DD (openbox)/XenialDog General Discussion Thread

[saintless]

Download:
32-bit:
ISO: https://github.com/fredx181/StretchDog/ ... -07-04.iso
Md5sum: https://github.com/fredx181/StretchDog/ ... -07-04.md5
64-bit:
ISO: https://github.com/fredx181/StretchDog/ ... -07-04.iso
Md5sum: https://github.com/fredx181/StretchDog/ ... -07-04.md5

I will not maintain these any further, so here my contribution is finished.

Hi Fred.

Your repository for StretchDog is without license. If you are not going to maintain this project you can make the forking easier for others by adding license.

BTW I had a chance to read your removed post from yesterday. Good you removed it. Not good what you wrote there about me.

Toni

[Robert123]

Hi All,

Here's what I've been working on for a Stretch 32 and 64 bit version:
This a fork of DebianDog.
- The 32-bit version is build from scratch from a full install using netinstall ISO"



Fred

Test machine ASUS F5Z: Connects first time using frisbee. Video and sound working well. Booted from unetbootin would only boot to desktop using debian method.

[backi]

Hi !
Sorry ....was wrong about zram........still working as usual .
Time zone setting also working .

[puppytahruser]

while i am trying to download 32bit iso, using wget ,following error showing: Read error at byte 146821/254803968 (error:1408F119:SSL routines:SSL3_GET_RECORD:decryption failed or bad record mac)
both github and dropbox showing same error. how to solve this error?

[mikeslr]

Hi Toni and All,

I should have known better just from general law principals. But during 35 years of practice I never had a case involving Intellectual Properties Law. And while exploring Linux as a system, I never thought about it. I simple assumed that if something was licensed under the GPL, anyone could freely use it and modify it, but any modifications made would automatically also be licensed such that anyone could use it and modify it. In other words, the originator of any modification could not obtain a proprietary license. I suspect that is a common assumption, perhaps also assumed by Fred; and the root of misunderstanding which has been the bane of several threads.

mcewanw has recently posted on one of the thread regarding the "practicalities" of improper licensing, which is all well and good. However, better still would be a simple way to avoid improper licensing, especially when the publisher of code had no intention to obtain proprietary rights.

Delving deep into the maze of the Law is something I no longer generally find enjoyable, but the continuing flare up of controversy on the DebianDog threads --and especially your generous offer to try to straighten out the licensing problem as much as possible-- induced me to see I could help. Well, I can't. I no longer have access to legal research resources that might have provided a pre-existing cord within the labyrinth.

But I had taken a couple of steps into the maze before realizing that; and from that prospective obtained a general understanding of the problem which may help others to better appreciate it. Or I could be completely wrong -- as I said, this was never my area of expertise.

As I also indicated, general law principal should have suggested that my assumption was wrong. The condition I mentioned --if you modify code which is licensed under the GPL, you can't claim a proprietary interest in your modification-- is referred to as "Copy Left". That's a cute and descriptive phrase, but it has no legal significance. Copyright Law --the actual Law-- exists to protect the property rights of someone who publishes. In essence, it provides that the publisher doesn't have to do anything. The mere act of publication creates the proprietary right of the publisher. At least, that's how I understand the Berne Copyright Convention, to which the US is a treaty member.

General principals of Law provide that --in the absence of Law to the contrary-- people have the right to do whatever they want.

But, unless I'm mistaken, what we refer to as the GPL (more accurately Gnu General Public License or GNU-GPL) isn't a "Law" at all. It's a recognized document which someone can employ by reference to define relationships. In fact, that's misleading because there is actually a series of documents (GPLv1, GPLv2 and GPLv3 --plus LGPL and maybe other variations-- some of whose terms conflict with the terms of others in the series). And, in addition to the above, there are "tons of alternatives". https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/quest ... to-the-gpl

The issues arises when someone publishes without specifically declaring any limitation of his/her rights or specifically limiting or extending the rights to anyone who employs his/her code.

Often in deciding similar issues the predominant factor would be the intent of the party, and in deciding that issue any relevant evidence would be admissible, including such things as the party's knowledge of the law, his/her state of mind, and his/her presumed (adequate notice) knowledge of all documentation relating to the project. What evidence do we have that the coder wanted GPLv2 rather than GPLv3 or MIT or LGPL? These are the kind of issues attorneys, if they are being paid by the hour, love. That is the reason why Judges --often under pressure to move a backlog of cases-- will try to find some reason to exclude such considerations.

If I were sitting as "Supreme Judge" I would be tempted to declare "the coder can obtain no right greater than that which was conveyed to him" -- one of the general rules of property law-- that is, his/her "copyright" is the least restrictive of those copyright declarations declared with respect to the code he/she modified. That, however, would present its own issue. Unlike physical property, intellectual property can exist in more than one place at a time. Is the code in question only usable within the context it was developed? Can it be employed in other contexts? Again, an invitation to litigation.

Which leads me to believe that consciously or unconsciously, copyright law applied an analog to the Law of Inheritance: if you didn't leave a Will, we apply the applicable Law of Intestate Succession which everyone is conclusively presumed to know (ha ha). So the property goes to your cousin 17 times removed, whom you never met, rather than your mistress who cared for you during the last five years of your terminal and debilitating illness.

I haven't tried to figure out which of the many license declarations available would, in general, be most in harmony with the general objectives of those who undertake projects relating to the "DebianDogs" or Puppies. What do you think?

And while I've read https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html it seems like overkill. As a practical matter, should any code developed for one of our projects prove to have general commercial value, anyone claiming not to be bound by a simple declaration of intent would have an "up-hill" battle. What do you think the easiest way to express such intent to be?

mikesLr

[dancytron]

/offtopic

The maze of GPL licenses isn't to make software "free." If the idea was to make software "free," then the words "all original works contained herein are dedicated to the public domain without limitation" would be confer the most possible freedom in the simplest manner possible.

The GPL licenses are designed limit freedom and impose a set of values on whoever may use or modify that software.

You can argue about whether that set of values it good or fair or whatever for the author, the end user or those seeking to modify the software in the future. But the purpose of the GPL licenses isn't freedom. Like any other license, their purpose is to limit freedom by granting certain permissions in exchange for obeying certain conditions.

[mcewanw]

You can argue about whether that set of values it good or fair or whatever for the author, the end user or those seeking to modify the software in the future. But the purpose of the GPL licenses isn't freedom. Like any other license, their purpose is to limit freedom by granting certain permissions in exchange for obeying certain conditions.

Hallelujah, dancytron, you are spot on with your comment, I agree. Whether any of our Linux-related contributions here are worth anything in practice is debatable, but we certainly do not need to obey GPL licensing on our own works, or we can if we wish.

I don't believe for a second Fred ever intended any of his contributions to be not open-source-free, so the arguments about that were always meaningless in his case, and I sympathise with him on that matter entirely. As, for freedom, far more important to me is the freedom of choice - to license or not to license - to do ones own thing or to choose to share. Claims of DebianDog ownership, overall, are completely meaningless and I myself certainly do not claim any gilded bust in any Hall of Fame (anikin juvenile drama-queen nonsense).

My only (very slight) concern is that I like using DebianDog and/or XenialDog - and I would be sorry not to see them maintained to keep up with newer releases of Debian and Ubuntu. No one here will be remembered in 'history... of Linux' (more anikin juvenile nonsense claim) for anything to do with DebianDog, which has no originator/creator if not Debian or DebianLive itself. A lot of people like Ubuntu for its greater actual freedom in terms of allowing non-free components, so if there is jealousy, if XenialDog is more popular than DebianDog, then that is just a result of the 'passenger' market - no more, no less.

Personally I hope Toni will keep working on maintenance of a DebianDog pure of the non-free and hope (and expect) Fred will improve and develop his own Porteus initrd-rd/openbox style of Ubuntu live. He can license any way he likes, if it works the way I want for myself and family, I may use it, if it doesn't I'll use something else. As for project names - none here are sacred in the least. Debian owns copyright on Debian name, Ubuntu on the Xenial name - no-one on the Dog name. If I ever 'put together' a flavour of my own Linux out of the bits and pieces (none of which any of us have created), I may call it DebianDog, or I may call it XenialDog, I won't call it Microsoft (since then I might be taken to Court hahaha), but I'd probably call it something else like EasyPoop or ForkOfEverything.

