MandrakeSoft Will Not Unite with UnitedLinux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 MandrakeSoft Will Not Unite with UnitedLinux MandrakeSoft has released a statement detailing the reasons why Mandrake will not join United Linux. The two key reasons for the decision repeated through out the document consisted of UnitedLinux's non-Free nature and lack of any advantages for MandrakeSoft. http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=136 - -- "...Linux, MS-DOS, and Windows 2000 (also known as the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly)." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEARECAAYFAj0icpYACgkQeNJ3p8sZ/uuppQCdE4iOsxg2pqCfvjmrMHk0hVTQ BXYAoIYnvhEzHMYBFnfHcfl3RwJBouDH =WCI4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, 2 Jul 2002 23:42:14 -0400
"Fred A. Miller"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
MandrakeSoft Will Not Unite with UnitedLinux
MandrakeSoft has released a statement detailing the reasons why Mandrake will not join United Linux. The two key reasons for the decision repeated through out the document consisted of UnitedLinux's non-Free nature and lack of any advantages for MandrakeSoft.
sounds to me unitedlinux died at birth
On Wednesday 03 July 2002 10:44, Landy Roman wrote: - sounds to me unitedlinux died at birth More like stillborn. To be honest, I am not sure that it deserved any better. Cheers, Brian
On Wednesday 03 July 2002 06.01, Brian Durant wrote:
On Wednesday 03 July 2002 10:44, Landy Roman wrote: - sounds to me unitedlinux died at birth
More like stillborn.
"died at birth" and "stillborn" mean the same thing.
To be honest, I am not sure that it deserved any better.
Based on what??? That a french distributor (struggling to survive, incidentally) says their "customers" wouldn't like it? I think UnitedLinux has a future, but it's in the companies. Home Users like us will see only secondary effects. Effects like a positive cash flow in the participating companies that gives them more resources to spend on the main distributions. Like a coordinated development effort giving synergy effects. Don't write this off just because an already failed business thinks (hopes?) this too will fail. //Anders -- `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
On Wednesday 03 July 2002 10:58, Anders Johansson wrote: - "died at birth" and "stillborn" mean the same thing. In this case, I was referring to stillborn as in "failing from the start" as per Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Ahh, semantics. I love it ;-) - Based on what??? That a french distributor (struggling to survive, - incidentally) says their "customers" wouldn't like it? - - I think UnitedLinux has a future, but it's in the companies. Home Users - like - us will see only secondary effects. Effects like a positive cash flow - in the - participating companies that gives them more resources to spend on - the main - distributions. Like a coordinated development effort giving - synergy effects. - - Don't write this off just because an already failed business thinks - (hopes?) - this too will fail. Actually, I was thinking about Richard Stallman's reaction to the initiative. While he is not god, he does often have incisive analysis and is worth taking note of. Cheers, Brian
On Wednesday 03 July 2002 06.50, Brian Durant wrote:
Actually, I was thinking about Richard Stallman's reaction to the initiative. While he is not god, he does often have incisive analysis and is worth taking note of.
