LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   MEPIS (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/mepis-64/)
-   -   Would someone from the Mepis team like to address this? (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/mepis-64/would-someone-from-the-mepis-team-like-to-address-this-325554/)

Genesee 05-20-2005 11:01 PM

Would someone from the Mepis team like to address this?
 
Welcome to LQ.org :cool:

As Mepis was the subject of a recent LQ thread regarding possible GPL-hostile activity, perhaps someone from the Mepis team would like to set the record straight on this?

I would very much like to hear both sides of this situation. Please refer to post #10 of this thread:

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...73#post1645673

mrbass 05-21-2005 01:44 AM

I think this guy summed it up well
Quote:

They just replied again saying, "There is no change in our policy or in what we said. You may resell this software at a profit by removing ALL MEPIS logos and names in the installer
and throughout the entire application. Control Center is also trademarked.
If you sell MEPIS with it's trademarks and copyrights again your auctions will be removed. If you sell MEPIS and ship the product with the trademarks and copyrights intact you will be in violation of copyright and trademark laws.

The GPL does not include copyrights and trademarks..."
Just like cheapbytes got busted by redhat...they had to strip all the logos and mentioning of the name. I don't belive their control center is GPL though so that may have to be stripped as well.

CouchMaster 05-21-2005 10:08 AM

Standard fare for just about all versions of Linux. You can copy it, sell it at cost, give it away - but sell it for a profit (donuts) and you violate the law.

craigevil 05-21-2005 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CouchMaster
Standard fare for just about all versions of Linux. You can copy it, sell it at cost, give it away - but sell it for a profit (donuts) and you violate the law.

That is NOT true. As long as the software is covered by the GPL and not a more restrictive license or by copyright protection. For some reason that is a common misunderstanding.

"Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release)."
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....eGPLAllowMoney

acanton 05-21-2005 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CouchMaster
Standard fare for just about all versions of Linux. You can copy it, sell it at cost, give it away - but sell it for a profit (donuts) and you violate the law.
OK, what about these scenarios.

1. A business associate of mine wants to try Linux. What if I go to his office and install Mepis 3.3 'for free' but I charge him $100 plus a pizza lunch for my time and trouble? Will Mepis sue for that? (Hope not!)

2. I sit down and write a 25 page guide (on a PDF file) on how to install Mepis and how to use some of the applications... KDE, GIMP, etc. I then sell this to the public at large for $15 and include a 'free' CD of the Mepis .iso file with the guide. Will Mepis sue me for that? (Hope not!)

As I understand it under GPL one can sell service and docs for whatever price they want as long as they make it clear that the underlying Debian distro is 'free.' But maybe Richard Stallman has changed the rules... since he has a bee in his bonnet that everything related to software must be free (except his speaking fees, of course!!! :-) )

Al

CouchMaster 05-21-2005 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by acanton
OK, what about these scenarios.

1. A business associate of mine wants to try Linux. What if I go to his office and install Mepis 3.3 'for free' but I charge him $100 plus a pizza lunch for my time and trouble? Will Mepis sue for that? (Hope not!)

2. I sit down and write a 25 page guide (on a PDF file) on how to install Mepis and how to use some of the applications... KDE, GIMP, etc. I then sell this to the public at large for $15 and include a 'free' CD of the Mepis .iso file with the guide. Will Mepis sue me for that? (Hope not!)

As I understand it under GPL one can sell service and docs for whatever price they want as long as they make it clear that the underlying Debian distro is 'free.' But maybe Richard Stallman has changed the rules... since he has a bee in his bonnet that everything related to software must be free (except his speaking fees, of course!!! :-) )

Al

I can only say that when they discover someone selling for a profit, any kind of profit, they can and sometimes do put a stop to it! So their reading of the GPL is different from mine/yours - and they prevail so I/we must be wrong.

Kdr Kane 05-21-2005 12:40 PM

You are mistaken if you think the GPL says that.

Mepis has the right to keep people from using their trademarks without compensation. Please don't say that nobody can make a profit off of selling LInux. Novell and RedHat sell Linux for a profit. It doens't cost them hundreds of dollars to make a CD and a book. I just can't make a profit off of reselling their trademarked distribution.

acanton,
1. That's perfectly fine.

2. You couldn't really do that without permission most likely. And that's usually the main reason distributions make a LIveCD version. They'd probably have no problem if you asked them nicely to add the LiveCD to your book.

chemist109 05-27-2005 01:29 PM

Two things:

Mepis may have software in their distribution that is NOT GPL (such as their installer).

