Hi Guys, Sorry to have been out of the loop lately, I believe there was a meeting while I was at LinuxUserExpo http://www.linuxuserexpo.com/ in London. Then on Thursday, I got an unsolicited phone call (a welcome one though) from the Sunday Business Post (I'll supply the name when I am where I left it), but in the course of conversation, the guy mentioned that the Editorial team may be interested in talking to me.
Reason is they're doing a Linux spread in about two weeks time (Sunday week I think, and I suggested they include a Knoppix CD with the supplement. I think if the IFSO LiveCD is ready to rock, it might be a nice inclusion (with or instead of) the Knoppix 3.3 ISO from the net.
BUT, keep still, that was Thursday and the MAY not be in touch, but if they are, I'd like to be able to give a Download URL for the IFSO image, provided of course, there are no objections. Why should there be, it could swell the membership.
All the best for now Mel
they're doing a Linux spread in about two weeks time (Sunday week I think, and I suggested they include a Knoppix CD with the supplement. I think if the IFSO LiveCD is ready to rock, it might be a nice inclusion (with or instead of) the Knoppix 3.3 ISO from the net.
That's very interesting. However, I might want to wait before considering publicising the IFSO CD this widely. I've tried it and, while it's really great (Good one, David!), I would have a few reservations before doing what you suggest. * We might be swamped with people looking for support. We're just not big enough and, besides, this isn't our core mission. * It is a little over-branded as an IFSO production. Although it clearly states that it is "based on Morphix", I think that we might want to return one of their splash screens and include some more information about the precise relationship between our and their product. * I don't think the IFSO CD has the Irish dial-up specifics (not that I know much about that stuff).
If they are looking for a CD image fast, I think the safer bet might be to go for a standard Knoppix or Morphix image.
Talking about the CDs: They were all gone from the conference last night. If anyone has the time and technology, could they burn a few more. I'll collect them and drop them over, if necessary.
Good luck,
Malcohol.
On Monday, April 26, 2004 at 10:19 +0100, Malcolm Tyrrell wrote:
they're doing a Linux spread in about two weeks time (Sunday week I think, and I suggested they include a Knoppix CD with the supplement. I think if the IFSO LiveCD is ready to rock, it might be a nice inclusion (with or instead of) the Knoppix 3.3 ISO from the net.
That's very interesting. However, I might want to wait before considering publicising the IFSO CD this widely.
I think this is a really good opportunity to promote Free Software, and I think producing a CD "in association with the Irish Free Software Organisation" is the way to go, if they agree.
I was also very impressed with the disc as it stands. I agree that the CD David produced is really good - I haven't had a chance to try the revised image yet,
- We might be swamped with people looking for support. We're just not big enough and, besides, this isn't our core mission.
We will (probably) never be big enough to handle support on any serious scale. It seems to me that the solution is to direct people to the usual online support sites, and try to include a reasonable collection of troubleshooting documents on the CD.
The chance to include Irish-localized ISP scripts and the like is a strong argument in favour of an IFSO CD, I think. It's the one place where we can add some value over a standard Morphix disc. I think it's a no-brainer that we want to do this (the current disc is only missing this stuff because of time pressure, I think).
If they are looking for a CD image fast, I think the safer bet might be to go for a standard Knoppix or Morphix image.
Depends what fast means, I guess. The existing CD was produced fairly quickly, wasn't it (David?); they are proving very popular, so we will use them again. Work on improving them will not be wasted (in fact, on Sunday I spent a little time pricing short-run CD duplication in case we wanted to get serious batch of them done).
If the Business Post like the idea then we should work with them on this; it's a golden opportunity to get some high quality Free Software into the hands of the general public, with a proper explanation of what it is they are holding. Getting IFSO's name out there as well is a bonus, but one we should pursue.
Thanks,
Maybe we can ask Ilug can we rip off their Knoppix and dual-brand it? That might save time and effort.
Who would count as "distributing" the software from the point of view of complying with the licences? In particular, for the source code availability requirement of the GPL, would it be the newspaper? Would this count as "non-commercial" distribution, thereby allowing the newspaper to elect to comply with 3(c) of the GPL?
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
(IANAL, but I would guess distribution with a newspaper probably /would/ count as commercial.) So would the newspaper have to do either 3(a) (provide source code there and then) or 3(b) (provide a written offer, good for three years, etc.)?
Maybe they would prefer to adopt the "written offer" route, in which case IFSO should probably supply the source to them, and then it's the newspaper's responsibility to make sure nobody throws them away for three years.
Sorry if everybody is already thinking about this, but I think it's important to not rush into shipping a binary-only set of GPL programs without thinking about the licence. Although only a tiny fraction of the readership will care about source code, it's a critical part of the "free"ness of Free Software. Would they even print the GPL in full with a bit of background/explanation? Or is it going to be more presented as a "try this alternative way of playing with your computer"?
Apologies for missing the last meeting; I was rather ill.
Ben.
On Monday, April 26, 2004 at 11:41 +0100, Ben North wrote:
Who would count as "distributing" the software from the point of view of complying with the licences?
Very important point.
There's little leeway in the GPL for this - which makes it easy to discuss; there are only a couple of ways to handle this!
In particular, for the source code availability requirement of the GPL, would it be the newspaper?
Yes, I think it would be the newspaper (or the publisher of the newspaper, maybe more accurately?)
Would this count as "non-commercial" distribution, thereby allowing the newspaper to elect to comply with 3(c) of the GPL?
I couldn't give you the legal chapter and verse, but in amateur view: absolutely not. They are not including this CD out of altruism, it's a form of advertising for their newspaper.
I believe the standard thing done by magazines that include GPL-licensed software on covermounts is that they make the written offer and fulfil it through their usual mail-order/back issue process. Since the GPL permits them to charge the copying cost this may be acceptable.
Maybe they would prefer to adopt the "written offer" route, in which case IFSO should probably supply the source to them, and then it's the newspaper's responsibility to make sure nobody throws them away for three years.
I think this would probably suit everyone. I wonder how many people take publishers up on the offer (I would guess hardly any - those who are really interested probably get online and get the source that way, which is usually more convenient than talking to the distributor).
If we had evidence that the offer is rarely taken up then the Business Post may be more inclined to go along with it. P.S. anybody know if an offer made on the distribution media (i.e. a file in /usr/doc...) counts as a written offer?
The alternative appears to be a CD with 300Mb or so free software and the rest sources.
Would they even print the GPL in full with a bit of background/explanation? Or is it going to be more presented as a "try this alternative way of playing with your computer"?
Printing the GPL with discussion would be fantastic, but I suspect it will be the former.
Apologies for missing the last meeting; I was rather ill.
Hope you're feeling better.
On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 11:41, Ben North wrote:
Who would count as "distributing" the software from the point of view of complying with the licences?
Whatever we do, lets get proper advice on this before discussing it with the newspaper since it would be a shame to scare them off unnecessarily if we suggest they may have obligations that they actually don't have.
IANAL, but I would guess that provided the source code is *available* (ie. downloadable from the Morphix website), then it doesn't really matter who it is available from...?
Either way, we should contact someone at the FSF to get a clear answer if there is even the slightest uncertainty over this issue *before* we raise it with the newspaper.
Ian.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 01:42:13PM +0100, Ian Clarke wrote:
On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 11:41, Ben North wrote:
Who would count as "distributing" the software from the point of view of complying with the licences?
Whatever we do, lets get proper advice on this before discussing it with the newspaper since it would be a shame to scare them off unnecessarily if we suggest they may have obligations that they actually don't have.
IANAL, but I would guess that provided the source code is *available* (ie. downloadable from the Morphix website), then it doesn't really matter who it is available from...?
Either way, we should contact someone at the FSF to get a clear answer if there is even the slightest uncertainty over this issue *before* we raise it with the newspaper.
3b below seems to the relevant section, it seems fairly clear. 3c doesn't seem to apply to the SBP. If IFSO payed the SBP to distribute the software for us it 3c might be ok but that seems a bit shifty to me.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
* a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable * source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 * and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
* b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, * to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of * physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable * copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the * terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for * software interchange; or,
* c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to * distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed * only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the * program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in * accord with Subsection b above.)
F
Either way, we should contact someone at the FSF to get a clear answer
no, please don't take up their time over something like this.
They're an over worked bunch with tasks more important than answering questions from people that won't RTFM.
The answer is probably here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 15:57, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Either way, we should contact someone at the FSF to get a clear answer
no, please don't take up their time over something like this.