I'm not sure he's a person you would want to take business advise from. As for his "incisive analysis": he complained about per-seat licensing. Noone has been able to show anywhere where it says UL will have per-seat, and in fact between the FAQs statement that it will be free for non-commercial use and SuSEs denial that anything like that is planned, it seems to me that RMS has been talking too much to TRB and DEP. Stallman's comment was in an interview with dep, and I can imagine how that went dep:- So, what do you think of their plan to have per-seat licensing RMS:- They have per-seat??? That's horrible! resulting headline: RMS says UL's per-seat licensing is horrible That's the normal standard of "journalism", so I wouldn't be at all surprised. //Anders -- `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
On Wed, 2002-07-03 at 01:09, Anders Johansson wrote:
As for his "incisive analysis": he complained about per-seat licensing. Noone has been able to show anywhere where it says UL will have per-seat, and in fact between the FAQs statement that it will be free for non-commercial use and SuSEs denial that anything like that is planned, it seems to me that RMS has been talking too much to TRB and DEP. Stallman's comment was in an interview with dep, and I can imagine how that went
The per-seat licensing thing came directly from the mouth of Random Love (which he never clarified that it was only a Caldera position). To tell you the truth, I am sceptical about United Linux, not because I think it is a bad idea, but because of Love's involvement in it full time. He had shot his mouth off too many times and pissed too many people off. Charles -- "Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk ?" Microsoft spel chekar vor sail, worgs grate !! (By leitner@inf.fu-berlin.de, Felix von Leitner)
On Wednesday 03 July 2002 12:09, Anders Johansson wrote: - I'm not sure he's a person you would want to take business advise from. This we can agree on. However, there do seem to be forces at work within the Linux community that would like to enforce a per-seat licensing, as well as non-GPL'd content for "adding value" to the product. This may make good business sense, but as far as I can see, only if the existing business models for Linux aren't working. I am not sure that either private or business users would benefit from such a change. UnitedLinux still remains so hazy a project on issues like the above, in many people's minds, that I simply can't make a blanket statement that this would be a good thing. Just whip me with a wet noodle and call me a doubting Thomas ;-) Cheers, Brian
On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 04:15:16PM +0700, Brian Durant wrote:
This we can agree on. However, there do seem to be forces at work within the Linux community that would like to enforce a per-seat licensing, as well as non-GPL'd content for "adding value" to the product. This may make good business sense, but as far as I can see, only if the existing business models for Linux aren't working. I am not sure that either private or business users would benefit from such a change.
Clearly there are distros that already DO charge per seat. Two examples are Elx and Lycoris. I think Xandros and Lindows will be more one when they are released. From my understanding, UL will be licensed per *server*, not per seat. This is reasonable and makes perfect sense. One of the attractions of Linux is the GPL. If you can install a set of core programs on an entire network of computers without worrying about licensing costs and tracking, you have a big win. If all you do is lower the costs, it is not such a big win. Best Regards, Keith -- LPIC-2, MCSE, N+ Right behind you, I see the millions Got spam? Get spastic http://spastic.sourceforge.net
On Wednesday 03 July 2002 12.05, Keith Winston wrote:
From my understanding, UL will be licensed per *server*, not per seat. This is reasonable and makes perfect sense.
As I understand it there will be separate licenses for each of the vendors. I assume SuSE will follow the licensing for SLES which is per service/support contract, not per installation. If you want to install twice, go ahead, if you want support for both, pay for both.
One of the attractions of Linux is the GPL. If you can install a set of core programs on an entire network of computers without worrying about licensing costs and tracking, you have a big win. If all you do is lower the costs, it is not such a big win.
I ditched windows because it was bad software, not because it was expensive, or had restrictive licenses. Back then I was only barely aware software even had a license. It was something I just clicked OK to and proceeded to ignore. The main attraction of gnu/linux is and will always be quality. If linux hadn't been any good the license wouldn't have mattered, few people except hobbyists would have used it. We'd all be running windows or *BSD (why did linux "win" over *BSD? I can't imagine it was because of the licensing) waiting with baited breath for the Hurd to become usable. With a license you're essentially buying a support contract. If you want support for a hundred machines you are always going to have to pay for a hundred machines, regardless of the solution you choose. Some pay directly with cash to third party support, some pay in salaries to internal staff. But all pay. There is *no* free meal. The difference linux introduces is that you can choose the DIY method of having your own staff, or tendering competitive bidding. Maybe Caldera's license removes that by forcing customers to pay Caldera, I don't know, but so far SuSE hasn't, and I haven't seen any signs outside of DEP's and TRB's websites to suggest otherwise. Elx, Lycoris, Xandros and Lindows are all desktop distributions aimed at conquering the home user market. most people have only one computer at home, and even if there are more, at least a few of those dists have "family licensing" allowing you to install on all of them anyway. So while the license isn't particularly agreeable, it's probably irrelevant for most people. Noone is ever going to install Lindows in a 10.000 computer server farm. regards Anders -- `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 12:36:38PM +0200, Anders Johansson wrote:
I ditched windows because it was bad software, not because it was expensive, or had restrictive licenses. Back then I was only barely aware software even had a license. It was something I just clicked OK to and proceeded to ignore.
The main attraction of gnu/linux is and will always be quality. If linux hadn't been any good the license wouldn't have mattered, few people except hobbyists would have used it. We'd all be running windows or *BSD (why did linux "win" over *BSD? I can't imagine it was because of the licensing) waiting with baited breath for the Hurd to become usable.
I think the GPL did have a part to play in Linux winning over *BSD and it is important for me. I am guessing here, but maybe a lot of developers didn't like the idea of MS or other companies taking their work and selling it back to them (think TCP/IP). The GPL prevents that. You are right that if Linux was not even usable, then few would look at the license. But given equal quality software choices between GPL and non-GPL, I'll take GPL every time. A large part of my job is managing networks, and the biggest pain in my ass is tracking software licenses. I know people complain about all the different open source licenses, but there are just as many variations of commercial licenses. And with the BSA kicking down doors to do software audits, my goal is to replace commerically licensed software every place I can. A support license a for small number of servers is easy to manage and live with, but tracking licenses of hundreds or thousands of individual computers is almost impossible. Even the commercial software products that aim to do this fail in every case I've seen.
With a license you're essentially buying a support contract. If you want support for a hundred machines you are always going to have to pay for a hundred machines, regardless of the solution you choose.
Not really. Most commerical software licenses give you the right to *run* the binary program on a single computer. You usually get little or no support, and often have to pay high fees for any support in addition to the software license. Futher, you are not allowed to understand what the program does in too much detail. That would be illegal reverse engineering, copyright violation, or other crime (at least in the U.S. with the DMCA, UCITA, etc.). Recent history has shown that can't *trust* many commercial software companies. I think the contrast is stark when compared with the GPL.
Noone is ever going to install Lindows in a 10.000 computer server farm.
Let's hope you are right about that ;) Best Regards, Keith -- LPIC-2, MCSE, N+ Right behind you, I see the millions Got spam? Get spastic http://spastic.sourceforge.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Howdy, Just going through old mail and notice this. :-)
I'm not sure he's a person you would want to take business advise from.
Well, he has been quite effective in changing business plans in the past (think Apple, TrollTech, and perhaps Mozilla/Netscape). When he speaks, people do listen.
As for his "incisive analysis": he complained about per-seat licensing. Noone has been able to show anywhere where it says UL will have per-seat, and in fact between the FAQs statement that it will be free for non-commercial use and SuSEs denial that anything like that is planned, it seems to me that RMS has been talking too much to TRB and DEP. Stallman's comment was in an interview with dep, and I can imagine how that went
Cool - I get to be known by initials now? I've always wanted that. ;-) Seriously, your point here over looks several things: 1.) Stallman issued the statement before the interview. 2.) I believe the interview you are referring to was the one I did on OfB.biz a few weeks ago at http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=125 . For the record, the question and answer was: - ----------------- OfB: Speaking of enterprise computing, in a written statement last week, you compared the licensing of the new UnitedLinux group to that of Windows in that it restricts a user's freedom. Would you like to expand a bit more on this? RMS: We developed the GNU operating system, a compatible replacement for Unix, so users could be free to share and change it. Unix was not free software; it was available under restrictive licenses. It was not unusual for it to be licensed per computer, or even according to the number of users who could log in. In 1991, the last gap in GNU was the kernel; Linus Torvalds then wrote a free kernel, Linux, and released it under the GNU General Public License. Adding Linux to GNU produced a free operating system, the GNU/Linux system. (Many users believe that the whole system is Linux, and the companies that package the system spread this mistake.) As GNU/Linux became popular, it developed a reputation as a powerful, reliable system. Thousands and then millions of users adopted it, often for its practical benefits alone, without paying any mind to the freedom it also gave them. Companies began to package and redistribute GNU/Linux, which was good; but they also began to add non-free software to the system, which defeats its purpose. Today all the commercial packagers of GNU/Linux add non-free software. Several of them--with the notable exception of Red Hat and Mandrake--develop non-free software to add to GNU/Linux. Caldera has been one of the worst offenders. It is still possible to obtain a completely free version of GNU/Linux, but