posted September 14, 2005 Obviously, there must be a history here we are unaware of since people are so touchy about the subject on the mepis board. I found this with google: http://www.mepis.org/node/99 The link for the code doesn't work, however. Your right about the original authors retaining their copyrights. However, when the author licenses the code under the GPL, anyone is free to use the code as long as they comply with the requirements of the GPL. If the source code for the installer is unavailable, I can only assume the author has not licensed that code under the GPL or at least has taken that position. He has every right to do that as long as the installer is not a derivative work of something under the GPL. In fact, Mepis distributes a lot of non-GPL stuff with the distro like java, flash, nvidia drivers, winmodem drivers, etc. The licensing of the foregoing must be addressed in the click through license. Linus owns the trademark on the word "linux". Trademarks are not subject to the GPL. They protect a tradename associated with a product/business so others may not unfairly profit from it's unathorized use and the public is not misled as to the source of the product. All the code in the linux kernel is licensed under the GPL by the authors of the code. Agreeing to do that is a prerequisite for contributing code to the kernel. The stuff with Trolltech and Qt licensing also has a long controversial history. The present licensing status is very clear, however. Qt is fully GPL compliant and has been certified so by the FSF. Here's the deal with the dual licensing: if you devleop an app using Qt and license and distribute it under the GPL there is no licensing fee from Trolltech; if you do not license and distribute the app under the GPL, you have to buy a commercial developer's license from Trolltech. That's the whole thing in a nutshell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenwolf1984 Posted September 14, 2005 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2005 I got the impression in the Stallman biography (Free as in Freedom, I think is the title) that Trolltech has two Qt libraries...one open source (such as the one used by KDE) and one that is not 'open source.' The Installer and the Mepis OS utility are not open, and I would assume that means they are based on a proprietary Qt lib available from Trolltech under a QPL license. It seems a couple of people got my point on the Mepis boards amid the general panic and defensiveness, that "Hey, I want to know what "license" or EULA Im agreeing to here..." I aint that much of a purist to turn down all 'non-free' packages. When I grow up, though, Im gonna install a pure Debian system , so I know I'll never get left in the lurch by a distros lack of transparency, or using a system that could fork into pure proprietary mode. :P Fortunately, the trend seems to be going in the opposite direction nowadays. As a KDE user, I admire Trolltechs work, and have to admit that Mepis IS a good looking and efficient distro. Just too bad when the FUD seems to come from within the community because they wanna protect some sacred cow or other. I thought it was an operating system! Not like the way of life that Mandriva is of course..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenwolf1984 Posted September 14, 2005 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2005 Guess that pretty much exhausts that topic, eh? What other trouble can we get into? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.