Hello,
puppy is proving to be a real challenge to rebuild its kernel. I have looked at the .config that comes with the kernel and have some questions.
First, is there a place where I can download the tarball for the puppy 2.02 installation kernel?
I am having very bad luck on my FC5 system getting the kernel to run properly, and I made it all the way through the init script only to get stuck at the end with a VFS: Cannot open a root device "<NULL>" message....
So perhaps, if you could share the kernel source tarball for download, so I can build it on my FC5 system, I can see what i am missing.
I have written a procedure (Bash Script) for a kernel update for puppy 2.02 that works really well. But I am stuck on the root pivot line that calls busybox.
So, perhaps I can save some time and just get the kernel tarball to make sure I didn't forget something.
-Hackus
Puppy 2.02 Kernel Rebuild
puppyos.com
Pls check on http://puppyos.com especially the news and download pages. I understand Barry mails cource CDs to those interested.
Puppy user since Oct 2004. Want FreeOffice? [url=http://puppylinux.info/topic/freeoffice-2012-sfs]Get the sfs (English only)[/url].
GPL Compliance
Technically, the author should be aware, that any GPL'ed software must be distributed in source code form along with the binaries.
I guess asking to MAIL the source code is technically in compliance, although I haven't seen the source code .... YET.
But it is sorta irregular there is not a SOURCES directory along side the iso directory for rebuilding the binaries.
No matter though, I have whipped out the HEAVY GUNS, and plan on going at it this afternoon and auditing the modules required for a successful boot.
If I am successful, I will have a procedure for rebuilding 2.02 under Fedora Core 5 and I won't have to go through the snail mail to get the source code.
-Hack
I guess asking to MAIL the source code is technically in compliance, although I haven't seen the source code .... YET.
But it is sorta irregular there is not a SOURCES directory along side the iso directory for rebuilding the binaries.
No matter though, I have whipped out the HEAVY GUNS, and plan on going at it this afternoon and auditing the modules required for a successful boot.
If I am successful, I will have a procedure for rebuilding 2.02 under Fedora Core 5 and I won't have to go through the snail mail to get the source code.
-Hack
Links I have Tried
Every link on the download page, is nothing but binaries.
http://puppyos.com/download/downpage.htm
Not a single reference to a source build anywhere.
I challenge you to find a single source download link on that page.
It is irritating that a GPL project has no source reference.
Technically it is a violation of the GPL.
I don't even see a link for a Mailer for mailing the source code either, even if I WANTED to pay for the source code to be mailed to me.
What is also irritating is the guy puts up bogus developer notes for 2.02 at:
http://puppyos.com/development/compilekernel.htm
With no corresponding referenes for 2.02 or the source tree for the kernel, which is 2.6 series not a 2.4 series.
It isn't rocket science to put a HTML link tag to a tarball on a web page for someone to download. Frankly I do not see the issue here.
However, I have figured out my problem, I am missing a obsolete file system in my kernel build and that is why it fails to pivot root.
Why the author decided to include such an obsolete file system such as DEVFS_FS is beyond me.
-Hackus
http://puppyos.com/download/downpage.htm
Not a single reference to a source build anywhere.
I challenge you to find a single source download link on that page.
It is irritating that a GPL project has no source reference.
Technically it is a violation of the GPL.
I don't even see a link for a Mailer for mailing the source code either, even if I WANTED to pay for the source code to be mailed to me.
What is also irritating is the guy puts up bogus developer notes for 2.02 at:
http://puppyos.com/development/compilekernel.htm
With no corresponding referenes for 2.02 or the source tree for the kernel, which is 2.6 series not a 2.4 series.
It isn't rocket science to put a HTML link tag to a tarball on a web page for someone to download. Frankly I do not see the issue here.
However, I have figured out my problem, I am missing a obsolete file system in my kernel build and that is why it fails to pivot root.
Why the author decided to include such an obsolete file system such as DEVFS_FS is beyond me.
-Hackus
It's a pleasure trying to help people that have such a positive attitude.
I am only glad that there are MANY other people on here willing to take their own time to help others.
I as one, really appreciate their efforts in bringing us the best os I have used to date.
Maybe here is where you're looking for? I have no clue since I do not play with the source codes.
http://www.puppyos.com/test/
Maybe a different hobby would ease your irritability.