you need to know where to look and you need to think about what you're doing. "UnitedLinux" carries this regression one step further with its "per seat" licensing. Users of that GNU/Linux distribution will be as restricted as if they were using Unix, or Windows. In fact, Caldera cannot apply that restrictive license to the whole system. Most of the programs are licensed under the GNU General Public License, which protects the freedom of every user and makes it illegal to add any restrictions. I trust that Caldera knows better than to try to impose a "per seat license" on these programs. However, some parts of the system, although normally available as free software, have lax licenses that allow middlemen to impose their own restrictions. Caldera may use those points of vulnerability. It can also add non-free programs to the system. Even though much of the system will remain free software in a legal sense, practically speaking the users are likely to believe it is not. Many people call the whole system "Linux" because they don't know it is a mistake; they are following others who are misinformed. In the case of Caldera, I suspect this error is intentional. Users who know that the system which is offered to them with a "per seat license" is really a version of GNU, and that we developed it so they could have freedom, might question whether Caldera is really treating them properly. They might start to value their own freedom and reject the perverse system which is neither united nor Linux. Caldera probably finds it safer [to] teach users that the system is Linux and that it was developed by an apolitical college student "just for fun". - ---------------- In other words, my initial question was based on a statement issued by RMS. Further more, I did not imply per-seat licensing, but was targeting UL's possibly illegal restrictions on binary distribution of the software in their upcoming package. However, Re: Per-seat, considering UnitedLinux will be what SLES is based on, and SLES already has per-seat licensing, one could fairly say at least UnitedLinux from SuSE and Caldera will have per-seat licensing. :-)
resulting headline: RMS says UL's per-seat licensing is horrible
That's the normal standard of "journalism", so I wouldn't be at all surprised.
Read over it before you attack my journalism, I assure you their was nothing tricky going on in the interview. -Thus spake TRB. (I love that! I really love it, thanks Anders - I've finally become known by my initials - hehehe.) :-) /me is having too much fun. - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler tbutler@uninetsolutions.com Universal Networks http://www.uninet.info Christian Portal and Search Tool: http://www.faithtree.com Open Source Migration Guide: http://www.ofb.biz ============= "Christian Web Services Since 1996" ============== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9Mu0RK37Cns9gJ0gRAllQAJ90bgxpauw7Vpz93qCSacfmfUAGHACfeABR HDPerjwQ0OBwofmpPumtwzQ= =CwNs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Mon, Jul 15, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
However, Re: Per-seat, considering UnitedLinux will be what SLES is based on, and SLES already has per-seat licensing, one could fairly say at least UnitedLinux from SuSE and Caldera will have per-seat licensing. :-)
Then you know more then anybody else. Can you explain me, where SLES has a per-seat licensing? SuSE does not have per-seat licenses and we don't plan to introduce one for our SLES powerd by UnitedLinux. Thorsten -- Thorsten Kukuk http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/ kukuk@suse.de SuSE Linux AG Deutschherrnstr. 15-19 D-90429 Nuernberg -------------------------------------------------------------------- Key fingerprint = A368 676B 5E1B 3E46 CFCE 2D97 F8FD 4E23 56C6 FB4B
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Then you know more then anybody else. Can you explain me, where SLES has a per-seat licensing? SuSE does not have per-seat licenses and we don't plan to introduce one for our SLES powerd by UnitedLinux.
Well, that is what I had been told by a SuSE employee a few months ago after ZDNet did an article on SuSE and per-seat licensing (as well as IA-64). If that information I received is not correct, then I apologize. Best Regards, Tim - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler tbutler@uninetsolutions.com Universal Networks http://www.uninet.info Christian Portal and Search Tool: http://www.faithtree.com Open Source Migration Guide: http://www.ofb.biz ============= "Christian Web Services Since 1996" ============== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9MwCOK37Cns9gJ0gRAgaSAJwKZREQqlznON41ejE/FRbNDAcFcQCfQN04 qbv8zmkWvJiGv7Lr+XWS+D4= =qt0t -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
* Timothy R. Butler (tbutler@uninetsolutions.com) [020715 10:04]:
Then you know more then anybody else. Can you explain me, where SLES has a per-seat licensing? SuSE does not have per-seat licenses and we don't plan to introduce one for our SLES powerd by UnitedLinux.
Well, that is what I had been told by a SuSE employee a few months ago after ZDNet did an article on SuSE and per-seat licensing (as well as IA-64).
