Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Lizard Installer Released Under QPL 104

coolo wrote in to say that Caldera has decided to release Lizard under the QPL. Lizard is the installer that they use for their distribution- its fairly nice looking and appears to be exactly what novices need to get over that whole install hump. I've heard a lot of good things about it, so this is a pretty cool thing on their part..
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lizard Installer Released Under QPL

Comments Filter:
  • Look again, disk druid isn't a program itself, but part of the installer. It's code is in install.c and install2.c. It's on the CD.

  • "No company or person has any right whatsoever to use copyright to place restrictions on information"

    What the fsck do think the GPL is!? Hamster soup! It's a frigging copyright!!! Have you ever read the GPL? I didn't think so...

    If no one has the right to place restrictions on information, then I guess the FSF has no right to restrict my proprietary use of gcc now do they? Only the copyright prevents me from withholding the the source code. Hell, Microsoft could replace the VC++ backend with g++ and nothing would stop them!

    Next time please engage the brain before trying to think...

  • I'm still trying to get my head around all the details on this privacy issue. Basically the QPLs stance on privacy is stated in clause 6 of the QPL

    6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following requirements:

    c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply one.

    So in some sense the QPL does protect you privacy. But it doesn't go as far as the GPL, as I stated the GPL allows an organization to freely distribute a modified version of a GPL'd app within that org. I regard this as a flaw in the GPL as it could be used by an unethical company to sidestep the "freedoms" that the GPL is intended to protect.

    >It's fine to be more profitable, but not at the
    >expense of freedom or privacy
    Interesting statement, normally I think of profit as an economist would, that is taking into account the social costs that production incurs so a company that makes a lot of money dumping toxic waste into a stream wouldn't be profitable at all in my view. By the same logic the loss of freedom/privacy is a social cost and a software company that makes money at the expense of this things is a burden on society.

    >The patch clause doesn't really matter because
    >CVS works that way anyway
    There are a number of subtleties you are missing here. Firstly I used the term patch clause, but I should point out that, really the phrase "patch clause" referred to the fact that the QPL stated that the 'diff' and 'patch' programs must be used to generate and merge differences. This clause has now been relaxed to requiring modifications to be distributed seperately. Secondly this clause prevents me from taking bits of a QPL'd app and using them myself, something you should be aware of.

    We that's a lot of disagreeing I just feel contrary today.

  • Oh my god! That church uses the RSV! Don't they know that the only true Bible is the KJV! They will surely burn in hell...
  • The web page you reference is out of date, QT has since been released under the QPL license.

    Furthermore you are making up your own definition of free, neither I, nor the Debian Free Software Guidelines nor RMS agree with it.
  • You are a moron.

    Go back into your cave.
  • I would score:1 that last comment. ;) There seem to be a lot of people new to the open-source community that think that the GPL is the only valid license. I'll give you a wake-up call... If you're a company that would like to add things to Linux, then maybe the GPL isn't the right license for you. Hence, them using QPL since they also develop using Qt. Hell, I don't see any companies developing using GTK. Why is that?
  • Lizard autodetects the graphics card (if it is PCI) and assigns the correct X Server.
    The monitor currently cannot be autodetected.

    There are three different partitioning dialogs,
    from very easy (whole disk), prepared (by Partiting Magic) and a full featured partitioner.

    And you do not need to type 'mount /floppy' or something in OpenLinux, you just do cd /auto/floppy or cd /auto/cdrom and the floppy/cdrom will be automounted for you. Including icons on the desktop that will do this and pop up a kfm.

    You have a point, QT does not do much of it, the magic lies within Lizard and the rest of OpenLinux ;)
  • I don't think that the QPL makes any sense for a Linux installer. It's quite specific to libraries such as Qt. Look at these two clauses which claim to control what you are allowed to use the software for:

    5. You may use the original or modified versions of the Software to compile, link and run application programs legally developed by you or by others.

    6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and other software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the following requirements...

    But this is total nonsense. You don't use an installer program to 'compile, link and run' programs, and you don't use it to develop software with either. You use it to install Linux - but seemingly, this isn't permitted by the licence.

  • Actually, I suspect that M$ did use g++ 2.6.2 (I think - It was a long time ago) as the backend to VC++ 1.0 b/c both shared the same "Internal compiler error"s on some perfectly valid (if not slightly convoluted) C++ code. Hard to prove that sort of thing though. . .

  • I will not respond to your personal attacks,
    but I will respond to your attacks on the GPL.

    Yes the GPL is 'a frigging copyright', but the only restriction it places is that nobody is allowed to place additional restrictions on the work, it's copies, and any derivative works.

    Yes, copyright is what gives GPL the legal power to restrict your propietary use of gcc. Think for half a second about what this means. It means you can't place restrictions on gcc or any modifications, that's all. If there weren't copyright laws you wouldn't be able to put restrictions on it either. What the GPL does is simulate a world without copyright. Some people claim that this is hypocritical, but those people are confused. It isn't the copyright that is wrong, it is using it to place restrictions. A restriction stating that no restrictions may be imposed, such as the GPL, is a perfectly valid weapon to combat all that is propietary.
    The clause about releasing the source code, however, is at least debatable. If you want to argue that being forced to release the source to derivative works is going too far, then we can argue that.

    Microsoft could replace the vc++ back end with gcc today, without violating any licenses or laws. All they have to do is allow vc++ to be freely distributed, and make the source code available.
  • The Debian or SuSE installs could be evil for a clueless newbie, but all the other distros are brainlessly simple to install.

  • Entire Internet Slashdotted!
    MPG at 11.
  • Put in the boot floppy or cdrom maybe a difficult task for certain Win9x users, because they have to change the bios setting to boot from A: or CDROM. From their experience, they have to put the CD into the drive, and windows will autoplay it.

    GUI or not is not important.

    What really make newbies run away: they have to answer certain question they don't understand, such as domain name and correct IP address.
    The book inside the SuSE package is a good starting point. But, any users read manual before install?
  • they wouldn't have to release the source just for 'including' gcc. They would have to release the source if they cut and paste code from gcc into vc++, making vc++ a derivative work of gcc.
    As far as BeOS, porting something GPL'd to an operating system most certainly does not force that operating system to be GPL.

  • If it is under the QPL anyone is free to modify the program, recompile, and distribute modified binaries (under reasonable conditions like you have to include a copy of the text of the QPL license).

    The distributor must also make available the source code. (In two parts, as an unmodified version of the original code and then seperately the changes that have been made, the redistributor could include a script to merge these two for convenience).

    Basically it is similar to the GPL.
  • actually, my first install was suse 5.3, and i thought it was pretty easy...right after i got done with it. :) partitioning gave me the willies at the time, because it wasn't something i'd ever done before, and i had no desire to bugger up the rest of my hard drive. after i got done, i thought "that was it??" the suse book helped alot...i've never understood what some people find so confusing about it.

    debian (2.0) went fine until package selection time..._that_ confused the hell out of me.

    i've got a copy of caldera 2.2, although i haven't installed it yet. i have, however, read the manual...and if i'm understanding it correctly, lizard looks great for someone completely clueless, but if you've any desire to customize as you go through which packages you at install, you're screwed.

    also, i rather like having 'the kitchen sink,' as the caldera puts it, rather than the 1 cd of programs they provide.

    as for why there's so much talk about the install, i think it's because once you get up and running there's just not that much difference between any of the distros...not that i've seen anyway.
  • Doesn't grant me the freedom I want.

    You have the freedom to not use Lizard (or other QPL'ed stuff) and instead write your own. Nobody have taken that right away from you, and it's the only freedom applicable.

    Your attack on Caldera's choice of license is an attack on their freedom to choose a license they are comfortable with.

  • I just checked it again, it is still obsolete.

    pmitros: Even if I simply reindent the code to a different style, patch will consider it a completely new program.
    This is irrelevant the QPL does not require modifications to be created with the diff utility and applied with the patch utility.

    pmitros: If I decide to take a file for the "list" widget, copy it over, and modify it to make a "tree" widget, the patch program will also not be able to deal.
    Again irrelevant the QPL does not require the use of the patch utility.

    ac: I've spoken to RMS about this, and he considers QPL not to be completely free, but free enough to be "good enough" for now.
    I think you are putting words in RMS's mouth, he publicly stated that the QPL was a free software license, I have not seen evidence that he has retracted this statement.

    ac:DFSG are guidelines. It's possible to find licenses that fall through the loopholes.

    ac:This is one
    Not according to my interpretation or Bruce Perens or the Debian developers

    You defined free:
    ac:I define it to mean it gives me my freedom. Same as RMS.
    This definition is not useful and it is not the same as RMS, his definition for free is:
    • The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
    • The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1).
    • The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
    • The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3).

