osfree.org

#171 From: "Bartosz Tomasik (Bart/2)" <bart2@...>
Date: Sat Feb 23, 2002 11:09 am
Subject: Re: Re: My take on this.. ihsiatko
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°


On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 07:51:09 -0000, ltning99 wrote:

>It seems I didn't state this clearly enough: Anyone who uses this
>source to produce something has committed a crime, and noone could
>ever use it without also doing so. Thus the product, whatever it is,
>is virtually worthless except to those few who chooses to ignore the
>fact that it's an illegal product (Which will admitteldy be a few, but
>not enough to keep an application, much less an operating system, alive).

Eirik
up to now, original osFree team hasn't opened sources, so most of us (well or
maybe
not the most...) still haven't seen these. But that not's the point - if you
have enough
knowledge, why don't you

#172 Web site
Expand Messages

criguada@libero.it
Feb 22, 2002
Hi all,

to the maintainer of the web site (don't remember who he is): both the
links point to the english distro.

Bye

Cris

#173 Re: Web site
Expand Messages

khaverblad
Feb 22, 2002
--- In osFree@y..., "criguada@l..." <criguada@l...> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> to the maintainer of the web site (don't remember who he is): both

the

> links point to the english distro.
>
> Bye
>
> Cris

Yepp, I saw that and it is updated. I just made som quick and dirty
html so there is something to download. I've also set up an
clickcounter that will keep track of the numbers of downloads.

/Kim

#174 Official Logo?
Expand Messages

khaverblad
Feb 22, 2002
Is there any official logo from this beast? Or should I use the one
in the distr or shall we have a small competition to have one done?

/Kim

#175 Posting about Dl
Expand Messages

khaverblad
Feb 22, 2002
Well, since the osFree preview files have been deleted from Hobbes
should there be another posting about where the new files can be
found?

/Kim

#176 new edition?
Expand Messages

Konstantin Okounkov
Feb 22, 2002
I've hear about new edition osFree. It's a joke or right info?


--
Всего хорошего,
Константин.

#177 license issues (but the other way around)
Expand Messages

poldi42
Feb 22, 2002
hi all,

while this will seem a bit early, you not having produced something
yet, I strongly recommend to settle on a sensible license for a
potential "osfree" in short time.

please don't get washed away by the glory of "pure" open source like a
lot Linux-projects. while I think that all _parts_ of this project
should indeed be open, it will be to the greater benefit of both sides
if you allow companies to build something commercial on top of it,
even without them sharing their corporate secrets.

while I don't know a lot on this matter, the _L_GPL comes to mind as
something perhaps suitable. Mozilla has something like this as well AFAIK.

I just wanted to get this out before somebody shouts "GPL!!" and puts
this in the projects manifestum before the dust settles. this could be
a show-stopper for some companies' participacion that could otherwise
be most helpfull.

regards,
Carsten

#178 Re: [osFree] Official Logo?
Expand Messages

criguada@libero.it
Feb 22, 2002
Hi Kim,

> Is there any official logo from this beast? Or should I use the one
> in the distr or shall we have a small competition to have one done?

I already asked this to JMA. There is indeed an official logo, and he
said he will urge the osFree team to give it to you.

Bye

Cris

#179 Re: My take on this..
Expand Messages

ltning99
Feb 22, 2002
Hi,


> >Wrong. If you steal a car for your own use, you get X years in

jail.

> >If you steal a car (or many cars) and then sell it (them), you get

Y

> >years in jail, where Y>X and probably Y>(2X) in many cases. Both

are

> >illegal, but one is a less seirous crime than the other.
> >
> Who said selling !
> Selling is just the thing that separates it all.

Wrong.
First, selling in one way or another (selling the product, selling a
concept, selling support, selling solutions...) is the only way such a
large and complex project as developing an operating system can stay
alive. Linux and every other 'free' operating system out there DOES
generate money that goes back into the development process in one way
or another. So consider my use of the word 'selling' as a broad term,
but that does not limit the consequences of 'selling stolen goods',
which is what we are talking about here.

> Did you know that anyone can use/build a patented thing as long
> as you dont make any money out of it.

Tell that to all the free software developers that have been jailed or
prosecuted for their development efforts, all over the world.
Besides this discussion is not about patents, it's about copyrighted
material - an entirely different discussion. Unfortunately you seem to
lack the understanding of those terms.