William

EDIT: typos/grammar/spelling - more remain...

[mcewanw]

and for those who like "free" things, just remember that there are fewer and fewer jobs out their for the future generations. The more that is free, the fewer the paying jobs.

William

[fredx181]

Hi William, Dancytron,

Fred, As I told you by PM, I urge you to fork at least part of this project, exclude Saintless and Anikin from participating, and be done with this foolishness

...and hope (and expect) Fred will improve and develop his own Porteus initrd-rd/openbox style of Ubuntu live.

Well, I'd like to (even now I am still continuing with searching for improvements or fixing bugs) and it would be the right time, now that Stretch became stable, to do further developments on that, opening a new thread would be the most constructive because of the user feedback (and/or any other help, just me working alone certainly isn't getting the most out of it) .
I'd definitely go for the forking with a different name.
But.., as you know, there's been a lot of obstruction and I expect it to happen again.
(and even the slightest "stab under the belt" about me hijacking a project probably would make me scream (or any other "psychological war" tinted message))
I seriously considered opening a separate forum but decided not to (for various reasons)
Also I've been thinking just to announce anything new I would do in this thread (and/or on the doglinux website), but , although maybe better than nothing, it's a lame solution IMO.
Any thoughts, suggestions?

And... thanks,

Fred

[saintless]

Hi William.
I don't like the way you start the same subject again and again writing absolutely the opposite posts now and then.
It was you who started the licensing problem and this is how you will be remembered in the history of DebianDog. Yes - it has a history and probably I will write it since I read lies about that from you and others.

The history says:

Whatever you decide to do Fred, this and similar are Toni's threads, as he has just demonstrated. I think you need to start a new thread or threads and no longer use the DebianDog name for your alternative project since DebianDog is Toni's. i.e. you need to formally fork the project under new name for your one.

Certainly he can legally "fork" the project "DD-Jwm Wheezy and Jessie versions" since the original project is hosted on GitHub, according to the GitHub Terms Of Service he is allowed to fork the repository on GitHub (allowing others to view it and do the same), but... the individual software authors "retain all rights to [their] source code ... nobody else may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work".
...he has no right to rename and (re)license most of these original DebianDog scriptsFred could give him permission to do so for his scripts (though he isn't obliged to do so).

apt2sfs.sh deleted:
https://github.com/MintPup/DebianDog-Wh ... 6a1627b9cd
So we have hidden bomb in DebianDog with most scripts without license and noone or just me can't use them without yours or Fred's permission. Nice
Any other script violating your or Fred's license will be removed. Just point me to it, please.

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 902#946902

Rough copy (since my original was lost by Flash deleting the Review of DebianDog thread) since it contains important information for the DebianDog community team.

I don't want to use PMs for a DebianDog-community related communication like this.
----

Disappointing.

In that now deleted DD review thread, Toni had actually been very civil and relatively thoughtful and I for one appreciate that, and frankly, many of his points are very valid IMO.

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 071#958071

Note to forum moderator.

This thread should remain unlocked since it is the main HowTo resource for the DebianDog/XenialDog projects and is incomplete awaiting new additions.

As far as Toni's (saintless) request to delete his account on Puppy Linux: Clearly Toni is under stress and it would be completely unfair and wrong and ridiculous to delete the Puppy login account of the main creator of the original DebianDog project at this time. It would frankly be disgraceful for any forum moderator to do that (in the Dog world that would be like deleting the login account of BarryK).

William

+1

Fred

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 955#959955

We agreed about the licenses and keeping non-free inside the iso images. I did the licensing work in all repositories. I uploaded MintPup and DebianDog-Squeeze in the organisation repo and finished the fixing in both. I even defended Fred after anikin's comment about the locales module.
But you and Fred didn't accept I can speak with anikin without anger or names calling. I didn't play with you the "bad troll story song" and you both got mad. I don't know why. One day you will see it re-reading those pages.

DebianDog is in very good hands now - the gentle hands of free open source project. As it was and always should be

.

The community work on any Dog based project (that includes DebianDog scripts) is licensed now no matter if you like it or not. The project has a chance to be developed in the future from others (not only from me or Fred).

Stop posting about this before all barking starts again.

Fred - the work on DebianDog scripts is licensed as we agreed. All you need to prevent further problems is to keep copy of the license and credit link for the included work. Add any other contributors names there as you see fit.
Fork or work on the same iso you discontinued has no matter. It is up to you and both suits me fine. I will do the same after finish my work on original dog versions. Then I will remove my self as a maintainer and fork what I need for my personal use. Something I wasn't able to do with my own started project. You know very well why.

Toni

[anikin]

Toni,

They have a playbook:

Rule 13:
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy.
Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
Rules for Radicals - Saul D. Alinsky

[mcewanw]

I didn't start any licensing problem Toni - I pointed the problem out to you when you first threw a fit intending to destroy the project - presumably when you were jealous of the popularity of Fred's XenialDog.

I truly have no interest in the license 'issues' personally - though I tried to address your claimed issues with it in order to get some peace from you purposively coming back onto Fred's threads every few months to disrupt them. I also didn't like the increasing one-man-band appearance of Fred's efforts, but you were worse when you assumed you were in charge of everything.

You don't like your own medicine, but maybe you need interrupted continually every few weeks so you end up realising what it feels like - a kind of torture to Fred to stop him being able to develop what is only a hobby. Obviously, I can no longer be bothered with my attempted 'peace-keeper' roll for someone who behaves like a child like you along with your drama-queen friend anikin.

'History of DebianDog' - what a lot of pompous rubbish. Debian is Debian - so what that you have read some of the documentation of that and DebianLive and have applied it (?)

Let's be honest - though Fred joined in development a very little while later than you, his openbox versions have probably always been much more popular than your very basic JWM ever-so-conservative efforts - so I guess you were correct, most were using XenialDog or one of Fred's openbox versions of DD. And as even you have said, sickgut (whoever he was and whatever happened to him) probably made the earliest or one of the earliest Puppy forum known attempts to create a DebianDog; it wasn't you.

Enough of you Toni. If I am now coming on and annoying you, then truly that is just your own medicine as you applied it to Fred. As for you Fred, please ignore the guy and get on with your much appreciated work. By all means put on the ridiculous licenses if it matters that much to you, but who really cares - we just use the great wee distribution you created. And despite Toni's claims regarding the 'true' history, most of the best work comes from your efforts - and in particular Porteus boot (adoption and adaption) and openbox and all the many little utility apps you have scripted. I don't like yad over-much either - but the underlying scripts and functions they provide are great and can easily be now modified to use some other GUI interface if someone doesn't want yad. You have proved yourself to be quite a bit of a whizz at programming such utilities and I for one applaud you for that. As for what Toni has actually produced and added to DebianDog, I don't think it is half as much - in fact I don't even know there is much actually. Let the users decide the 'history' and please continue your development work and enthusiasm and ignore the grumbling ridiculous Toni and his drama-queen sidekick. I have no more time for the self-imagining great Toni loudmouth - saintless indeed.

And no point anyone complaining about me - I don't care - I certainly didn't add much to DebianDog and I am happy to allow Fred to use and add to anything I did. If I could, I would not allow Toni to use any part of any script I made - he can reinvent the wheel for all I care - him being such a genious... sigh. I think you should leave what was the original DebianDog organisation page now Toni and make your own fork (as Fred has done anyway). Fred is free to stay or not use that old resource as he wishes.

Goodnight Fred - I look forward to your future efforts and I will support you by trying to not allow these disruptive Trolls (Toni and anikin and anyone like them) to further disrupt your work. Aside from that I will just rest and enjoy continuing to use your truly wonderful XenialDog which indeed made Toni's DD efforts rubbish by comparison.

Goodbye Toni. Keep on your own forum threads and get off of mine.

William

[saintless]

Hi William.

I will quote your post below in case you change your mind and edit some parts later. It is part of the history now.
I leave you the pleasure to remove me from the organisation page which you opened for me BTW and were going to transfer me the ownership by your own words. Or leave this to Fred - he has experience removing me.

Time and others will tell who and what did about DebianDog project. I've managed to save the project from you and Fred already. As I wrote this place is perfect for people like Fred (and like you it seems).

Toni

I didn't start any licensing problem Toni - I pointed the problem out to you when you first threw a fit intending to destroy the project - presumably when you were jealous of the popularity of Fred's XenialDog.

I truly have no interest in the license 'issues' personally - though I tried to address your claimed issues with it in order to get some peace from you purposively coming back onto Fred's threads every few months to disrupt them. I also didn't like the increasing one-man-band appearance of Fred's efforts, but you were worse when you assumed you were in charge of everything.

You don't like your own medicine, but maybe you need interrupted continually every few weeks so you end up realising what it feels like - a kind of torture to Fred to stop him being able to develop what is only a hobby. Obviously, I can no longer be bothered with my attempted 'peace-keeper' roll for someone who behaves like a child like you along with your drama-queen friend anikin.

'History of DebianDog' - what a lot of pompous rubbish. Debian is Debian - so what that you have read some of the documentation of that and DebianLive and have applied it (?)

Let's be honest - though Fred joined in development a very little while later than you, his openbox versions have probably always been much more popular than your very basic JWM ever-so-conservative efforts - so I guess you were correct, most were using XenialDog or one of Fred's openbox versions of DD. And as even you have said, sickgut (whoever he was and whatever happened to him) probably made the earliest or one of the earliest Puppy forum known attempts to create a DebianDog; it wasn't you.

Enough of you Toni. If I am now coming on and annoying you, then truly that is just your own medicine as you applied it to Fred. As for you Fred, please ignore the guy and get on with your much appreciated work. By all means put on the ridiculous licenses if it matters that much to you, but who really cares - we just use the great wee distribution you created. And despite Toni's claims regarding the 'true' history, most of the best work comes from your efforts - and in particular Porteus boot (adoption and adaption) and openbox and all the many little utility apps you have scripted. I don't like yad over-much either - but the underlying scripts and functions they provide are great and can easily be now modified to use some other GUI interface if someone doesn't want yad. You have proved yourself to be quite a bit of a whizz at programming such utilities and I for one applaud you for that. As for what Toni has actually produced and added to DebianDog, I don't think it is half as much - in fact I don't even know there is much actually. Let the users decide the 'history' and please continue your development work and enthusiasm and ignore the grumbling ridiculous Toni and his drama-queen sidekick. I have no more time for the self-imagining great Toni loudmouth - saintless indeed.

And no point anyone complaining about me - I don't care - I certainly didn't add much to DebianDog and I am happy to allow Fred to use and add to anything I did. If I could, I would not allow Toni to use any part of any script I made - he can reinvent the wheel for all I care - him being such a genious... sigh. I think you should leave what was the original DebianDog organisation page now Toni and make your own fork (as Fred has done anyway). Fred is free to stay or not use that old resource as he wishes.

Goodnight Fred - I look forward to your future efforts and I will support you by trying to not allow these disruptive Trolls (Toni and anikin and anyone like them) to further disrupt your work. Aside from that I will just rest and enjoy continuing to use your truly wonderful XenialDog which indeed made Toni's DD efforts rubbish by comparison.

Goodbye Toni. Keep on your own forum threads and get off of mine.

William

[dancytron]

Hi William, Dancytron,

Fred, As I told you by PM, I urge you to fork at least part of this project, exclude Saintless and Anikin from participating, and be done with this foolishness

...and hope (and expect) Fred will improve and develop his own Porteus initrd-rd/openbox style of Ubuntu live.

Well, I'd like to (even now I am still continuing with searching for improvements or fixing bugs) and it would be the right time, now that Stretch became stable, to do further developments on that, opening a new thread would be the most constructive because of the user feedback (and/or any other help, just me working alone certainly isn't getting the most out of it) .
I'd definitely go for the forking with a different name.
But.., as you know, there's been a lot of obstruction and I expect it to happen again.
(and even the slightest "stab under the belt" about me hijacking a project probably would make me scream (or any other "psychological war" tinted message))
I seriously considered opening a separate forum but decided not to (for various reasons)
Also I've been thinking just to announce anything new I would do in this thread (and/or on the doglinux website), but , although maybe better than nothing, it's a lame solution IMO.
Any thoughts, suggestions?

And... thanks,

Fred

The limitations of this board are a problem. If there was an ignore function, like in later versions, we could all just use it and the problem would be 95% solved.

All I can suggest is a "virtual ignore" where you post at the beginning of the thread that Saintless and Anikin comments are not welcome and will not be responded to or even read and asking others to please not respond to them. Then it will take some self-discipline to follow through on that.

[mcewanw]

You don't need to re-quote what I said Toni. I would be happy to say it ten times if necessary.

But you are correct dancytron - it is time to ignore these nonsense-makers - pity the forum can't provide a Facebook-like "block trolls function", for each thread, then Fred's XenialDog thread wouldn't have been continually interrupted every few months. But do our best (discipline-wise) to ignore is the best we can do (EDIT: first post of thread amended to say so as you suggest). Honestly the man sounds like he has some kind of delusion in which he imagines he is some God/Messiah-figure (who has 'managed to save the project' from the apparently evil myself 'and Fred'!!! It becomes laughable - End of Days... Maybe I'm at least drawing the attention (in terms of evilness) away from Fred for a little while - that's fine.

Okay, they don't exist anymore. I'm annoyed at myself for ever trying to appease him with kid gloves but felt it was worth trying to stop the regular interruptions.

No more GPL licenses ever going to be added by me to anything I ever now program or fix/improve, and the original Toni-'saved' DD JWM version is basically not too great anyway, and I don't think chpupsocket C source code of mine has GPL license (maybe, I can't be bothered to check EDIT: okay, checked - I did say GPL on it as it happens. No big deal... Any improved version I'd make something else/no license at all!!!!) - just a small piece of code to re-write though - not sure if I remembered to add GPL to my xhippo-mod source code either, though if original xhippo was GPL already that was forced non-freedom choice anyway - not that I had any intention to ever restrict anyone... sigh. xhippo-mod not a system script anyway so easy enough to rip out.

Mr. very saintless Messiah of the pure DebianDog is just a troublemaker who, when it suited him, tried to make Fred go over every single DD script to add all sorts of over-the-top acknowledgements and license stamps. I earlier suggested to Toni the simple statement method used by Debian themselves to cover everything, but that wasn't good enough for him at the time he was trying to 'punish' the unclean and unworthy Fred, yet in the end that's what he has done himself anyway with his LICENCE.md or whatever it is called!!!

Okay, ignore time... reminder to myself: ignore... requote ignore...

Get OFF this thread I started mr saintless with your obsessive (and utterly unnecessary) re-quotes...

William

Let's all be childish over-the-top idiots and make fuss about licenses in amateur hobby projects from now on: http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 074#755074
If I have 'forgotten' to add any license to any code or code mod I've written then consider it 'unlicensed' where not under any original GPL and thus copyright to me.
Let's all be childish over-the-top idiots and make fuss about licenses in amateur hobby projects from now on: http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 074#755074
If I have 'forgotten' to add any license to any code or code mod I've written then consider it 'unlicensed' where not under any original GPL and thus copyright to me.

No re-quote necessary - I've done it above to 'save' anyone so inclined.

In view of the interruptions and intentional troublemaking Mr. very unsaintless whipped people with I really encourage anyone and everyone to consider never to license any code they ever contribute - just have fun.

[mcewanw]

Mr. very saintless Messiah of the pure DebianDog is just a troublemaker who, when it suited him, tried to make Fred go over every single DD script to add all sorts of over-the-top acknowledgements and license stamps. I earlier suggested to Toni the simple statement method used by Debian themselves to cover everything, but that wasn't good enough for him at the time he was trying to 'punish' the unclean and unworthy Fred, yet in the end that's what he has done himself anyway with his LICENCE.md or whatever it is called!!!

EDIT: Okay, it turns out it was tiny core linux I noticed the license text possible solution with:

tinycore linux also does exactly the above as I said to Toni.

by PM to Toni on 25 March 2017:


Hello Toni,

There might be an easy way round this.

I've been working with tinycore linux (dCore-xenial) recently and just noticed that most of the scripts used for tinycore linux do not have any GPL license actually written in them. The way tinycore gets round this is to have a license statement here:

http://tinycorelinux.net/faq.html#license

which simply states:

Quote:

License:
Tiny Core Linux is covered by the GPL v2 License. All custom code developed by Robert Shingledecker is therfore also covered by the same GPL v2 License. Any other software contained within, if not specifically stated would also fall under the same such license.


So instead of Fred having to go through the many many scripts a statement could simply be published in similar to tinycore linux fashion.

I haven't mentioned this to Fred yet, but could do - I can't see any objection since no extra work involved.

What do you think?

William

The reply was a big NO...

Just for 'history'... oh boy. Just ignore.

[dancytron]

deleted

[mcewanw]

As for the scripts/contributed-apps in Puppy Linux itself - seems to use both methods (individual scripts with license and an assumed overall distribution license catch-all clause):

Can't find the license page on puppylinux.com though.

http://barryk.org/puppylinux/developmen ... tement.htm

Legal issues
Concerning the licencing of Puppy. Puppy is GPL, and has been for sometime. Many years ago, I went through all my scripts and made sure that they all had GPL notices in them. There are some closed-source but free apps in Puppy, such as Opera and the Flash-player, which is quite legitimate. The actual name "Puppy Linux" and my logos are copyrighted to me, which is also legitimate -- that is, does not contravene in any way the GPL licences of the applications in Puppy, or the overall "freeness" of the Puppy-project. If you come across anything on the web or Forum about licencing problems with Puppy, that concerns some of my scripts being copyrighted to me, but that is very very old news, no longer valid.

If you do contribute anything to Puppy, artwork, themes, documentation, code, please understand that it will be classified as GPL. You can choose one of the GPL licences explicitly if you wish.

There is a separate legal page: http://puppylinux.com/legal.htm

EDIT:

http://puppylinux.org/wikka/License

AS FOUNDER AND COORDINATOR OF THE 'Puppy Linux Project' [ESTABLISHED JANUARY 2003, FIRST USED IN COMMERCE (WEB SITE) 18-JUNE-2003], I HEREBY MAKE TRADEMARK CLAIM TO THE NAME AND TYPED DRAWING OF 'Puppy Linux', 'PuppyOS' and 'Puppy' AS IT RELATES TO "computer operating system software to facilitate computer use and operation". DATED 18-SEPTEMBER-2006. SIGNED BARRY D KAULER.

I don't for a second see how anyone can use Debian or Xenial or Mint in a name (DebianDog, XenialDog, MintPup; or XenialPup or TahrPup and so on etc...) and claim trademark to any of them though... a lot of nonsense that. Claim for 'Dog' or 'Slacko'?!!!

Don't know why I bother. Had a lot of time wasted by these interruptors. So much wasted time for everyone involved. Ignore again.

[backi]

Holy wrath ..Thunder on the mountain .

Mcewanw also known as " Aguirre,The Wrath of God ",.. pounding the drum .

A truly historic tantrum.
Let me put it mildly this way .... you brought some fresh air into this stale soap-opera....

Just keep on rocking !

[mcewanw]

" Aguirre,The Wrath of God "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aguirre,_the_Wrath_of_God

!!!!! Talk about laughing !!!!!

backi, you are wee bit wacki at times, but certainly humorous... unlike some of these other primadonnas on here...

Surely your comment will be added to the forthcoming 'corrected' history?!