  • by nlucent ( 168 ) on Saturday September 04, 1999 @03:55AM (#1704844)
    I've heard a lot of good things about it, so this is a pretty cool thing on their part

    This shouldnt be a cool thing. This should be expected from a company that sells _open_source_ software.

  • We need more newbie-friendly tools to be open. That way, we can make other, similar newbie tools.

    QDMerge [] 0.21!
  • I just tried that link, and I was redirected to http://localhost/lizard, which of course replied with a 404 file not found. Is anyone else experiancing the same problem?
  • yeah, me too
    but if you type in the url manualy, it will take you to the site.

  • by Ticker ( 79929 )
    Nice! Anyone want to build a RedHat or Mandrake distribution that uses Lizard as the installer? I volunteer! That would be swwwweeeeet.
  • But you can go to [] and click on the "Lizard" link from there.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    those little stickmen remind me of Blair Witch Project. I was scared I was lost in the woods. Then I remembered I could just hit "back". Whew!!
  • if you go to it redirs you to localhost/lizard/

    if you go to it works. screwy server to say the least.
  • I guess that's one way to avoid being slashdot'd.
  • At least they GPL their stuff. I always thought Caldera was along for the ride because DOS didn't work out.
  • Stupid QPL. Come on Caldera we want software under the GPL not some half-ass wanna be

  • Interesting. The QPL is rather weird (this is the first time I've read it). According to one term of the license, you must distribute your modifications "in a form seperate from the Software, such as patches".

    But the next term of the license says you can distribute your executable forms of the modifications+original, provided you also distribute the source to the modifications+original.

    So, which one is it? Can you distribute the source with your modifications already patched in, or do you have to distribute your modifications as patches?
  • Wasn't Lizard GPLed a month or two ago? Or am I thinking of Lisa? It's pretty dark in here right now, so shed some light on this subject, please.
  • Source code modifications seperately (with a script to merge them I guess).

    Binaries distribution of modifications (the thing everyone wants) is allowed.

  • Why? What advantage does the GPL afford you that the QPL does not?
  • If I remember the discussion (monolog) on their (TrollTech) web site correctly, they were encourating the shipment of the source as a complete CVS tree. They want their code to be retrievable in an unmodified form, but also wanted to allow any mods that someone wanted to add.
  • Well, it is annoying to have to deal with another license, but KDE was already under QPL, so that's no problem. And QPL is one of the better licenses.
    And sing great praises they didn't invent a new license!
  • Most people couldn't install a monitor let alone an operating system. Having installed countless win9X, NT, and Linux systems I would say that linux is easier to install then NT and harder then win9X.

    Most people would rather buy a new pc then to install or upgrade their software.
  • thats the law, and the law is bastard
    i don't ask others to write software for me,
    i ask them not to tell me what to do on my
    computer in the privacy of my home, regardless
    of whether i make use of software they wrote

    I would be interested to know what you mean by 'Guess freedom has only one side'. Everyone ought to have the freedom to write, modify, distribute, and use software freely, without restriction. As long as copyright exists, only GPL or similar license can guaruntee this. What other side do you want? The freedom to use other peoples software, while also having the freedom to restrict others use of your software? sorry you can't have it both ways
    you can't have the freedom to live if you want the freedom to murder
  • Except that they wouldn't be taking ANY of the code from GCC. VC++ is just a frontend to MS's compiler. It just runs the software in the background. GCC could probably be a drop in replacement. They would not need to change the licensing on their software at all.

  • Beware Partition Magic LE in the Lizare install.
    I blew up my MBR/FAT because PM-LE does **NOT**
    support disks > 4GB! Lizard was a complete bust.
    Had to rebuild using LISA.
  • 1) The QPL sucks as it is incomptible with the GPL.
    2) The QPL sucks as it doesn't protect your privacy.
    3) The QPL sucks due to the patch clause.

    Or does it?

    Yes the GPL may be incompatible with the QPL. In spite of this RMS has stated that the QPL is a free software license, furthermore the QPL is compliant with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

    If the GPL is incompatible with the QPL, that means the GPL is making it difficult to distribute free software, and by extension the FSF is acting against the best interests of software customers by reducing the amount of free software available. Hardly an admirable trait in an organization the claims to support free software, rather they appear to be trying to create a software license monopoly.

    Yes,the QPL does not "protect your privacy", but is protecting you privacy not equivalent to reducing the freedoms of software consumers for the benefit of corporations that do not want to share? The privacy loophole in the GPL allows corporations to make their own secret changes to GPL'd source code and not share those changes. Why couldn't an unethical corporation exploit this loophole in the GPL, saying "You can use this software and as a bonus you become a member of my organization, [in small print no you don't get the source we are not required to give it to you under the terms of the GPL]"

    Yes the QPL requires source code to be distributed in two parts the original and the modifications. This will benefit the entity that QPLs rather than GPLs their code by making it unlawful for others to borrow bits of source code and by making it more difficult for others to fork the code. It is still legally possible for others to fork the code, it requires software engineering skills rather than being prepared to commit a criminal act.

    Nevertheless this characteristic of the QPL suggests an organization will profit more from QPLing rather GPLing their code. Is this "higher profitability of free software companies" really a bad thing? It could act as an incentive encouraging more companies to profitability produce free software.
  • As sure as the sun rises in the east, there will always be several ACs (or one posting multiple times) complaining about non-GPL lincenses in any Caldera related story posted on slashdot.

    If you guys dislike non-GPL software so much, then why don't you get busy and write a GPL'd X server or web browser instead of complaining about someone elses contribution?


  • "He who writes the code gets to choose the license"
    -- Linus Torvalds (paraphrase)

    Stop your whining and sniveling. The author of the code is the only person with the right to choose the license.

    If you don't like it you, write your own and you can pick GPL all you want.

    Besides, name something GPL gives you that QPL doesn't? People who whine about GPL are typically ignorant of the fact that not all software distributed with a package is GPL, not even Debian. Some software is licensed under BSD, artistic, and some software is even pure public domain (for instance, most versions of whois).

  • You definitly can make installation

    The lizard detects dhcp on it's own and
    gives you the dhcpd output as defaults.
    It doesn't give you the network page if
    it can't find network cards.

    It detects sound on it's own - it took
    a while to get my sound card running under

    You can play tetris while the packages are
    copied... ;)
  • The same goes for Caldera. They can't
    take code from RH's installer either.
    Don't blame Caldera - blame GPL.
  • You live in a very Utopian and strange world. Sometimes, I wish I lived there. Then I wake up.

    All of life is about trading services and physical resources with other members of our species (and, arguably, with other species). We are acting not out of benevolence, but out of self-love. I will give you this-for-that, is the nature of any transaction. Some will claim altrustic exceptions. However, I even dispute these exceptions. I will give you 'Z' at no cost because it pleases _ME_(including the example from the famous story "The Man Who Was Nailed To A Tree"). If I spend my time and sweat creating 'Z' then I have the perfect right to restrict or dictate the use of 'Z' in any way that pleases me. I am not forcing you to use 'Z.' If you require the use of a product that performs the functions of 'Z' but cannot abide by my restrictions, then spend your own time and sweat. Create your own 'Z.'

  • but with version 2.3, disks over 8 GB are supported.
    In order to protect the data on your hard drive and simplify the installation of
    OpenLinux, a new version of Partition Magic CE (Caldera Edition) has been
    provided by PowerQuest. This upgraded version now includes support for hard
    drives larger than 8 GB. Also, the commercial backup and restore utility BRU is
    integrated into the KDE desktop. The added performance of the robust 2.2.10
    Linux kernel is included.

  • thats the law, and the law is bastard i don't ask others to write software for me, i ask them not to tell me what to do on my computer in the privacy of my home, regardless of whether i make use of software they wrote

    Listen, they wrote the software. Without them, there would be no software. So just be glad it exists and stop whining about "well, they don't let me do blah blah blah blah blah". It's their software! They have the right to do anything they want with it!

  • Old news on Slashdot, yet again.
    "I already have all the latest software."
  • This constant yacking about the GPL is very annoying. All I hear on /. is "I want", "We want", and more. You all sound like selfish, immature kids. Grow up! What is wrong with the QPL? Just because you would prefer the GPL doesn't mean that the QPL is bad or stupid. These companies have spent time and money developing their packages (I include the current flap over the Star Office release). What right does anyone have to demand that they then give their investment away? If it is a flawed business model (still no proof either way) then they will learn that soon enough. Your right is to use or not use the software, but you have no right to demand a company do something they don't want to.
  • well, i havent used it, but the screenshots make it look useful and full-featured enough.

