Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Free Software
An open source ghost story
Share
Print
CommentsAlthough Feyrer no longer has time to maintain the project -- he is now working on his Ph.D. dissertation -- it is still available for download on his Web site. I downloaded the CD ISO version and gave it try. It works just fine. I cloned a local partition on the same drive, after spending just a little time matching up the partitions as I knew them in Linux (hda1, hda2, hda3) with the names they are known by in BSD.
You can also clone entire drives, or backup to and restore from an FTP server. All in all, g4u is a very useful tool. Better yet, while it boots NetBSD, it can be used on drives and partitions containing all sorts of operating systems, from Windows, to OS/2, to Linux, to what-have-you.
The user interface is legacy command-line -- no pretty GUI, not even DOS- style colored menus. It's lean and mean, and it works. Feyrer licensed his gift to the world of free software using the BSD license, which requires nothing more than attribution of his work.
Years pass, g4l arrives
Early last year, Ghost for Linux appeared on freshmeat. The earliest versions of g4l bore a striking resemblance to g4u, but there was no attribution given Hubert Feyrer or g4u in the GPL-licensed Linux version.
The resemblance between the two projects was so striking that g4u's creator Hubert Feyrer felt compelled to perform a detailed analysis to demonstrate that g4l was based on g4u.
That analysis was apparently more than g4l's creator -- known only as nme -- could bear. He walked away from the project in a huff, saying of Feyrer that "He now wants to force me by law, to add his license and credits to the code I wrote. This is not acceptable for me, so I quit work on g4l. Because of certain people, programming isn't much fun anymore."
And quit he did, but the project did not die. This is an open source project, after all. A new maintainer named Frank Stephen stepped forward and took over.
It would have been a perfect time to heal the rift between g4u and g4l, but that was not to be. The new maintainer insisted -- against all the evidence -- that in his opinion, the original project had not been based on g4u. Besides, Stephen points out that (in his opinion) the project is so much different now than it was in the beginning that the whole issue is "old news."
Well-known Linux/free software advocate Rick Moen stepped up and wondered if Frank Stephen might just be nme behind a different name. Whether that is true or not, the two do share a certain aversion to giving Feyrer and g4u their due. Moen commented on the freshmeat project page:
I have no horse in this race, other than caring about the reputation for integrity of the Linux community, and it's extremely obvious to me that, your assertion notwithstanding, v0.12 blatantly copied Hubert Feyrer's work, illegally and dishonestly stripping his author credit. (Contrary to the assertions of some, fixing that wouldn't quite suffice, since G4L's GPL terms clash with Hubert's old-BSD licensing's advertising clause. G4L would have to include a license exception, to fix that additional glitch. Additionally, G4L would have to clarify that Hubert's terms, not GPL, apply to Hubert's work incorporated in G4L.)
An effort to heal the rift
Just when it looked as if there might not be a reasonable man within earshot of the g4l project, one stepped up. Michael Setzer II had made some modifications to g4l that he and other users needed. Since the project had an open upload policy at the time, he was able to make his version available to others. Both of the original authors, nme and Frank Stephen, eventually contacted Setzer, and gave him alone the ability to upload new releases to the project.
Probably the most important change Setzer has made was to finally give Hubert Feyrer and g4u some long overdue props. The opening screen for the current version of g4l now states:
Disclaimer concerning Copyright: Prior version(s) of g4l appear to have been based on G4U (Ghost for Unix) a NetBSD-based bootfloppy/CD-ROM by Hubert Feyrer (hubert@feyrer.de) Copyright (C) 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002,2004
G4U: http://www.feyrer.de/g4u/ http://www.feyrer.de/g4u/g4l.html
The disclaimer continues with a history of the project, including its maintainers and releases since the beginning. You have to give Setzer credit -- he even included a link to Feyrer's code analysis page.
But although it is a big step forward, it's not what Feyrer would like to see. What he wants to see is for both licenses to be lived up to.
In response to an email query about the disclaimer he added to g4l, Setzer told me:
I was trying to come up with a compromise. At the time, I had no contact with either of the g4l authors, and I did get a nice response from the G4U author, but his reply basically said that he wanted the original stuff put in, and still had never even looked at the later code. Not being able to get resolution to the situation, I added the disclaimer, and basically leave it up to the users to decide. If they think there is an issue, don't use g4l. But I don't know enough on the issue to make a complete judgment.