Their artwork is copyrighted and (possibly) trademarked. In order to keep their trademark they must track down and stop unauthorized use. If they fail to do so, they could loose their trademarks. (I know, it doesn't sound right but look it up and you'll see that I'm telling the truth.) They also have every right to use whatever license that they wish with their artwork-- including refusing to allow it to be sold for profit.

XavierP 05-28-2005 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by chemist109
In order to keep their trademark they must track down and stop unauthorized use. If they fail to do so, they could loose their trademarks. (I know, it doesn't sound right but look it up and you'll see that I'm telling the truth.)
This is true (just to sidetrack the original discussion slightly), many companies have people whose sole job it is to check out any trademark violations or simply misuse. For example, if your company name has a hyphen in it, they will make sure that advertisements and news stories include that hyphen - it sounds lame and pointless but letting it go means that the correct namegets diluted and, eventually, the worst case scenario is that the company loses the right to claim the name as a trademark.

Also, lets say someone copied the disk and made some changes to it that would guarantee that your machine could be a zombie. If Mepis let the person leave the logos and names in there they would end up taking a huge amount of flak. At least if the trademarks are removed then Mepis is safe.

Here's a great example: we all like trampolines, right? Trampoline was originally the name of the company. But more and more people used the company name for non-Trampoline products and eventually it became the name of the thing rather than the name of the company that first brought it out. Now, anyone can call their trampoline a trampoline. And I think the company went bust.

In the UK, we know vacuum cleaners as Hoovers. Same thing, sort of.

jery_wang2002 05-28-2005 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chemist109
Two things:

Mepis may have software in their distribution that is NOT GPL (such as their installer).

I don't get this. I thought that when you distribute any software as part of GPL distribution. That software comes under GPL too. Especially, when without that software the distribution CD is not functioning properly. This is very confusing.

To draw an analogy.

I can install MySQL in my web server and it's under GPL.
I can distribute MySQL in a CD under GPL.
I can distribute my software that uses MySQL as long as my software is also GPL.

But I can NOT distribute my software in a CD together with MySQL when my software is NOT GPLed.

I can, however, to distribute my non-GPL software separately (in its own CD) and let the user download MySQL by herself and install it by herself too.

Now, the installer definitely needs the GPL codes to work with, otherwise what is it going to install. Installer by itself is of no use. If I can redistribute GPL codes with the non-GPL installer, I should be able to distribute my non-GPL software with MySQL in single CD.

Please someone clarify on this????

Kdr Kane 05-29-2005 12:11 AM

jery_wang2002,

You are correct.

Too many people are making ignorant statements about the GPL without even reading or trying to understand it.

jery_wang2002 05-29-2005 09:33 AM

It seems that we do not have 'Law enforcement' on this.

Who is the right authority? My guess is the competitor who violates the GPL since there is monetary advantage to file lawsuit.

I send email to FSF feedback but it falls on deaf ear.

Unlike in MySQL case where it is clear who is losing money when I distribute non-GPL with MySQL in single CD, Linux distro does not have a single entity that might be losing money because someone violates the GPL on the agregate of components.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kdr Kane
jery_wang2002,

You are correct.

Too many people are making ignorant statements about the GPL without even reading or trying to understand it.


FunTimes 05-29-2005 08:55 PM

Here is a sample of Mepis' view toward GPL http://www.mepis.org/node/99

And when some critizes they are reminded that Mepis is Warren's distro not theirs (per Eadwine replying to
acanton - the one who wrote the articles mention onthis thread .
Referece to that quote

jery_wang2002 05-29-2005 09:39 PM

What does it mean a distro is someone's distro?

All codes belong to the original author and licensed under GPL. I think we need to have a correct definition of 'distro'.

Quote:

Originally posted by FunTimes
Here is a sample of Mepis' view toward GPL http://www.mepis.org/node/99

And when some critizes they are reminded that Mepis is Warren's distro not theirs


aysiu 05-30-2005 12:49 AM

Why debate about all this when the answer is right on the website:

Quote:

1. Can I legally copy MEPIS Linux CDs and give them to my friends, etc?

You can make copies of the SimplyMEPIS bootable CD and give them away for non-commercial purposes only.

If you give CDs to others, please encourage them to buy updates and subscriptions from MEPIS.

2. Can I sell MEPIS Linux CDs?

The SimplyMEPIS CD is released under a GPL collective work license which theoretically allows you to make and sell copies.

However you may not use the MEPIS name or logo without permission. Therefore, in effect, you can not legally sell copies of MEPIS CDs without our permission.

3. How do I get permission to use the MEPIS name and logo?

Some people have sold homemade MEPIS CDs at Ebay for more than MEPIS charged! MEPIS gets no money when this happens. But we do get a bad reputation when the CDs are old or they don't work.

Therefore we give permission to use the MEPIS brand name only as a part of a formal business relationship
4. Do I need permission to use the MEPIS name and logo when I give away or sell SimplyMEPIS CDs for non-commercial purposes?

You do not but please encourage users to support MEPIS.

MEPIS explicitly gives the Debian Project, KDE.org, and Linux Users Groups the right to give away or sell SimplyMEPIS CDs as part of their promotional or fund raising activities.

jery_wang2002 05-30-2005 01:18 AM

The statement on the website is very clear.

I was not talking about the trademark. No question about that. Every statement on the paragraphs is correct.

But I was replying someone who said that Mepis put non-GPL control center in the CD.

This creates a lot of confusion for me. And I guess to a lot of people.

So we were talking different thing.

By putting non-GPL control center, I cannot get the source code. Hence I cannot strip the logo/tradmemark. Hence I cannot make a derivative work on the CD. Hence, from practicality point of view, the CD does not give freedom. In fact, it binds me, no different from M$$.

One thing that I am not sure is, whether without the control center, the CD is still functional. I guess not, since most probably, you cannot even install to HD. In other words, if I am interested in improving what the CD has, I have to go to Linux From Scratch.

It is a kind of evolution from GPL to non-GPL (proprietary).



Quote:

Originally posted by aysiu
Why debate about all this when the answer is right on the website:

craigevil 05-30-2005 01:36 AM

Just another reason to stick with Debian GNU/Linux.

"Debian GNU/Linux is a strong supporter of free software. Since many different licenses are used on software, a set of guidelines, the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) were developed to come up with a reasonable definition of what constitutes free software. Only software that complies with the DFSG is allowed in the main distribution of Debian."
http://www.debian.org/intro/free


Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free software. As there are many definitions of free software, we include the guidelines we use to determine if software is "free" below. We will support our users who develop and run non-free software on Debian, but we will never make the system depend on an item of non-free software.

"Free Redistribution
The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
http://www.debian.org/social_contract

jery_wang2002 05-30-2005 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by craigevil
Just another reason to stick with Debian GNU/Linux.

"Debian GNU/Linux is a strong supporter of free software. Since many different licenses are used on software, a set of guidelines, the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) were developed to come up with a reasonable definition of what constitutes free software. Only software that complies with the DFSG is allowed in the main distribution of Debian."
http://www.debian.org/intro/free


Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free software. As there are many definitions of free software, we include the guidelines we use to determine if software is "free" below. We will support our users who develop and run non-free software on Debian, but we will never make the system depend on an item of non-free software.

"Free Redistribution
The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
http://www.debian.org/social_contract

Totally agree and I support Debian 110%. But some people do not practice 'giving back' to the society.

FunTimes 05-31-2005 12:57 AM

Quote:

Totally agree and I support Debian 110%. But some people do not practice 'giving back' to the society.
Like making a distro that is based 99 % on the work of debian then adding a few config tools and then not share. These greedy distrubtors should be grateful that debian does not run itself the same way they run themself. Mepis would be pretty useless without the debian repositories.

jery_wang2002 05-31-2005 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FunTimes
Like making a distro that is based 99 % on the work of debian then adding a few config tools and then not share. These greedy distrubtors should be grateful that debian does not run itself the same way they run themself. Mepis would be pretty useless without the debian repositories.
The -not share- is done in such a way that it is difficult/incovenience to use the 99% without 1%. This is called vendor locking.

In Micro$oft case, it is totally fair for them to lock the user based on the 100% effort they have put in.

hkctr 05-31-2005 07:34 AM

To begin, this is not a bash of Mepis, the distro nor a plug for Ubuntu, but the topic of this post is precisely why I do not use Mepis. I have the same question(s) that many here have and I do not like the answers (or lack of) from Mepis.

Ubuntu philosophy

Debian and Unbuntu

A clear policy similar to Ubuntu's is what Mepis needs, IMHO to really grow. If not, Mepis has all that is required to become the next Xandros or Libranet (both debian based and for profit). Both are good distros that have a loyal, albeit small following. Good luck Warren, the choice is yours.

Genesee 06-01-2005 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by aysiu

2. Can I sell MEPIS Linux CDs?
The SimplyMEPIS CD is released under a GPL collective work license which theoretically allows you to make and sell copies.

not speaking as a lawyer or an expert on the GPL, but the statement above seems more than a little disingenuous. there is nothing "theoretical" about the GPL provision allowing selling copies, it is perfectly explicit:

Quote:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
(excerpt)

1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
again, a response from the Mepis organization would be welcomed.

FunTimes 06-01-2005 03:38 PM

Quote:

again, a response from the Mepis organization would be welcomed.
I think you will be hard pressed to get a response from them. And if you try thin on the semi-official mepislovers forum, you will probably result in another locked thread.
Mepis is a very good distro it is just a shame that when someone critizes it is considered flamimg.

jery_wang2002 06-01-2005 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FunTimes
Mepis is a very good distro it is just a shame that when someone critizes it is considered flamimg.
There are many out there that is as good as Mepis if not better. As a matter of fact, Ubuntu is far away in the list as no. 1 distro in Distrowatch.com. Mandriva is no. 2 and Mepis is no. 3.

I agree though that Mepis is very good. But how good is good, it depends on individiual. I think Ubuntu is still much better.

And if we talk about performance, Gentoo and/or Slackware or FreeBSD is the fastest.

So, if Mepis doesn't play nice with the comunity, there are better ones to switch to.

AdrianTM 06-01-2005 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FunTimes
These greedy distrubtors should be grateful that debian does not run itself the same way they run themself.
Greedy distrubutors? Do you really think that someone (Warren) makes a fortune from selling Mepis which by the way if FREE to download? So basically if someone pays for Mepis it's more like a donation rather that payment (even Debian charges for CDs by the way).

Warren always thanks anyone who contributed and Debian developers are first in line -- please read any official announcement from mepis.org So please stop spreading venom with expressions like: "greedy developers"

Just remember: Mepis is not backed up by a millionaire, charging $9.99 per CD (when you can have it for free or less) is not going to make Warren a millionaire.

Also, helping people moving from Windows to Linux and tweaking Debian and making it friendly is a contribution to Linux and Debian. I know many people who are not afraid anymore of Debian and it's geeky aura because of Mepis. Mepis has also very good configurations and scripts that anyone can use.

Quote:

Originally posted by FunTimes

Mepis is a very good distro it is just a shame that when someone critizes it is considered flamimg.

When someone calls somebody else who works hard "greedy" I'd call that flaming.

When I see so many people that are not using Mepis going out of their way to denigrate the distro and people that work on it I call that flaming. Why aren't you posting on Ubuntu forums or whatever distro's forums you use and stop giving us a hard time? I don't go posting of Ubuntu forums or others to say that they suck or their approach is bad or whatever, or that they should do this or that.

Don't like it -- don't use it. There are more than 300 distros, plenty for your personality, whatever that is, and for your political and technical preferences.

Personally I think that most of the distros are good I tried over 30 and most of them worked good or very good for me. I still prefer Mepis as many other people.

Don't worry if you like something else that's nothing wrong... nobody will judge you, please stop though the proselytism -- that gets kind of old after you spend a time on Linux forums. Beside, anyone over here should get out of the house more and see that there are bigger things and fights in the world.

Since this is a forum about Mepis people should have some common sense and decency and let Mepis users help people who have questions about it.

We can also debate what's good and what's bad about it, but please stop calling names, ok? It's not nice to call people greedy. Especially when those people work hard and they offer their work for free.

FunTimes 06-02-2005 01:15 AM

Did I miss the answer to the orginal post?

Lil_Deb 06-02-2005 03:01 AM

Quote:

Did I miss the answer to the orginal post?
Nope, and my bet is that there is not going to be a straight answer for a while. Mepis L.L.C. has implemented an unofficial policy of not directly answering any question that does not specifically address hardware compatibility issues.

This was not always the case with Mepis, but Warren has nearly disappeared from any community involvement in the last year.

Interestingly, the latest Mepis release , SimplyMepis-Lite, is not available to the public. A subscription fee is required to download the .iso test-release. This is (to my knowledge) a first for Mepis L.L.C.

Appearances suggest to me that Warren's intentions are now strictly focused on creating the framework of a commercially viable product. I believe that Warren will not license the Mepis installer under the GNU GPL.

While I do appreciate Warren's right to make a financial return on his investment, I will not be surprised if Warren soon crosses paths with GNU or the Debian Community and it is not going to be pretty.

As it stands currently, Warren's inclusion of the highly non-free Adobe Acrobat Reader (that includes Adobe promotional advertising) in SimplyMepis 3.3.1 sets precedent for the direction in which Mepis is heading.

I find myself appreciating "The Debian Way" more and more.

crashmeister 06-02-2005 05:38 AM

Just stick to Debian - it's the original anyway.

12 month d/l subscription 49.95? Not making money?Whats that supposed to be anyway?

Whatever - there's nothing wrong with making money but it might make sense to clearly state that you are a commercial distro with the intend to profit from your work to avoid confusion.
There are bunches of ppl that are happy customers of slack,suse and the likes.
Being directed from a .org to a .com website for the shopping part doesn't help there either.
Is mepis .com or .org or two different companies althogether?

AdrianTM 06-02-2005 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lil_Deb
Quote:

Did I miss the answer to the orginal post?
Nope, and my bet is that there is not going to be a straight answer for a while. Mepis L.L.C. has implemented an unofficial policy of not directly answering any question that does not specifically address hardware compatibility issues.

I don't think that Warren reads this forum. It's hard to respond to a question if you don't read it, right?

Quote:

Originally posted by crashmeister
Just stick to Debian - it's the original anyway.

12 month d/l subscription 49.95? Not making money?Whats that supposed to be anyway?

You can get Mepis for FREE from their ftp server and from many other mirrors. That's more like a donation, if you like Mepis and decide to support its developement, nobody forces you to pay.

I paid a subscription. Let me explain why: I used both Mepis and Debian. Using Debian it took me hours (for some people it takes days) to make it behave like Mepis, so I thought Mepis save me "x" number of hours, I make "y" dollars an hour therefore Mepis saved me x*y dollars. Let me tell you that's much more than $49.95. If you experiment and you reinstall distro couple of time that time saving multiplies. On my computer Mepis installs in 12 minutes and if I choose to keep /home partition I have everything as I want in 12 minutes. I can't do that with Debian.

I'm not saying that Debian is bad, no, it's great, but Mepis is better and I've found it deserved my money (although as I said before nobody is required to pay for it).

Quote:

Originally posted by crashmeister
Being directed from a .org to a .com website for the shopping part doesn't help there either.
Is mepis .com or .org or two different companies althogether?

I think you are reading too much into that. Companies have different sites for different purposes, it's a cheap trick to imply that using .com and .org domains is something dishonest.

aysiu 06-02-2005 10:07 AM

This 2003 post by Warren is the closest I could find to a statement on the issue. It sounds as if he's willing to release the code if people ask nicely. I'm just saying that's what he says. I've never asked him for the code, really.

Some might argue that people shouldn't have to ask--that the code should just be posted somewhere. Maybe that is the case. Maybe. Still, one can hardly argue that Mepis is some money-stealing, greedy institution. All that subscription/download stuff is usually just donations. I haven't contributed one dime to Mepis yet. I'm thinking about it, but I certainly didn't have to in order to do a great and easy install of 3.3.1.

It's been the best distro I've tried (out of many).

crashmeister 06-02-2005 10:09 AM

All I meant to say that if those things would be handeled straightforward there wouldn't be any confusion like right now about it.
About the .org and .com thing:
it's a subtile difference that most ppl probably don't even notice.Nonprofit organisatons and commercial enterprises are kind of a different ballgame.
As I said - nothing wrong with making money (everybody got bills to pay) but I'd rather see it done in a straightforward manner.

midway40 06-02-2005 10:26 AM

"Interestingly, the latest Mepis release , SimplyMepis-Lite, is not available to the public. A subscription fee is required to download the .iso test-release. This is (to my knowledge) a first for Mepis L.L.C."

This will soon be moved over to the regular ftp download site. As a thanks, people who donate gets "first dibbs" on each testing and final releases and then later it moves to the public ftp site. This has always been done as far as I know.

I bought a six-month subscription the day after I first installed Mepis back in November. This is the first time I have ever donated to a Linux distro (come to think of it, it is time to donate again). I was that impressed with it.

I do not know what else to say what hasn't already been said to convince some of these "purists" that some people want an distro that installs with less fuss. Some of us has better things to do than configuring an OS for a lengthy period (especially people on dial-up like me having to download stuff that Mepis already provides).

