Linux  and Free Software :: Introducing StudentOS™ (A remastered DSL4.0)

Instead of spamming DSL forums about your remasters, why don't you submit packages for MyDSL? Be part of the community instead of "trademarking" remixes based on something that's already an established trademark.

Re: trademarks... You're no Linus Torvalds. Don't even go there.

There is absolutely nothing out there in my website that is proprietary. And that's precisely why I picked only the GPL'ed softwares to be part of my Editions.

GPL isn't the only open source license. GPL has very clear requirements if you're re-distributing executables covered by that license. Accordingly, I posted links to both GPLv2 and GPLv3 in the other thread (spam) you posted. I also linked to an article about how that relates to sub-distros using unmodified binaries from upstream distros. It's very clear and unambiguous: you have an obligation when you release a binary based on GPL code to make sources available per  the terms of the license once you distribute it.

You've offered publicly -- using two separate threads in this forum -- multiple variations of remasters containing GPL code. I want to know where your source tree is and how I can obtain all the sources for the executables covered under GPL used by each of your publicly distributed remasters.

Among the code contained in DSL (and presumably your remasters) is BusyBox:

Are you fulfilling the requirements of the license? How? Where?

Dear Lucky13,

Thanks for all the URLs that you have posted.

Regarding submitting packages to myDSL, that's what I initially started with. Then when I got into remastering techiques chapter 11 (explained in DSL book), I totally got carried away with it and ended up making different .iso images with different open sources packages and that's what ended as different Editions. But I see your point of making packages and submitting to myDSL.

Regarding "Linus Torwalds", thanks for the advice. I won't go there again :-)

Iam not sure which "source" that you mean, that I pretend to be hiding ?!

All I did is integration of DSL4.0, replacing it's kernel with kernel2.4.35 with LIRC module added (which are all available in their respective websites). This is all what I did.

1) I created 2 partitions with ext3 filesystems on my harddrive.
2) I then installed DSL4.0 on the first partition
3) I then manally mounted the second partition
4) I then downloaded the opensource softwares in second partition
5) For every software, I do a "./configure --prefix=/usr/local", followed by "make && make install"
6) I then take a tar (of filesystem) everything under "/" and keep it seperate (which I use it to integrate it step 8)
7) I then start the remaster work that I documented (or I should say "spam" in your words) booting with "boot: dsl 2 base norestore legacy"
8) I then replace it's filesystem with the filesystem that I created in step 6.
9) Finally, I make a new .iso image out of it.

I do it all manually. Pretty much that's all there is to it.

And if you say that's the source that Iam supposed to share (those filesystems), ofcourse they are all there for anyone to take :

All I have written it down is, what it takes to make a DSL remaster and customise the way one wants to.

I will be intested in knowing is if the links that I provided under "documents" are useful to others.

I will be interested in hearing from other collegues as well and see if Iam doing anything illegal and/or breaking any rules.

thanks again,

I didn't ask about processes or steps -- I think I have that part of it down, thankyouverymuch. I asked where you're making sources for GPL software contained in your (re)distributions available under the terms of the GPL. That means kernel source, busybox source, etc. For every GPL'ed code contained in the remaster.

Better go read the GPL before offering such software to others. I don't think you understand your obligations under the license. The GPL is not carte blanche to produce remasters or even unique distros and hand them out or put them on the Internet. The moment you make it available to ANYONE, you're obliged by the GPL to also provide the sources. Do you need to hear from lawyers to comply?

edit: "which are all available in their respective websites" -- No, the GPL doesn't allow you to link or suggest websites if you distribute a binary. You're obligated to make the sources available where you make your ISOs available.

This thread appear to be getting a bit personal, but I will add an observation:

DSL does not provide the sources for the extensions - they are only referred to in the info files - much the same as the links mentioned above. I know John & Robert can provide the code for the core system, but what about all the extensions - do we need a parallel repository with all the source code?

Quote we need a parallel repository with all the source code?

Good question. I'm not a lawyer. It's also ironic that I raised the issue of source maintenance responsibility privately yesterday *before* these remaster/re-distros were made available in these forums. I don't know the answer (yet) and am awaiting clear guidance.

I've maintained sources of my submissions whether GPL, BSD, or MIT-X because I know the sources aren't found in MyDSL but (at least the GPL ones) have to be made available. I don't mind that because I'm the one making the extensions available and DSL only hosts those for the benefit of the community. DSL isn't distributing extensions, per se, since users select those themselves -- I see MyDSL in terms more similar to file sharing than distributing but I'm not 100% sure SFLC/FSF sees it the same way with respect to GPL software. I know other distros maintain full source trees for everything available in their packages. Maybe we'll get a clear answer about this soon.

My only GPL submissions are GNU screen, calcurse, and gdb (more pending). Unless and until we're asked to submit our sources along with our extensions, anyone wanting source for any of my extension submissions can get the sources I used directly from me.

That's a separate issue from this thread. As far as this being or becoming personal, blogananda decided to make his remasters public and, accordingly, put himself in a position of having to make all GPL sources contained therein available. This isn't my rule, this is the rule of each copyright holder of GPL code. It's a legal matter, not personal.

The GPL is a strict software license that stipulates terms for use, and it is not liberty to distribute things on your own terms without adhering to all of its requirements. Once you distribute it, you're obligated to comply with those terms. I'm not a fan of GPL (see my blog including my "FSF sucks" category) for this reason. I've always tried to respect and abide by the decision of developers when it comes to their terms for use, modification, and redistribution of their code whether GPL, BSD, or even proprietary licenses. That in part prompted my questions yesterday about compliance due to strict copyright requirements I encountered in something I want to submit and a couple other issues.

I want to comply fully with the terms and conditions software authors choose. DSL does this with respect to what's in its base and provides sources for unmodified upstream binaries. Will the person who willfully chose to release remasters/re-distros also comply with license obligations?

Next Page...
original here.