Tainted code
Given the resolute refusal of g4l's original authors to credit 4gu as their starting point, that's probably as good as it's going to get. Setzer cannot speak for either of them, so he can't do as Feyrer wants. Feyrer, on the other hand, doesn't have the time to go through the latest version of g4l code to see what's left that was copied from his work.
In the end I'm left with the feeling that something has been stolen -- something intangible. One of the greatest benefits that comes to the authors of free software is the feeling that they have done something worthwhile for the benefit of all, and the ego gratification of seeing others extend the work. To see your work taken by others and then claimed as their own steals both the joy and the gratification.
As Isaac Newton is reputed to have said some 430 years ago, and open source people are fond of repeating because it so aptly describes the process, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants" -- a noble sentiment that, at least until Setzer appeared, was not a part of this tale. Its absence has left an indelible mark of shame on the project.
Comments
on An open source ghost storyNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
i bet if the shoe was on the other foot you would be having a hissy fit...
No its not an Open Source community problem , its once again a problem with the BSD protection clause.
Personnaly for me all BSD's have NOTHING to do with Open Source at all. Thats why BSD code is in Microsoft and in Apple.
The BSD license allow anyone to claim and do as they wish and this as been the case since the BSD protection clause creation. Its a very bad Protection clause that dont pass anything but the politicaly motivated certifications and definitions.
There is absolutely no similiraity between CherryOs case and this one as CherryOS whas GPL and this guy BSD's project. This is a clear case of why BSD and GPL are different. Its actually allowed by design to do exactly this with BSD's protection clause.
The code did not come from that project<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
"i bet if the shoe was on the other foot you would be having a hissy fit... "
Its allowed to do exactly that whit BSD it illegal to do it with GPL<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
Thats the difference between a License and a protection clause. Next time he will know better.
I'm glad you used the word "personally" (well, implied it at least), as the source code for the BSDs (FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, etc.) _is_ open by the "open source" definition that I, and I think a lot of other people the world over as well, consider it to be. Open Source means that the source code (you know, the stuff that you can change or fix if you need to, then recompile) is available for your use.
I think you're confusing not the "open source" part, but the licensing part. Yes, there's a BSD license, then there's GPL (and not to mention a lot of other "open source" licenses to boot... a little research will bring enormous knowledge your way). They all have their pro's and con's, depending on what you are needing or wanting to accomplish, but since there's so many of them, I guess not everyone agrees on what is best. But, you DO have a choice, and BSD software IS open source, so please, don't try to say that the BSD's are not open source... you just look silly.
Nearly everyone: It is "Free" according so the Debian guidelines, the OSI, and is even GPL-compatible.the source code for the BSDs (FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, etc.) _is_ open by the "open source" definition that I, and I think a lot of other people the world over as well, consider it to be.
Not just--also free redistribution, including redistribution of derived works & also that the license doesn't exclude any potential users.Open Source means that the source code (you know, the stuff that you can change or fix if you need to, then recompile) is available for your use.
The person you responded to was probably complaining about the non-copyleft nature of the BSD licenses.
No its the traitor effect from the protection clauses , the permission to switch free software to proprietary software and the Open Souce software to closed source software that make it Not Free Software and Not Open source. Lets not forget the false claims of right given and used over 30 years by the BSD's traitor who are inventing right from themself that are NOT written in the protection clause.
I make no complaint at all , >>According to me and what I offered those protection clause's are NOT a license ( license give rights , those protection clauses do not ) , are NOT Open Source and are NOT free software.
OSI whas created to protect and advance Open Source software , BSD's protection clause have been a traitor to that goal since there creation.
Free Software whas created because of a BSD's style protection clause software and to make Free Software protected and availaible to all at all time , the BSD's clause have been a taritor to that goal.
Debian should have been the ultimate GNU/Linux distribution but Politics and not following there own Social Contract and guidelines as put them into the position of being the biggest and most irrelevant GNU/Linux distribution today.
BSD's protection clause and GPL are not the same and are not equal at all.
GPL is a license ( it Gives right ) its Open Source and protect the code for it to stay as such at all time , its also copyleft , its Free Softwar ebecause it stay Free Software at all time.
BSD's are Protection clause , that in some case , that are not the norm , Open Source and most of the time Closed Source.
