Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Saladin

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  1. (edited - removed irrelevant comments regarding gpl wording rewrite - and also corrected my own error regarding the GPL 3 issue. Definately needed more coffee for this post) FDV - you state: EDIT (large chunk of post removed) - I was referring to the license preamble contained inside the code, rather than the GPL license file itself. I didn't mean to imply that people had modified the GPL license text directly, as that's a whole different problem. back to the actual issue at hand. The phrase is also present there: "version 2 of the license, or (at your option) any later version. Okay, let's review a small snippet from v3 of the GPL: Is that specific enough? HFSLIP was published under a license that included permission to use the software outside a personal use scenario. (although as we've all mentioned before, it's a moot point for versions published by TommyP from this point forward, as the license is now different/more restrictive) (INSERT) I'll correct myself here, HFSLIP wasn't published under the GPL3, as I erroneously imply above. It's most certainly published under v2, but: under section 9 of that license you have the option of following the T&Cs of any later version published by the FSF. In this case, version 3. This includes the specific permission to run the software in question. (as the internal preamble of 1.7.8 beta h included the 'any later version' requirement) So at this point, I agree with FDV's statement: The GPL v2 doesn't explicitly grant the right to run the software. (it does allow quite a bit, (copy/modify/etc) but given they included this item specifically in v3, this obviously isn't the first time this discussion has occurred! However, I maintain that as published under the previous license, HFSLIP could be used outside a personal use setting. Moving on: Why I won't let this go? Yep, I've certainly got myself off your christmas card lists but I did mention earlier that we have to completely document our build processes. And they have to comply with all relevant legal considerations. (ie, all software has to be correctly licensed) Why not get IT to build the machines/maintain them for us? They don't do that type of thing. We're a small part of a larger place. Their job is to get word and outlook running, and they don't really do a cracking job of that. If it's non-standard, you're looking at long months of arguing, and you get no control over the actual machine build process. (and more often than not, they simply don't agree to do non-standard work.) I do get (vaguely) why you want to limit it to personal use, and I hope you can understand why I've raised this issue. I also appreciate that this discussion has stayed above the usual degeneration into ad-homs you see on a lot of other forums. Healthy debate is good! By the way, I was serious: if you find yourselves down here in Australia, drop me a line. Regardless of anything, I still think the work you've all put in to HFSLIP is remarkable, and I guarantee that we'll find some food / beer to your liking, my shout.
  2. Ohhhkay. I thought this topic had died off! I was going to ignore it, but.....one last post on the subject. While it's true that the FAQ isn't the GPL, I don't think I'd describe the FSF's faq on their own license as an 'interesting academic legal interpretation'.... Now, we could go around and around, as there is obviously a fair bit of disagreement about how the GPL works, but ultimately this is a dead issue: TommyP has (quite correctly) changed the license to one that suits his needs more accurately. For the record, I'm not in the commercial field. There are other things besides 'personal' and 'commercial' in the world, although this discussion appears to have forgotten them. Such as 'Academic', or 'Research', or 'Law Enforcement', or 'Public Servants'(government) or Non-Profit/Charity/Human Rights, etc. These are worthwhile areas that just might want to benefit from a highly useful script process that minimizes the amount of time one person has to spend maintaining a consistent build process with limited resources (including time). This isn't now, nor ever was, about taking advantage or somehow getting to kick back and sip latte coffees or make a buck out of tommyp's hard work because of the time that this script saves. It was about being able to spend more time on the work we're supposed to be doing, with a system that was more reliable. For FDV: Here are two other items from the FSF's faq section, referring to the wording of the GPL itself. and to follow up: (my emphasis, btw) Food for thought, anyway.
  3. Well, there you go: HFSLIP is now under the CC licensing, which resolves that discussion rather neatly. I still think a more involved discussion wouldn't have been out of the question regarding the licensing matter, but that's your choice and we intend to respect it. For your information: 1. We intend to comply fully with the CCL, and have no intentions of utiltising the latest beta (j) or any future work published under that licensing for our analysis workstation builds, as they are not for personal use. 2. We do intend however, to continue to use the last previous version published under the GPL, and modify it as allowed under that license. (very carefully, however: we will NOT review the betas from this point and copy over any bugfixes. We'll have to fix any errors/problems ourselves without outside input) Still would have liked to have had the pub discussion over beers rather than the forum posts: You're a great scripter, man. All the best with the future, eh? And the very best of luck to all those out there with copies of XP corporate edition, and Server 2003 that they're implementing for 'personal use'. Saladin
  4. Hi TommyP, Thanks for responding, and in particular thanks for all the effort you put into HFSLIP. I'm still reviewing how it all works it so I can't help out yet, but fully intend to as I think it's an excellent resource. (this may be a moot offer from the impression I get from other posts, but still) However, I respectfully disagree with your points. Before I go on, I would like to know what the core reason for the personal use only statements actually is. Is it a personal liability concern? If you review the GPL, (sections 15 and 16 I believe), you find that you (and everyone else in HFLSLIP development) are completely covered against any form of legal action for any reason. I'm guessing here, but it seems the most likely reason. (I believe this was the reason for NLITE adopting a similar stance) But, to directly address your responses: Respectfully, no. HFSLIP is published under the GPL, and for that reason it isn't able to be restricted in the way that you specify, ie, for personal use only. If you like, you could contact the FSF and seek clarification on this point if you wish, but their FAQ that I linked to in my previous post tells you what their answer is going to be. The program does something in addition to that, and also when you install it: It is clearly evident that HFSLIP is published under the GPL. I would get the same response, and I'd obey it. (and I have) As I previously stated in my original post: We have stopped using NLITE as it does have a similar restriction ("strictly for personal use only, etc etc). (and it's not clear about that restriction. It's only mentioned in a license.txt file created after you install it, but it doesn't get you to read it....it's not on their website, nor in the program helpfile.) But you already know the key difference that I'm going to repeat. I'm sure you're frustrated by this repetition, but unfortuantely it's the key point that you didn't address in your response: HFSLIP is published under the GPL. (for the record, we're talking about wanting to use hfslip for 20-30 workstations that I manage off in a standalone network for analysis functions. We're not talking about me using it to help manage 2000+ desktop workstations inside a corporation. There are other tools for that which are better suited to this sort of enterprise management) Again: the peronal use restrictions at the heart of this discussion are in contradiction to the GPL, and I again request that they be removed from the sections of HFSLIP script code in which that they occur. Lastly, I'll finish on repeating something else. HFSLIP is an excellently produced piece of scripting, and I sincerely thank you (and everyone else, but you've given up a LOT of time) for all the effort that you've put into it. I'd really have rather had this converstation over a couple of beers in a good pub (my shout, of course) but geography has conspired to frustrate that intention. Have a good weekend, man.
  5. Saladin

    Windows Updates

    Ah, patch week.... Acheron, minor thing, but I think you have a might have a couple of typos in your april changelog list... Shouldn't the list go like this? Add April 2009 security updates: KB961373 - Vulnerability in Microsoft DirectShow Could Allow Remote Code Execution (supersedes KB951698) KB963027 - Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer (supersedes KB963027 KB961620) KB960803 - Vulnerabilities in Windows HTTP services could allow remote code execution KB956572 - Vulnerabilities in Windows Could Allow Elevation of Privilege (supersedes KB960419,KB960496 KB956841) KB952004 - Vulnerabilities in Windows Could Allow Elevation of Privilege KB959426 - Blended threat vulnerability in SearchPath could allow elevation of privilege (supercedes KB935839) KB923561 - Vulnerabilities in WordPad and Office Text Converters Could Allow Remote Code Execution KB890830 - Microsoft Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool v2.9 (supercedes v2.8) (great - the one person who's responded to my other post regarding the gpl and hfslip (my first post), and my second one is to turn around and try correct something they've done. Oh yeah, I'm winning the 'most popular on this forum' award for sure...<grin>)
  6. Well, to start: HFSLIP is hands down, without any doubt, a fantastic piece of work. I do scripting, but man: The sheer amount of WORK you'd have to put in to get this much dosshell to function is verra impressive. Serious thanks to every single person who's helped make this thing exist. No kidding, you all rock. Now, on to me sounding like a complete legalistic so-and-so.... I'd like to use HFSLIP for a non-private use. ie, using a copy of windows xp, corporate license, in our organization. I certainly accept that there is zero/zip/nil/nada warranty from the developers, and anything that can/could/has gone wrong for any reason is now my problem. Cool. We want to use these for analysis workstations, not for life-maintaining/business critical systems. So I understand why the following has occurred... The license (lines 25 - 37) is given as being the GPLv2. That's all good, very clear, all requirements included- However, there was an extra line that had been inserted in the standard GPL v2 license, that was 'fine', in that it had no real impact: Why no impact? Well, it stated something that the GPL already gave us: The ability to use HFSLIP for personal/non-commercial use. The GPL also gives us the right to use it FOR business/commercial use. (note: I'm not talking about the more complicated issues regarding making money out of it / selling it, changing a single line of code, or anything like that here: I'm simply referring to using it as provided in a business/government workplace.) Now, on March 30 the language in the beta has been changed to this: Well, you can say that...but....I....don't think so, guys. (Yzowl is credited in the changelogs with this modification, btw) The GPL doesn't allow a restriction of this type to exist. It defeats the purpose of free software, and is specifically addressed in the FAQ page for GPL licensing at the gnu.org website: Here's the Link, but to quote: There are some other items of reading I dug up, but I think that the GPL faq page from the gnu.org website is probably going to be considered more authoritative than forum posts, however well intentioned and written they may be from various places over the web. Anway: I'd like to request this line be removed, as it's I believe its incompatible with the GPL license HFSLIP is released under. (by the way - restrictions like this one are the reason we had to ditch NLITE. It has a simliar clause in it's license file, but it's not GPL'd. However, it meant we had to redo our build process from scratch. Which was a lot harder that it should have been, as the NLITE software isn't well documented, and people just tended to answer technical build questions with "oh, you should use NLITE for that....") Seriously, I'm not trying to be overly irritating or make a major fuss. However, our build processes are required to be *completely* documented, and that includes knowing the licensing for every single piece of software we use... Again, thanks for reading - and especially thanks for developing HFSLIP in the first place.
  • Create New...