Conversion to Linux

[Haworth, Michael A.]

Yup, I caught that... starting to scan the first few lines and decide from there... Doesn't change the fact that I plan on being there tomorrow night to place faces with names. I am very thankful for the information that I have gotten so far - I was worried that the answer would have been something like "windows users shouldn't bother..." or something. I am currently up to my eyeballs in different distro's (thank God for decommissioned desktops and kvm's)...

I am also enjoying the turn in directions to the licensing side because that is what our current licensing vendor mention when she caught wind that we were thinking of using OS for some things - got the terse email regarding 'hidden clauses' in the Linux licensing and that OS software isn't really 'free' because it isn't supported... I love it when vendors go into a panic because a cash cow is thinking of leaving the pasture...

:)

Michael Haworth

-----Original Message-----
From: kclug-bounces at kclug.org [mailto:kclug-bounces at kclug.org] On Behalf Of Billy Crook
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 12:51 PM
To: Monty J. Harder
Cc: kclug at kclug.org
Subject: Re: Conversion to Linux

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:29, Monty J. Harder <mjharder at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Luke Dashjr <luke at dashjr.org> wrote:
>>
>> Not quite. The copyright holder can do whatever they want. The GPL only
>> obligates licensees. RedHat could in theory license RPM under the GPL and
>> then
>> refuse to give you source. At this point, you would be unable to legally
>> redistribute RPM yourself because YOU are bound to the GPL.
>
> If it's GPLed, then YOU have the right to make copies of the source code,
> and the right to modify the source code. While it does not specify where you
> are allowed to receive that source code, if the licensor fails to make that
> source code available to you, then from a practical standpoint, they haven't
> GPLed the code at all.

"Where you are allowed to receive" What?  I can't say that's wrong
because I don't even know what you meant, but it's certainly not
clear.  What is clear is that §§ 6a-6e of the GPL do specify exactly
five methods by which source may be provided.  Including the source
with the original work is recommended, as it is the simplest, and
fulfils all your obligations immediately.

Notice to Michael (If he's still breathing after the direction this
thread has taken):
This thread (like every other discussion related to Linux) has now
decomposed into mindless GPL ranting.  You should know the whole point
of Linux was to give otherwise sad, lonely geeks something they can
argue about as if it were important.  The fact that it happens to be
the most efficient operating system in the history of man kind happens
to be icing on the cake.  If you were seeking actual relevant advice
on converting to Linux, you may disregard the remainder of this
thread, as it has been doomed now for a few days.
_______________________________________________
Kclug mailing list
Kclug at kclug.org
http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug