Re: LVS Beginner's question.

["daniel smith" <websounding@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I just thought I'd give my perspective on this discussion, and my support 
for the "free" side of the distribution arguement. (Speaking totally as a 
Shmoe, as I am not a Linux administrator but an English major interested in 
learning all things Linux to help distribute my content on the web.) I can 
remember 6+ years ago pre-web boom when Windows had been for years vastly 
encroaching on UNIX' share of business computing. Then the web hit, and I 
think that to a large extent the rapidity of the expansion of the Internet 
was based largely on the free availability of Linux (who'd heard of that?) 
and Apache, as well as the millions of quality development hours by 
developers everywhere. From my general understanding of the term "open 
source", it means for example that when I buy a Sams book on Linux there is 
a fully functioning copy of Linux on the CD inside, whereas with Windows 
there is only a 90 or 120 day evaluation version, even if it is a set of 
books by MS and costs 150.00+. You could imagine if everyone who wanted to 
learn Linux or run a web server (or a hundred of them) in the past few years 
was forced to buy a 1000.00 per CPU license, aside from the cost of the CPU. 
There is a very common sense reason why Apache dominates two-thirds of the 
web server market, and this availability has had a profound effect on the 
creation of new business and ability of previously unheard persons around 
the world to communicate. "The Revolution", I think they call it, or so they 
used to. In my opinion the open source community should very seriously guard 
and cherish their accomplishments. Now down off the box.
Daniel


> From: Wayne <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: LVS Beginner's question.
> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 17:53:07 -0700
>
> At 08:47 PM 4/15/2002 +1000, you wrote:
> >On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 01:23:12PM -0500, Michael E Brown wrote:
> >> One other simple point that is often overlooked: You are only obligated 
> to
> >> release source code to people you have distributed binaries to.
> >>
> >> Joe Shmoe off the street has no right to ask for your GPL'd code unless 
> he
> >> has also gotten (or paid for, as the case may be) a binary from you.
> >
> >This may be true, but once someone has a copy of the source they may
> >redistribute it as they please, including handing a copy over to Joe 
> Shmoe.
> >
> >--
> >Horms
> >
>
> Under the GPL, section 2, subsection 3, second paragraph, it stated:
> "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole
> or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to
> be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of
> this License"
>
> It stated the ALL third parties.  It did not say that only give to the 
> party
> who received the binaries.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx