Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

23

Three reasons: First, being certified as a Unix says nothing about your licensing, just your compliance to the established standards for being Unix. Second, because being Unix has nothing to do with your licensing, and everything to do with your being like Unix, an originally proprietary system, and one with a long legacy. Finally, don't mistake ...


12

Short answer, they legally can't do that. Most of the code in RedHat, like all Linux distros, is GPL-licensed, including the kernel and most (all?) of the core utilities. They can't release it under anything but the GPL, and so long as they distribute the binary they have to distribute the source. That also means they can't prevent anyone from cloning it ...


9

Copyrighted means there is a copyright and license protecting that. The license in the case of the Linux kernel is GPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html). In a nutshell, you are allowed to modify the code in any way you wish. However, if you republish your modified code, you have to license it GPL and keep the credit to the original authors. Also, if ...


9

Which licenses portage accepts is governed by the ACCEPT_LICENSE variable in make.conf. This variable is the counterpart to package.license the same way USE is to package.use, ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to package.keywords, etc.. By default, this variable is set to * -@EULA, which means "accept all licenses except those in the EULA set". This set contains all licenses ...


9

The Linux kernel itself is all free software, distributed under the GNU General Public License. Third parties may distribute closed-source drivers in the form of loadable kernel modules. There's some debate as to whether the GPL allows them; Linus Torvalds has decreed that proprietary modules are allowed. Many device in today's computer contain a processor ...


9

FreeBSD 10 will use the BSD-licensed Clang compiler instead of GCC for 32- and 64-bit Intel x86 systems. The only thing preventing a wholesale switch on all CPU platforms FreeBSD releases on is developer time and interest. As for FreeBSD 9 — which was just about to be released when this question was first posed — there was talk about making ...


7

It's likely out of necessity. Until recently, the BSD-licensed C compilers were probably few or didn't come close to feature parity with gcc. From FreeBSD Project Goals: That code in our source tree which falls under the GNU General Public License (GPL) or Library General Public License (LGPL) comes with slightly more strings attached, though at ...


6

If a system is certified as Unix, that system's vendor is allowed to call it Unix. That is precisely what the certification is for. Systems such as GNU/Linux and *BSD, which look and behave like Unix, but are not actually certified as Unix, are called Unix-like. Since the various open source projects have limited finances, they generally want to spend their ...


6

A font like tahoma can be found in the wine fonts package. There's also a package called ttf-ms-fonts which includes some the fonts you mentioned and can be legally installed. See for example this information for arch linux. Includes: Andalé Mono Arial Arial Black Comic Sans Courier New Georgia Impact Lucida Sans Lucida Console Microsoft Sans Serif Times ...


6

What you are missing are two components: the service/support and the fact that they (Red Hat) provide ready (binary) packages. CentOS does as well and they strive to be binary compatible, down to every single last bug. As far as I know only a few aspects of CentOS differ from the respective RHEL release, mostly because of copyright and/or trademark issues. ...


5

Apple did Open Source a good portion of the underlying, BSD based, pieces of OSX. See Wikipedia's Darwin Entry for full details as well as a release history. Apple keeps the upper level stuff proprietary, like their UX components and does not release those as OSS. If you want a full list of all the Apple OSS projects/inclusions, check out Apple's Open Source ...


4

A Linux distribution consists of many pieces. All the pieces that are based on software licensed under the GNU GPL and other copyleft licenses must have the code source released. For example, if you ship something built on a Linux kernel, you must provide the Linux kernel source as well as any patch that you have made to the kernel source (however, for the ...


4

BSD-licensed systems (e.g. FreeBSD) do not require you to disclose source code, thus they might be a feasible choice. Also, there are comercial UNIXes like QNX, but they probably will be quite expensive. As for Red Hat, you are not paying for the distro per se, you are paying for support and consulting. The source code of all the packages is available for ...


4

Is anyone allowed to share modified program using same name? It depends; the GPL doesn't really specify that, since names aren't copyrighted. They are, however, obligated to clearly state it's not the same: The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date. To control the name itself, you need a ...


4

Arial and Verdana were released as part of the "Core Fonts for the Web" project. These are still freely [legally] available and easy to install in Linux. Tahoma... and newer fonts like Calibri ... heh, I think it's very unlikely that these could ever be had [legally] for free.


3

WRT to distributions, the essential difference between "free" and "non-free" is that the former is compiled from freely available source code, whereas the later is not; this usually means that the distribution packagers did not compile the binary at all -- they got it from some third party who have legal, private possession of the source code. For example, ...


3

First of all, a GNU/Linux distribution consists of many software packages, some of which are licensed under GNU GPL, but there are other licenses involved as well. For example, Perl is covered under the Artistic License or GPL — your choice, and Apache is covered by the Apache license. That said, the GPL is one of the strongest copyleft licenses that ...


3

ZDnet reports that CentOS will remain free: If your company is already using CentOS... Do Not Freak Out. Red Hat is not going to start charging you for using CentOS. CentOS will continue to be an independent distribution with community, not paid, support. Wired reports that the move will allow CentOS the ability to fix bugs in public view without ...


3

Provided you follow trademark and copyright law, yes. Fedora even tells you how, and even makes it easy by providing the generic-logos package that you can use to replace the Fedora trademarks.


3

You can only claim to have done something from scratch if you really wrote the software yourself. If you just bundling some software you can give the bundle/distribution a name but that's it. If you expect to receive karma points/get famous/improve your cv by creating a distribution and just giving it your own name you are mistaken. It can even backfire if ...


2

The license for Red Hat Linux is the GPL. If you want binaries (from Red Hat) you'll need to subscribe to their distribution service, Red Hat Network, aka RHN. That said if you know someone who has Red Hat binaries, they can redistribute them to you for free. Red Hat simply chooses not to distribute binaries for no cost. This is permissible under the GPL. ...


2

The answer is long, but one example can be the MP3. In Europe you can provide an opensource way of reading mp3 while in USA it's a patent issue, and you cannot read mp3 with an open source product. a free distribution is free when it only use open source project that are law complaint with majority of country. Some distribution wants to insure Nvidia ...


1

Your best option would be to check through this site: http://www.microsoft.com/typography/fonts/ If you go to that site and click one of the links to check out either the fonts embedded in an MS application or a font family you'll get to a page about a particular font. At the bottom of those pages is this blurb: These links will take you from the ...


1

You should not need a support contract. When it is just you and other developers using the box for development work, then the purpose of the server is development. If someday you decide to let customers start accessing the website on that machine, then it becomes production. The litmus test I use is (customers or revenue) == production. Testing, QA, QC, ...


1

The Minix 3 license looks very similar to a standard BSD style license which is more permissive than the GPL, for example it will allow commercial use of the software in binary form without forcing a release of the source code. It is considered free software (like any of the BSD software), but is not compatible with the GPL mainly due to the "advertising ...


1

Payloads are generally hardware independent (but there may be bugs lurking). Payloads typically aren't the problem when it comes to software freedom. You pick them by your needs: If you want to boot a "normal" PC operating system, SeaBIOS is the easiest way to go, since it implements the interfaces that they all expect. If you have any special needs, the ...


1

The kernel is open source. Download the source, compile it yourself. There is the possibility to taint your kernel with CS kernel modules. Those modules should be marked as 'tainted', and afaik you should find them with a short command: cat /proc/sys/kernel/tainted and for more details: grep tainted /var/log/*log More information can be found here. ...


1

No. As long as you use software produced by others, you will need to understand the licenses it is provided to you under. BSD, GPL & other licenses have different requirements, especially to those who want to redistribute the software covered by them, and switching from one to another just means you need to learn how to work with a different set of ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible