NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #18/NN_1992_18.iso/spool/comp/os/linux/8430

Text File | 1992-08-16 | 5.5 KB | 122 lines

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!murphy!fortony
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: SLS: now available (for testers)
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <fortony.714016874@murphy> <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <fortony.714036160@murphy>
Originator: fortony@murphy
Sender: [e-mail] (Net Noise owner)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 07:22:40 GMT
Lines: 109

pmacdona@sanjuan (Peter MacDonald) writes:

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

sigh.

>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.

From the above article you posted: "SLS is a composite of binaries
that were posted [...] plus a pile I compiled."

From this description of what you were providing, plus the non-occurrence
of the GPL or any subset thereof in the SLS distribution (according to
some other netter, I have not checked myself), plus the hazy distinction
between 'source' and a 'source tree' (if you don't have a source tree,
where and how are you keeping source?), it seems perfectly clear to me
that you don't have what it takes to fulfil the GPL.

If you simply misstated, and forgot to include notice to your distributees
to the effect that source is available, and do in fact have the source code
to the relevant software and will keep it for three years,
*that's*just*great*.  I'll throw you a party of one and scribble your
name in my personal book of good guys.  I wrote my original post because
all of the factual evidence was against you.  *Please* prove me wrong!
*Tell* us you've got the source and will provide notice with every copy
of the GPL binaries.  I'd love to be incorrect on this one.

>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.

That's because they were irrelevant.

>What I want to know is: do you work for AT&T or something.  [..]

No, why, are you hiring? :)

> 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". [...]

That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.  Look, the GPL is a
binding document that happens to be a whole lot more important
to some people than linux is.  It has goals and effects which
could profoundly change the nature of programming and programs
all over the world.  But it can only do these things if it's
obeyed conscientiously.  I suspect that you're disobeying the
GPL in order to get Linux out easier, and in doing so going
against your own spirit of free software availability.  It
certainly isn't 'good for linux' to walk all over the license
for the software which makes it usable.

>  The intent was to make Linux
>easy to use, powerful, and widely available.  How is what you are doing,
>helping that.

The intent of the GPL is to make software (not just Linux) easy to
use, powerful, widely available, instructional and modifiable.  Is
it the case that what you are doing is threatening 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.

Image doesn't matter if you've got a cause.  Instead of being
petulant and stopping all production because someone pointed out
that you appear to be in violation of the GPL, why don't you
simply answer the following questions:

1) Are you aware that the GPL contains provisions for the recipient
of a program to receive full source code of that program in machine
readable form?  If so, do you currently deliver notification to
recipients of the SLS package that they can get the source code?

2) Do you have the source code to all programs delivered in the
SLS package which are covered under the GPL?  Do you currently
deliver this source code to people requesting it?

I hope that the answer to these questions is yes.  If it is, there
will undoubtedly be nobody happier than me; I'm the fella who's
gotten over 20 completely illiterate mail messages from people who
have about as much sense of reality and morals as your standard
moray eel on this subject, and I definitely want to receive no more.

ObHumor: one of them said everyone at MIT was "a fag anyway".
Errr, well, okay...:)
--
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z
Felix Sebastian Ortony    [e-mail]