Hello all,
And here we have it from the horse's mouth: http://forums.pcquest.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4523
The editor of PCQ has responded that they have _not_ violated the GNU GPL as they have modified only anaconda and the init scripts of FC4. _I'm stumped_ :O How in the world have they "remastered" an entire distro without modifying anything other than anaconda and the init scripts? They claim to have distributed the sources of anaconda along with PCQLinux 2006. I believe them.
If thats the case then I am shocked as to how can someone: 1. FUBAR hardware detection 2. Introduce a whole lotta bugs 3. Break packages
by simply editing anaconda and the init scripts...?
Wow if it's really true then I am speechless. ms guys are really good at what they do :O
And the threats galore. Now they think someone opening their mouth is defamation... >_<
On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 01:30 +0000, Dinesh Joshi wrote:
Hello all,
And here we have it from the horse's mouth: http://forums.pcquest.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4523
The editor of PCQ has responded that they have _not_ violated the GNU GPL as they have modified only anaconda and the init scripts of FC4. _I'm stumped_ :O How in the world have they "remastered" an entire distro without modifying anything other than anaconda and the init scripts? They claim to have distributed the sources of anaconda along with PCQLinux 2006. I believe them.
If thats the case then I am shocked as to how can someone:
- FUBAR hardware detection
- Introduce a whole lotta bugs
- Break packages
Can someone from the Fedora team validate PCQ's claims?
Regards,
ah
Sometime on Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 01:30:18AM +0000, Dinesh Joshi said:
The editor of PCQ has responded that they have _not_ violated the GNU GPL as they have modified only anaconda and the init scripts of FC4. _I'm stumped_ :O How in the world have they "remastered" an entire distro without modifying anything other than anaconda and the init scripts? They claim to have distributed the sources of anaconda along with PCQLinux 2006. I believe them.
From the link(s) you have given, the editor, Mr. Krishna Kumar claims
that they have taken a legal advice from a whetted by legal counsel, conversant with the GPL.
And that their customers should get sources of packages bundled in their distribution from the internet urls of respective projects.
And the threats galore. Now they think someone opening their mouth is defamation... >_<
Yeah, if their customers ask questions and complain then it amounts to defamation. Strange.
Anurag
Dinesh Joshi wrote:
The editor of PCQ has responded that they have _not_ violated the GNU GPL as they have modified only anaconda and the init scripts of FC4. _I'm stumped_ :O How in the world have they "remastered" an entire distro without modifying anything other than anaconda and the init scripts? They claim to have distributed the sources of anaconda along with PCQLinux 2006. I believe them.
If thats the case then I am shocked as to how can someone: 1. FUBAR hardware detection 2. Introduce a whole lotta bugs 3. Break packages
by simply editing anaconda and the init scripts...?
I think they have craftily tried to skirt the gpl issue. From the installation and their claims it appears that they may have not modified individual packages so their claim that they are intact as the source. Their major goof up IMHO is in ripping apart the FC4 package, taking only the kernel and fusing non-compatible rpm packages into a Bhel Puri Linux distribution that turned out to be a buggy disaster.
For example, FC4 does not ship with Firefox 1.5. It comes with the older version. When I had tried to install 1.5 manually, it had given some compilation errors. Even the FC4 rpm repos did not contain Firefox 1.5 then. However it was crammed into the Bhel Puri Linux 2006 distro and I had mouse trouble while trying to configure it.
This brings to my mind a question about declarations. If a distro developer takes an official distro package, rips in apart and re-assembles it with non-compatible but un-modified individual packages then to what extent is he liable to declare the changes he has made to the original *package* and on whom does the burden of proof lie in proving that the packages are original in source code?
In this case does the mere declaration of non-modification of original source codes absolve PCQ of providing any proofs of the same?
Regards,
Rony.
Wow if it's really true then I am speechless. ms guys are really good at what they do :O
And the threats galore. Now they think someone opening their mouth is defamation... >_<
___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Rony Bill wrote:
If a distro developer takes an official distro package, rips in apart and re-assembles it with non-compatible but un-modified individual packages then to what extent is he liable to declare the changes he has made to the original *package* and on whom does the burden of proof lie in proving that the packages are original in source code?