"Seek (google) and ye shall find"
I am only glad that there are MANY other people on here willing to take their own time to help others.
I as one, really appreciate their efforts in bringing us the best os I have used to date.
Maybe here is where you're looking for? I have no clue since I do not play with the source codes.
http://www.puppyos.com/test/
Maybe a different hobby would ease your irritability.
"Seek (google) and ye shall find"
trapster
Maine, USA
Asus eeepc 1005HA PU1X-BK
Frugal install: Slacko
Currently using full install: DebianDog
Maine, USA
Asus eeepc 1005HA PU1X-BK
Frugal install: Slacko
Currently using full install: DebianDog
Source Code
"It's a pleasure trying to help people that have such a positive attitude.
I am only glad that there are MANY other people on here willing to take their own time to help others.
I as one, really appreciate their efforts in bringing us the best os I have used to date.
Maybe here is where you're looking for? I have no clue since I do not play with the source codes.
http://www.puppyos.com/test/ "
I think you are implying that I mean the distro is bad.
Not at all.
Never said that, so I won't comment.
"Maybe a different hobby would ease your irritability. "
I don't think you understand what is at stake here.
Let me point this out to everyone that is in this forum why puppy OS is so great.
The GPL is a license that is singularly holding back a wide variety of ethical and moral considerations at the moment. Many of you could care less.
However, others such as myself, do care because we make software. We understand how crappy software is, and realize the GPL allows software engineering methods to exist legally that are superior to closed source, Microsoft style development patterns which create some of the worlds biggest piles of horse manured software.
The GPL, which among other things allows people to participate in turning software from crap, such as any Microsoft product you buy, to something of value....such as Puppy, which is based on a HUGE number of contributors, which the author got the source code for, and slapped together a bunch of changes and packaged as this puppy distro.
If you take away the source code, such as the author has, or attempt too limit the source code in a subversive way, such as not distributing the source code with the binaries, you are legally held accountable for the consequences.
You cannot distribute the binaries of any program without the source code. This means NO, you cannot put the binaries up for download and then ask people to pay for the source code L8r via snail mail.
That is a violation of the GPL.
If the author wants to charge for the code or his labor or whatever, that is fine, the GPL permits this.
*HOWEVER*
The author must remove the binaries from the websites in question and put them on the source code CD's to be mailed out to individuals so the binaries and the sources are delivered together.
Now why do you think that is?
That is so people cannot use GPL code that the community has written, use it too enrich themselves by holding everyones source code hostage through the use of financial barriers. I am not suggesting the author is doing this, far from it. I am suggesting he is not following the license of the GPL, and the community which built the software to which he is technically selling.
For example, if I was to sue the author, I could have a great case stating that he is selling the source code, and not selling the binaries. Selling source, alot of which, he has no rights too.
What I cannot understand is individuals know, they benefit from, and enjoy working and building neat stuff with LINUX/GPL source code and then turn around and screw the community it came from by not distributing the source with the binaries. The GPL is crystal clear in the matter if you modify any of the code you have to publish those modifications with the binaries.
Everyone else does it, why can't the author do it?
Like THEY own all the code and they can do what they want with it.
It pisses me off, pisses off other developers code that is in the binaries in puppy linux and in general destroys a "hobby" which I love by putting the software development process into a "Microsoft Spin to Hell" scenario where you DON'T HAVE THE SOURCE CODE and are stuck with crappy software.
Finally the author I think is suggesting that because all of the source code is available everywhere, he is not responsible for publishing the source code tree he used to build the distro.
That is also wrong, any binary compiled from source, must be matched to the binary it was compiled from under compliance with the GPL.
SCO found this out as well when it was distributing SAMBA binaries with its OS.
The author isn't compliant, and he is wrecking my hobby.
-Hackus
I am only glad that there are MANY other people on here willing to take their own time to help others.
I as one, really appreciate their efforts in bringing us the best os I have used to date.
Maybe here is where you're looking for? I have no clue since I do not play with the source codes.
http://www.puppyos.com/test/ "
I think you are implying that I mean the distro is bad.
Not at all.
Never said that, so I won't comment.
"Maybe a different hobby would ease your irritability. "
I don't think you understand what is at stake here.
