[SMAUG] Caldera Workstation 3.1

[Raphael Dorado]

Rick,

You forgot to tell me what was my penitence :-)

On Wednesday 08 August 2001 09:59 pm, you wrote:
  #  (Again, I'm grinding through several past e-mails, on this one.)
  #
  #
  #  Rapha=EBl Dorado said:
  #
  #  > This [Caldera 3.1 Workstation] is non-free software....
  #
  #  Be careful not to overstate this point.
  #
  #  1.  As Ronald pointed out, almost all distributions include non-=
free
  #  (AKA proprietary) software.  The pine mailer is proprietary.  (S=
ee:
  #  http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/#pine )  xv is proprietary.  Ple=
ase note
  #  that this is true of xv even though source code is freely availa=
ble!
  #  http://is.rice.edu/~shel/xv-3.10a/availability.html#licensing-in=
formation #
  #  Netscape Navigator/Communicator is proprietary:
  #  http://home.netscape.com/download/client.html  Did you know that=
 that
  #  licence purports to forbid redistribution?  Isn't that ridiculou=
s?
  #  (I believe there's a statement available from the company elsewh=
ere that
  #  countermands that.)
  #
  #  qmail, ezmlm, djbdns, publicfile and daemontools are proprietary=
:
  #  http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/#djb
  #
  #  The opposite of proprietary (non-free) is _open source_.  One
  #  distinguishes the two according to the licence terms -- and the
  #  yardstick conventionally used for that criterion is the Open Sou=
rce
  #  Definition, http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html .
  #

This is the opensource.org definition which is different from Microso=
ft's
definition, for example. But I agree that made a very bad choice of w=
ords.

I really meant to say that there is "less freedom" with that distribu=
tion
because you have to pay up front to get all the rights of use.

  #  Please note that the opposite of open source is NOT "commercial"=
.
  #  If you can sell or buy something -- such as Official Debian disk=
 1
  #  consisting entirely of open-source code from the "main" package
  #  collection -- then it's commercial, by definition.
  #
  #  I'm _really_ tired of people promoting the notion that open-sour=
ce
  #  software is non-commercial.  It's just not so.
  #

I don't think that I used the word commercial in such a way.=20

  #
  #  Rapha=EBl also said:
  #
  #  > Caldera has released a Linux distribution with proprietary sof=
tware
  #  > whose source code is not available.
  #
  #  As mentioned regarding the example of xv (which is an excellent
  #  graphics-handling utility), source availability doesn't stop cod=
e from
  #  being proprietary.  Simplifying a bit, open source licensing mea=
ns you
  #  not only have _access_ to the codebase's source, but may create =
and
  #  distribute modified versions with no restriction on what it may =
be used
  #  for.
  #
  #  xv's author (John Bradley) doesn't allow that, so it's proprieta=
ry.
  #  John has a perfect right to keep it that way, and labelling it
  #  proprietary in no way denigates him or his excellent work.  But =
it's why
  #  Red Hat Software, Inc. commissioned "Mandrake" (Carsten Haitzler=
) to
  #  write Electric Eyes as a GPLed replacement -- and that's why Red=
 Hat has
  #  omitted xv, ever since then.
  #
  #  > It was probably a 2.x release, but I was very disappointed by =
the
 (non) #  > hardware detection.
  #
  #
  #  Rapha=EBl also said:
  #
  #  Hardware auto-probing during installation is a two-edged sword: =
 If it
  #  works, you get a more-automated installation process.  But probi=
ng can
  #  and does cause some hardware to seize up the machine.  So, distr=
ibutions
  #  that do aggressive auto-probing (Linux-Mandrake, Corel Linux...)=
 will
  #  completely fail to install on some machines, on which other
  #  distributions that use auto-probing more conservatively (such as=
 Debian)
  #  will load onto effortlessly.
  #
  #
  #  Ronald Joe Record wrote:
  #
  #  > First, I am aware of only one vendor whose Linux distribution =
does not
  #  > contain proprietary software.  That is the not-for-profit Debi=
an
  #  > distribution.
  #
  #  Yes and no.  No and yes.
  #
  #  (1) Debian comprises the four package "collections" on its multi=
tude of
  #  Internet mirror sites.  They are classified according to licensi=
ng:
  #
  #  main:  open-source (AKA free-software) packages with no export i=
ssues
  #  non-free:  proprietary code that's freely distributable.
  #  non-US:  software with USA-export problems (mostly crypto)
  #  contrib:  software that is itself free but requires non-free
 dependencies #
  #  The Debian Social Contract (http://www.debian.org/social_contrac=
t)
  #  states that the "Debian system" must consist of only free softwa=
re,
  #  so Debian is 100% free software in a formal _definitional_ sense=
.
  #  But package in the non-free category are no less (and no more)
  #  accessible than those in the other three.  "apt-get install xv" =
will
  #  install John Bradley's graphics program.  ("apt-get install eeye=
s" will
  #  get you Haitzler's.)
  #
  #  (2) The Debian distribution is NOT "not-for-profit".  Among the =
freedoms
  #  guaranteed by open source licensing is the right to use software=
 for
  #  commercial purposes.  In fact, in that regard, open-source softw=
are is
  #  much _more_ for-profit than are many proprietary wares -- such a=
s the
  #  copy of Caldera 3.1 Workstation that claims to be legal only for
  #  "evaluation" or "demonstration" usage.
  #
  #
  #  Rapha=EBl also said:
  #
  #  > Caldera can always try, but this business model is Dead On Arr=
ival.
  #  > It requires people pay in order to use Linux in a commercial
  #  > environment.
  #
  #  I don't think it is; I don't think it does.
  #

My word against yours. You can not download their ISOs and install th=
em
and use them in your office. Le license terms are quite explicit.

  #  I think Caldera's somewhat clumsy attempt to introduce per-seat
  #  licensing is, in itself, a perfectly reasonable business model, =
and one
  #  that does not damage open source at all.  Please note that it's
  #  essentially what you get with SuSE's boxed set:  Since the YaST =
and
  #  YaST2 programs are proprietary, and are necessary to SuSE instal=
lation,
  #  you need to buy a separate boxed set for each host (machine), to=
 legally
  #  use the full SuSE version in a multi-machine environment.
  #

But can you still download the ISOs from the net and use them on as m=
any
machines as you want, in a business, can't you ?

  #  In my separate reply to Ronald, I was very explicit in what I me=
ant:  I
  #  said that I recommended that his employer switch for its downloa=
dable
  #  ISO image to a SuSE-like licensing model, and drop the legalisti=
c "EULA"
  #  crud.  I cannot endorse your view that there's something horribl=
y
  #  objectionable about (also) offering a proprietary superset.
  #

"superset": Applications or Kernel proprietary components ?

  #  > I wasn't on it during that period.  What does "much of" mean ?=
 I've
  #  > been involved into several standardizations committees (in ano=
ther
  #  > industry), and companies most involved in that process are onl=
y there
  #  > to pull the standard to their side. Thus I'm not surprised tha=
t
  #  > Caldera is there even though their market share is far below o=
ther
  #  > competitors.
  #
  #  (1) No, Ronald is correct that Caldera has made significant
  #  contributions to important open-source codebases -- and to the L=
SB.
  #
  #  (2) Be careful about making allegations concerning "market share=
" that
  #  you cannot possibly back up.  It's extremely difficult to measur=
e the
  #  sales volumes of Linux-related products.  (Please note that esti=
mating
  #  the number of Linux _installations_ is a completely different pr=
oblem,
  #  and is even more difficult.)
  #
  #  And now, let me correct one of my _own_ statements:
  #
  #  > I trust you are familiar with Richard M. Stallman's statement =
that
  #  > claiming compilation copyright over a work that includes GPLed
  #  > components is inconsistent with GPL v. 2 sections 2 and 5.  Yo=
u would
  #  > not be able to legally include third-party GPLed software in s=
uch a
  #  > work (absent special permission from each copyright holder aff=
ected).
  #
  #  It was late, I was tired, and I was hoping people would understa=
nd what
  #  I meant, even though I didn't say that quite correctly.
  #
  #  Some basics:  Copyright is a type of limited legal monopoly you =
gain
  #  automatically whenever you create a "creative work in fixed form=
".
  #  If you write a short story, you automatically own copyright to i=
t.
  #
  #  If you and fifteen other authors submit your short stories for a=
n
  #  anthology volume, you still retain copyright (unless you formall=
y sign
  #  it over), but imply licence for its inclusion.  However, the edi=
tor, in
  #  the act of selecting and arranging those sixteen stories, has _a=
lso_
  #  made a "creative work in fixed form" -- consisting of the creati=
ve
  #  accomplishment of selecting and arranging stories (plus prefator=
y
  #  material, etc.).
  #
  #  Red Hat Software has a file in the root directory of the RH
  #  distribution, asserting compilation copyright over the work as a=
 whole,
  #  and licensing whatever rights it has in that copyright under the=
 GNU
  #  GPL.  The OpenBSD Foundation claims compilation copyright over i=
ts
  #  OpenBSD ISO9660 images, claiming you may not redistribute that i=
mage,
  #  but rather must buy additional discs from them.  (That's their n=
early
  #  sole source of financial support.)
  #
  #  Anyhow, to correct myself:  Stallman said that any alleged compi=
lation
  #  copyright _that purports to place further restrictions_ on inclu=
ded
  #  third-party GPL software beyond those in the GPL terms is incomp=
atible
  #  with GPL v. 2 clauses 2 & 5.  My apologies for the omission.
  #

I received your other mail regarding the password. Thanks.

--Raf