Re: [SLUG] Mega confused
Yes, you can use software licensed under the GPL for a business. You can sell GPL software. You can copy and share GPL software. The only real restriction is if you re distribute modified GPL software to other people be it for profit or for free, you have to offer the modified code to the end users without adding any extra restrictions. If you modify the code for your company and you don't redistribute or sell the resulting software (in house only) you don't have to do a thing. The whole idea of the GPL is, here were giving you a hand, do with the code as you wish, but if you add to the code and sell or redistribute it, you have to pay us in kind, by showing us the changes you made. GPL to put it simply is if we scratch your back, you have to scratch ours Its about being fair and being part of a community of people trying together to build on each others idea's, some idea's may be total rubbish, some may be great, but everything and everyone is treated with equality. So no the GPL isn't to be feared, we would love you to use our software and if you make some $$$ from using it, we will be even happier, just don't forget to to scratch our backs. On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 14:51 +0930, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi there...i am new to all things linux/gnu/gpl etc etc Can anyone tell me if someone was to use a group of gnu/gpl programs to provide a service for a feeis this legal under the licensing terms? Regards Richard Neal Real Men don't make backups. They upload it via ftp and let the world mirror it. -- Linus Torvalds -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Mega confused
Matthew Hannigan wrote: ... Which I believe is one of the motivations for GPL version3, which has something to say about this case. GPLv3 won't change that behavior. If you don't distribute the binary then you won't have to distribute the source code. So bespoke software written for a client can be GPLed, and the binary and source provided to the client. But the client is under no obligation to distribute the binary or source to others. Similarly, an alteration to GPLed software can be freely used within a firm [1] without needing to be provided publically. There's some talk about forcing distribution of the source where the binary is used to provide a web service. But that's a different kettle of fish. Cheers, Glen [1] And the firm is pretty wide. The entire Commonwealth of Australia government is one entity for copyright purposes. -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Mega confused
On Thursday 29 June 2006 20:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi there...i am new to all things linux/gnu/gpl etc etc Can anyone tell me if someone was to use a group of gnu/gpl programs to provide a service for a feeis this legal under the licensing terms? The GPL states: You can do anything you like with the code You cannot restrain anyone else from doing what they like with it There are additional constraints if you write code: if it's based on anybody else's GPL code then you must make sources available too. Simple, easy, and legally verbose. James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Mega confused
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 09:32:35PM +0930, Glen Turner wrote: There's some talk about forcing distribution of the source where the binary is used to provide a web service. But that's a different kettle of fish. That's what I was referring to. Say you took a gpl word processor and modded it to behave extra nicely over vnc, then made it a service. Are you obliged to give the user the source code to your version of the word processor? I think the GPLv2 says not, because you have not distributed it. Matt -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Mega confused
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 08:24:02PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 29 June 2006 20:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi there...i am new to all things linux/gnu/gpl etc etc Can anyone tell me if someone was to use a group of gnu/gpl programs to provide a service for a feeis this legal under the licensing terms? The GPL states: You can do anything you like with the code You cannot restrain anyone else from doing what they like with it There are additional constraints if you write code: if it's based on anybody else's GPL code then you must make sources available too. Simple, easy, and legally verbose. James James, as summaries of the GPL go this leaves a lot to be desired! You left out the most important word: distribution. The GPL is most often listed in a file called COPYING for a reason. In particular your 2nd last para There are additional ... is quite misleading. Just because you modify GPL code doesn't mean you have to give away the result. To make it otherwise would violate an principle perhaps even more precious to RMS than sharing, and that is privacy. You are never obliged to tell anyone what you've done with code unless you _distribute_ the compiled version. Matt -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Mega confused
On Thursday 29 June 2006 20:47, you wrote: On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 08:24:02PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 29 June 2006 20:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi there...i am new to all things linux/gnu/gpl etc etc Can anyone tell me if someone was to use a group of gnu/gpl programs to provide a service for a feeis this legal under the licensing terms? The GPL states: You can do anything you like with the code You cannot restrain anyone else from doing what they like with it There are additional constraints if you write code: if it's based on anybody else's GPL code then you must make sources available too. Simple, easy, and legally verbose. James James, as summaries of the GPL go this leaves a lot to be desired! You left out the most important word: distribution. The GPL is most often listed in a file called COPYING for a reason. In particular your 2nd last para There are additional ... is quite misleading. Just because you modify GPL code doesn't mean you have to give away the result. To make it otherwise would violate an principle perhaps even more precious to RMS than sharing, and that is privacy. You are never obliged to tell anyone what you've done with code unless you _distribute_ the compiled version. Matt lots of words make up the GPL. Its brash to try to condense that into a few words, but in terms of an executive summary, this is hard to top. In particular your 2nd last para There are additional ... is quite misleading. Just because you modify GPL code doesn't mean you have to give away the result. I modify code and keep it secret Covered by rule a) You can do anything you like with the code, including NOT giving it away! There are subtle libray and other complications, but I've yet to see an eg that is not covered by my summary (And my quick example is misleading: if you modify code and distribute it then there are ...) Oooh and my bitch-of-the-week Try to get src from aver! http://www.aver.com/2005home/support/downloads/faq_dx5300dx5500.shtml http://tigger.ws/ldvr.jpg James -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] Sync contacts with Evolution
I'm looking at a new mobile phone and wondering how I'm going to go with synching with Evolution. I've been happily using a Palm based PDA/phone and synching with Evolution for a couple of years now. Now I am interested in the Samsung D820, Nokia N70 or even a Blackberry 8700g. These new phones seem to support SyncML but linux support seems to be in transition from multisync to opensync. Is anyone using any of these and synching their contacts successfully with Evolution? -- Simon Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Mega confused
On 29 Jun 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: lots of words make up the GPL. Its brash to try to condense that into a few words, but in terms of an executive summary, this is hard to top. To put it briefly: There are no restrictions on running the program. For anything else, read the licence. If you're going to get into spending time or money on redistribution or new development then reading the licence is not too much to ask and may save significant cost/embarassment. -- Martin -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Greylisting on Postfix
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 11:53:15AM +1000, Howard Lowndes wrote: Would anyone like to share their views on any of these solutions, or on greylisting itself. I've been using postgrey (Debian/sarge package) for the last seven months. It's been working very well. Quite simple to get running, IIRC. Greylisting can be a tad annoying when you're expecting to get an email quickly, and you have to wait for the backoff time to pass, however... Cheers, Paul -- Paul Dwerryhouse| PGP Key ID: 0x6B91B584 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] Greylisting on Postfix
On 6/30/06, Howard Lowndes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm looking at implementing greylisting on a Postfix MTA. snip Would anyone like to share their views on any of these solutions, or on greylisting itself. This popped up only a few days ago: http://www.howtoforge.com/greylisting_postfix_postgrey HTH, Lindsay -- http://slug.org.au/ http://lca2007.linux.org.au/ http://holmwood.id.au/~lindsay/ -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
[SLUG] (no subject)
Hi SLUG, This may interest you Mark Pilgrim, a life-long Mac user who recently caused a few ripples by switching to Ubuntu Linux, has written a nice list of essential software for Linux. Since he's coming from the land of iTunes, iPhoto, and Mail.app, the list is skewed toward Linux apps that replace (or at least approximate) their OS X counterparts. Pilgrim's picks include digiKam for photo management, amaroK for music, and KMyMoney (like Quicken without the monopolistic dickwads). However, there are a few apps he hasn't found an equivalent for, namely iMovie and Quicksilver (Damn. I miss Quicksilver.). Head over to Dive Into Mark for the complete list. Also, another notable Mac user, Boing Boing's Cory Doctorow, is also about to make the Mac-to-Linux switch. I'm with Jason Kottke, who says, If I were Apple, I'd be worried about this. Cheers S -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
