Linux-Misc Digest #454, Volume #18 Sun, 3 Jan 99 18:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: I am a Unix convert (Ilya)
LOCAL: Connecticut Free Unix Group's January meeting ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: help me choose license (brian moore)
Re: help me choose license (steve mcadams)
Re: help me choose license (steve mcadams)
Re: help me choose license (steve mcadams)
Re: help me choose license (steve mcadams)
Quake2- Mouse not working at all (Jason McKnight)
Re: Help with soundcard in redhat 5.2 (Frank Sweetser)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ilya <nospamcalweb.com>
Subject: Re: I am a Unix convert
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin,comp.sys.hp.hpux
Date: 3 Jan 1999 11:33:04 +0800
In comp.unix.admin Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a simple plan is to do 1-2 G for root (/), circa 1-2 * RAM for swap
> and leave the rest in /home. this retains almost all the ease of use
> of one giant partition, and lets you keep stuff in /home should you
> wish to upgrade the operating system afresh (i just tar and store /etc
> when refreshing the OS for easy restoration of configs).
> i tried thinking of how to separate the more changing stuff,
> (basically /tmp, /var and /home) from the static stuff (everything
> else). during initialization, you can make /tmp and /var point into
> /home with the above /, /home, swap three partitions. thus your
> statics will almost surely be sync'd should a catastrophe occur.
I am thinking of:
/swap 512MB
/ 3G
/var 1G
/tmp 1G
/home 3.5G
That adds up to 9GB. The reason I want to give / 3GB is because I compile
a lot of programs (over the years) and put them in /usr/local/bin/.
Does this make sense for a 9GB drive? Maybe / 2G and /var 2G?
Plus, I plan to tar /home and / and /var to tape on a weekly basis.
> more partitions might be good, but since they are difficult to change,
> i would suggest not being overly partition happy.
Yes, but I am sure that at some point there will be dynamic partition
program, a la LVM.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: LOCAL: Connecticut Free Unix Group's January meeting
Crossposted-To: comp.org.user-groups.meetings,gnu.misc.discuss,ne.seminars
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 21:32:28 GMT
OVERVIEW:
As our first attempt at an Installfest nears, we're holding a formal
meeting to finalize the planning and coordination. All are welcome.
COST:
Free
DATE/TIME:
Monday, January 11th, 1999 from 7:00 PM to 8:30 PM
LOCATION:
The Mary Baldwin Conference Room, at the Cheshire Public Library
104 Main Street
Cheshire, CT
DIRECTIONS:
http://www.cheshirelib.org/cplinfo.html#directions
or call 203-272-2245
AFTERWARD:
Our post-meeting gathering will be at The Trout Brook Brewhouse, 296
Church Street in Wallingford. http://www.troutbrookbrew.com/
MORE INFO:
http://www.cfug.org/
Many thanks to all those who came out for our second anniversary meeting
last month.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore)
Subject: Re: help me choose license
Date: 3 Jan 1999 19:35:21 GMT
On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 19:01:52 GMT,
steve mcadams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Snipped for brevity, quoted material marked with ">"]
> On Sun, 3 Jan 1999 00:26:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> ...neither would allow anyone besides the author or the author's
> >> licensees to use the code in commercial products.
> >
> >Of course GPL code can be used in commercial products. It is just that
> >those commercial products must be GPL. Cygnus sells a whole raft of them.
>
> We seem to have a consistent sticking point here, John; one of us does
> not understand something. Probably me, but let's figure it out and
> not worry about who doesn't get it; I'm way more concerned about
> knowing what is going on than I am in being right.
>
> My understanding is that if I, as the author of the code, release it
> under the GPL, then any products that use that GPL version of the
> library are required to become GPL also. BUT it is also my option, as
> the author of the code, to release the exact same code under a
> "commercial" license, which would allow the same code to be included
> in commercial products that anyone who purchases the commercial
> license chooses to develop.
Yep: the code can be exactly the same.
Basically, allow commercial vendors a way to not have the 'GPL virus'
force them to release their own code under the GPL. Many will pay for
this.
You can license the same code a million ways.
> Now, where am I wrong in this? -steve
You're not.