Genesee 06-02-2005 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by midway40
I do not know what else to say what hasn't already been said to convince some of these "purists" that some people want an distro that installs with less fuss. Some of us has better things to do than configuring an OS for a lengthy period (especially people on dial-up like me having to download stuff that Mepis already provides).
with due respect, the question is not about whether mepis is a good product or the desires of "purists," but rather of abiding by license terms.

mepis did not create the majority of what they package into their distro. Linux is the product of a great deal of volunteered work, time, and effort. much or most of that effort was donated with an understanding that it would be freely available and protected by the provisions of the GPL. I don't know, but I assume, that many would not contribute without the GPL-based expectation that their effort would not be closed and used for exclusive profit.

if mepis wants to profit from that effort - that's perfectly fine, as long as they adhere to the GPL which allows for it. if they do not want to adhere to it, they are also free to write their own code from scratch and do whatever they want with it. but they can't do both.

AdrianTM 06-02-2005 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Genesee
if mepis wants to profit from that effort - that's perfectly fine, as long as they adhere to the GPL which allows for it. if they do not want to adhere to it, they are also free to write their own code from scratch and do whatever they want with it. but they can't do both.
Mepis adhers to GPL where it uses it and they do with their own code whatever they want to do.

As far as I know there isn't a legal problem to have programs that have different types of licenses on a system. Right? I know that Microsoft wanted to imply that with "that Linux is a cancer" rhetoric and alike, but that's a lie as far as I know.

Of course you can't take a GPL program and make it something else, but Mepis doesn't do that.

midway40 06-02-2005 02:15 PM

Coming fresh from the Windows world, maybe I am having a hard time understanding the dynamics of all of this. At first I thought all of this was part of a "jealousy" of the purists toward offshoots (Mepis, Ubuntu, etc) of a distribution that were doing better than the root distribution, so to speak. I went into this in another post.

I can't seriously see Warren making a "killing" and all donations are voluntary (as with most distros I have seen). The only difference is the "first dibbs" I mentioned before. As far as OS Center, meauto, and other "additions" of Mepis that may not fall under GPL, I do not know and truthfully do not care. I finally found a distro that has all but replaced WinXp on my machine and one day when I get ready to I will move to pure Debian. As far as the subject of this thread goes, I will let you long time Debian users debate that.

A suggestion though, maybe better to ask the question to the creators of the GPL themselves than posting this over several forums that either party may or may not visit? I am sure they observe all these Debian distros that come out. Warren has given his thanks to Debian many times so I assume that there is some contact in between them.

jery_wang2002 06-06-2005 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by aysiu
I've never asked him for the code, really.
What code?

This one?

http://www.mepis.org/node/99:
-----------------------------------------
Warren

PS: Here is a link to the source code for anyone who's interested:
http://www.mepis.org/downloads/minstall.tgz

-------------------------------------------

http://www.mepis.org/downloads/minstall.tgz:

Page not found

------------------------------------------

jery_wang2002 06-06-2005 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AdrianTM
Mepis adhers to GPL where it uses it and they do with their own code whatever they want to do.

As far as I know there isn't a legal problem to have programs that have different types of licenses on a system. Right? I know that Microsoft wanted to imply that with "that Linux is a cancer" rhetoric and alike, but that's a lie as far as I know.

Of course you can't take a GPL program and make it something else, but Mepis doesn't do that.

In fact, that exactly confuses me.

Mepis does not provide source code for the installer. Or, maybe it is put somewhere I don't know?

How can that be?

For example:

I can install MySQL in my webserver and make tons of money with it. It's alright since I don't distribute MySQL. I 'distribute' my service.

I can redistribute MySQL in a CD and charge money. In case of Mepis, I can't.

But once I develop program and put together with MySQL in a CD, I have to license my program under GPL.

I can however, sell CD that only contains my program. And ask end-user to download MySQL and install it.

Now, I don't understand how Mepis licenses its 'installer'. Mepis put installer together with tons of GPL programs and installer is not GPL. Installer needs GPL to works. I don't understand this. I really admire Warren and his works and much, much more so to those who wrote GPL codes in the CD and their work needs to be protected and appreciated in much the same way others would like to be appreciated.

Mepis is great distro but it would be even more great if something is returned to the comunity.

AdrianTM 06-06-2005 07:38 AM

I'm not sure what you don't understand. Things are pretty clear I think, installer is not GPL and it doesn't have to be from the legal point of view. If I put one program not matter how simple on a CD, if it's MY program I can use whatever license I want.

If your principles dictate you to use only GPL programs than Mepis is not for you, Java is not for you. Nvidia and ATI drivers are also not for you. Use then the apropriate distro that doesn't use things that are not GPL.

