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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.