Linux-Misc Digest #300, Volume #20 Sat, 22 May 99 05:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Pro-Unix vs anti-WinTel (was: Re: Is Unix a single user operating system?)
(Christopher Browne)
Re: Word Perfect (jason)
Re: A Capitalists view of freedom (Brandon)
Re: problems with glibc2 (Paul Kimoto)
Re: New cable modem means I have a lot to learn (Johan Kullstam)
Re: A Capitalists view of freedom (George MacDonald)
problems with glibc2 ("jota")
Re: Can't communicate through 2nd NIC (Harley Waagmeester)
Re: SO51 Installation fails!! HELP!! (Fred Kuipers)
Re: Linux killer for SuSe 6.1 (Juergen Heinzl)
Diald script (Jack Cheng)
Re: Linux or linux? (jane chav)
Re: Commercially speaking....? (brian moore)
Re: Commercially speaking....? ("Russ")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Pro-Unix vs anti-WinTel (was: Re: Is Unix a single user operating system?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 06:21:34 GMT
On 21 May 1999 09:57:22 -0700, david parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Maybe. *BSD were delayed at the starting gate, and are probably
> about two years behind Linux right now -- I'm starting to see the
> occasional *BSD article in the computer gossip magazines, so
> barring an outbreak of Unix self-destructiveness we'll be seeing
> 10 million *BSD seats sometime around 2002.
Interesting claim...
1. I would tend to think that this would require that the *BSD community
have releases that start adding the "fuzzy dice" and k001 installation
systems that people have been building for Linux.
2. I would expect that this growth of population would largely result
from 'eating into' the Linux community.
This might lead to a "celebrity death match" with [Linus Torvalds and
Alan Cox] versus [John Dyson and Theo De Raadt] :-). I'd pay to see
this :-).
On a more serious note, I think some "friction" would result...
3. The results of a sizable migration of Linux users to *BSD, hopefully
along with some sizable movements in *BOTH* directions, would be an
increased interest in interoperability, *particularly* pointed at the
source code level.
I would think that to be an *extremely* good thing.
> About time, too; when there are 40 or 50 million Linux seats and
> 10 million *BSD seats this will make even the most rabid MS devotee
> perk up their ears and start thinking that this is a market they
> should pay attention to.
Indeed.
> ____
> david parsons \bi/ Of course by then you'll be seeing John Dyson
> \/ vs Richard Stallman in cage matches on pay per
> view.
I'd pay to see that...
--
We use Linux for all our mission-critical applications. Having the
source code means that we are not held hostage by anyone's support
department. (Russell Nelson, President of Crynwr Software)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: jason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Word Perfect
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 02:35:11 -0400
Jeff Busch wrote:
>
> I am running RH5.2. I have learned that while I am downloading the file
> (guilg00.gz), or other such files, that "Netscape" sometimes gunzips the
> file. OK so now all I have to do is "untar" the file. I have tried
> "tar -x guilg00.gz" and a few other combinations of switches and all
Do a: 'file guilg00.gz' to fund out what it is. If it is a gzip'ed file,
gunzip it, and keep reading. If it is a tar archive, then go ahead and
'tar xvf filename'. The key thing to extracting the tar file is the 'f'
parameter to tar: it says 'the next argument is the filename to operate upon'.
Hope this helps,
-jason
(to reply via email, make the appropriate substitution in my email address)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 02:37:07 -0400
From: Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: A Capitalists view of freedom
Christopher Browne wrote:
>
> On 20 May 1999 20:40:48 +0200, David Kastrup
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach) writes:
> >
> >> You may be less likely to die, net, if you have a gun, because most
> >> of the time, people "defending" themselves with guns don't fire them
> >> - most people aren't stupid enough to wait around to be shot at.
> >
> >So you would be of the opinion that a criminal armed with a gun
> >telling me to pass my wallet will, if I grasp at a gun as an answer,
> >turn his back on me and walk away?
> >
> >Sounds plausible.
>
> Scenario:
>
> - Criminal plans to go in, threaten target with gun, and get wallet.
>
> - Criminal discovers that the target is able to threaten force back.
>
> Fleeing in fear is a pretty good "option" at this juncture.
>
> Are other options possible? Certainly. The two commonly considered
> options are "fight or flight."
>
> Regardless, a "victim" with a drawn weapon is a significantly less
> attractive target than an unarmed victim.
and how many 'victims' do u think are actually either going to have
their gun drawn already or are going to have TIME to draw it after the
attack has begun?
>
> Of course, what this has to do with private ownership of capital,
> Windows advocacy, Linux advocacy, or free software is a good question...
>
> --
> "...very few phenomena can pull someone out of Deep Hack Mode, with two
> noted exceptions: being struck by lightning, or worse, your *computer*
> being struck by lightning." -- By Matt Welsh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
--
"Bill Gates?, I dont know any Bill Gates. Oh, you mean 'by putting
every conceivable
feature into an OPERATING SYSTEM, whether you want it or not, is
innovation' Bill
Gates? Yeah, I know the monopolizer"
http://web.mountain.net/~brandon/main.htm
For Beginners in Linux, Emulation, Midis, Playstation Info, and
Virii.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Kimoto)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: problems with glibc2
Date: 21 May 1999 13:41:00 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <01bea3a7$b1806440$0201a8c0@joaqu-n>, jota wrote:
> A week ago I started upgrading my linux, which is slakware with kernel
> 2.0.33. After downloading 2.2.9 and reading the Documentation/Changes file
> I noticed that most of my software was out of date and begun to
> download/install libc 5.4.46, glibc 2.0.7pre6
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You do not need both of these. Do not try to install glibc2 on
a libc5 system until you are confident of what you are doing.
--
Paul Kimoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: New cable modem means I have a lot to learn
Date: 21 May 1999 12:44:14 -0400
ByteMe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Steve Snyder wrote:
>
> > The good news: after years of dithering my cable TV provider is providing
> > Internet access. The bad news: I need to quickly get up to speed on
> > everything needed to provide Internet access to my whole LAN via the cable
> > modem.
> >
> > My simple LAN consists of a server running RedHat v5.2 (updated to kernel
> > v2.2.x and glibc v2.1) and 10 clients (running Win95, Win98 and OS/2) all
> > running on the same subnet. Name resolution is done via an identical hosts
> > file on each system. The server does not provide Internet access to the
> > clients.
> > I do not intend to run any additional local services (mail, Web, news, etc.)
> > at this time. I just want my LANs server to pass packets between the client
> > machines and the cable modem.
> >
> > With the imminent arrival of my cable modem I quickly need info on:
> >
> > 0. My ISP will provide a dynamically-allocated IP address. Does that mean I
> > need to configure my server for DHCP? All the client system will continue
> > to have static addresses.
> >
> > 1. Supporting a 2nd NIC in my server. Having Linux recognize both NICs is
> > a no-brainer, but how do I configure it to communicate only with the cable
> > modem? (The 1st NIC will remain connected to the hub, of course.)
> >
> > 2. IP Masquerading?
> >
> > 3. Firewall? Up to now I haven't had to think much about security, since
> > the LAN doesn't have direct Internet access. Now that we'll be constantly
> > connected, I'm wondering if I need a firewall. I have an older machine that
> > I could use solely as a firewall if needed.
> >
> > Any information, or pointers to info, on these topics would be gratefully
> > received.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > ***** Steve Snyder *****
>
> Be extremely concerned about security when connected via a cable modem.
yes. i recommend running a packet filtering firewall at the very
least. bob ziegler has a great site for firewall and has scripts for
both ipfwadm and ipchains. it's at
<URL:http://rlz.ne.mediaone.net/>
follow the relevant links.
the packet filtering will allow you to run telnetd, ftpd &c while
preventing anyone from the outside from hooking up to those services.
> do not run telnetd if you don't need it.
> set up a dedicated firewal/GW and or Proxy machine and use ip_masq.
> strip the machine down to as few services as posible to start (it's
> called bastion host)
some people only have one machine. while a bastion host is nice, a
packet filter is better than nothing. and the bastion should be
running packet filtering in any event.
> no ftp, http ,telnet, tty , finger , netstat, whois or ping services.
> ( crond even has a hole )
> some important files to pay attention too are /etc/hosts.deny,
> hosts.allow, hosts take complete control over these files and others
> , such as chmod , su , chgrp, chown , login , passwd , etc.
/etc/hosts.deny and /etc/hosts.allow only affect inetd so services not
controlled by inetd bypass these. that is why i really like the
packet firewall.
> if you strip the services (and know how to maintain the box manualy
> ) you can take control of the /bin , /etc dir's so that no one else
> can see or execute them ( the machine will still run just fine ) to
> do this ( chmod -R o-rwx,g-rwx /bin /etc ) check your documentation
> befor you do this for the correct syntax for your machine & MAKE A
> BACKUP first on these directories somewhere else on the hard drive ,
> if you screw it up you'll be locked completely out of the machine (
> hense the security aspect of doing this ) and you will probably have
> to rebuild you system.