AdrianTM 06-06-2005 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jery_wang2002
IBut once I develop program and put together with MySQL in a CD, I have to license my program under GPL.

I beleave that's not true (I'm not a lawyer). If you modify MySQL code than you have to release modification code. But if it's a separate package you are not required to release the code as far as my understanding goes.

jery_wang2002 06-07-2005 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AdrianTM
I'm not sure what you don't understand. Things are pretty clear I think, installer is not GPL and it doesn't have to be from the legal point of view. If I put one program not matter how simple on a CD, if it's MY program I can use whatever license I want.

If your principles dictate you to use only GPL programs than Mepis is not for you, Java is not for you. Nvidia and ATI drivers are also not for you. Use then the apropriate distro that doesn't use things that are not GPL.

I think this Q/A from FSF website can differentiate the programs you mentioned above:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....ereAggregation

What is the difference between "mere aggregation" and "combining two modules into one program"?

Mere aggregation of two programs means putting them side by side on the same CD-ROM or hard disk. We use this term in the case where they are separate programs, not parts of a single program. In this case, if one of the programs is covered by the GPL, it has no effect on the other program.

Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them.

What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).

If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.

By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.
----------------------

NVIDIA, ATI, Java is mere aggregation. Furthermore, some distro restrain itself from distributing it. It is the user who download NVIDIA, ATI, Java, flash etc. and install it in his/her system.

So, the question remains:
Is Mepis installer "mere aggregation" or "combined modules" with the rest of GPL programs?

I am confused, regarding the installer.

jery_wang2002 06-07-2005 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AdrianTM
I beleave that's not true (I'm not a lawyer). If you modify MySQL code than you have to release modification code. But if it's a separate package you are not required to release the code as far as my understanding goes.
See my previous quote and extract from FSF website about "mere aggregation"

---------------
But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program.
---------------

Developing a package to use MySQL as DB backend definitely involves exchanging complex internal data structures (result sets, sql query, etc). So, my package should be under GPL as well.

Put it simply, my package cannot work without MySQL. So, my package and MySQL are combined into a larger program.

AdrianTM 06-07-2005 08:15 AM

So I was right. Mepis installer is a separate program it's not part of any other package on the disk. I'm sure you can see that.

jery_wang2002 06-07-2005 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AdrianTM
So I was right. Mepis installer is a separate program it's not part of any other package on the disk. I'm sure you can see that.
Correct me if I am wrong. Mepis installer is used to install the live cd into hardisk. Without it, there is no way to install to hardisk.

If that is true, then installer is part of the distribution CD. Unless, installer is really can do something usefull by itself without any other GPL programs.

Think about adobe reader. Without other GPL program (it is compiled with LGPL lib though), it is useful by itself , i.e., it can be used to read pdf files.

Nvidia, is used to drive the nvidia card and it doesn't need other GPL programs to run. (LGPL maybe).

AdrianTM 06-07-2005 10:19 AM

Mepis installer is a separate program that's obvious to me. I wonder why is not to you? If it's not a separate program please tell me which program is part of (the kernel?)

I'm sure you misread all the "mere aggregation" and "combining two modules into one program" thing, it's pretty obvious that this is the first case.

There's no middle ground it's either separate program or part of a program, please tell me which program is part of.

crashmeister 06-07-2005 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jery_wang2002
Correct me if I am wrong. Mepis installer is used to install the live cd into hardisk. Without it, there is no way to install to hardisk.

If that is true, then installer is part of the distribution CD. Unless, installer is really can do something usefull by itself without any other GPL programs.

Think about adobe reader. Without other GPL program (it is compiled with LGPL lib though), it is useful by itself , i.e., it can be used to read pdf files.

Nvidia, is used to drive the nvidia card and it doesn't need other GPL programs to run. (LGPL maybe).

You can throw any mix of free and non-free sw on a CD - nothing wrong with that.

To take up on your reasoning - the nvidia driver can't do a thing w/o X,a WM (not really true) and a kernel and a couple (hundred?) more dep's.

AdrianTM 06-07-2005 12:39 PM

To jery_wang2002

Just remember: Linux is just a kernel...and what is called a "Linux distro" is not equal with "a program".

Get the facts right before you go on the highhorse and start to preach.

mepisnotgplanymore 06-28-2005 02:52 AM

When I first started selling mepis on my website I did it the legal way. I went to mepis.org to find out If I can sell it. It was under GPL and I was able to sell it. And the website mepis.org wrote the Mepis name and Logo is TM and you can't sell it without permission. And mepis.org at that time around Feb of 2005 has a email that you can apply for permission to use the Mepis name and Logo. Here is how the permission list from mepis.org.