BSD Created Apple and Microsoft
GPL Created GNU/Linux and all the company working on it.
Open Source means that the source code is availaible at all time. there is no original or derivative in Open Source as BOTH are supposed to be Open Source you cannot switch Open Source to closed source at all.
There is no BSD's license , License give right and all the BSD's clause give no rights at all.
The Only choice is DO NOT USE THE TRAITOR PROTECTION CLAUSE otherwise you end up with closed source code inside proprietary software.
BSD's protection clause are not License are not Open Source and are not Free Software.
You're and idiot. Show one organization of more than 100 people who agrees with you, against theOpen Source means that the source code is availaible at all time. there is no original or derivative in Open Source as BOTH are supposed to be Open Source you cannot switch Open Source to closed source at all.
DFSG, FSF, and OSI.
More drivel. Anyone buying this should check out any other response to this illiterate.There is no BSD's license , License give right and all the BSD's clause give no rights at all.
Neither G4U or G4L are great advances. Does G4U now own the copyright on using dd.
dd if=/dev/r${disk}d bs=1m | progress sh ftpput $tmpfile ${gzip_opt}
One of the similar lines from g4l
(dd bs=1M if=$disk 2>/dev/null | jetcat-mod -p $readsize 2>/tmp/progress.out |lzop -c - | ncftpput $useridpass -c -d<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/tmp/out $server "$ftppath/$netimagename" 2>>/tmp/ncftpstatus.out)
If we were just talking about the g4u / g4l 0.10 version, I would agree with you, but I think we are talking apples and oranges with the later version. I don't know about the CherryOS & PearPC issue you mentioned, but believe there must have been a lot more involved in those.
I got an email from the article author asking me
quote from email
I'm writing a review of g4l for NewsForge/Linux.com. I'm hoping you can
answer some questions for me.
I see on the opening screen that someone is mentioning that 4gu may have been the starting point for 4gl. Is that your doing, or did it come
from Frank Sharp, or? In any case, I'm glad to see it and hope it brings a bitter rift to end.
end of quote (note misnaming of both programs is from the email
The article was not a review on G4L as was stated, but on an issue that should as the email set be put to an end.
The issue of the program was mostly left out. I've made my updates available from my college server, and have had over 6000 unique downloads of the iso images of the two version I released. That goes back to March. I've had over 5000 additional downloads from the sourceforge site after I was able to get the version on that site. So, over 11,000 downloads.
As for your comment at the end, I could care less, I put my real name and primary email address so people can contact me if they have questions. I don't ask for anything this, and anyone is free to do whatever they want with the code. I made the modifications to help myself with my needs, and have tried to ad features requested by others. So, I would not have a hissy fit.
Please take the time to look at the scripts, and please tell me how the current code is link to g4u, and how it has the copyright for the use of the code.
I thought News Forge was above this sort of thing. I believe the community would have been better served by a review of both programs, giving those of us who have never heard of either one a chance to decide if they're worth trying.
A comment, and possible link, on the controversy would have been appropriate, but to focus the entire article on that controversy, is not. This sort of thing belongs on Slashdot.
This article serves no purpose but to incense the GPL community once again about the "evils" of the BSD license/protection clause.
How does the article claim that the BSD license is "evil"? The article states that the BSD license, and that g4u, required attribution. The article explores the idea that g4l used code from g4u (whether or not is up for debate) without said attribution. Nowhere does it claim that this requirement is evil. It merely claims that, if these premises are true, then the license was violated.
It's pretty clear that you're superimposing your own beliefs (or lack thereof) on the article.
The core problem here is assuming open-source == public domain. BSD is pretty damn near public domain but it still has provisions you must abide by if you wish to redistribute it. The simple fact of the matter is that the g4l author has breached the licence and is in the wrong in this case.
The g4l devs should just admit the original dev was wrong, credit the g4u guy in the code and the docs and move on. This is not a very hard issue to resolve, just fix it and move on.
This would NOT be possible, as it is an additional restriction, which the GPL prohibits. Old-style BSD is GPL incompatibleFork it as GPL and abide with the advertising clause,
No need to encourage people to use deprecated licenses!
- Hubert
Blame the GPL's viral component, not the licenses that are there to stay!
- Hubert
As is your right (of course). The people responsible for your original license <a href="ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change" title="berkeley.edu">did</a berkeley.edu>.I see no reason to re-release g4u under a different license.
I didn't realize NetBSD was under a 4-clause license still, so perhaps it is less of a deal than I thought. I just know many who consider the 4-clause license deprecated.
Sorry, but you're wrong. There is an easy <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html" title="gnu.org">list</a gnu.org>. 2B changes what can be done to GPL applications. The copyleft goes in one direction. Nearly anyone can take 3-clause BSD code & use it in a project under a different license. But you can't take the GPLed app and use it under a new license.Besides that, read the GPL (esp. #2b) and you will see that even a 3-clause BSD license is not compatible with the GPL. Or rather, the GPL is not compatible with any license which requests to stay in place.
This is why I like the 3-clause BSD license: it just works: free accoriding to ANYONE's measure--Debian FSG, FSF, OSI. Can also be used in proprietary code. Code is made to be USED, after all.
I personally think the only reason to use the 4-clause BSD license is if you're anti-GPL.
<a href="http://www.feyrer.de/g4u/g4l.html" title="feyrer.de">http://www.feyrer.de/g4u/g4l.html</a feyrer.de>
I don't know how the original author got the original code, but it is very possible that it was from a source that just include the diskette image without any reference to the bsd licence.
I can not say if the original author did or didn't know anything about the license, but I would not have called someone a thief without doing some talking or demanding something that wasn't clearly stated.
Secondly, the G4U author at one point gave the option to give him credit as his license requested or rewrite the program. It appears in looking at all the later versions of g4l, that the rewriting of the code was done, but the G4U author has never bother to look at the new code, and continues to demand the original bsd to be applied to the new code that has no more to do with g4u then g4u does with norton ghost.
Both programs make use of dd, gzip, and ftp.
I added a message at the beginning of g4l to show the issue of the g4u/g4l concern, and leave it to users to make an informed decision. The g4u page only the comparision of g4l version 0.10, and nothing of any of the later versions by the second author (0.12, 0.13, 0.14) don't know if there was a 0.11. Then the two versions I've worked on (0.15, and 0.16).
I don't think there is enough unique code to qualify for copyright coverage, but that is me. Some of the other programs used by g4l are given credit jetcat, ncftp, lzop, etc. Those have some real coding, but dd | gzip | ftp isn't more than using utilities.
License give rights , they do not serve to protect from liability like protection clause all the BSD's protection clause gives no rights. None are written.
Those sound like rights to me.Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met
"Those sound like rights to me."
Yes , I know , for you permission and rights are the same thing , there not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
>>> are permitted
When you have the right , you dont need permission<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
- Hubert Feyrer<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
I look forward to your finding time to review the latest g4l & letting the open source community know whether you think it still infringes on your license. My cursory study of the code of both apps makes me think that the claims g4l isn't a derived work could, very well, be true.
First of all Joe Barr you need to do your research on whats allowed to be done with BSD's protection claused code.
One of the thing people do all the time is switch the license of the code to something else which is closed and do not give credit to the BSD's Developper. Its allowed and Legal.
How do you explain the Apple and Microsoft licensed code that is base on BSD's protection clause otherwise ?
Thats why I personnaly call it a traitor license , people are claiming themself non existant rights all the time even more the BSD's developper themself.
The problem here is that this new software whas GPL to begin with and a third devlopper Illegaly switched it to BSD's protection clause after the wrong allegation ( based on the missundertsanding or the BSD's protection clause ( license GIVE rights , the BSD protection clause GIVE NO RIGHT WHAT SO EVER ) , the BSD's protection clause BY DESIGN and no modification of its flaw since then , PERMIT LEGALLY to switch it without giving credits to another license.
Thats why if you see a BSD's Licensed software switch it to GPL because with the BSD's protection clause its not protected from the flaw in the protection clause.
- Moulinneuf
The old-style BSD license CAN NOT be switched to the GPL. The advertising clause is incompatible. Furthermore, IF g4l did start from g4u, it had to obey the g4u license--which includes reproducing the license (for credit--not to change the license of g4l) & giving credit where credit was due.One of the thing people do all the time is switch the license of the code to something else which is closed and do not give credit to the BSD's Developper. Its allowed and Legal.
They followed the license. How else do you explain being able to know that they did use BSD code?How do you explain the Apple and Microsoft licensed code that is base on BSD's protection clause otherwise ?
Just because the license isn't copyleft, doesn't mean the licenser has no rights.Thats why I personnaly call it a traitor license , people are claiming themself non existant rights all the time even more the BSD's developper themself.
Prove it. g4u's developer has a case that his product came first & was always under the old BSD license.The problem here is that this new software whas GPL to begin with
Stop trolling. No one really does that. There'd be no reason to: the original product would still be available under the BSD--free for the pilfering.Thats why if you see a BSD's Licensed software switch it to GPL because with the BSD's protection clause its not protected from the flaw in the protection clause.
Which is why BSD people shouldn't be anti-GPL.
However, neither should GPL people break the BSD and other licenses.
"The old-style BSD license CAN NOT be switched to the GPL. "
There is NO BSD LICENSE only a protection Clause. By Design the Protection claus ecan be switch to anything and everything.
"The advertising clause is incompatible."
Compatibility and making a protection clause a License under other terms is not the same thing. Its not the GPL who is the problem its the BSD'S protection clause who allow it for anything and everything.
"They followed the license."
Its not a license<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... its a protection clause , no rights are given.
"How else do you explain being able to know that they did use BSD code?"
They admitted to it , they said they did so , after the code whas investigated<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
"Just because the license isn't copyleft"
You keep introducing copyleft , last I looked ( because BSD whas changed in the past so maybe they did and I missed it) ALL BSD's protection clause are NOT copyleft , so I dont think its something which would allow the license to be a traitor.
"doesn't mean the licenser has no rights."
1) If its not written it dont exist
2) Please , show those written rights.
"Prove it."
Already done, the first g4l that came out whas GPL.
"g4u's developer has a case that his product came first"
No one is denying that.
"was always under the old BSD license."
No one is denying that.
The fact is G4U whas not used to make G4L , hence its not a derivative. Also you can switch BSD's protection clause code to another license , people do it all the time.
"Stop trolling."
Learn what troll means.
"No one really does that."
I do , the GNU/Linux distribution do it , everyone who feel like it can do it ( Microsoft , Apple , server resallers )<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
"There'd be no reason to"
So that the code from the on is always Really Open Source and Really Free Software and protected and defended and guarded.
"the original product would still be available under the BSD--free for the pilfering."
There is no original and derivative in Open Source and free software , the source code is always Free software and always Open Source.
"Which is why BSD people shouldn't be anti-GPL."
They are because GPL is equal for everyone and real Open SOurce and real Free software : No one can closed it or keep it only for themself. Thats why the GPL is not a traitor license.
"neither should GPL people break the BSD and other licenses."
Never did , and it will never happen. Bsd's is not a license , and it whas not illegaly used in this case , it whas followed to the letter.
You are sounding like a broken record. I've pointed out that it grants rights. I've pointed out others certainly consider it a license. I'll not reply further to the nonsensical claims you make until you give more evidence for them.There is NO BSD LICENSE only a protection Clause.
Again we go back to <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html" title="gnu.org">this</a gnu.org>."The advertising clause is incompatible."
Compatibility and making a protection clause a License under other terms is not the same thing. Its not the GPL who is the problem its the BSD'S protection clause who allow it for anything and everything.
(Compatible license:Modified BSD)
This is the original BSD license, modified by removal of the advertising clause. It is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, compatible with the GNU GPL.
Incompatible, but free: Original BSD License
This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with a serious flaw: the ``obnoxious BSD advertising clause''. The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software non-free. But it does cause practical problems, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL.
Right. Because the BSD license said that credit must be given. Which MS and Apple did. Without being "investigated." Which g4l has been accused of NOT doing.They admitted to it
Right. BSD isn't copyleft. LGPL is a weak copyleft. The fact that either can be used in proprietary applications seems to be your big (only?) objection. That was my point. You can have free/open licenses which aren't copyleft.You keep introducing copyleft , last I looked ( because BSD whas changed in the past so maybe they did and I missed it) ALL BSD's protection clause are NOT copyleft , so I dont think its something which would allow the license to be a traitor.
Shown.2) Please , show those written rights.
Right. But the allegation is that g4l infringed the copyrights of g4u & that the original author had no rights to claim a copyright license in the first place. So prove that g4l wasn't based on g4u."Prove it."
Already done, the first g4l that came out whas GPL.
