Hey all,

I was looking for a netbook distro to support intel GMA500, then I ended up in Jolicloud..

So I was looking around in their website but I realized that there is NO mention of source code repositories of it.. I haven't seen anywhere, there were just comments that the project is in Beta so they don't provide it yet.. But is it possible to not to distribute the source while they are allowing downloads of ISO images? I haven't seen a written offer either..

I am really suspicious, Isn't it a violation of GPL cause they are using Linux kernel, GNU software and claiming to be an opensource OS on their website??
http://www.jolicloud.com/product/specifications

Would be glad if someone knows details about this, or if there is actually a repository for their source code?

I think it will be better if you will ask the distribution developers directly. For instance, you may do it on Jolicloud forum: http://www.techreviewonlineforum.com...forum-f17.html

Some links, I found yesterday .....

http://www.jolicloud.com/

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives..._on_chrome.php
QUOTE : "".. Like Chrome OS, it's also built on the same
open source project that then became Google's web OS, .. ""

http://dev.chromium.org/chromium-os >>>
>> ""Source code
Get and build the Chromium OS source code""
>>> http://dev.chromium.org/chromium-os/...ng-chromium-os
→ → http://dev.chromium.org/chromium-os/...os-source-code
>> "Getting the Chromium OS Source Code"
......

Allez I wrote at the forum you suggested, thanx.. Waiting for an answer from there.. Well we will see.. But still they should make the source available even if they built on another distribution.

Well this response is what I got at the end:
"The source code isn't available yet, since we're still working on everything, ourselves."

I know that you can take GPL licensed code, modify it and used it on your own without distributing the code..

But can you do this when you are modifying GPL licensed softwares while distributing the binary at the same time??

Isn't the point of open-source that people can look at it, keep up with the development, and use unfinished versions if it works for them?

Who said they can't work on it themselves if they let people see the source? Unless they have something to hide...

I absolutely agree with you..
It seems to be a violation of GPL to me?

Here is where I got the reply:
http://www.techreviewonlineforum.com...code-t316.html