Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 25th Nov 2007 23:05 UTC, submitted by jello
Members of the Linux community have complained that the hot new sub-notebook from Asus, the eeePC, may have violated the spirit of the Linux General Public License. Some Linux advocates claim the eeePC has not included required source code with the installed Xandros Linux distribution and does not easily enable users to install another distro. However, there are indications that eeePC fans probably don't care.
Thread beginning with comment 286784
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by jcpinto
by Morgan on Mon 26th Nov 2007 01:31
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by jcpinto"
Member since:2005-06-29
Dear god, not all of us sit running shotgun on the email send/receive button, and reply within 5 minutes. If there is a reason for not instantly providing the source, it would have been within the email.
I'm not sure why you're being so defensive towards my post, as it seems you and I are otherwise on the same wavelength here. As I said, I'm not drawing any conclusions until the whole matter is brought out into the open, and for what it's worth I am actually rooting for ASUS on this. From what I've seen so far, they are simply not going above and beyond the call of the GPL and while that's uncommon in the FOSS world, it's not against the terms explicitly unless they flat out refuse or intentionally misdirect a request.
RE[4]: Comment by jcpinto
by kaiwai on Mon 26th Nov 2007 02:08
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by jcpinto"
Member since:2005-07-06
I'm not sure why you're being so defensive towards my post, as it seems you and I are otherwise on the same wavelength here. As I said, I'm not drawing any conclusions until the whole matter is brought out into the open, and for what it's worth I am actually rooting for ASUS on this. From what I've seen so far, they are simply not going above and beyond the call of the GPL and while that's uncommon in the FOSS world, it's not against the terms explicitly unless they flat out refuse or intentionally misdirect a request.
Why do people *instantly* assume that a reply to their post is exclusively directed at them?
My post was a 'reply in general' - a 'build upon' what you said in your post.
RE[3]: Comment by jcpinto
by butters on Mon 26th Nov 2007 01:56
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by jcpinto"
Member since:2005-07-08
Edit: Interesting, someone has provided a link to the source code - and the forum seems to go quiet - isn't it annoying when sensationalism is destroyed in one act of fact providing?
The posted tarball doesn't contain the source code in question. You would know that if you had read the article...
RE[4]: Comment by jcpinto
by kaiwai on Mon 26th Nov 2007 02:10
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by jcpinto"
Member since:2005-07-06
The posted tarball doesn't contain the source code in question. You would know that if you had read the article...
Thank you for the correction - but it still doesn't negate from the fact that the person who wrote the article has NO proof what so ever that ASUS has refused to give the source code. Simply because there is no 'link on the site' doesn't mean they're unwilling to give it out.
If they don't give it out instantly, there might be a reason - I swear people here have become unreasonable bastards who assume that because something doesn't occur at the speed of light, the company is obviously 'teh evil'.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-06
Not provided, or the person emailing unwilling to tell us what was in the email reply or simply because the company didn't email back a reply within 5 minutes, they're obviously rebuffing him.
Dear god, not all of us sit running shotgun on the email send/receive button, and reply within 5 minutes. If there is a reason for not instantly providing the source, it would have been within the email. Too bad there is more focus on the one solitary whiner than what was actually in the email that came form ASUS in regards to the source code request.
As for the person who requested it, anyone find it rather confusing that he is silent in the whole matter? why doesn't he have the backbone to step forward and tell us the WHOLE story.
Edit: Interesting, someone has provided a link to the source code - and the forum seems to go quiet - isn't it annoying when sensationalism is destroyed in one act of fact providing?
Edited 2007-11-26 01:21