> >Bwaahahaha... So you mean that all the guys running around in the
> >world having raped and killed little kids and gotten away with it
> >haven't done anything illegal? Come on.. Even you have to see the
> >absurdity of that statement...
> >
> Then how will you know who got away and who was innocent.
> Or should we just kill everyone of them to be sure.

That's not what I'm saying. You were saying that as long as noone is
brought to court and convicted, anything is legal and OK. It is not.
You are talking as if the quesiton 'is this stolen stuff or not' is
still open, which it isn't. Every hard-core OS/2 developer I know that
has looked at this thing comes to the same conclusion within 1 minute.


> Also, according to your statement above it hardly matters if you

getof > in court since we cannot trust the courts. You did it you are
guilty.

I am guilty of one crime, you are guilty of another (supporting the
distribution of stolen goods), and the 'developers' of osFree
(assuming you are not one of them) are guilty of the IP stealing. They
might not have pulled it out of IBM, but they are the ones who publish
it, and they do so as if it was their own.

> I can tell you LOTS of people did not know this !

I have come to realize. I apologise for assuming everyone knows.
However now that this knowledge is out, everyone should turn their
back on the osFree project. Continuing to support it while knowing
what it really is (stolen property) is a crime in itself, and to be
honest I am embarrassed by the fact that people are still talking
positively about this effort.

> Seems your part of a secret brotherhood that thinks you should be
> allowed to have the code but noone else.
> I'd assume you are in some way better then the rest of us ?

I'm not. And I would never speak against anyone for simply 'having'
the sourcecode. As I said before, there is a pretty big difference
between just 'having' it and actually USING it - and I'm sure whoever
might decide to pursue this legally would know how to set their
priorities; thus I am not very nervous.

> But its useless to discuss these things !!

No it is not. It is absolutely 100% necessary to discuss these things
- if the OS/2 community decides that this (osFree) is OK, I can no
longer be a member of that community.

> I want an opensource OS/2. Are you interested in helping in helping
> out ?

As far as my abilities go, yes.

> If there is anything wrong with the TPE distro then throw it away.

That should have been done long time ago.

> Either you have an interest in a OpenSource OS/2 clone and wants
> to help or you should get off this list do do something else.

I am interested in an OS OS/2, but THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT!! I am
on this list because I believe it needs to be pointed out, but it
seems as if I'm speaking for deaf ears.

Let me also use this opportunity to state my support for Adrian
Gschwend, the OS/2 Netlabs founder, and what he posted here earlier.


-Eirik

#180 Re: My take on this..
Expand Messages

poldi42
Feb 22, 2002

Hide message history
--- In osFree@y..., "ltning99" <ltning@m...> wrote:
...
>
>
> I am guilty of one crime, you are guilty of another (supporting the
> distribution of stolen goods), and the 'developers' of osFree
> (assuming you are not one of them) are guilty of the IP stealing. They
> might not have pulled it out of IBM, but they are the ones who publish
> it, and they do so as if it was their own.
>

have you ever thought why the developers choose not to upload the
sources but only show the executables around? makes not much sense it
you want to start an Open Source project _based on these_, does it?

> > Either you have an interest in a OpenSource OS/2 clone and wants
> > to help or you should get off this list do do something else.
>
> I am interested in an OS OS/2, but THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT!! I am
> on this list because I believe it needs to be pointed out, but it
> seems as if I'm speaking for deaf ears.
>

and I am on this list because I don't think there is such thing as a
common agreement that anybody should use this code. if there is such
thing as a majority-oppinion, expressed by a "kind-of spokesman" JMA,
it sounds to me like quite the contrary. but then again, I am no
native english speaker.

the evil-evil executables have shown in unorthodoxe manner, what is
all possible. they generated interest and movement. I take it that's
what they meant to do and it worked out.

> Let me also use this opportunity to state my support for Adrian
> Gschwend, the OS/2 Netlabs founder, and what he posted here earlier.
>

right you are to state this, but don't make this seem like a black and
white situation where only one person can be right while everything
another one says is not. while the legal issue has to be cleared at
some time (and better soon), different oppinions on how to approach
work all have to be valued. a lot of work can be done before complete
censensus between all remaining OS/2 developers and promoters will be
reached (and luckily so!).

regards,
Carsten