Puppy 2.02 Kernel Rebuild

[Nathan F]

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

[MU]

no Nathan, I think he is wrong.
He emphases the point:

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

That's crap, sorry.
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

[Ian]

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.

[raffy]

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.

[BarryK]

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.

[hackus]

To everyone in this thread, thanks for the feedback.

I do have a rather brazen tone when it comes to the source code, because I have an intense desire to make source code available to all to learn about computers.

I dislike it when I can't get source code, particularly GPL licensed code.

I am aware of the following kernel: http://www.puppyos.com/test/linux-2.6.1 ... tch.tar.gz

However, I would like to point out that kernel source tree can't possibly be the one that built the binary.

The reason why that is will be apearent to anyone who downloads it, and attempts to do a config on it, build it and attempt to boot it in the puppy environment.

The symbol tree in the config file doesn't match the source tree of the kernel.

So, we have a binary version of the Linux kernel, being distributed with no corresponding source tree.

I don't think I have to say more.

I guess what is irritating is the web site SAYS the kernel source at the above link is the one that built the binary, but it isn't.

-Hackus

[gamfa]

You did sound like you where typing and sitting on a tack at the same time bud.

[raffy]

It seems hackus is here for help, and has now started two new threads about his project: here and there.

This will be the first activity on an "embedded" project in this forum, and we wish him well with it.

Note: Here is an interesting thread for naming Puppy Linux-based projects.