The g4u author, an FSF lawyer, and other developers (including the current g4l maintainer) think that g4l WAS based on g4u. Why do you think differently?The fact is G4U whas not used to make G4L , hence its not a derivative.
You, yourself, have pointed that the old BSD license isn't GPL compatible. Therefore code released under it (such as g4u) can't go into GPLed projects (such as g4l).Also you can switch BSD's protection clause code to another license
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.and it whas not illegaly used in this case , it whas followed to the letter.
Didn't happen.
All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by XXX
Didn't happen either.
Copyright - who has control of the original source code.
License - the restrictions on the use and alteration of the original software by the author of the software.
Patent - covers the algorithms and processes implimented in concrete form in software.
The author keeps copyright of his code while giving a license for someone else to produce derivatves of the work. Nothing else apart from the License gives you right to use the authors work, unless the author states the code is in the public domain with NO restrictions. Public Domain is NOT the same as BSD licensed code.
If the author states in the license you must wear a pink shirt and stand on your head while typing alterations to his code then you must do so. If you think this is a silly restriction you still HAVE NO RIGHT to take the code and alter it, you must write your own version with out copying ANY of the original work.
If the author had a software patent then then you would not be able impliment the software, even by rewriting it from scratch.
Too much misunderstanding already, with out me adding to it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
"You are sounding like a broken record"
No , but I do need to repeat it again and again to you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
"I've pointed out that it grants rights."
No<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
" I've pointed out others certainly consider it a license"
Yes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
"'ll not reply further to the nonsensical claims you make until you give more evidence for them."
I am not making any claim.
"Again "
Yes , Again , you dont understand and repeat again the same thing , repeating something false again and again dont make it right<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
"They admitted to it"
No , they wrote something based of the current definition , that you take out of context and which happen to be wrong and incomplete at this time.
"Because the BSD license said that credit must be given"
There is no BSD license. License give rights not permissions.
"Which MS and Apple did."
No<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
"Which g4l has been accused of NOT doing."
G4L is GPL , whas made entirely from scratch.
GPL software can also take BSD's protection clause software and include it as it wish. The BSD protection clause whas designed for exactly that.
"Right. BSD isn't copyleft"
There not Free Software and there not Open Source and there not a License either.
" LGPL is a weak copyleft."
LGPL is a bridge<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) It as nothing to do with why in its design the BSD'S protection clause are traitor to Open Source and Free Software , etc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
"The fact that either can be used in proprietary applications seems to be your big (only?) objection. "
The only fact I see is you not knowing what you discuss and changing the subject and introducing other things that are not the same to try and make it as *its similar in some minimal way so it ok* Its not BTW.
"That was my point."
You have no point.
"You can have free/open licenses which aren't copyleft."
Yes , its not in the definition of either , yet , its not my battle either , my battle is >>> At all time >> G4L
What happend whas probably : G4U >> ( license switch only ) Gizom GPL >> G4L GPL.
"Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer."
The source code whas not redistributed , the protection clause whas changed to a license , its allowed in the design of the BSD's clause.
"Didn't happen."
That sums up the BSD's history entirely<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
Have a nice day.
??? MS and Apple have publicly disclosed they've used BSD-licensed software. They have followed the terms and conditions of the license.No , they wrote something based of the current definition , that you take out of context and which happen to be wrong and incomplete at this time.
Prove it. Most agree that legacy versions of g4l were copies of g4u.G4L is GPL , whas made entirely from scratch.
No. That's why the old BSD is GPL-incompatible. What part of incompatible don't you understand?GPL software can also take BSD's protection clause software and include it as it wish.
I don't understand ANY of this & it is making my grammar checker cry.The only fact I see is you not knowing what you discuss and changing the subject and introducing other things that are not the same to try and make it as *its similar in some minimal way so it ok* Its not BTW.
g4l was distributing modified g4u source code.The source code whas not redistributed
So that mean it won't work on anything but linux, or is the author another "linux is the only thing in universe guy"
I had tried to modify G4U to add some features, but it is currently setup as a 2 diskette max system, does not have enough space no the ram disk to copy additional code. I also don't have the knowledge of BSD to make images, whereas, I can make kernels for linux, and even have multiple kernels on the cd to suppor more hardware options.
