If You Use Linux Read This! - Maybe You Don't Know

[DasFox]

I started out in Linux 10 years ago and back then I use to think everything about Linux was 100% free, boy did that perception turn out to be wrong!

I find that many new Linux users don't realize that the system they are using has a lot of non-free software installed and even non-free blobs in the Kernel they never knew about.

So in their mad rush to move as quickly as they could from the evils of M$, they came rushing in blindly never really realizing that in their sweet world of Linux, non-free and proprietary was still lurking.

The sad truth is there are only NINE distros, that's right people ONLY NINE real 100% free distros. You can see them here:

http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html.

All I can say is this is truly pathetic that there are only nine distros that truly have embraced 100% free all the way down to a free kernel.

Granted many Linux users may bark and bite over what is and what shouldn't be, but the truth is, if we all truly love Linux and our freedoms as individuals then we should all do what we can to help advance freedom in Linux and do our best in spreading the word and even using one of those nine Linux distros.

Personally I have been playing with Trisquel and I'm truly impressed with the quality of work gone into it.

Granted the support in these nine distros might not be a Ubuntu or Fedora, but if Linux users don't start making a stand, then Linux may never be the dream we once envisioned it to be!

I don't know about you, but I didn't come over to Linux 10 years ago to be locked into proprietary software controlling me, yet here we are all these years later with just that!

I truly can't believe after all these years there are only nine distros that have embraced the truth and real freedom of what Linux is suppose to be!

Shame on Linux and the users who have allowed this to happen!

 

[sourceninja]

I didn't switch to linux because of some moral or ethical issues with non-free software. I switched to linux because it just works better for what I wanted to do.

I don't care if it's 100% free. I want my computer to work first and formost.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Thankfully there's still lot of free open source stuff, but everytime I see a megacorporation take over a distro, it makes me scared a little. Red Hat for example used to be free, now it's just as pricy as Windows. Sure there's CentOS and other spinoffs, but how long will RH actually allow this to happen? They could easily just change the license on everyone.

Even ubuntu, while it is free, it's own by a company, so at some point they might decide to start charging. Hopefully that will never happen.

 

[Kirby]

http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html

I've never heard of any of those.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Pretty sure that by definition, the 110% 'free' systems/philosophy would preclude me from using nvidia drivers, various a/v codecs and a plethora of other software I enjoy...frack that.

 

[Nothinman]

Thankfully there's still lot of free open source stuff, but everytime I see a megacorporation take over a distro, it makes me scared a little. Red Hat for example used to be free, now it's just as pricy as Windows. Sure there's CentOS and other spinoffs, but how long will RH actually allow this to happen? They could easily just change the license on everyone.

Except that they can't because they have the sole copyright on very little, if any, of the software they produce. RHEL is completely free, they just don't give you convenient installers for free in order to encourage you to pay for support. CentOS just takes their work, removes their logos and other copyrighted material and repackages the software. RedHat can never stop them from doing that without rewriting most, if not all, if the software in RHEL.

Even ubuntu, while it is free, it's own by a company, so at some point they might decide to start charging. Hopefully that will never happen.

Just like RHEL, Canonical currently charges for support but not for the software.

Pretty sure that by definition, the 110% 'free' systems/philosophy would preclude me from using nvidia drivers, various a/v codecs and a plethora of other software I enjoy...frack that.

Exactly, as much as I prefer free software I'm not going to deal with the crap that is the OSS nv driver.

I consider Debian the happy-medium. If you stick to the main repo you're guaranteed free software but if you want things like the nVidia driver you can opt-in for the non-free repo. Of course some things are still considered taboo so I also include the repo at www.debian-multimedia.org, it's maintained by a DD in France (IIRC) so the packages are the same quality as main.

 

[Paperlantern]

I'm not sure i follow. Doesnt free mean, no charge. Ubuntu, Mint, CentOS... and many others are still just as free as the air you and I breathe. Yes some software used in those distros, such as video drivers are created by corporations but it doesnt make it any less free. It still does not cost the end user any licensing fees to install and use permanently.

I see this post, and site as just a scare tactic to get users to try these less known distros. That's all.

I agree with most of what is said here, and i'm not going to switch my distro just because something is SUPPOSEDLY not free (even though i didnt get charged for it, so it seems to be free to me).

I didnt switch to Linux because I hate microsoft or some other such nonsense, I still use Windows both at work and at home. I switched to Linux because it intrigued me and I wanted to broaden my horizons.

 

[Nothinman]

Doesnt free mean, no charge

Yes, but it has other meanings as well, in this case "free as in freedom". Any confusion is caused by a deficiency of the word in the English language. Not even context can always tell you what the person's intended meaning was.

Yes some software used in those distros, such as video drivers are created by corporations but it doesnt make it any less free. It still does not cost the end user any licensing fees to install and use permanently.

Who creates the software is irrelevant, it's the license that's important. RHEL, Canonical, HP, IBM, etc are all big corporations that also produce free software. And restrictive licenses like those used by nVidia are non-free in that I don't have the same freedoms with that software that I do with the other software on my system.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Except that they can't because they have the sole copyright on very little, if any, of the software they produce. RHEL is completely free, they just don't give you convenient installers for free in order to encourage you to pay for support. CentOS just takes their work, removes their logos and other copyrighted material and repackages the software. RedHat can never stop them from doing that without rewriting most, if not all, if the software in RHEL.



Just like RHEL, Canonical currently charges for support but not for the software.
.

And nothing stops them to just say screw it, close source it and charge. Thankfully it most likely won't happen, but it could. There would be huge outrage I'm sure so they'd have to be ready to deal with that.

I remember I used to run all my forums on Invision Power Board and pretty much kept up with their updates. They got everyone hyped up for 2.0 and BOOM released it and you had to pay.

 

[Nothinman]

And nothing stops them to just say screw it, close source it and charge. Thankfully it most likely won't happen, but it could. There would be huge outrage I'm sure so they'd have to be ready to deal with that.

I remember I used to run all my forums on Invision Power Board and pretty much kept up with their updates. They got everyone hyped up for 2.0 and BOOM released it and you had to pay.

Actually something does, copyright. They can't change the license on code to which they don't own the copyright, which is the majority of code in RHEL by a large margin. They would have to get the consent of every developer that's written code they're using in order to close source all of RHEL which is a practical impossibility.

Invision Power Board is one project that probably only has a handful of developers so it's much easier for them to get everyone to agree to change the license. Something like that is pretty much impossible for something as large as a linux distribution, hell just the kernel itself has developers that would never agree to such a thing so if they did decide to go that route they'd have to switch to a BSD as the base. And that's not even taking into consideration all of the GPL'd software they've written and put into the community's hands.

And even if RHEL somehow found a way to get the 10s of thousands of OSS developers involved in all of their packaged software to agree to the relicensing it would only apply to future releases. What's out there as GPL now will stay GPL.

 

[sourceninja]

Not to mention that if by some chance every single person who has ever contributed code without assignment to the linux kernel/gnome/kde/every thing else somehow decided to assign copyright to redhat so they could close the source, we could still fork the last open source version and continue development on our own.

RedSquirrel, what exactly do you think redhat holds the copyrights to? All they own the rights to is their name and any code they have released under the GPL. Once you release something under the GPL you can not take it back. It's under the GPL for ever. Future releases could be non-GPL, but that does not stop anyone from continuing to use your last GPL release.

I'm still really amused at the thought of the linux kernel getting close source licensed to Redhat and killing every other linux distro in the world.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I didn't decide to start using Linux because I agreed with the idea of it being completely open-source and therefore inherently better, I started using Linux because I didn't have to pay any money.

 

[Fallen Kell]

And nothing stops them to just say screw it, close source it and charge. Thankfully it most likely won't happen, but it could. There would be huge outrage I'm sure so they'd have to be ready to deal with that.

I remember I used to run all my forums on Invision Power Board and pretty much kept up with their updates. They got everyone hyped up for 2.0 and BOOM released it and you had to pay.

Actually the GPL stops them from saying "screw it, close source it and charge."

From GPL version 2 (which covers the majority of code, including the kernel):
Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. “All third parties” means absolutely everyone—but this does not require you to *do* anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version.

From the GPL FAQ:
Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me?
No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program non-free. If people have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they have to notify anyone in particular, then the program is not free.

Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies under a nondisclosure agreement?
No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the right to redistribute copies, modified or not. You are not allowed to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.

I heard that someone got a copy of a GPL'ed program under another license. Is this possible?
The GNU GPL does not give users permission to attach other licenses to the program. But the copyright holder for a program can release it under several different licenses in parallel. One of them may be the GNU GPL.

Can the developer of a program who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use?
No, because the public already has the right to use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.



So, unless they re-write EVERYTHING from scratch with their own code and don't release that code under a GPL license, they can't say "screw it".

