Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX

Lindows MUST DIE!

(1/4) > >>

rtgwbmsr:
Linus T. should sue their asses. They are violating the GPL! We best be careful...they are fucking with the very foundation of Linux. Check these out (Pulled from their EULA):

2. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS.

All right, title and interest in LindowsOS, including source code, documentation, appearance, structure and organization, are held by Lindows and/or its licensors and are protected by copyright and other laws. You may not copy or otherwise use LindowsOS, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in this Agreement. Title to LindowsOS, or to any copy, modification or merged portion of any of the Software Programs, shall at all times remain with Lindows and/or its licensors, subject to the terms of the applicable Third Party Agreement(s) to the Software Programs under consideration.

While certain Third Party Agreements described in Section 1.2 may allow You to copy, modify and distribute certain Software Programs, they do not permit You to distribute the Software Programs utilizing Lindows.com

voidmain:
Couple of opinions.  First of all, it would not likely be "Linus T." who would be doing the sueing (although he might wish to be a part of it).  It would be the holders of the GPL (GNU).  Second, this Linblows sort of license goes against everything the Free Software Foundation, GNU and the GPL stand for. But I can't pick anything out that violates the license.

The code that Lindows people have written can be closed source and does not have to fall under the GPL.  Now most of the programs that are included with Lindows *are* GPL, however they don't specifically say that you can't copy those programs because they fall under the GPL.

Having said that, it looks like we need to be as anti-Linblows as we are anti-Winblows, maybe even more so.  I for one have always suspected they were up to no good, now I am convinced.

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

rtgwbmsr:
I thought if you made modifications to any GPL software (In this case, Debian and WINE are what Lindows is built on) you had to redistibute the modified code, and mark that the code was modified. Am I wrong?

voidmain:
Wine is not "GPL" but "LGPL", and I believe Lindows does not even use the LGPL version but hired Wine programmers and used the X license for Lindows version which is more like the BSD license which means they can use the Wine portion all they want and close it up. There was much heated discussion over this.

And sure 99% of the rest code probably falls under the GPL which means they must make that 99% of the code available. But for the 1% that they write they do not need to make available.  The license is written to "appear" that the majority of the code was the doing of Lindows when in fact the majority of the code falls under the "section 1.2" which I don't see in your quote but I assume refers to GPL, X, BSD, and other licenses.

But I can certainly hear RMS rolling in his grave (oh wait, he's not dead yet, but if he was...).

[edit]
The Wine that is included with Linblows is the "CodeWeavers" version which does not fall under GNU/GPL. CodeWeavers has since ended their business relationship with Lindows.     That should give you some insight as to the sort of company Lindows is and the sort of motives Robertson has.

See: http://www.zdnetindia.com/techzone/linuxcentre/stories/64793.html
[/edit]

[ September 17, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

lazygamer:
Community spirit prevents Linux d00dz from starting distro wars, because all distros are good in the end, so such actions are frivolous. Now when you have a Linux distro that even Torvalds could outright say "THIS SUCKS!", that's pretty horrible.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page