Hi,
I'm not against anyone making money. But arny has crossed the ethical and morality line. Plagiarism is another issue that should be addressed. Seizing opportunity should be done correctly, with honor and do diligence not by using 'sed' to search/replace then release something as your own. Another issue is the use of someone else's script(s) to produce/enable the use of same to provide a release as if it's your own. Transparency? The correcting of such error by posting a open thanks as a post or acknowledgment doesn't correct the errors;

As for the legality, there are several violations of the GNU/GPL. You should read through the informational text for BW64. You will find several problems. You should look at 'bluewhite_12.2_CHANGES_AND_HINTS.TXT' and 'Slackware®_12.2_CHANGES_AND_HINTS.TXT'. I think that I could teach my grandchildren to do a 'sed' to do the work necessary but they would need assistance to doctor the file so as to look independent. Pick any of the other informational files. While your at it look at the setup scripts... Here I go again. Stop!

Pick your poison! They all fit. I've done more than I said that I would but you get the picture. 'arny' and crew should get the distribution up to snuff then I will say that to me it will be acceptable.

As to the statement;
I don't think it would end. He would still attempt to provide BW64 with the new 'Slackware® 64' by continuing his parasitic plagiarists ways.

Remember that your new GNU/GPL distribution must abide by the rules along with ethical/moral/honesty (pick one but each cannot exist without the other). Me thinks everyone should abide by the fore mentioned statement. I try!

"Plagiarism - copying of another's work"
Lookg like part of GPL:
As far as I know, GPL doesn't require attribution, there is CC license for that. Version should be marked as modified (GPL v3 only), but this is it:
Which part of license require that? Version and section number please.

Violation of which section of which GPL, in which files?

Guys, right now you aren't making much sense. You are talking about morality/ethics which are completely unrelated to software development. Rules of ethics/morality differs between people, they aren't defined in "hard" form anywhere, so they can only be used for speculations and complaining about why other people don't do things in the way you think is right.

If you believe there is GPL violation, then I suggest to
1) make it clear which license BW64 uses
2) make it clear which license slackware uses. Which is interesting question. Slackware 12.1 dvd contains BOTH GPL v2 and v3 licenses - see COPYING/COPYING3. Notice that GPLv3 software isn't compatible with GPLv2, although GPLv2 is compatible with GPLv3. Also certain core packages doesn't contain license file and seem to be released under some variation of BSD license (pkgtools-12.1.0-noarch-7, for example) which can be read in header.
3) make clear which files of of BW64 violates which parts of which GPL/license. Create a list. Ethics has nothing to do with it. Each item in the list should have mention of file with violation and number of corresponding GPL section.
4) Send list to author of BW64, and if no action was taken, act accordingly. (lawsuit, publicity, etc).
At least that would be reasonable enough.
Such approach will have chance to fix something (and faster than talks about ethics). You even could have submitted patches (to fix various problems) to BW64 developer yourselves. Did anyone try that?

I fail to see list of files with violations. And I don't see logically built arguments. Only talks about "ethics" and "morality", which are pointless waste of time and more looks like protective reaction toward your favorite distribution. I don't believe in "ethics" or "morality", only in License Agreement. Anything else is irrelevant.

P.S. I'm out of this discussion.

Well, crapola.
I just pulled up the changes & hints from both and copied them into Kate with a split view. I scrolled through them both together, and I totally understand what you are getting at. There's no sense in looking at the scripts after seeing this.

I'm not a programmer, or developer, so I never thought to look at this stuff.

Arny - I still believe your concept is good, but your execution may be lousy. You have some work yet to do.

The General Public Licenses create a software commons from which all are free to pull and to which all are free to contribute. The concept of "stealing" from this public commons is entirely misguided and the very act of sharing contributes to the commons in a beneficial manner.

Patrick Volkerding is not "stealing" GIMP code; he is sharing it. And though he is not listed as an author of the project, those who use Slackware and contribute to GIMP make Patrick's distribution of it a Good Thing. By the same token, if someone uses BlueWhite64 Linux and contributes to GIMP -- or GCC, or KDE, or Perl, or MySQL, et al. -- then BW64 is contributing to Slackware.

Just to be clear, Erv, are you saying that it is OK to change the name of a module and/or change the copyright information in the modules?

From GPL1:

I am not a lawyer, but I believe that it's been firmly established in law that a copyright (the exclusive right to copy and/or license to copy), even when used to place in the public domain, does not disappear merely because someone changes the wording of the copyright statement. So, it would seem that it is not legal to change the copyright notice in a source module, even if it's GPL'd or simply public domain.

Given the way the GPL works, I don't have a problem with someone creating a new distro, or even a new program, with all GPL'd software. I'd strongly caution them to be careful when doing global text changes that stand even a slight chance of violating copyright law and/or the intent of the GPL. You cannot take someone's rights away from them merely by changing the code.

Quakeboy02, that's just picking things apart now. Everybody already acknowledged that the copyright information was an 'accidental' mistake that the original post already clarified was "fixed".

So issue 1 is fixed.

Arny gives full credit to using the slamd64 tool chain (now anyway)

so issue 2 is fixed.

The only issue now is parasitism which is half unfounded and more of a personal issue that people choosing not to use BW64 have to deal with.

A better question that one should ask, is what are the users of BW64 doing for the slackware community?
If they buy BW64:
- they may also choose to make a donation to the parent source.
- Arny may make more donations to slackware because he has now recouped the cost of production (which is actually still really high even though it is based on slackware)
- as stated earlier, anybody developing other programs or fixing bugs using bw64 is contributing back to the stability of slackware

If you really want to dig deep into the 'evidence' by going through each and every file distributed with BW64 and comparing then go right ahead. It's a waste of time to find stupid mistakes that, yes, should not be there. you will be doing a great service to report those promptly to BW64.

HOWEVER, if you really want to get into it, you should stop using the linux kernel all together for all those secret patent and code infringements that are owned by microsoft, ibm, apple, and any other corporation claiming theft.


BTW, I don't use BW64 or slamd64 for that matter. I can wait for an official port later on.

But should BW64 it self become an official port at least in part, won't that be hilarious.

So I think the conversation should be. "What does BW64 have to do to mend past/current grievances imagined or otherwise?"

If BW64 produces something that people want and works well, even if it is taken from software that has already been created, isn't that what Free/Open software is all about? Therefore isn't it entirely ethical?

Hi,
Issue one as you call it is just that a single issue. There are multiple violations with BW64. Public acknowledgment doesn't resolve or correct the issue of violation throughout BW64. It's your right to defend BW64 but when it comes to association with a plagiarist/unethical/immoral person I for one don't associate with character(s) of that type.

Please post the proof other than a acknowledgment on LQ or BW64 web sites. He has tried to weasel out of that by making public statements, certainly not within the BW64 distribution properly.

As for Parasitism, the BW64 or arny does fit that definition. As you see that is what we are doing in our association with Slackware® to point out the problem(s) with BW64/arny. We don't need to use BW64 to participate with open intelligent discussion concerning issues associated with BW64/arny.

For one thing they have caused us to open a intelligent conversation concerning blatant violations.

Again show me the proof. Sure if they made direct donations to Slackware® or PV it would be nice. But I really don't think that will ever happen.

arny, makes what he calls donations. Show me the money!

How is someone fixing problems on a 64-bit distribution making contributions back to the stability of 32-bit Slackware®?

Honor/integrity/ethics/morality should be exercised by anyone who attempts to evolve something within the public domain be it a derivative of something or even a evolution. This should be within the realm of Copyright/Trademark or even the GNU/GPL license. Because someone chooses to release under the GNU/GPL license doesn't release them from the laws of Copyright/Trademark. Copywrong is not a excusable coverage to not abide by the laws. It's not stupid mistakes that we are speaking about but direct violations along with ethics/morality.
Plagiarism is just a added virus that we find objectionable.

Hearsay! That's Microsoft and others that see the true power of FLOSS. If there were "secret patent and code infringements" held by anyone then certainly they would be before the courts today. They have tried!

Good for you. BW64 becoming a official port will never happen. It's hilarious that you would say something so absurd.

Correct all the wrongs along with infringements in Copyright along with the plagiarism violation within the BW64 distribution. Create informational documentation for support of BW64 instead of blanket copy of Slackware® documentation and utilizing utilities to mask the plagiarism. I don't even think the scripts have been discussed.

That Copyright is already fixed why are you still continue to say that is not? Ca not see it fixed or what?

The docs are not exactly the same, they are addapted for BW64. If you still see something wrong send me a diff and I will modify as your heart loves it .

And take a damn look at Slamd64 he is using Slackware name inside his distribution without a written permission of Pat V. You cannot see this right? What is this?

Bluewhite64 and Slamd64 are NOT Slackware at all, nor Slackware64!

P.S. No one sent diff to me saying "hey this is worng, should be this .." but you love to draw black lines over a distribution.

P.S. You forgot to mention that I have donated to Slackware. See it
here. Also, another donation is under preparation, just to receive from on-disk.com a situation of my account.

You can change name of the module.
As for "copyright" information it depends on what you mean by that.
AFAIK, yes, you can change copyright information, because when you take and modify - you are now author too.

Which dismisses all your arguments.
I suggest to contact one then. What you "believe" is not a fact, and unless it is supported by law it is speculation.

GPL was designed as "copyleft", not copyright.

Once there is another author (even if he submitted just one line of code or if he/she made derivative) neither of them has exclusive rights because any action toward the software (like switching license) require permission of both of them. GPL does all it can to prevent anyone from having any kind of exclusive rights to software. To have exclusive rights you should probably get rid of all benefits GPL gives - by not accepting external modifications into your source tree. And even after that, you won't have any exclusive rights over projects that were derived from your source tree.

Handling copyright information in "correct" way will stop any opensource project from being developed - there will be too many authors (think about linux kernel for a while. List of authors would take a large part of it). Large project will have many files edited by many people who very frequently submit to a large git/cvs/svn tree, no way all of them will be added at the beginning of the file they modified - this will take too much lines. They can be mentioned in changelog, though, but even that isn't required.

The citation you ripped out GPL is placed outside of terms and conditions. It is a recommendation, it is not a part of license.
I also contacted licensing@fsf.org in the past (approx. 1..1.5 years ago) and asked them what is correct to specify authors in the file, and should or should I add myself to the list once I change source (even one line). They answered me that there is no existing standard in specifying authors in GPL'ed software, although projects sometimes list authors at the beginning of source files so it is might be good thing to do. And GPL specifies no standard in which original author should be mentioned. GNU project has certain requirements for their files (AUTHORS files), but this isn't part of GPL.

Also "copyright" has two parts:
The author has right to be author. This cannot be removed.
The author has right to distribute software/etc. This can be removed.

Before referring to copyright law it would be interesting to study whether both authors use same copyright laws as you (they may be in other country, for example - I haven't checked location of BW64 developer). For example, by russian copyright law it is perfectly legal to hack software you bought to make it work on your machine (Chapter 70, article 1280 of civil code - I haven't met much people who were aware of that, though), and there is high probability that your law forbids that.

Slackware doesn't look like all GPL. See pkgtool license. Looks like BSD to me.

So far all you were talking about was parasitism and how bad it was. As far as I see it, it is allowed by the license. If it is allowed by the license then whoever picked GPL as license for product agreed that such possibility is fine for him (or it simply wasn't possible to change license).
You didn't mention any violation of GPL so far - only told few things about "parasites". I suggest to build a list of violations - file, line, which part of gpl is violated and how. If you really believe that what BW64 doing is wrong AND have proof of that then you should probably settle things in the court (since your law system is supposed to work much faster) or contact developer (doesn't look like you tried either). This is because you want to pull copyright law in the picture. Without copyright law, and by using GPL only you can easily find out what is right or wrong. However, if you want to add copyright law, you are in trouble, and won't be able to prove anything without help of someone who has professional experience with copyright laws. GPL was designed to make life easier, after all, and even 3rd edition is much simpler to comprehend then copyright law (it will be a lot of fun deciphering what exactly law mean). Or at least contact licensing@fsf.org, and ask them questions about violations, but they might tell you that they are "mere volunteers and not lawyers".
Anyway, laws can be really strange, they differ between countries (which will be a lot of fun), so by keeping them out of picture and referring to license only, you can really simplify situation, because deciphering how GPL connects with copyright law(s) in different countries will take a lot of time.

What is really bad with this situation is that instead of contacting author and pointing out things that are wrong and should be fixed, some people started accusing him in being parasite (which reminds me Bioshock), violating GPL, etc. Which really isn't what (to my opinion) opensource movement is about. OpenSource was meant (as I understand it) to work in the way: you see problem, you fix that problem, send author a patch, he accepts it, and everyone is happy.

I assure you that it is firmly established in law that you cannot take ownership of property simply by changing the name on the document.

Erv, there is no such legal thing as a copyleft. This term is one that was made up by Stallman (I believe). As a result, so-called "copylefts" are actually copyrights.

In which law? Of which country? Can you provide quotation? Does that law still apply in the every region of the planet? Which document? Does source code qualify as that document? Does README/CHANGES_AND_HINTS qualify as that document? Can you prove that? Are you sure it doesn't conflict with GPL itself?

Anyway, when you modify source file, you can add yourself as another author. This is often done. Which qualifies as modifying copyright information.

I suppose that site dedicated to GPL has explanation about how GPL interacts with copyright law. Anyway, it still will be wiser to seek professional advice instead of wasting next 6 months arguing about copyright laws and GPL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License

I have to agree with ErV on this, not that I really care too much. I'm posting because I don't like personal attacks that were made and because I have said all along that the GPL is a forcible open source license that strong-arms software away from the people who wrote it. This is a perfect example of what the GPL encourages and now that you have seen that in action, you can judge for yourself how worthy the GPL really is.

If Pat had been able to write a Linux distro and copyright it, he would have owned it himself and then all the other derivatives would have been impossible without his consent. But Linux is based on GPLd kernel and GPL userland and so one distro after the other has been forked and forked and forked until many of us have trouble telling them apart. That's just the way things are in the GPL world. It encourages copying rather than rewriting. To that end, I believe it also reduces innovation to some degree, but the UNIX development model has been to write new apps using existing parts.

As much as we all love Pat and I am certainly among his biggest fans, I don't think you should crucify somebody for forking his distro (Pat has been relatively silent on his 64 bit plans). If you feel there was some mistake you should have taken it up with him offline. If there was some legal violation then it should be up to copyright owners to pursue it.

Excuse me... I missed something on the "copyright" part. Yes they were changed originally by use of sed. Then they were "fixed". What does the "fixed" mean? were they changed back to say slackware? do they say slackware "with modifications by bw64?" if either of those is the case, then there isn't a need to argue copyrights. If there are still copyright issues that arn't fixed, they should be reported directly back to Arny.

No, the point of the GPL is that there is no attribution. The GPL encourages what used to be called theft. Now it's called using GPL'd code.