 

[Red Squirrel]

Serious question, is GPL compliance actually something the law would protect? Like if a company unilaterally decides to violate it, what can happen to them? I thought it was more or less just a "friendly agreement" thing.

 

[sourceninja]

If I write code and release it under the GPL, I retain copyright ownership. If you violate my terms (the GPL) then you are legally not able to use my code. I can then sue you.

Seeing as many large companies have vested interests in open source projects, violating the GPL could land you in hot water with them in court. You could also find yourself on the end of a lawsuit with the EFF.

The GPL is not creative commons. The person who wrote the software still fully owns it. They are licensing it to you for use, nothing more.

 

[JD50]

Thankfully there's still lot of free open source stuff, but everytime I see a megacorporation take over a distro, it makes me scared a little. Red Hat for example used to be free, now it's just as pricy as Windows. Sure there's CentOS and other spinoffs, but how long will RH actually allow this to happen? They could easily just change the license on everyone.

Even ubuntu, while it is free, it's own by a company, so at some point they might decide to start charging. Hopefully that will never happen.

/facepalm

 

[JD50]

Serious question, is GPL compliance actually something the law would protect? Like if a company unilaterally decides to violate it, what can happen to them? I thought it was more or less just a "friendly agreement" thing.

This is the kind of thing you should be asking (well, researching actually, google is your friend) before you make the kind of comments that you made earlier in the thread. Red Hat is about as open source friendly as a company can get. They're completely rewriting RHEV-M so that they can open the source code. Without the community, Red Hat would fail, and they know that.

 

[Nothinman]

Serious question, is GPL compliance actually something the law would protect? Like if a company unilaterally decides to violate it, what can happen to them? I thought it was more or less just a "friendly agreement" thing.

The GPL's strength comes from copyright which is most definitely enforceable. Anything you create is copyright you by default and no one else has any rights to use that work. Be it a drawing, photography, sculpture, source code, etc. The GPL is what grants you rights to use and redistribute that software, if the GPL ever gets invalidated that means any code released under it is unusable and unredistributable by anyone except for the original author.

Of course this is all about the US, other countries laws vary.

 

[Red Squirrel]

The GPL's strength comes from copyright which is most definitely enforceable. Anything you create is copyright you by default and no one else has any rights to use that work. Be it a drawing, photography, sculpture, source code, etc. The GPL is what grants you rights to use and redistribute that software, if the GPL ever gets invalidated that means any code released under it is unusable and unredistributable by anyone except for the original author.

Of course this is all about the US, other countries laws vary.

Well this is good to know, so if a company decided to switch licenses, they could be in legal trouble? Guess that holds ground. I always figured the GPL was just something a programmers agrees to, but not more then that.

 

[lxskllr]

Well this is good to know, so if a company decided to switch licenses, they could be in legal trouble? Guess that holds ground. I always figured the GPL was just something a programmers agrees to, but not more then that.

Companies get hauled into court all the time for violating the GPL. They get asked nicely to change their terms first. Many companies don't realize they're violating the copyright. If the offending company takes too long, or doesn't act in good faith, they get taken to court, and they lose.

 

[Nothinman]

Well this is good to know, so if a company decided to switch licenses, they could be in legal trouble? Guess that holds ground. I always figured the GPL was just something a programmers agrees to, but not more then that.

For the most part, however you have to remember that the GPL is a distribution license, not a usage license. A persona or company can take a GPL'd app, make any changes they want and not give anything back if they're only using it internally and never distribute it. But as soon as they give the modified app to someone they're also required to make the source code changes available to that person as well.

Companies get hauled into court all the time for violating the GPL. They get asked nicely to change their terms first. Many companies don't realize they're violating the copyright. If the offending company takes too long, or doesn't act in good faith, they get taken to court, and they lose.

Exactly, just take a look at http://gpl-violations.org/

 

[Red Squirrel]

That makes more sense now, did not figure it was that strong. Good to know! So Linux is pretty much here to stay no matter what then.

 

[xSauronx]

/facepalm

yeah im pretty well speechless. not surprised...just speechless.

 

[Red Squirrel]

yeah im pretty well speechless. not surprised...just speechless.

wtf is the problem? So I did not know. big fucking deal. I'm not Mr. Knowitall like everybody else here seems to be. Suck it up princess.

 

[Sylvanas]

'Best tool for the job' I don't care if some parts are proprietary or if it's all 'free'.