Zenwalk Linux 5.0 was
brusquement released (I have not followed the forums to see whether an RC was set or not to be issued between the Beta and the release), and JP is
marketing it with
ruse:
«If there is a software you need and cannot currently find in the repositories a simple request in the support forum will land you a smiling face and a person willing to help you usually in the same day.»
They also want you to believe that their standards regarding the stability are higher than Slackware's!
«In the past Zenwalk had provided its own hardware hotplug system, but HAL has now been deemed mature enough to fit within Zenwalk's stability guidelines...»
No matter how tempting it might be, I'll resist... hopefully.
And now, let me tell you why Zenwalk is not something you should use, and why
I won't be using it.
To quote from
GPLv2:
Quote:
3. [...] provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; [...]
[...] If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
|
OK, so it's about getting the source code for Zenwalk Linux.
As I have commented to
DWW Issue 234 (2008-01-07) — comments #12 and #44 —, there is something wrong with Zenwalk Linux:
you can't find the sources!
On the main server,
download.zenwalk.org/i486/ — because on mirrors you might find no sources at all! —, I was able to find
sources from 2006, when I last checked on Jan. 7. And the guy who wrote the comment #34 noted that there were sources for a recent snapshot, under
i486/source/snapshot/.
Right now, there are
NO SOURCES AT ALL! All the corresponding directories are EMPTY!
Even if a snapshot of the sources were available, I will have to stress that
FULL sources are required by the GPL, for ALL the releases, for at least 3 years from the release:
either as a HTTP/FTP download, in the same way the binary packages are provided — this would also be in the
spirit of Slackware, which once was the source of Zenwalk;
or in a different way, as stated in a written offer —
which doesn't exist on Zenwalk's website!
Therefore, Zenwalk is in effective
infringement of the GNU General Public License Version 2, at least for the following:
zenwalk-4.0
zenwalk-4.2
zenwalk-4.4.1
zenwalk-4.4
zenwalk-4.6.1
zenwalk-4.6
zenwalk-4.8
zenwalk-5.0
I said "at least", provided that the sources from 2006 would show up again; otherwise, they're infringing the GPL for
all their releases!
Let's now assume the
current or a
snapshot set of sources were available — is this enough? NO, it is not, and not only from GPL's point of view.
There are very few people needing
the full sources. In all the cases where I
needed a source package (from Slackware, Dropline GNOME, CentOS, Scientific Linux, StartCom AS-5, Debian, Wolvix and maybe from other distros I've been using) it was exactly that: I wanted
ONE (1) SPECIFIC PACKAGE, for one or more of the following reasons:
to check what's wrong with it, as the corresponding program or library was behaving differently that expected;
to check the building flags;
to perform small changes/customizations and used a modified package;
to look for the possible source of a bug and for a simple way to fix it.
After all, this is all about Open Source: the f--ing freedom, right? Each and every server that offers Free/Net/OpenBSD hosts the full sources too — although Richard "Monomaniacal" Stallman says BSD is not as free as GPL is — but I can't have the sources with a GNU/Linux distro?! How about that...
In the past (in times of Zenwalk 4.2),
users were told — see
Ajout sources de packages; the page was recently removed, but currently it's
in Google's cache — that they should add the
"Snapshot : unstable package repositories" for getting the sources, so I suppose that sources for a post-5.0 snapshot might be posted in a few days or so.
However, as a general rule, the current/snapshot sources won't be of any good: what I always need is the
exact version from which the binaries from my system were built! This is not only my personal request, this is what the GPL is requiring.
The easiest way for Zenwalk Linux to be "legal" would be to publish a written offer that they could send you the sources on a CD/DVD for something like $5...$10, plus postage.
The most convenient way for the end user would be,
in addition, to host (at least on the main server) a complete source tree for releases 5.0 and 4.8.
I was about to forget: it seems I have a permanent gift from my Zenwalk friends:
Once we have finished with Zenwalk, we noticed how Susan is highly exaggerating:
SimplyMEPIS 7.0 is a keeper:
«The long awaited SimplyMEPIS 7.0 was finally released just before Christmas, and it was worth the wait. [...] SimplyMEPIS continues to be at the top of the short list of systems I recommend when asked which Linux distro to try. It is one of the best distributions available today. It is SimplyWONDERFUL.»
Let me remind you the conflict MEPIS had in the past with the GPL:
June 2006:
Widespread Linux GPL violations alleged;
A GPL requirement could have a chilling effect on derivative distros (as commented by me
here), both about MEPIS not providing the
full source code, not only the specific changes from the upstream.
August 2006:
MEPIS grundgingly complies with the GPL (as commented by me
here) — complying, but not in good will.
The current situation?
Initially (back in 2006), Warren has set up this
GPL Compliance FAQ. I want to stress the lack of good will in the answer to
Q2. Why would anyone want the GPLed source code in MEPIS? — So there is no obvious reason for anyone to want to get the MEPIS related GPLed source code from MEPIS, except to verify that MEPIS is complying with the GPL license restrictions. (Boo, Warren!)
At the same time, the page
Offer of GPLed Source Code — Formal Offer of Source Code was established:
"The source code DVDs may be purchased at the MEPIS Store for US$29.95."
The actual price is nowadays higher, as noted in the page
Source Code DVDs, which insists on Warren's disparaging fixation:
"It is unlikely that you need these DVDs. These are not the droids you are looking for. Move along, move along... Price: $34.95"
The
MEPIS Store lists the same price for the source DVDs: $34.95.
Note that not only Warren is trying to discourage you from ordering the source DVDs, but the price is ridiculously high: $35 + shipping!
GPLv2 says:
«for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution». Now, tell me again that the cost of burning 2 DVDs is $35!
Online Linux CD/DVD stores are selling 1 DVD for US$10 or
3 DVDs for US$15 (
TheLinuxStore); 2 DVDs for US$11.50 (
LinuxCD.org); etc.
Note that higher prices are used when a part of the price is as a financial contribution to the respective project — and buying a CD/DVD directly from MEPIS is also having that part of supporting the project (just like buying an OpenBSD CD-set is what you're supposed to do if you appreciate the project and want to give your support).
But when comes to the sources that are otherwise not available in free download, then it comes to the GPLv2 provisions, which is requiring good faith in establishing the "cost of physically performing" the burning of the DVDs — as the shipment costs are extra, not part of the $35 price.
MEPIS could prove its good faith by:
either offering something like: [x] Source DVDs: $14.95 + shipping; [_] Source DVDs + donation: $34.95 + shipping;
or putting the source tree on a FTP server: they would be surprised to see how people won't actually download "everything", but only the sources for the packages of genuine interest!
In the meantime, I'd rather drink gasoline than wholeheartedly recommending MEPIS to anyone.
BTW, why are these two cases officially considered what they really are, namely GPL violations? The first one is 100% obvious, and the second one is only formally OK, in fact it is far from being so.
source and comments(discussion):
http://beranger.org/index.php?page=d...-an-option-mep
wtf?zenwalk should provide build sources in their ftps.
Zenwalk 5.0 is not an option; MEPIS 7.0 is not a keeper...and GPL is the reason!
Re: Zenwalk 5.0 is not an option; MEPIS 7.0 is not a keeper...and GPL is the reason!
else these projects wont care to comply with gpl 
Re: Zenwalk 5.0 is not an option; MEPIS 7.0 is not a keeper...and GPL is the reason!
still I like to see the world moves completely to FOSS and GPLv3 killing all proprietary softwares and monopolies.
Linear Mode
