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 |
I think this guy summed it up well
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
|
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. |
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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???? |
jery_wang2002,
You are correct. Too many people are making ignorant statements about the GPL without even reading or trying to understand it. |
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:
|
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 |
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:
|
Why debate about all this when the answer is right on the website:
Quote:
|
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:
|
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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
In Micro$oft case, it is totally fair for them to lock the user based on the 100% effort they have put in. |
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Mepis is a very good distro it is just a shame that when someone critizes it is considered flamimg. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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:
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. |
Did I miss the answer to the orginal post?
|
Quote:
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. |
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? |
Quote:
Quote:
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:
|
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). |
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. |
"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). |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
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 ------------------------------------------ |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
--------------- 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. |
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.
|
Quote:
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). |
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
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!!! |
Quote:
Ah... goody, another troll... I will have fun... I was starting to get bored. :) |
Quote:
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! |
Quote:
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. |