Let me point this out to everyone that is in this forum why puppy OS is so great.
The GPL is a license that is singularly holding back a wide variety of ethical and moral considerations at the moment. Many of you could care less.
However, others such as myself, do care because we make software. We understand how crappy software is, and realize the GPL allows software engineering methods to exist legally that are superior to closed source, Microsoft style development patterns which create some of the worlds biggest piles of horse manured software.
The GPL, which among other things allows people to participate in turning software from crap, such as any Microsoft product you buy, to something of value....such as Puppy, which is based on a HUGE number of contributors, which the author got the source code for, and slapped together a bunch of changes and packaged as this puppy distro.
If you take away the source code, such as the author has, or attempt too limit the source code in a subversive way, such as not distributing the source code with the binaries, you are legally held accountable for the consequences.
You cannot distribute the binaries of any program without the source code. This means NO, you cannot put the binaries up for download and then ask people to pay for the source code L8r via snail mail.
That is a violation of the GPL.
If the author wants to charge for the code or his labor or whatever, that is fine, the GPL permits this.
*HOWEVER*
The author must remove the binaries from the websites in question and put them on the source code CD's to be mailed out to individuals so the binaries and the sources are delivered together.
Now why do you think that is?
That is so people cannot use GPL code that the community has written, use it too enrich themselves by holding everyones source code hostage through the use of financial barriers. I am not suggesting the author is doing this, far from it. I am suggesting he is not following the license of the GPL, and the community which built the software to which he is technically selling.
For example, if I was to sue the author, I could have a great case stating that he is selling the source code, and not selling the binaries. Selling source, alot of which, he has no rights too.
What I cannot understand is individuals know, they benefit from, and enjoy working and building neat stuff with LINUX/GPL source code and then turn around and screw the community it came from by not distributing the source with the binaries. The GPL is crystal clear in the matter if you modify any of the code you have to publish those modifications with the binaries.
Everyone else does it, why can't the author do it?
Like THEY own all the code and they can do what they want with it.
It pisses me off, pisses off other developers code that is in the binaries in puppy linux and in general destroys a "hobby" which I love by putting the software development process into a "Microsoft Spin to Hell" scenario where you DON'T HAVE THE SOURCE CODE and are stuck with crappy software.
Finally the author I think is suggesting that because all of the source code is available everywhere, he is not responsible for publishing the source code tree he used to build the distro.
That is also wrong, any binary compiled from source, must be matched to the binary it was compiled from under compliance with the GPL.
SCO found this out as well when it was distributing SAMBA binaries with its OS.
The author isn't compliant, and he is wrecking my hobby.
-Hackus
Source Code
"It's a pleasure trying to help people that have such a positive attitude.
I am only glad that there are MANY other people on here willing to take their own time to help others.
I as one, really appreciate their efforts in bringing us the best os I have used to date.
Maybe here is where you're looking for? I have no clue since I do not play with the source codes.
http://www.puppyos.com/test/ "
I think you are implying that I mean the distro is bad.
Not at all.
Never said that, so I won't comment.
"Maybe a different hobby would ease your irritability. "
I don't think you understand what is at stake here.
Let me point this out to everyone that is in this forum why puppy OS is so great.
The GPL is a license that is singularly holding back a wide variety of ethical and moral considerations at the moment. Many of you could care less.
However, others such as myself, do care because we make software. We understand how crappy software is, and realize the GPL allows software engineering methods to exist legally that are superior to closed source, Microsoft style development patterns which create some of the worlds biggest piles of horse manured software.
The GPL, which among other things allows people to participate in turning software from crap, such as any Microsoft product you buy, to something of value....such as Puppy, which is based on a HUGE number of contributors, which the author got the source code for, and slapped together a bunch of changes and packaged as this puppy distro.
If you take away the source code, such as the author has, or attempt too limit the source code in a subversive way, such as not distributing the source code with the binaries, you are legally held accountable for the consequences.
You cannot distribute the binaries of any program without the source code. This means NO, you cannot put the binaries up for download and then ask people to pay for the source code L8r via snail mail.
That is a violation of the GPL.
If the author wants to charge for the code or his labor or whatever, that is fine, the GPL permits this.
*HOWEVER*
The author must remove the binaries from the websites in question and put them on the source code CD's to be mailed out to individuals so the binaries and the sources are delivered together.