1. Your name and address.

2. Your Phone and Email.

3. Where you plan to sell it.

4. I m requesting to use the MEPIS name and logo for
the purpose of selling CDs.

5. I agree to display this statement on each CD
containing MEPIS Linux and prominently on any web
pages or printed collateral related to your sale of
MEPIS Linux CDs: "Please support MEPIS Linux by
registering your copy at: http://www.mepis.org." On
web pages, the link to MEPIS must be active.

6. I will clearly label each CD regarding the version
of MEPIS Linux it contains.

7. That I will not imply that you are an official
representative of MEPIS LLC and that you will not make
misleading statements about your relationship with
MEPIS and MEPIS Linux.

8. That I will hold MEPIS LLC and MEPIS Linux harmless
for any problems arising out of your sale of MEPIS
CDs.

9. That if I violate the terms of this agreement, I
will immediately stop using the MEPIS name and logo if
asked to do so.


So I applied and have the right to use the logo and name.
And all of sudden, a company call technalign.com said they are the only allowed commercial reseller said NO, You were NEVER allowed to use Mepis name and Logo. And wanted me to signup as a reseller for them and giving me 50% off (https://secure.heavyindustrial.com/o...alog/index.php). And I was thinking, what about the OPENOFFICE and GIMP that Mepis put with the CD they are selling? OPENOFFICE and GIMP don't get pay from mepis and why is that mepis claim it is GNU GPL?? But charges $40.00 for it?? And you can't sell it for a profit?? I think they just trying to get people to do free coding and said it is GNU GPL so people around the world will help them to code for free. Then suddenly they change it to TM and claims the copyright. This is worst then MS, because at least MS paid their programmers. Mephis should be a shame!!!

AdrianTM 06-28-2005 03:13 AM

Quote:

Mephis should be a shame!!!
Maybe they took the reselling rights from you because you didn't know the name of the distro you were selling.

Ah... goody, another troll... I will have fun... I was starting to get bored. :)

mepisnotgplanymore 06-28-2005 03:45 AM

Quote:

Maybe they took the reselling rights from you because you didn't know the name of the distro you were selling.
I was using the correct name. Followed everything listed on mepis.org. And suddenly they just stop giving the rights to resell without tell anyone first. one day out of the blue I got a warning from technalign.com saying If I keep selling simplymepis, They will sent me to court. So I was confused, because I thought I got the rights from mepis.org around Feb of 2005. Then I call technalign.com to find out more, and was told from technalign.com that mepis.org never gave permisson to anyone to use their logo. I don't know if technalign.com was lying to me or Warren Woodford was not telling technalign.com about "applying for permission to Mepis name and Logo" email link on the mepis.org website around Feb of 2005 for anyone to apply. If Warren Woodford wanted to stop people from using Mepis name and logo, he should at least email eveyone who applied for permission. Not just use another commerical company to send warning letters to everyone even the ones with permission in the first place.

After talking with technalign.com I was more confused about if technalign.com telling me the truth. Then I call mepis.org at 1-304-288-0993 and ask about what is the deal about permission to use their name and logo. mepis said it is not the case anymore, now only technaglign.com is their reseller now and they stop giving the rights to use mepis name and logo two months ago. Also said, we have rents to pay too. And when I ask why didn't you email the ones who applied for the permission about this, mepis just said, we dont' knwo who is selling. Mepis is not GPL anymore!

AdrianTM 06-28-2005 04:09 AM

Quote:

Mepis is not GPL anymore!
That's a strange thing to say because Mepis is a trademark and a trademark from what I know has nothing to do with a software license (which GPL is).

Mepis distro is a collection of programs and it never was GPL since GPL applies to individual packages in the distro and not to a colllection of programs (besides in that program collection there were programs that were not GPL from the beginning like Java, Acrobat Reader some Mepis utilities, Nvidia and ATI drivers and so on).

I guess if they gave you the permission to use Mepis name that could also take the permission away but that doesn't have anything to do with GPL. And I don't know why you accuse them of exploiting programers and being worse than Microsoft when you (as far as I can tell) are not a programmer that contributed to Mepis and the GPL programs that Mepis uses are available for free for everybody so puting them on a CD doesn't exploit anyone.

Well.... you can sell Ubuntu or something else, you don't need to sell Mepis if you don't like the deal.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:33 PM.