1. The only "license" for distributing the Mepis binary only tools is a brief statement in 2003 of "implicit permission" (whatever that means) on a support forum. And that statement was appearently only made because someone asked a pointed question. (See: <a href="http://www.mepis.org/node/137" title="mepis.org">http://www.mepis.org/node/137</a mepis.org>)
2. The Mepis User Guide, Appendix E. Legal provides no statement what-so-ever on the license of the closed source, Mepis written tools. (See: <a href="http://www.mepis.org/files/MEPIS%20User%20Guide.pdf" title="mepis.org">http://www.mepis.org/files/MEPIS%20User%20Guide.p<nobr>d<wbr></nobr> f</a mepis.org>)
3. The same appendix of the User Guide lumps the GPL in as an EULA which is incorrect.
4. The Mepis website in a FAQ type page states "The SimplyMEPIS CD is released under a GPL collective work license which theoretically allows you to make and sell copies." There is specific mention of trademark protections but none about the non-free software. Does that imply that the non-free software is under the "GPL collective work license"? That would contradict the forum posting previously cited. (See: <a href="http://www.mepis.org/node/1360" title="mepis.org">http://www.mepis.org/node/1360</a mepis.org>)
I do use non-free technologies every day. But, I attempt to be aware of what they are and I educate myself on what licenses and restrictions are placed on their use.
If the forum posting from 2003 was not pointed out to me, how do I know what the license is for the closed source, Mepis written tools? I can't. Would I have known they were closed source without a license? No, because there is no other statement that points them out, that I can find. Can I depend on the forum posting as a real license to those programs? IANAL therefore I won't.
Will Mepis actually establish a clear license for those programs? Maybe. Will I like what that license says or will I have to change distros and processes because I don't want to accept that license? Why should I take that risk with so many other options that clearly define their licenses, whether free or non-free?
The closed source tools do make Mepis stand out but I will not use them since I have no clear definition of how they are licensed. Knoppix is based on Debian, has excellent hardware detection and is very clear on how all it's included code is licensed so I have no need to even try Mepis.
A question to you: What would the Debian project leaders and developers say about any project that does not have a clearly defined license for it's code and/or programs?
(I can't believe I am slurrped into this discussion again. I hope you see that for me, it is not just about free vs. non-free but also about knowing the true relationship between me as user and Mepis as the copyright holder of their code.)
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
It's not sour grapes...
Posted by: alandd on December 30, 2005 06:57 AM1. The only "license" for distributing the Mepis binary only tools is a brief statement in 2003 of "implicit permission" (whatever that means) on a support forum. And that statement was appearently only made because someone asked a pointed question. (See: <a href="http://www.mepis.org/node/137" title="mepis.org">http://www.mepis.org/node/137</a mepis.org>)
2. The Mepis User Guide, Appendix E. Legal provides no statement what-so-ever on the license of the closed source, Mepis written tools. (See: <a href="http://www.mepis.org/files/MEPIS%20User%20Guide.pdf" title="mepis.org">http://www.mepis.org/files/MEPIS%20User%20Guide.p<nobr>d<wbr></nobr> f</a mepis.org>)
3. The same appendix of the User Guide lumps the GPL in as an EULA which is incorrect.
4. The Mepis website in a FAQ type page states "The SimplyMEPIS CD is released under a GPL collective work license which theoretically allows you to make and sell copies." There is specific mention of trademark protections but none about the non-free software. Does that imply that the non-free software is under the "GPL collective work license"? That would contradict the forum posting previously cited. (See: <a href="http://www.mepis.org/node/1360" title="mepis.org">http://www.mepis.org/node/1360</a mepis.org>)
I do use non-free technologies every day. But, I attempt to be aware of what they are and I educate myself on what licenses and restrictions are placed on their use.
If the forum posting from 2003 was not pointed out to me, how do I know what the license is for the closed source, Mepis written tools? I can't. Would I have known they were closed source without a license? No, because there is no other statement that points them out, that I can find. Can I depend on the forum posting as a real license to those programs? IANAL therefore I won't.
Will Mepis actually establish a clear license for those programs? Maybe. Will I like what that license says or will I have to change distros and processes because I don't want to accept that license? Why should I take that risk with so many other options that clearly define their licenses, whether free or non-free?
The closed source tools do make Mepis stand out but I will not use them since I have no clear definition of how they are licensed. Knoppix is based on Debian, has excellent hardware detection and is very clear on how all it's included code is licensed so I have no need to even try Mepis.
A question to you: What would the Debian project leaders and developers say about any project that does not have a clearly defined license for it's code and/or programs?
(I can't believe I am slurrped into this discussion again. I hope you see that for me, it is not just about free vs. non-free but also about knowing the true relationship between me as user and Mepis as the copyright holder of their code.)
#