Now why do you think that is?
That is so people cannot use GPL code that the community has written, use it too enrich themselves by holding everyones source code hostage through the use of financial barriers. I am not suggesting the author is doing this, far from it. I am suggesting he is not following the license of the GPL, and the community which built the software to which he is technically selling.
For example, if I was to sue the author, I could have a great case stating that he is selling the source code, and not selling the binaries. Selling source, alot of which, he has no rights too.
What I cannot understand is individuals know, they benefit from, and enjoy working and building neat stuff with LINUX/GPL source code and then turn around and screw the community it came from by not distributing the source with the binaries. The GPL is crystal clear in the matter if you modify any of the code you have to publish those modifications with the binaries.
Everyone else does it, why can't the author do it?
Like THEY own all the code and they can do what they want with it.
It pisses me off, pisses off other developers code that is in the binaries in puppy linux and in general destroys a "hobby" which I love by putting the software development process into a "Microsoft Spin to Hell" scenario where you DON'T HAVE THE SOURCE CODE and are stuck with crappy software.
Finally the author I think is suggesting that because all of the source code is available everywhere, he is not responsible for publishing the source code tree he used to build the distro.
That is also wrong, any binary compiled from source, must be matched to the binary it was compiled from under compliance with the GPL.
SCO found this out as well when it was distributing SAMBA binaries with its OS.
The author isn't compliant, and he is wrecking my hobby.
-Hackus
I am only glad that there are MANY other people on here willing to take their own time to help others.
I as one, really appreciate their efforts in bringing us the best os I have used to date.
Maybe here is where you're looking for? I have no clue since I do not play with the source codes.
http://www.puppyos.com/test/ "
I think you are implying that I mean the distro is bad.
Not at all.
Never said that, so I won't comment.
"Maybe a different hobby would ease your irritability. "
I don't think you understand what is at stake here.
Let me point this out to everyone that is in this forum why puppy OS is so great.
The GPL is a license that is singularly holding back a wide variety of ethical and moral considerations at the moment. Many of you could care less.
However, others such as myself, do care because we make software. We understand how crappy software is, and realize the GPL allows software engineering methods to exist legally that are superior to closed source, Microsoft style development patterns which create some of the worlds biggest piles of horse manured software.
The GPL, which among other things allows people to participate in turning software from crap, such as any Microsoft product you buy, to something of value....such as Puppy, which is based on a HUGE number of contributors, which the author got the source code for, and slapped together a bunch of changes and packaged as this puppy distro.
If you take away the source code, such as the author has, or attempt too limit the source code in a subversive way, such as not distributing the source code with the binaries, you are legally held accountable for the consequences.
You cannot distribute the binaries of any program without the source code. This means NO, you cannot put the binaries up for download and then ask people to pay for the source code L8r via snail mail.
That is a violation of the GPL.
If the author wants to charge for the code or his labor or whatever, that is fine, the GPL permits this.
*HOWEVER*
The author must remove the binaries from the websites in question and put them on the source code CD's to be mailed out to individuals so the binaries and the sources are delivered together.
Now why do you think that is?
That is so people cannot use GPL code that the community has written, use it too enrich themselves by holding everyones source code hostage through the use of financial barriers. I am not suggesting the author is doing this, far from it. I am suggesting he is not following the license of the GPL, and the community which built the software to which he is technically selling.
For example, if I was to sue the author, I could have a great case stating that he is selling the source code, and not selling the binaries. Selling source, alot of which, he has no rights too.
What I cannot understand is individuals know, they benefit from, and enjoy working and building neat stuff with LINUX/GPL source code and then turn around and screw the community it came from by not distributing the source with the binaries. The GPL is crystal clear in the matter if you modify any of the code you have to publish those modifications with the binaries.
Everyone else does it, why can't the author do it?
Like THEY own all the code and they can do what they want with it.
It pisses me off, pisses off other developers code that is in the binaries in puppy linux and in general destroys a "hobby" which I love by putting the software development process into a "Microsoft Spin to Hell" scenario where you DON'T HAVE THE SOURCE CODE and are stuck with crappy software.
Finally the author I think is suggesting that because all of the source code is available everywhere, he is not responsible for publishing the source code tree he used to build the distro.
That is also wrong, any binary compiled from source, must be matched to the binary it was compiled from under compliance with the GPL.
SCO found this out as well when it was distributing SAMBA binaries with its OS.
The author isn't compliant, and he is wrecking my hobby.
-Hackus
source:But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... stedPublic
source:NOTICE:
The Sourcerer CD has most of the source packages used for Puppy, to comply with requirements of the FSF*.
http://puppylinux.com/download/downpage.htm
Note, that Barry does all his work via dialup, for every Iso-upload he drives some 100 kilometers to a friend with broadband internet access.
Note too, that Puppy 2.10 is based on the T2 build system, an important point for this was to make it easier to get the complete sources.
Note also, that we have several people here contributing selfcompiled Kernelmodules, so I don't really see what problem you have.
Guys who prefer to read the docs instead of insulting others as a newbee, that you certainly are to Puppy, even if you have some basic Linux knowledge.
Mark
-
marksouth2000
- Posts: 622
- Joined: Wed 05 Apr 2006, 20:43
Mark, this hackus creature is trolling, don't rise to it. It knows nothing about Barry, about Puppy, or about the GPL. It claims that its hobby is being ruined because it can't wait for the source CD. It could go build Linux From Scratch and complain in those forums instead. Just ignore it, please. Cool's the word. 
Hackus could have looked throught the forum in which case he might have found this:
http://www.murga.org/~puppy/viewtopic.php?t=10421
http://www.murga.org/~puppy/viewtopic.php?t=10421
[url]http://speakpup.blogspot.com[/url]
Kernel Tree Question for Source CD's
I don't mind waiting for the source CD, I never said I didn't want to wait for the CD.
I apologize if I feel irritated myself, but thats how the GPL works and it is that way for a reason.
What I guess Barry hasn't addressed is how to fix this "problem".
(I know this is an issue because I find many people have had the same questions I have had google'ing with the key words: "puppy GPL source")
I would like to make some suggestions!
As the previous posted pointed out, Barry might live far away, with no internet access, or poor internet acesss. (i.e. Oh I don't know, maybe Internet via Kangeroo or 300 baud modem...)
If that is the case, why couldn't we make arrangements with a hosting site to dump the iso image of the source trees on CD to a http/ftp server at each release cycle.
Secondly, has anyone asked Barry if he wants to make money off of this?
If Barry does want to make money off of this, perhaps something like a FilePlanet type of distribution access would be required.
You pay the host for installing the source CD on a server someplace, and everyone who wants it get access to it for a fee, depending on how much Barry wants to make and how much people want to pay.
That way the GPL would not be in violation and the binaries and sources would be distributed together.
Who knows, maybe Barry could make enough to get a decent IP connection at home! (Minus the Kangeroos).
Now, before I order a CD:
1) Do I get the build tree for the kernel binary that comes with 2.02 with the CD?
2) Does the kernel build tree on the CD have any commercial software requirements that I need to purchase to build the kernel binary?
-Hackus
I apologize if I feel irritated myself, but thats how the GPL works and it is that way for a reason.
What I guess Barry hasn't addressed is how to fix this "problem".
(I know this is an issue because I find many people have had the same questions I have had google'ing with the key words: "puppy GPL source")
I would like to make some suggestions!
As the previous posted pointed out, Barry might live far away, with no internet access, or poor internet acesss. (i.e. Oh I don't know, maybe Internet via Kangeroo or 300 baud modem...)
If that is the case, why couldn't we make arrangements with a hosting site to dump the iso image of the source trees on CD to a http/ftp server at each release cycle.
Secondly, has anyone asked Barry if he wants to make money off of this?
If Barry does want to make money off of this, perhaps something like a FilePlanet type of distribution access would be required.
You pay the host for installing the source CD on a server someplace, and everyone who wants it get access to it for a fee, depending on how much Barry wants to make and how much people want to pay.
That way the GPL would not be in violation and the binaries and sources would be distributed together.
Who knows, maybe Barry could make enough to get a decent IP connection at home! (Minus the Kangeroos).
Now, before I order a CD:
1) Do I get the build tree for the kernel binary that comes with 2.02 with the CD?
2) Does the kernel build tree on the CD have any commercial software requirements that I need to purchase to build the kernel binary?
-Hackus
I'm no expert in the Kernel-stuff, but maybe this helps you:
http://www.murga.org/~puppy/viewtopic.php?t=10361
Mark
http://www.murga.org/~puppy/viewtopic.php?t=10361
Mark
shock
People from the corporate world are shocked that a guy like Barry, with 19 kbps modem connection and an expensive one at that (A$0.35/dial), could manage to publish a Linux distro as smart as Puppy.
Hackus, Barry has no income source at the moment (retired but still awaiting retirement benefits), so any financial help we can extend, we should.
And get over that shock - Barry's situation is for real - he is really out there in the boondocks but is trying to help us. And he is genuinely polite, too. I wonder what made you post these long messages - have you tried asking him somehow in his news blog? http://puppyos.net/news
Hackus, Barry has no income source at the moment (retired but still awaiting retirement benefits), so any financial help we can extend, we should.
And get over that shock - Barry's situation is for real - he is really out there in the boondocks but is trying to help us. And he is genuinely polite, too. I wonder what made you post these long messages - have you tried asking him somehow in his news blog? http://puppyos.net/news
Puppy user since Oct 2004. Want FreeOffice? [url=http://puppylinux.info/topic/freeoffice-2012-sfs]Get the sfs (English only)[/url].
-
BarryK
- Puppy Master
- Posts: 9392
- Joined: Mon 09 May 2005, 09:23
- Location: Perth, Western Australia
- Contact:
Re: GPL Compliance
Yes, providing source on CD only is in compliance. Legal details were sorted out sometimes ago with the FSF.hackus wrote:Technically, the author should be aware, that any GPL'ed software must be distributed in source code form along with the binaries.
I guess asking to MAIL the source code is technically in compliance, although I haven't seen the source code .... YET.
Note however, when Puppy 2.10 is released, all sources will be online and I will stop selling the "Puppy Sourcerer" CD.
-
Nathan F
- Posts: 1764
- Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 14:45
- Location: Wadsworth, OH (occasionally home)
- Contact:
We should get a few facts straight here. The first is that Hackus is technically correct in almost every way, although frankly his tone pisses me off. No matter, there is a problem and it needs addressed, but I am satisfied that Barry is doing so in good faith. I repeat, Barry Kauler is working in good faith to comply and help foster the growth and use of GPL software, so please cut him a break.
Barry has always posted his kernel sources and config file for as long as I can remember, so don't go there. If you want the 'build tree' build it. The kernel itself is almost vanilla with usually only the squashfs patch. Also, up until very recently Puppy has been compiled in an ad-hoc manner so don't bother looking for any automated build scripts.
The next point I want to make is that probably the majority of small distros out there have a very hard time complying with the GPL, and most don't bother. So don't burn Barry, because once again I'll repeat that he's working in good faith to fix this. Even a few big distros are not in compliance (Mepis anyone?). This doesn't excuse someone else of course but at least admit there's bigger fish to fry.
I made a concious decision a couple months ago to host every bit of source I possibly could on my own server, to make sure that there would be no issues like this with Grafpup, although I'm probably nowhere near 100% compliance. I'd like to point out that this takes an enormous amount of space and an enormous amount of time, and even on a relatively fast DSL line it can take three hours or more for me to upload sources when I release an iso. Almost impossible for someone who does not have the option of using anything other than dialup. I would suggest that as a community we step in and help, I'm sure one of us could set up a source repo. Since the majority of the source code is in unmodified form from the original authors whoever decided to take on such a project would be able to just download the correct tarballs and place them on the server.
So to both sides here. Hackus, you could be a whole lot nicer about it and you've made enemies of a lot of good people by being so rude. But frankly people he has a point, so let's listen even if it burns a little.
Nathan
Barry has always posted his kernel sources and config file for as long as I can remember, so don't go there. If you want the 'build tree' build it. The kernel itself is almost vanilla with usually only the squashfs patch. Also, up until very recently Puppy has been compiled in an ad-hoc manner so don't bother looking for any automated build scripts.
The next point I want to make is that probably the majority of small distros out there have a very hard time complying with the GPL, and most don't bother. So don't burn Barry, because once again I'll repeat that he's working in good faith to fix this. Even a few big distros are not in compliance (Mepis anyone?). This doesn't excuse someone else of course but at least admit there's bigger fish to fry.
I made a concious decision a couple months ago to host every bit of source I possibly could on my own server, to make sure that there would be no issues like this with Grafpup, although I'm probably nowhere near 100% compliance. I'd like to point out that this takes an enormous amount of space and an enormous amount of time, and even on a relatively fast DSL line it can take three hours or more for me to upload sources when I release an iso. Almost impossible for someone who does not have the option of using anything other than dialup. I would suggest that as a community we step in and help, I'm sure one of us could set up a source repo. Since the majority of the source code is in unmodified form from the original authors whoever decided to take on such a project would be able to just download the correct tarballs and place them on the server.
So to both sides here. Hackus, you could be a whole lot nicer about it and you've made enemies of a lot of good people by being so rude. But frankly people he has a point, so let's listen even if it burns a little.
Nathan
Bring on the locusts ...
no Nathan, I think he is wrong.
He emphases the point:
Also some other points show me, that he did not read the license himself, instead he just quotes some thoughts he might have read somewhere in a chat or so.
I have no problem discussing points of the license, though I prefer to write free software instead of discussing license-issues.
But please lets stay with the facts (the paragraphs), and not start mixing them with vague ideologic interpretations.
I think the GPL is an excellent piece of work, and should be honoured by reading it carefully. I often see in boards complete misunderstandings. Note, free software is not "free as beer". It is a juristic instrument, to help programmers to keep the rights on their work (in contrast to software-patents). For the user it is a guarantee, to stay independent from big companies tendencies to keep users stupid and dependant.
I admit, that I'm no expert in this, but I had read several parts in detail, as wxBasic is released under the LGPL, what forced me to get an insight when I started creating my own packages (simple binary builds bundled with my applications, later modified derivates like Puppybasic).
Mark
He emphases the point:
That's crap, sorry.The author must remove the binaries from the websites in question and put them on the source code CD's to be mailed out to individuals so the binaries and the sources are delivered together
Also some other points show me, that he did not read the license himself, instead he just quotes some thoughts he might have read somewhere in a chat or so.
I have no problem discussing points of the license, though I prefer to write free software instead of discussing license-issues.
But please lets stay with the facts (the paragraphs), and not start mixing them with vague ideologic interpretations.
I think the GPL is an excellent piece of work, and should be honoured by reading it carefully. I often see in boards complete misunderstandings. Note, free software is not "free as beer". It is a juristic instrument, to help programmers to keep the rights on their work (in contrast to software-patents). For the user it is a guarantee, to stay independent from big companies tendencies to keep users stupid and dependant.
I admit, that I'm no expert in this, but I had read several parts in detail, as wxBasic is released under the LGPL, what forced me to get an insight when I started creating my own packages (simple binary builds bundled with my applications, later modified derivates like Puppybasic).
Mark
Last edited by MU on Tue 05 Sep 2006, 01:31, edited 1 time in total.
Back in 1998 the Australian magazine APC published a RedHat pocketbook which included a CD containing a copy of RedHat 5.2 along with a heap of extra software.
At the end of the book they had a section about source code where they stated that they would supply a CD containing the source code for AU $10 if you contacted them.
Would someone like to calculate that cost today based on inflation & rate rises.
At the end of the book they had a section about source code where they stated that they would supply a CD containing the source code for AU $10 if you contacted them.
Would someone like to calculate that cost today based on inflation & rate rises.
disoriented
Honestly he might have been disoriented. His last post is incomprehensible to me. What he has begun to learn about Puppy Linux must have shocked him.
Puppy user since Oct 2004. Want FreeOffice? [url=http://puppylinux.info/topic/freeoffice-2012-sfs]Get the sfs (English only)[/url].
-
BarryK
- Puppy Master
- Posts: 9392
- Joined: Mon 09 May 2005, 09:23
- Location: Perth, Western Australia
- Contact:
Actually, looking at the original post, I see that hackus wants the kernel source.
Well the patched kernel source v2.6.16.7 has been available all along on one of
my pages:
http://www.puppyos.com/test/
...this link was also given in previous threads.
Well the patched kernel source v2.6.16.7 has been available all along on one of
my pages:
http://www.puppyos.com/test/
...this link was also given in previous threads.