It is as John says: commercial companies can use GPL'd code in their
work.... but they have to GPL their own to do it. Then you get the big
question: is that company selling the code or the service? If the money
is in the code, you can (since they GPL'd it to comply with your
license) resell it. So can anyone else. Thus, economics forces them to
really sell service.
--
Brian Moore | "The Zen nature of a spammer resembles
Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | a cockroach, except that the cockroach
Usenet Vandal | is higher up on the evolutionary chain."
Netscum, Bane of Elves. Peter Olson, Delphi Postmaster
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Subject: Re: help me choose license
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 19:01:52 GMT
[Snipped for brevity, quoted material marked with ">"]
On Sun, 3 Jan 1999 00:26:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> ...neither would allow anyone besides the author or the author's
>> licensees to use the code in commercial products.
>
>Of course GPL code can be used in commercial products. It is just that
>those commercial products must be GPL. Cygnus sells a whole raft of them.
We seem to have a consistent sticking point here, John; one of us does
not understand something. Probably me, but let's figure it out and
not worry about who doesn't get it; I'm way more concerned about
knowing what is going on than I am in being right.
My understanding is that if I, as the author of the code, release it
under the GPL, then any products that use that GPL version of the
library are required to become GPL also. BUT it is also my option, as
the author of the code, to release the exact same code under a
"commercial" license, which would allow the same code to be included
in commercial products that anyone who purchases the commercial
license chooses to develop.
Now, where am I wrong in this? -steve
========================================================
Tools for programmers: http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Subject: Re: help me choose license
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 19:01:47 GMT
[Snipped for brevity, quoted material marked with ">"]
On 2 Jan 1999 22:56:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore) wrote:
>I was commenting on the part of his worry that people could sell his
>code with GPL and his desire to muddle his licences it with a
>'reselling' clause.
Wasn't aware I had any such desire<g> I want to be absolutely as
clear as possible, once I figure out what it is.
>The trick to using the GPL in his case would be that it would let the
>economy set the price down to slightly over the cost of distribution.
>Others -could- resell his code, they just couldn't profit from it.
>The rules would be dictated not my copyright law and lawyers, but simple
>economics: if anyone can resell it, no one can profit from it.
Ah, now I get your point. Yes, anybody could sell media containing
the GPL version, just as they can now sell RedHat CDs. Who is going
to buy that for use in a commercial product? Nobody, it's free
developers who would buy it on the CDs, but a library is going to
compress small enough in source form that it would be more convenient
for them to download it from my web site than fiddle with CDs, right?
And nobody can use the GPL version in a commercial product, right? So
why should I worry if somebody wants to copy GPL CDs for $2 a shot; if
they want to work that hard, more power to them! If it was an
end-user app, nobody would buy a commercial copy from anybody since
they could use the free one for free, but it's not an end-user app,
it's a library and therefore useless to anyone but developers. Free
developers get it for free to include in free products. Commercial
developers get to try the GPL version, then license the proprietary
version so they can use it in their products.
>The proprietary folks, though, would have to buy a license to keep their
>work proprietary (or else the viral nature of the GPL would taint their
>code). A lot of the BSD-license devotees complain about the viral
>nature of the GPL, but it does have its uses, and is, IMHO, essential to
>ensuring software remains free.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around phrases like "ensuring
software remains free" since I never paid attention to the "open
source" concept until getting involved with Linux recently. They
still seem pretty alien. -steve
========================================================
Tools for programmers: http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Subject: Re: help me choose license
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 19:01:58 GMT
[Snipped for brevity, quoted material marked with ">"]
On Sun, 3 Jan 1999 00:12:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>It would be better to get in the habit of thinking of two licenses and one
>version, though. The hackers are not likely to contribute if they think
>that your proprietary version contains stuff not in the free one.
That's exactly how I've been thinking of it for the last couple days.
-steve
========================================================
Tools for programmers: http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Subject: Re: help me choose license
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 19:02:02 GMT
[Snipped for brevity, quoted material marked with ">"]
On 2 Jan 1999 20:02:03 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Byron A Jeff)
wrote:
>license. See the GPL doesn't prevent someone from selling a copy of the
>code (for a reasonable copying fee I think the license states) It only prevents
>them from hoarding the source code or any additions to it.
The main thing the GPL does from my point of view is that it forces
any derivative works (products) based on the GPL to be GPL themselves.