What was that person's name? -- -ckm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Christopher,
Well, that is what I had been told by a SuSE employee a few months ago after ZDNet did an article on SuSE and per-seat licensing (as well as IA-64).
What was that person's name?
Well as I mentioned to Thorsten I'm not entirely sure any more - it has been about six months since that conversation. However, if I can find the message, I will forward it to both of you privately. Best, Tim - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler tbutler@uninetsolutions.com Universal Networks http://www.uninet.info Christian Portal and Search Tool: http://www.faithtree.com Open Source Migration Guide: http://www.ofb.biz ============= "Christian Web Services Since 1996" ============== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9MwT5K37Cns9gJ0gRAgRiAJ96XqEgP6qd48C/dCJhJq2vlpXgowCdFiWw F72fWgERt2r5qL+m3CJKJQs= =1WG3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Monday 15 July 2002 17.41, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
Well, he has been quite effective in changing business plans in the past (think Apple, TrollTech, and perhaps Mozilla/Netscape). When he speaks, people do listen.
No, but when his minions flame people are subdued.
Cool - I get to be known by initials now? I've always wanted that. ;-)
In that paragraph there were FAQ, SuSE, RMS and dep. I just figured "Tim" would look out of place :)
Seriously, your point here over looks several things:
1.) Stallman issued the statement before the interview. 2.) I believe the interview you are referring to was the one I did on OfB.biz a few weeks ago at http://www.ofb.biz/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=125 .
Nope, I was talking about the "original" interview he did with dep. The quote from linuxandmain was <quote> In response to an inquiry from Linux and Main, Richard M. Stallman issued a statement and call to arms to Free Software developers. "'Licensing per seat' perverts the GNU+Linux system into something that respects your freedom as much as Windows," Stallman said </quote> I was just speculating on what that "inquiry" looked like. I'll bet it was something like "How do you feel about UnitedLinux going 'per-seat'".
However, Re: Per-seat, considering UnitedLinux will be what SLES is based on, and SLES already has per-seat licensing, one could fairly say at least UnitedLinux from SuSE and Caldera will have per-seat licensing. :-)
I believe SLES has per-seat support licenses, not per-seat installation licenses, but I see susers have already started to comment on this so I'll leave it to them.
Read over it before you attack my journalism, I assure you their was nothing tricky going on in the interview.
I was commenting on the standards on journalism in general, not on you in particular. //Anders
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
In that paragraph there were FAQ, SuSE, RMS and dep. I just figured "Tim" would look out of place :)
Hehehe... true, true.
Nope, I was talking about the "original" interview he did with dep. The quote from linuxandmain was
That wasn't actually an interview, that was a prepared statement by RMS issued to any one who inquired about UL to him. I inquired to RMS and received the exact same statement (prior to the interview). This statement (the one on LinuxandMain and elsewhere) is the one that I mention in my interview with RMS.
I believe SLES has per-seat support licenses, not per-seat installation licenses, but I see susers have already started to comment on this so I'll leave it to them.
Yes, it seems that way. I humblely apologize for my misunderstanding. Best Regards, Tim PS: Nice to see you are back online so soon! - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler tbutler@uninetsolutions.com Universal Networks http://www.uninet.info Christian Portal and Search Tool: http://www.faithtree.com Open Source Migration Guide: http://www.ofb.biz ============= "Christian Web Services Since 1996" ============== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9M0uJK37Cns9gJ0gRAl7TAKCRi6KQrcbnH+mi+gyvrc0nyzoyMACfZVDQ pRkAD7gTB3ofptg7kJ7XYc8= =Opeg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Actually, they aren't. Stillborn means that it died before coming out, and died at birth means the birthing process killed it. Just my picky $0.02 -----Original Message----- From: Anders Johansson [mailto:andjoh@cicada.linux-site.net] Subject: Re: [SLE] MandrakeSoft Will Not Unite with UnitedLinux
More like stillborn.
"died at birth" and "stillborn" mean the same thing.
participants (10)
-
Anders Johansson -
Brian Durant -
Charles Philip Chan -
Christopher Mahmood -
Fred A. Miller -
Keith Winston -
Landy Roman -
The Purple Tiger -
Thorsten Kukuk -
Timothy R. Butler