You chopped off the end of my sentence:
if there is even the slightest uncertainty over this issue *before* we raise it with the newspaper.
which clearly wouldn't be the case if the answer is available in the FAQ.
Ian.
On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 10:19, Malcolm Tyrrell wrote:
That's very interesting. However, I might want to wait before considering publicising the IFSO CD this widely.
I understand your concerns, but this seems like too good an opportunity to pass up.
- We might be swamped with people looking for support. We're just not big enough and, besides, this isn't our core mission.
We might not be capable of handling the support, but the Linux community as a whole probably will be, which is why we should be clear that this is where people should seek support if they need it (isn't community-based support part of the point of free software?).
- It is a little over-branded as an IFSO production. Although it clearly states that it is "based on Morphix", I think that we might want to return one of their splash screens and include some more information about the precise relationship between our and their product.
Well, you could equally argue that Linux is a little over-branded as a Morphix production too :-) I am sure the origins of the CD can be accurately described within the pages of the newspaper, and I don't think its necessary to get overly concerned about branding, few other people are in the Linux community (provided that people aren't overtly misleading).
- I don't think the IFSO CD has the Irish dial-up specifics (not that I know much about that stuff).
Well, it will still serve its primary purpose (to give a taste of Linux) even if they don't get dialup working - although I suspect that someone ambitious enough to try will probably be able to figure it out.
Ian.
- It is a little over-branded as an IFSO production. Although it clearly states that it is "based on Morphix", I think that we might want to return one of their splash screens and include some more information about the precise relationship between our and their product.
I agree it's a little over branded, our logos make it look like we wrote the whole thing, when in fact we just took someone else's and put our name on it (just too much fun playing with the logo). How about putting the morphix logo on the bootup screens, and adding a section to the index.html to describe the the relationship between out live cd and morphix. Also the information directly available to the user on the cd is a little thin, no information on common problems, no information about IFSO apart from a few vague mentions.
If they are looking for a CD image fast, I think the safer bet might be to go for a standard Knoppix or Morphix image.
I agree, our cd is essentially the current Morphix release with new logos. The current Morphix cd isn't even 1.0 release yet. Knoppix 3.3 seems to have slightly better hardware support, i don't know when the Morphix people branched off from Knoppix.
Talking about the CDs: They were all gone from the conference last night. If anyone has the time and technology, could they burn a few more. I'll collect them and drop them over, if necessary.
I can do another 20, and drop them over this evening. We should keep tack of how many of these CDs are "in the wild", it would be a useful statistic.
I don't think we should explicitly tell the newspaper not to use our cd image, but rather give them enough information on out live cd and the others out there so they can choose themselves, this includes telling them that we not be able/want to support every cd given out.
David C.
On Monday, April 26, 2004 at 12:01 +0100, David Cathcart wrote:
I agree, our cd is essentially the current Morphix release with new logos. The current Morphix cd isn't even 1.0 release yet. Knoppix 3.3 seems to have slightly better hardware support, i don't know when the Morphix people branched off from Knoppix.
Just FYI, Knoppix includes non-free software. Because of this policy IFSO shouldn't be pushing Knoppix over Morphix (if my information on Knoppix is wrong, please correct me).
Sorry to go all Free Software Pedant on this you there.
Just FYI, Knoppix includes non-free software. Because of this policy IFSO shouldn't be pushing Knoppix over Morphix (if my information on Knoppix is wrong, please correct me).
Knoppix indeed includes proprietary software, but a free software knoppix exists: http://live-gnu-linux.infodrom.org/
Morphix contains trace elements of proprietary software (nvidious drivers), and it has MPlayer which is legally cloudy for some reason, but it has a "morphable" configuration which makes it possible to remove the proprietary traces.
Also, just now I've noticed there is a live GNU/Linux for media activists: http://dynebolic.org/
Morphix contains trace elements of proprietary software (nvidious drivers),
That's in the game module, our cd dosent contain that module.
and it has MPlayer which is legally cloudy for some reason, but it has a "morphable" configuration which makes it possible to remove the proprietary traces.
Should we chuck mplayer then? Don't know if there are any non-free codecs on cd, must check.
David Cathcart wrote:
Morphix contains trace elements of proprietary software (nvidious drivers),
That's in the game module, our cd dosent contain that module.
and it has MPlayer which is legally cloudy for some reason, but it has a "morphable" configuration which makes it possible to remove the proprietary traces.
Should we chuck mplayer then? Don't know if there are any non-free codecs on cd, must check.
The binary codecs are an extra package; the legal issues with MPlayer itself are that ffmpeg (which is used by almost all of the free video players) includes patented algorithms; and because the MPlayer developers don't fully follow the conditions of the GPL (mainly, they don't keep proper changelogs)
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Just FYI, Knoppix includes non-free software. Because of this policy IFSO shouldn't be pushing Knoppix over Morphix (if my information on Knoppix is wrong, please correct me).
Knoppix indeed includes proprietary software, but a free software knoppix exists: http://live-gnu-linux.infodrom.org/
Morphix contains trace elements of proprietary software (nvidious drivers), and it has MPlayer which is legally cloudy for some reason, but it has a "morphable" configuration which makes it possible to remove the proprietary traces.
Also, just now I've noticed there is a live GNU/Linux for media activists: http://dynebolic.org/
If it helps, there's an article on building custom Knoppix CDs here: http://linuxgazette.net/issue87/sunil.html
- It is a little over-branded as an IFSO production. Although it clearly states that it is "based on Morphix", I think that we might
want to return one of their splash screens and include some more information about the precise relationship between our and their product.
Alternate version of second boot screen incleudign morphix's logo: http://www.netsoc.ucd.ie/~cathcart/ifso/silent-1024x768-ifso-26-04-04.jpg
Or would we be better using the origional: http://www.netsoc.ucd.ie/~cathcart/ifso/silent-1024x768-morphix.jpg
Also can someone suggest a more precise wording to describe the relationship between our cd and morphix as Malcolm suggests, i.e. a rewording of the first bullit point in http://www.netsoc.ucd.ie/~cathcart/ifso/index-ifso.html
Perhaps: ...This CD-ROM is a slightly modified version of the GNU/Linux distribution Morphix and is completely Free Software. Help using morphix...
Once i get some comments on this i'll burn another 20 and drop them in.
Thanks David
Yes. I was being too careful. It is, of course, a great idea getting a CD out there.
I like this splash screen, best.
http://www.netsoc.ucd.ie/~cathcart/ifso/silent-1024x768-ifso-26-04-04.jpg
Perhaps: ...This CD-ROM is a slightly modified version of the GNU/Linux distribution Morphix and is completely Free Software. Help using morphix...
How about the following slight change:
...This CD-ROM is a slightly modified version of a distribution of GNU/Linux called Morphix and is completely Free Software. Help using Morphix...
It might be nice, but by no means essential, to have a "What is Free Software" section underneath the comments section. I like the wording in the current IFSO flyer. Is there a copy online?
It would be great if we had some CDs to give journalists tomorrow afternoon (I'll try to be there at two). If you drop some over, put two or three in the green bag under the table so they don't get taken.
Anyone visiting the stand should pop on a t-shirt and replenish the stocks of stickers, business cards, bookmarks, leaflets, etc.
By the way, Glenn and I gave a brief radio interview for Near FM. I can't say it went all that well but we (me especially) will have to get more practise at talking to journos.
Good luck,
Malcohol.
I like this splash screen, best.
http://www.netsoc.ucd.ie/~cathcart/ifso/silent-1024x768-ifso-26-04-04.jpg
Changed
How about the following slight change:
...This CD-ROM is a slightly modified version of a distribution of GNU/Linux called Morphix and is completely Free Software. Help using Morphix...
Changed, curse my grammer.
It might be nice, but by no means essential, to have a "What is Free Software" section underneath the comments section. I like the wording in the current IFSO flyer. Is there a copy online?
Took the version from the website
Changes are reflected in new iso on http://netsoc.ucd.ie/~cathcart/ifso/
It would be great if we had some CDs to give journalists tomorrow afternoon (I'll try to be there at two). If you drop some over, put two or three in the green bag under the table so they don't get taken.
Just dropped 20 in (3 in the bag underneath) (i've made 40 copies so far), stand was well stocked with more info that previously (copies of knoppix and the open cd were there too). Apparently someone riled up the local kids last night and they spend about an hour milling around the building and pounding on it. The main door is now closed and they are installing a peep hole thingy, i used the side entrance to get in.
David