    But I don't care how i have to install my *nix, I'm just waiting for desktop applications. That's all that I really care about...
  • I think the idea is that you can distribute the program/source with your modifications already patched in, OR you can distribute your modifications seperately. Both terms are valid.
  • you are completely wrong. No company or person has any right whatsoever to use copyright to place restrictions on information. GPL is the only ethical license because it garuntees that the software and all derivative works will not have restrictions. Unless of course you consider the fact that the GPL doesn't let you place restrictions to be a restriction in and of itself, but that of course is simply doublethink.
  • Diskdruid is not open source at all, not under any license.
  • I hear it pretty often from people, that the Linux distributions are hard to install. Especially some feel that the lack of a GUI install makes it really hard.

    I'm not understanding a bit of that. RedHat Linux (which I use) has the easiest install I've ever seen. And other distributions (Debian and Slack which I've also run) are good as well. The procedure is: Put in the boot floppy, answer the questions, and reboot.

    You can install most Linux distributions using one or two floppies, and a network connection or a CD. Now why is that said to be hard ?

    Especially in sharp contrast to the NT install, which I've also been thru quite a few times...
    To install NT, you need the right kind of hardware (meaning ATAPI CD-rom and a motherboard that doesn't have controllers NT choke on (like NOT Asus P2B-DS)), you need DOS running and able to access the CD drive, and _then_ you can maybe start the GUI install. Wow!

    I'm sure one can boot an NT install from CD, if one has the right hardware again, but still, the problems with unsupported devices and crap like that remain.

    Besides, if you're an experienced Linux user, you can do a lot of clever tricks during the install, by using the shell which is available in most installers. You can never become experienced enough to do that under NT.

    It's been some time since I installed Win95. In fact I've only really done it once. That one was fairly easy, given that I had the hard-drive partitioned correctly and all the right hardware.

    Ever tried installing Win9X/NT on a disk that had a non-DOS partition ? Well, if you have you already know what I'm talking about.

    Come on people. Entering the right IP address is no easier in a GUI than it is in ncurses.

    I'm not pissed off about Caldera making a GUI install. I think it's nice. I'm just pissed off by the ignorance and unfounded accusations posed by lusers with too thick sunglasses.

    'guess I'd better stop now...
  • People, at least read the QPL. It is less then two pages long. And covers (all of the OSS guidelines) It is basicly the BSD license with the clause that you must distribute the source with any modifcations. Oh and that you must provide the source to anyone who ASKS for it. Sounds like a "Good Thing" (tm) to me.
  • From looking at the screenshots, I just don't see this thing as a major innovation. Of course, I'm not a frightened-newbie, but I don't see the big difference between a mouse-enabled ASCII GUI and a QT GUI. It seems more user-friendly that the RedHat 5.2 installation (haven't tried 6.0 yet), but that mostly depends on how well it detects your hardware and what questions it asks.

    I'd say the two most important things in a newbie installation (that may or may not already exist, I don't know), is a part that figures out your monitor and video card for X automatically (not even picking it from and list and certainly not entering in sync values) and something that does the partitions for you. Configuring X is a hell of a problem if you don't know much about your video cards/monitors and you don't have the manuals. And it's probably impossible if you don't know anything technical about modern monitors in general. Partitions are easy for someone who understands computers, but eerie to a newbie. And it should setup fstab correctly so a fskcin' user (not root) can mount the CD-ROM and floppy just by typing "mount /floppy", which is a simple text edit.

    Yeah. I don't see how QT does a thing to any of this. I really think it has more to do with abstracting the frightening details of installation than presententing the frightening details in a nice GUI. But, I suppose, if they want to play Tetris, let them play Tetris.
  • When I tried to install RH 6 + 5.2 on my Digital Ultra 2000 Laptop, RH installer froze consistantly when probing for the mouse. Lizard made Caldera an easier install than some Windows installations. IP information, Monitor information, and the rest of the time I'm playing Tetris. It certainly made life easier.
  • Why does everyone go on and on about installing? I've only installed Redhat, but that's almost easier than installing damn-Windows..

    Are the other dists more difficult to install, or what?

    Besides, is it suitable for a newbie to run anything else than Redhat? I mean, if the systems difficult to install, wouldn't it be even more difficult to use?

  • "the only restriction it places is that nobody is allowed to place additional restrictions on the work, it's copies, and any derivative works."

    There a lot more restrictions than that! Go read it.
  • i read it before, and i just read it again
    the only restrictions i see is that you cannot make a derivative work, and then put it under a different license. You are free to use, distribute, and modify, so long as everybody you distribute it to has the same rights you did. Perhaps i missed something? feel free to point out whatever restrictions you are thinking of.
  • If the QPL was actually superior, than it's being incompatible with the GPL might be the fault of GNU being stupid, But that is not the case. No one should be forced to distribute their work. That is a horrible violation of privacy. Once you distribute it, however, you have no right to try to control further redistribution. The patch clause doesn't really matter because CVS works that way anyway. It's fine to be more profitable, but not at the expense of freedom or privacy.
  • How can you possibly see the difference between life and death the same as the difference between free and proprietary software? One thing I will never understand is how this debate can come to a nearly religious level... this "if it's not GPL, it's evil and a violation of freedom" crap is more than I can take.

    Don't get me wrong... I'm all for the GPL. I'm all for Linux. I use Linux regularly, and I use, obviously, GPL'd software regularly. I've released some software under the GPL.

    And, likewise, I've worked on and released software which is not open source. Admittedly, I'd have no problem opening them up, but since they are Windows applications (yes, that's right, I do program and use Windows on occasion, and I even use Windows sometimes, because I see a computer as a tool, not as some kind of political or religious statement), I've never bothered to open them up.

    But the thought the the latter is not freedom... that is just unbelievable to me. Your argument that the only freedom is the GPL restricts another freedom, that being the freedom to keep source closed, and to create a proprietary application. You seem to feel that these contradict each other, but they do not. In fact, your analogy of freedoms to life and murder seems to argue the complete opposite of the idea you propose.

    The freedom to murder would be the freedom to deny others the freedom to life. Likewise, the freedom for all people to see all source code to all software denies others the freedom to close their source. So I don't think your analogy really works either way.. if it works your way at all.

    So, let me ask you this: am I denying someone their freedom by not making my last English paper freely distributable? Am I denying someone their freedom by not making my root password readily available? It seems to me the freedom of disclosure--or lack thereof--is therefore held by he/she responsible for that disclosure, and nobody else. And the release of source code is, as I see it, disclosure.

    The GPL is a great idea, but it is not unethical to use something else. Forgive me for continuing an off-topic discussion, but sometimes I find that I can't keep silent any longer.
  • I would very much like to continue this discussion, as you seem to be coherent, unlike most pushers of the right to write proprietary software. email me at

    you are not denying freedom by not making your
    last english paper freely distributable.
    You are not denying freedom by not giving out your root password.
    Likewise, you are not denying freedom by not
    release your source code.
    The denial of freedom comes in when you give/sell
    me software, and then tell me not to further distribute it. YOu don't have to write the software. You don't have to give me a copy. Once i have a copy, I have the freedom to do what I want with it, short of claim it as my own.

    I think the murder analogy holds up very well. Of course freedom of software can't be compared to the horribleness of murder, but one freedom contradicting another is quite the same.

    You writing propietary software does not hurt my freedom to write free software, but that isn't the point. Your placing software under a restrictive license takes away my freedom, my right, to use my hardware to make copies of what is on my hard drive. There isn't a privacy issue because you are perfectly willingly to give a copy to anyone with a little money.
    Once I hear a poem, a joke, a funny story, an interesting observation, i can retell it. You can't take away my right to do that, given the fact that I credit you properly. Would taking away this right not be a direct attack on freedom of speech? How is software any different?

    The part of the GPL forcing source to be released is another matter entirely. That is far to complicated to discuss here. Perhaps in email.
  • The people who are flipping out over the QPL really need to get a CLUE. The QPL license is less then two pages long and uses simple words that a 5th grader could understand.

    QPL resembles the (current (no advertising clause)) BSD license. The only differnces I saw was that they require you (like the GPL) to redistribute any modifications you make to the GPL'ed source code back to the community.

    read it yourself:

    If you think Linux is easy to install compared to Win98, well you are right. If you think Linux is as easy to install as it could be well check out:

    p.s. some people need to get off their jihad trip.
  • I expecially like the "Set Up Mouse" window, [] because of the "Test Mouse Here!" feature, and the "Test Soundcard". []
    Caldera says the new OpenLinux 2.3 detects your soundcard automtically. Anyone tried this new thing already? Or did they release it [] this friday??

    Anyway, I will get a copy of that OL 2.3. Too bad it'll cost me more than 50 bucks here in Finland :o(

1 1 was a race-horse, 2 2 was 1 2. When 1 1 1 1 race, 2 2 1 1 2.