The word *package* means the distro package not individual packages.
Rony.
___________________________________________________________ Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now. http://www.yahoo.co.uk/blackberry
I thought that Atul Chitnis was deeply involved in PCQ linux distributions. He was most certainly involved in the past and did a great job. Perhaps PCQ is getting fattened by vermiculture.
On Thursday 06 April 2006 8:36 pm, Rony Bill wrote:
This brings to my mind a question about declarations. If a distro developer takes an official distro package, rips in apart and re-assembles it with non-compatible but un-modified individual packages then to what extent is he liable to declare the changes he has made to the original *package* and on whom does the burden of proof lie in proving that the packages are original in source code?
There is no need for a declaration if he does not want to claim copyright. "Mods" does not include recompiling with some other unstable gpld lib (bye bye MD5 verification). So it is easy to FU the distro and not say anything at all. Which is where trademarks come in. So you cant fork the kernel, fill it with shit and still call it Linux. Well actually you can in Ozzie land where Linus lost the case for trademarking linux - he actually anticipated pricesely this type of activity.
In this case does the mere declaration of non-modification of original source codes absolve PCQ of providing any proofs of the same?
The onus of proof is (rightly) on the accuser.
Hi Linuxers....We are looking for Linux System Administrators with 1 year experience on Qmail, Squid, IP sec Firewalls etc...Compensation will be negotiable.
Ravishekar
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ravishekhar,
Hi Linuxers....We are looking for Linux System Administrators with 1 year experience on Qmail, Squid, IP sec Firewalls etc...Compensation will be negotiable.
When you create a new thread, please ``Compose'' a new message. Don't simply hit ``Reply'' and change the subject. What you just did is called thread hijacking, and it's considered as a malpractice. Please take care of that in the future. Thank you :) Regards, BG
- -- Baishampayan Ghose b.ghose@ubuntu.com Ubuntu Linux Project http://www.ubuntu.com
1024D/86361B74 BB2C E244 15AD 05C5 523A 90E7 4249 3494 8636 1B74
Oops...Correction on the way...maybe it is laziness on my part to write out the mail ID for ILUG...Will be OK the next time.
Regards old man mozz
Baishampayan Ghose wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ravishekhar,
Hi Linuxers....We are looking for Linux System Administrators with 1 year experience on Qmail, Squid, IP sec Firewalls etc...Compensation will be negotiable.
When you create a new thread, please ``Compose'' a new message. Don't simply hit ``Reply'' and change the subject. What you just did is called thread hijacking, and it's considered as a malpractice. Please take care of that in the future. Thank you :) Regards, BG
Baishampayan Ghose b.ghose@ubuntu.com Ubuntu Linux Project http://www.ubuntu.com
1024D/86361B74 BB2C E244 15AD 05C5 523A 90E7 4249 3494 8636 1B74 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFENUxwQkk0lIY2G3QRAjjKAJ0Q4vlkOCS13Btxy5aNWqfecDsLSQCfWBGo +Le9UvOwvSEG4TypTy/o57Y= =RrOw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thursday 06 April 2006 15:06, Rony Bill wrote:
I think they have craftily tried to skirt the gpl issue. From the installation and their claims it appears that they may have not modified individual packages so their claim that they are intact as the source. Their major goof up IMHO is in ripping apart the FC4 package, taking only the kernel and fusing non-compatible rpm packages into a Bhel Puri Linux distribution that turned out to be a buggy disaster.
For example, FC4 does not ship with Firefox 1.5. It comes with the older version. When I had tried to install 1.5 manually, it had given some compilation errors. Even the FC4 rpm repos did not contain Firefox 1.5 then. However it was crammed into the Bhel Puri Linux 2006 distro and I had mouse trouble while trying to configure it.
*snip*
Do they even know that the Fedora kernel is really a vanilla kernel with over 200 patches applied to it?
-
Amol Hatwar -
Anurag -
Baishampayan Ghose -
Dinesh Joshi -
JTD -
Ravishekar -
Ravishekar K
-
Rony Bill