Printable View
But, only Knoppix NOT live cd (with install to HD) source code.
Live CD Knoppix - is a CLOSE source code project!
Boot sector - boot live cd - is a CLOSE code, which NOT include in Knoppix distrib.
Impossible compile from knooppxi distrib to LIVE CD Knoppix.
Such, boot live cd - close code, accroding to GNL, "Live CD Knoppix - is illegal, incorrect.
Such as MS Windows, LIVE CD Knoppix - is a close code project.
What comments?
Is this true of all live cd's? For instance, dyne:bolic?
I'm not much of a purist (or puritan either) :) I think if it helps people feel comfortable with linux it is doing the open source community some good by giving it a larger audience.
The other question I have is are the developers willing to open the source?
And last but not least what is the intent in asking this question-in this provocative way.
"Such, boot live cd - close code, accroding to GNL, "Live CD Knoppix - is illegal, incorrect."
Knoppix is very popular and such popularity will, I guess, cause envy.
I'm sorry but thats not correct.
Knoppix is quite open source, just because you can't easily find the sources doesn't mean the don't exist.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Do some searching on this issue on the forums before you lodge false accusations.Quote:
Originally Posted by xinfo
Thanks for the clarification aay. I thought the qrginal poster was saying that the software that makes knoppix runnable from the cd was not open. I know that it's debian based so all of that is of course open source.Quote:
Originally Posted by aay
Why would anyone make this accusation???
Hmmmmmm,
It has to be "Open Source", considering I got my kernel source code from Linux, and then the kernel additions Source Code from Knoppix, and was able to either "tinker" with the complete "Knoppix Kernel" source code, and then compile the kernel into "Knoppix" ( just like the CD ), except to include my additions ( NVidia Video Driver Source Code ), and make a "new" kernel, all from Source Code, it has to be Open Source.
Secondly, comparing Windows and Knoppix, in the same sentence, and with the "context" of "Open Source" - can not be made. Microsoft does not provide any Source Code for there OS, that, in definition, is Closed Source, whereas, Linux, comes complete, or can be attained, Source Code, thus, Open Source. Though, in the case of Knoppix, the source code is attained through more than one location, considering it isnt a "vanilla" source, can not be used, against it, to say that it is a "Closed Source", you can still attain it, and use it, and adding into this... The GNU license adds the ability that if you do change the source, you must provide the source to "recreate" your additions, if you choose to "contribute" to the Linux Community. This does not sound like a "Closed" anything...
If you are going to make "accusations" about something, you better be well able to "back" them with factual data... If you want to say that Windows is MORE open source than, say, Knoppix, you BETTER be able to prove it, but, I am quite sure that that can not be proven. If you think Knoppix, or for that matter, Linux, is not Open Source, prove it, factual data, or get off the soap box, and give someone who has "earned" there "white coat" a chance. Initiating a "Flame War" is fine, as long as you can back what you are claiming, other than that, you are just blowing hot air...
IMHO
Ms. Cuddles