I used G4U originally, when Norton Ghost would not support the newer FC3 partition system on my multi-boot classrooms. I had worked with the 98, XP and Linux machines with Rh9, FC1, and FC2. I found G4U, and it worked with the machines, and was able to copy the hard drive with all three OS's with no problems, but I had problems with ftp tranmissionts when imaging all 20 machines in a lab. I then tried G4L 0.14 and it would do the images with no such errors, and I attribute that to ncftp (not g4l or linux).
G4L makes big use of many other programs to do what it does. It uses busybox, dialog, ncftp, lzop, gzip, bzip, jetcat, and other various programs.
G4l is just a script that ties these things together in a hopefully more user friendly system.
Please take a look at the script.
<a href="ftp://fedoragcc.dyndns.org/g4lup24tst" title="dyndns.org">ftp://fedoragcc.dyndns.org/g4lup24tst</a dyndns.org>
Thank you.
<a href="ftp://fedoragcc.dyndns.org/g4lup24tst" title="dyndns.org">ftp://fedoragcc.dyndns.org/g4lup24tst</a dyndns.org>
Not sure it it is the latest g4u code, but the old comparison between g4u and g4l 0.10 contains the code, and this can be compared with the current code above. I believe that most of the work in the newer versions of g4u have been to support more hardware with the boot OS, so not sure if any changes to the script
<a href="http://www.feyrer.de/g4u/g4l.html" title="feyrer.de">http://www.feyrer.de/g4u/g4l.html</a feyrer.de>
Now Norton Ghost does have some advances that neither g4u or g4l allow for resizing the partitions directly. You can copy the images to larger disk, and then use other utilities to resize the partitions, but at the moment, my legal copy of norton ghost doesn't work with the fedora core 3 or above partitions except in RAW sector mode.
Any plans for scripting parted in g4l to provide this?Now Norton Ghost does have some advances that neither g4u or g4l allow for resizing the partitions directly.
I've worked on the network section, and somewhat on the local copy option were they use of the compression and progress bar overlap.
Has worked pretty good for me, and it happens to be GPL. Has a pretty good interface.
With g4u and g4l, it makes a great deal of difference if you clear out all unused sectores before creating an image. G4U has links to software on its page, and I've include some on the g4l for fat32, ntfs, and unix scripts.
In an early attempt, after a fressh install of the Fedora OS, I did an image without cleaning the drive, and ended up with a 12.5GB image. I cleared the unused space, and got a 2GB image. That was an 80GB drive with Fedora installed with the everything option.
After reading this article, I thought I would use g4u instead of g4l to image a box at work. I didn't want any part of a project that steals code from another.
In theory that would have been the nice thing to do; however, after booting with g4u, my keyboard would not respond. I thought maybe it was my keyboard. It wasn't. Oh well. So much for ideals.
So I downloaded g4l, burned the image, and everything Just Worked(TM). According to the current maintainer's notes, it appears that g4l has been recoded and has none of g4u's code in it. So much for this story. Maybe the original g4l infringed on g4u's copyright. But since the code has been rewritten, there's no longer any story.
So move along folks. This horse is not only dead, it was buried long ago.
Unfortunate focus on Article
Posted by: msetzerii on August 26, 2005 06:32 PMBoth G4U and G4L are basic scripts that get some input and feed it to basic utilities. G4U uses dd, gzip and ftp. G4L uses dd, gzip or lzop or bzip, and ncftp. I would suggest that anyone interested take a look at the scripts.
The rirst 0.10 version of G4L appears to be very minor modification fo the G4U scripts to work with linux instead of bsd. I should point out, that those scripts do contain a copyright but nothing about the license, so the original author may have been unaware of any requirements.
This is were things got somewhat ugly from what I could tell with people taking exteme sides on the issue, and not willing to look at a solution that would serve all sides. The G4U author looking at his work with no create, which was not right, and the G4L original author being charged with theft. The G4U author asked for the create or to have G4L rewritten. It appears the second author the second options, and wrote a completely new system with a single script using a gui system. But the issue of the 0.10 version still remained.
Even if I had written this completely from scratch, I would not consider it as something that I would even think of copyrighting. It is mostly dd, gzip, and ftp. Not a great new work. I was more impressed with getting it to work from the diskettes and cd.
In conclussion, I've tried to modify the g4l program to make it a better program for my own neeeds and other users. I know the G4U author does have as much time to work on the G4U, but he is still working on making new modification.
Thanks for the time, but please do some research and make an informed decision on the subject.
#