>BTW it does shoot your "sell commercial licenses" in the foot. Any company that
>wanted to could simply take your library and run all they copies they like
>without paying an penny. Their obligation is only to redistribute any mods
>they make to the code.
If cheapbytes sells a billion copies of a CD with my GPL library on
it, I will be happy for them (they deserve to succeed imho), and happy
for me. It means that any developer can use my code, and it will
become an industry standard or not, based -solely- on its competitive
technical merit.
>The GPL doesn't work here. It gives its users right to redistribute your
>code, either freely or for profit.
It doesn't give anybody the right to use the library in a commercial
product. That requires a separate license which I understand that I
am free to sell or not as I choose.
>As much as it sucks you're going to have to craft your own license that takes
>into account everything you want:
>
>1) Code can be freely used and redistributed for open source applications.
>2) Code can be bundled and redistributed with other OSS software.
>3) Code can be modified either by patches to the original sources or by
> assignment of modifications to you. More on this point later...
I do not see why GPL does not fit these licensing requirements.
>As for the assignment it seems that a financial incentive may be conducive
>to getting folks to sign on. Simply have a number of shares on the software
>and for every buck that comes in, dole out a share of it to the participants
>who assign the code to you. As patches that are useful come in, negotiate with
>the authors a certain number of shares (say out of 100000). It'll create
>incentives both to fix and enhance the library, and to create assignments to
>you. For those who don't want to participate, they can release patches against
>the original source.
Not to sound like -too- much of a shit, but this scheme you are
describing is simply more paperwork than I am willing to deal with.
> I also think it's reasonable to share that slice
>with any developers that made additions/bugfixes to the source.
I agree that there is a serious issue here. I am not sure what
description of it best matches the reality. It is definite that I do
not want to spend even 5 minutes a week evaluating someone's
contribution and assigning stock shares based on my perception of the
quality and usefulness of their contribution. I am in no way
interested in having any employees, and the scheme you have described
seems full of traps for falling into nasty relationships with people
who consider their contribution more valuable than you might, etc etc.
Not for me, I'd rather spend my time dealing with technical issues,
instead of trying to invent a licensing scheme that could spawn
open-source labor unions and other such problems.
My current thinking is that contributions would only be accepted if
they can be included in code distributed under both the GPL and the
commercial license, otherwise they would be blown off. This is kind
of a harsh way to deal with it, but it puts the decision where it
belongs, with the person who developed the fix or whatever.
If this is clearly stated nobody should have an excusee to bitch too
loudly about it. They can not contribute their changes if it bothers
them. Or they can start a GPL-only fork of the library; they would
not however be able to start a GPL-or-commercial fork of the library
without a license from me to do so.
This is how I think I understand things, but I have misunderstood lots
of things in the past. -steve
========================================================
Tools for programmers: http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: Jason McKnight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Quake2- Mouse not working at all
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 17:09:42 -0500
Hi,
I got my quake2 running with the 3dfx miniport and everything works
great except for my mouse control. I looked at the vgalib.config file
and it looks like my settings are correct.
vgalib settings for mouse
MouseMan #I have a logitech mouseman
mouse_accel_type normal
Running RedHat 5.2 kernel 2.0.36
Any ideas?
Jason McKnight
--
This message brought to you by Linux.
------------------------------
From: Frank Sweetser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup,linux.dev.sound,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: Help with soundcard in redhat 5.2
Date: 03 Jan 1999 14:33:18 -0500
"Billy Bob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When I try to install my sound card I am getting an error message
> saying unable to ... /dev/audio I was told that I need to enable to
> AUDIO and DSP support. How do I go about doing that???
> I had this sound card working fine but quit working when I upgraded my PC
> with a different hard drive, motherbord and new CPU. Since then the card has
> not worked. I did a clean install. I did not have any problems with the old
> one.. what could be wrong now. This setup was perviously using win98 and
> worked fine...
try re-running sndconfig.
--
Frank Sweetser rasmusin at wpi.edu fsweetser at blee.net | PGP key available
paramount.ind.wpi.edu RedHat 5.2 kernel 2.2.0pre3 i586 | at public servers
I surely do hope that's a syntax error.
-- Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.misc) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Misc Digest
******************************
