David D.W. Downey david.downey at
Tue Sep 5 13:38:16 PDT 2000

On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Bryan Dumm wrote:

> Alfs licensing/structure
> Since these issues are going to come up anyways, I thought
> I would push it out there. What do we do about about
> licensing and our structure?
> On Licensing
> >From the current setup, the only thing I can see us
> licensing, is the profiler and all the associated
> code that goes along with it.
> Should we choose a GPL license for the profiler? Or
> do we care what people do with it and we go with a
> BSD license? Or maybe we perform the QT move and
> have three licenses. :) I dunno what we should do, but...

Well, since all of the source code used in LFS is GPL'd, to me, it would
only be natural that we make the profiler/installer GPL'd as well. This
would also eliminate the chance of us running into licensing issues later

> I figure we will have both open source and proprietary,
> maybe even binary only programs that we will want to use
> alfs. Will there be any issues on such things? How can we 
> avoid problems later on?

Proprietary binaries have no place in the LFS or ALFS. From what I
understand this is a GPL based project. The reasoning behind this is to
deter the very problems that closed source vendors have, that of "too few
eyes to find the bugs". Without the source code to those binaries anyone
using them takes the chance that they open their systems to security
holes, bad coding, binaries that alter settings within their system
(perhaps not maliciously but not in line with what they want for their
system). I suggest that we make a "socket" where those that want to issue
binary only packages can do so. BUT by default that should not be
enabled. Considering that the entire system is being built from source
code as they install also makes binary only issues not only moot but an
ugly choice.

> Other licensing issues?

Shouldn't be any as long as folks agree that any work they contribute is
open to the general public at large to modify, pass on, and/or resell
according to the GPL. And I do believe that we should make one other
adaptation. ANYONE who uses anyone ELSE'S work MUST give credit for the
other's work. I see even within the GPL community quite a few companies
that make use of a person's changes and don't give proper credit making it
sound like THEY were the ones that mandated the change and the OTHER
person merely obliged. To me this is inherently wrong and definitely akin
to plagurism.

> On Structure
> How should we organize ourselves? Should we use
> CVS? Who gets write access? Why? How are bug
> reports submitted? Who is responsible for them?
> Who wants to do more than just test the system,
> and develop the profiler, our main frontend,
> backend? How can we divide work between us, while
> still maintaining some sense of order? Who wants
> to do the website? After we get something
> built/working, should anyone from our group
> publicize our efforts? I mean what if some
> reporter wants to talk to someone? Who can write
> the documentation for alfs? What other questions
> should we be asking?

At this point I suggest that we use Sourceforge since they already have
all of these things covered quite well. Take a look at the KiXO Linux
project and you'll see al the things that are available.

They have quite a nice setup!

David D.W. Downey          Red Hat Certified Engineer   |   Internet Security Specialist            
KiXO Linux Creator |
HAGISS Project Leader (part of KiXO Linux)
Member OSWG, LPI    |    
  "A good supervisor can step on your toes without messing up your shine!" (fortune-mod quote)

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list