> do some reading befor you go nuts on your machine , But I promise
> you , you will be hacked through the cable modem if you don't pay
> attention to security !!!
finally, i would really recommend getting a back-up device. if you
make weekly back-ups to tape, a cracker break-in is much less costly
in time and aggravation. nothing beats a good back-up. it helps me
defend against the idiot attack launched from the person sitting in my
chair too!
--
johan kullstam
------------------------------
From: George MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: A Capitalists view of freedom
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 17:17:09 GMT
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> George MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Peter Seebach wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >In the US, if you are robbed at gun-point. They'll shoot you for fun. If
> > > >a guy has pointed a gun at you, he intends to kill you.
> > >
> > > Not always; as I understand it, it's not more than about 50% likely.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Geesh people can you take this elswhere! And besides, your missing
> > the point! It's not about what you do when a criminal is pointing a
> > gun at you, it's about what you do when it's your own government!!
>
> So you would suggest pulling a gun and shooting if a police officer
> gets fresh?
>
> I am afraid that you'll lose in the long run. You don't get a gun to
> defend yourself in the death cell.
Please take your debate to another news group. Thanks.
And learn to read, I suggest US history 101, it might clue you
in to the reasons for the law in the first place!
--
We stand on the shoulders of those giants who coded before.
Build a good layer, stand strong, and prepare for the next wave.
Guide those who come after you, give them your shoulder, lend them your code.
Code well and live! - [EMAIL PROTECTED] (7th Coding Battalion)
------------------------------
From: "jota" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: problems with glibc2
Date: 21 May 1999 16:29:23 GMT
A week ago I started upgrading my linux, which is slakware with kernel
2.0.33. After downloading 2.2.9 and reading the Documentation/Changes file
I noticed that most of my software was out of date and begun to
download/install libc 5.4.46, glibc 2.0.7pre6, binutils 2.9.1, modutils
2.1.12 and so, but the problems started when compiling the infamous glibc2
(with the crypt and linuxthreads addons). When it got to "make crypt
others" it aborted saying that the included file "<bits/libc-lock.h>" (the
include is in the crypt directory in /sysdeps/unix/crypt_util.c) didn't
exist which sounded logical since I never saw a diectory "bits" in the
kernel include tree. I then tried running configure with
"--enable--add-ons=linuxthreads --disable-sanity-checks" and everything was
ok until make reached "make resolv others". This time it died with "gcc
internal compiler error: program cc got fatal signal 6", this happened
while compiling resolv/base64.c. Feeling a little like DeNiro in Taxi
Driver, I proceded to swallow the libc2 howto which refers to another
version, 2.0.6, and says nothing about the trbls i've been having. It says
something about binaries available for glibc2.0.4, but (according to
Documentation/Changes) I can't use that version whith the new kernel. What
I'm doing wrong?
Here is my relevant hw/sw configuration:
hw: AMD K6-2 450, 64Mb, mb FIC-PA2013 with 1Mb, 100Mb swap in the same ide
disk the linux partition is.
sw: kernel 2.0.33 (if you want more details about the kernel config, ask me
please), bash 2.0, plus the software versions required by the
Documentation/Changes file *except* modutils 2.1.121 which must be compiled
under 2.1.x<.
Thanks, Joaquin.
------------------------------
From: Harley Waagmeester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Can't communicate through 2nd NIC
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 23:53:51 -0700
Steve Snyder wrote:
>
> #cat /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth1
> ---------------------------------------
> DEVICE="eth1"
> IPADDR="24.4.162.173"
> NETMASK="255.255.255.0"
> ONBOOT="yes"
> BOOTPROTO="none"
>
> #netstat -nr
> ----------
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface
> 192.168.0.12 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 eth0
> 24.4.162.173 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 eth1
> 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
> 24.4.162.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1
> 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
> 0.0.0.0 24.4.162.173 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1
>
> Can someone advise me on what to configure just to get basic communications
> going? If there's any info missing from above I would happily provide it.
>
> Thank you.
>
> ***** Steve Snyder *****
IPADDR="24.4.162.173" <-------
You have assigned your internet /cable modem address to your eth1 network card,
that won't work.
Give your eth1 card a local ip like you have for the eth0 card.
I'll give a tough sketch of what needs to happen:
if you give eth1 an ip address of 192.168.0.13,
Then you need :
route add 24.4.162.173 gw 192.168.0.13
route add default gw 24.4.162.173
I'm probably wrong about the syntax
Just give the eth1 a local ip address and leave the gateway address as
24.4.162.173,
and maybe the startup scripts will set the default route up correctly
I hope someone explains this better, or gives the right numbers to plug into the
config files :))
The point is that you want a local ip for the eth1 interface card and use that as
the gateway out
of the machine, and the default route is a "logical route" that flows through the
hardware route.
The 24.4.162.173 is the address of the cable modem device
------------------------------
From: Fred Kuipers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SO51 Installation fails!! HELP!!
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 22:06:11 GMT
It's just the warning that the install pops up. Apparently, you should be
able to continue and it should install correctly. (That's what others are
saying, anyways.)
Unfortunately, I'm not a lucky one... :)
FJK
root wrote:
> Fred Kuipers wrote:
>
> > Greetings, all:
> >
> > I just downloaded the (huge) so51 tarball. Unfortunately after the
> > glibc2 compatiblity check message, I get the following messages and
> > setup quits. What could be the problem. I'm running RH 5.9 (basically
> > RH 6.0) with kernel 2.2.3:
> >
> > /tmp/sv001.tmp/startup.sh: /tmp/sv001.tmp/setup.bin: No such file or
> > directory
> >
> > Any suggestions as to why I get this message??
> >
> > FJK
>
> What did the glibc2 message said?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juergen Heinzl)
Subject: Re: Linux killer for SuSe 6.1
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 22:46:09 GMT
In article <x9WnMM7o#[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stefan Knabe wrote:
Please put your comments after the original posting, it is easier to
read ...
>Surprisingly, the stack isn't limited. The documentation says, the maximum
>stack size is 8MB, but that is not true.
... and here is a snippet from the kernel source (2.2.9 right now) ...
>Juergen Heinzl schrieb in Nachricht ...
>>In article <IOOvIWvo#[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stefan Knabe wrote:
>>>A simple infinite recursion kills Linux :
>>
>>I doubt that ...
>>[...]
>>>void InfRecursion (){
>>> char c[4000];
>>> InfRecursion ();
>>>}
>>[...]
[...]
>>... since the stack size is limited to 8MB in the kernel. I'd rather
>>suggest that your system was busy paging, but that does not mean
>>the system itself, say the kernel has waved you bye bye.
>>
>>>Well, one can avoid this by delimiting the stack via ulimit -s .
>>I never did.
/*
* Limit the stack by to some sane default: root can always
* increase this limit if needed.. 8MB seems reasonable.
*/
#define _STK_LIM (8*1024*1024)
#define DEF_PRIORITY (20*HZ/100) /* 210 ms time slices */
... and a short test programme ...
#include <string.h>
main()
{
char s[8 * 1024 * 1024]; memset( s, 0, sizeof(s));
}
... which does not work with 8 but with 7.
Cheers,
Juergen
--
\ Real name : J�rgen Heinzl \ no flames /
\ EMail Private : [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ send money instead /
------------------------------
From: Jack Cheng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,hk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Diald script
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 15:38:58 +0800
Hello,
I'm using RH5.2 & Diald for dialout connection.
How can I run a script before the diald closing the link, I'd try the
/etc/ppp/ip-down but it seems to be execute after the link down.
--
Best Regard
Jack Cheng
** Please remove 'antispam' from email address for replies
** �а��h�q�l����'antispam',�_�h�ڷ|������.
------------------------------
From: jane chav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: aus.computers.linux
Subject: Re: Linux or linux?
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 17:39:44 +1000
George Dau wrote:
>
> Mark Tranchant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ]Well, not necessarily in this case. GNU/Linux is meant to refer to the
> ]system as a whole. If the application makes use of GNU software, then
> ]maybe that's more appropriate. But if it just uses the kernel calls and
> ]possibly libc/libm (libc5 isn't GNU software...), then it's Linux.
>
> What about every other OS that uses GNU tools. GNU/Solaris anyone?
> GNU/DG-UX? GNU/SCO?
Valid argument.
Anyway, what's in a name? I like to call it Lynux or Linux or whatever,
shoot me. (do i hear people saying Bang?):)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,linux.help,linux.news.groups,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Commercially speaking....?
Date: 22 May 1999 07:50:20 GMT
On 21 May 1999 18:40:51 GMT,
Erik Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now why is allowing "distributions to include your program" a good thing?
> This might be the popular way to do things, but does this have to be the
> only way? The way these open source types talk make a person believe the
> book on commercial Linux success has already been written. All we have
> seen is the first chapter. Saying a commercial Linux company has to make
> their money on support IMO is utterly foolish.
Allowing distributions to include your software is a great way to get it
into people's hands. Let RedHat and Walnut Creek do the boring job of
duping disks and talking to Ingram and smoozing at the ABA shows to get
their products into bookstores.
For the developer, this is a huge freebie: you don't have to work to get
2" of shelf space amidst the sea of "Windows for Morons" books -- RedHat
and Walnut Creek do a reasonable job of getting that space for you.
Heck, you don't even have to maintain an FTP site and pay for the
bandwidth: let RedHat, Walnut Creek and their mirrors handle that.
Distribution is a huge cost of peddling software: getting others to pay
for it is a good thing.
> Ya, just like the Mozzila project was a "positive experience".
> They only had like 36 active external developers vs hundreds of internal
> developers. My bet is that when Netscape went open source the folks at
> Microsoft had a lot more than 36 people actively poking around and
> inspecting it for ways to break it, Borg'ify it, and such.
Actually, you'd lose: Microsoft employees were told to stay the hell
away from it. If they even inadvertantly used the same methods,
Microsoft would be in a very nasty spot regarding copyrights.
It would look very bad for Microsoft to be caught stealing code --
especially Mozilla.
> A company shouldn't go open source because it is the trendy thing to do.
> IMO the only reason to go open source is if the company honestly thinks the
> benefits of doing so outweigh the benefits of not. Now a hardware company
> doing open source drivers makes a lot of sense. The Red Hat distro model
> makes a lot of sense for that business. Most companies the other business
> models doesn't make any sense.
It depends.
One of Linus's standard analogies is that the OS is the 'highway', and
should be as public as in the real world: the cost of building a highway
is immense, but it serves the whole public (even those without cars) and
its role is too crucial to leave to one business to maintain.
Even a company like Oracle could probably get away with giving out
source to 8i -- the big bucks isn't in the server (though it's not
cheap): the big bucks are in all the packages that -use- the server.
The greatest database engine in the world does you no good if no
applications software uses it. Getting Oracle into the hands of
developers helps sway the market in Oracle's favor over things like
mySQL or PostgreSQL. The server is merely infrastructure.
A word processor, however, like Word Perfect, doesn't have that tie in
value. It's an important item, but not as core as 'roads' or
'database'. It is difficult to come up with a financial model where
Corel could make money by releasing source to WP.
Many software companies could do quite well releasing their source code.
It really depends on what it is they are selling: a product or a
service. (And there is a LOT more money in selling a service. Ask any
economist about the changes in the US Economy in the past 40 years, or
even the Japanese economy in the last 20, as they move to more service
than product. 'Product' is for 3rd world countries, while the major
industrial powers are mostly service industries.)
> Now this is a nightmare scenario I hope never happens to any company, but the
> utter disreguard the GPL has for the commercial sector and their priorities
> will let this sort of thing happen. Freedom for the user my @$$, what about
> my freedom for my company to make a profit?
Why should you have freedom to profit from the works of others?
Why do they not have the freedom to request that you not do that?
It's not a simple matter of one licensing system being evil: they are
both trying to do the same thing, but have different beliefs about the
nature of humanity. The BSD license is built on the assumption that
enough code would be returned to the fold that the core will still get
contributions voluntarily. The GPL, otoh, recognizes that people are
basically greedy and will try to convert the public good to their own
end (and screwing the public in the meanwhile) and has mechanisms to
protect the public by keeping the code available to them.
Ironically, I see many BSD advocates arguing in such a manner that they
validate the GPL: "I have a right to take your code and deny that same
right to others!", or in this case "I have a freedom to profit from your
work and give you nothing in return!"
I'm sorry, you have no right to my labors at all. The more you insist
that you have such a right, the more I am convinced that the GPL is
closer to being correct in its assumptions than the BSD license.
--
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: "Russ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,linux.help,linux.news.groups,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Commercially speaking....?
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 09:47:35 +0100
Erik Olson wrote in message <3745a8b3$0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alistair Cunningham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In uk.comp.os.linux Phil Bousfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The open source community is founded on trust and integration of that into
>the greedy/corrupt business world isn't going to be seamless. When it
comes
>to business I believe paranoia is the prudent choice.
>
>Picture this, your company releases its product open source GPL hoping to
>makes its money from support or some other method. My company decides to
>hijack your open source project. My company throws more developers at it
>than your company and we go semi proprietary like SendMail Inc. We get
>a lot of vulture capital, we buy a big booth at Linux expo with the biggest
>LCD screens and comfiest couchs. People think we are cool. We actively
>release some unimportant stuff GPL, just be a headache to your company and
>also to gain consumer mind share that WE are the active developers. Then
we
>will go ultra proprietary with some stuff that our customers will pay a lot
>of money for. When we go IPO and make millions on our options we thank
your
>company for the 40 man years of code you gave us for free.
Very Quickly - Doesn't the GPL say that you cannot sell the code or any code
you used from it (or something very similar)??
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
