NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/comp/os/linux/8423

Text File | 1992-08-16 | 3.7 KB | 80 lines

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!gumby!destroyer!ubc-cs!news.UVic.CA!sanjuan!pmacdona
From: pmacdona@sanjuan (Peter MacDonald)
Subject: Re: SLS: now available (for testers)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: sanjuan.uvic.ca
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria B.C. CANADA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <fortony.714016874@murphy>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 04:25:29 GMT
Lines: 67

I am going to kick myself for contributing to perpetuating this farce,
but I am weak with amazement.

In article <fortony.714016874@murphy> [e-mail] writes:
>[e-mail] (Jim Winstead Jr.) writes:
>
>>First off, go read the GPL - you might learn something.  Then read the
>>excellent observations someone (I forget who) posted today - it was
>>worth reading, made valid points, and wasn't just someone going off
>>half-cocked.  Guess what I think of your post?
>
>Let me guess -- you didn't like it?  Actually, the first thing I read
>was the GPL, where it says that the source, in machine-readable form,
>has to be made available to the person to whom the binaries are
>distributed.  This fellow representing SLS said that he didn't have
>the sources, and that the package was composed of, quote, binaries
>pulled off the net.

I thought I said I didn't have the source tree.   From the original:

* Please go back and (re)read my first SLS posting.  In it I clearly
* state that Softlanding will make C source available as per GPL, but that
* they discouraged it.  However, I expect few to want it because it would
* be horrendously large.

* You also seem to have erroneously assumed that I have such a source
* tree in my possession.  If so, it is incorrect.  SLS is a composite
* of binaries that were posted (MCC, MJ, X11, and many miscellaneous) plus a
* a pile I compiled.  As I told Ted, Softlanding will not, I repeat NOT

"source tree" != "source".  So if you had of asked for
the source to bash, ok, but if you asked for the "source
tree", tough.  That I believe complies with the letter of
the GPL.

>
>I wasn't flaming him for not delivering gilt-edged parchments with
>every binary distribution set.  I was flaming him for clearly having
>no intention to deliver the source.  How can he, if he doesn't have it?
>
>>Mr. Macdonald does not have to 'set up a centrally administered source
>>tree for Linux' to hold true to the terms of the GPL.  You are making
>>a completely baseless attack - he has said he will make available
>>source, if requested, charging only for distribution costs.  That is
>>all the GPL requires him to do.
>
>Again, please read the post to which I was replying.  You cut it out
>of your followup, but it did contain lines to the effect that he did


Ha.  Haaaa. Haaaa Haaaaa.  Boy talk about the pot calling the kettle
black.  In your retort to my post, you cut out most sections of my
original post.  But never mind that.

What I want to know is: do you work for AT&T or something.  It seems
that you (and others) are deliberately attempting to thwart the
spirit of Linux availability, while masquarading it as a concern
for the "rights of the Linux Community".  The intent was to make Linux
easy to use, powerful, and widely available.  How is what you are doing,
helping that.

Anyways, for now, distribution via Softlanding is suspended, because
it (you) is getting in the way of developing and testing SLS, which
is after all my primary goal.  And I suggest that in future you
read a post 3-4 times before you reply/flame it, and include the
entire original if so.  Your image is somewhat tarnished it seems in
the eyes of "real" Linux contributors.