I figured that part about reading a lot to get the GPL/FSF/OSS logic properly. Thanks for the links, I will definitely go through them.
Coming to the part about the Flash, RP, Java plugins, etc. I understand that they're only freely redistributable. So since they are proprietary, does that also mean that the source code for these software are not made public and that I cannot modify/redistribute these without explicit permission from the companies, and if I do get permission, I gotta purchase a license or something along those lines to be able to modify it, like a game engine license? (that was the first analogy I could think of)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GNUrag
The distributions cannot be licensed with GPL or any other free public license, since it is not an original peice of work. Distributions are based on various contributors and independent software authors. However, the distributions can be copyrighted.
|
Hmm, so if they're copyrighted and it says that I should not be able to take a piece of their OS, like the rpm, and then tweak it without their permission, then thats again not freedom, is it? Do they do stuff like that? So, if its copyrighted, then I lose my freedom to modify the copyrighted parts the way I see fit and can touch only the parts of it that are covered under a free public license, right? Correct me if I have misunderstood this part.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GNUrag
Sometimes the distribution vendours are helpless themselves. Its the people who demand that they want Flash player, Sun Java, etc. etc.. so they have to include some proprietary software in it.
|
True, but if I see the situation as an end user, then I at a big disadvantage without these, aren't I? Considering how many websites use Flash and other proprietary formats such as WM, RP, QT, etc. abound on the Web, then a Linux user who wants to stick to his freedom would have to sacrifice all of these, right? That is unless, the format themselves are open sourced or another open source format replaces these. If I remember right, this was a major uproar when Compuserve claimed exclusive rights on the GIF format and demanded royalties. So, if I were to replace my Windows desktop with a Linux one that sticks to the free software policies, then a lot of my functionality suddenly becomes restricted because everyone out there is using a proprietary format. What is your take on this?
As for the Linspire part, this is what I am referring to:
Taken from the Linspire Licensing website here:
http://www.linspire.com/lindows_products_license.php
Quote:
As discussed above, parts of the Linspire product are licensed under the GPL. Linspire fully supports the use and redistribution of those parts of Linspire which are covered under the GPL. There are, however, also 3rd-party components in Linspire which are not GPL (installer, CNR Technology, fonts, spell checker, Flash, Java, etc.).
Those who have obtained a copy of Linspire can find the source code for any of the GPL portions of Linspire in their my.linspire account or on the computer if they purchased Linspire pre-installed on a new computer. These individuals are free to modify and redistribute those GPL portions of Linspire found there. To honor our trademark and to avoid confusion among Linspire customers who wish to obtain a full and complete copy of Linspire, such products should not be called "Linspire," since they would be a different product (since they wouldn't have the non-GPL licensed parts, Linspire support, etc.)
Linspire wishes to insure that everyone purchasing the official Linspire product, gets the complete version, all 3rd-party components legally licensed, as well as full support from Linspire. We wish to avoid having anyone confused, assuming they are getting the full Linspire product, support, etc. when purchasing a modified or repackaged OS that has been based on the GPL pieces of Linspire.
|
Isn't that a blatant violation of the free software logic? They claim that they use the CNR as an easy to use, one stop access to all their code in an easily distributable package, and cannot license it under the GPL. Isnt that worse than Microsoft going the "Shared Source" way? Why this logic of "it ceases to be Linspire when you change the parts"? I mean, if I were to change a bit of FC3 according to my likes and dislikes, then its not FC3 anymore? According to these guys' stupid logic, then Linux has long stopped from being Linux, hasn't it, by extension of their asinine logic?
I really appreciate your clearing up these issues for me.
