David R. Morrison wrote: > If I sell a CD with GPL'd software, I am only required to provide the > source > to my customers. So I can meet the requirement of the GPL by putting > the > source on the CD. (Have you seen the CD's in question? I haven't, so > maybe > they are doing this.)
Exactly. If they are violating the GPL, then I'm all for making them stop. But let's not go throwing around accusations. Follow the GNU guide to GPL violations <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html>: "the first thing you should do is double-check the facts." > Secondly, because fink is itself GPL'd, others are free to use our work. > That's sort of the point of the GPL, after all. > > The issue with these folks in the past was whether they were using our > work > without giving credit. They did add a comment on their website, but it > wasn't enough to satisfy reasonable people, IMHO. But that is in the > past, and it is quite possible that they are behaving better now. It looks like they're not: <http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Aopenosx.com+fink> But I don't know if that really matters. Nobody cares about Apple "failing to credit" Berkeley, or about OpenBSD not printing "We started from NetBSD!" on their CD's. And for that matter, although Fink does give explicit credit to the Debian tools, I don't see any byline on the Fink webpage "This project brought to you with help from the developers of Darwin, perl, gzip, tar, gettext, ncurses, etc". I'd love it if Fink got extensive credit on the OpenOSX site, especially since they give credit to almost everyone else involved. But they're not obligated to do so, and raising a ruckus about it won't accomplish anything except giving them more publicity. > The real solution, it seems to me, is a fink CD. [snip] This seems to be a solution without a problem. Perhaps there have been requests from users for a CD, in which case this would be reasonable--but I haven't really seen any. In any case, it seems that the "problem" is that we'd like credit for our work. But the users that Macworld speaks to are generally not the users who want to install packages from a CLI to run them from a CLI, so I don't think Macworld would consider a Fink CD "better" than an OpenOSX one even if it is cheaper. If we really would like credit, perhaps someone should write a letter to Macworld promoting Fink? It could be either from the Fink project "as a whole" like a press release, or from a single satisfied user or developer. Either targeted for the letters page of Macworld, or so the editors see it and take note, or both. Points to target would include: 1) The Coherence, Safety and Flexibility points from <http://fink.sourceforge.net/about.php>. 2) The way our packages are updated frequently, and also how this helps security--according to OpenOSX.com, they're still distributing OpenSSH 3.0.2p1. 3) The price! 4) That using Fink and giving feedback encourages more packages to be developed, instead of just giving some company money. 5) Perhaps mentioning other open source projects like GNU-Darwin, Fire.app, HexEdit, etc could be good? 6) The name "Fink" is waaay cooler than "OpenOSX", and quite a bit easier to pronounce too! At least that's why I'm here ;-) I don't read Macworld, so I wouldn't know, but have they ever done a feature or even a small article on open source software for OS X? Maybe that could be suggested... Comments? Dave _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
