Morality is not for sale
July 9, 2007So, DistroWatch replied to my moral rant about their policies towards Elive.
Thanatermesis has never asked DistroWatch not to post direct download links to the stable Elive CD images. I am in regular contact with the Elive developer and I’ve just checked all his recent emails (just to be sure), but I couldn’t find a single one (let alone “numerous requests”) where he would ask me not to post these links. So either he is lying to Mr Holwerda, or Mr Holwerda is lying in his blog.
Those are Thanatermesis’ words - “many times”, he wrote.
In six years of its existence, DistroWatch has never hosted any ISO images of any distribution, including Elive. Again, somebody is making things up.
Again, Thanatermesis’ words. I am assuming that “he uploaded it himself” does not necessarily have to mean to distrowatch.com/pub/incoming/, but any server.
Is it disrespectful of DistroWatch to provide direct download links to the Elive CD images? Yes, absolutely - and I agree with Mr Holwerda on this point. However, I don’t believe it is any more disrespectful than twisting the meaning of the word “donation” or providing non-existent links to a slow download server which, oops, is down and has been down for weeks. I have no problem with the Elive developer wanting to make money out of his hard work, but then he should be straightforward about it and go commercial, instead of playing these ridiculous “you must donate” and “feel guilty if I starve to death” games. Or he should come up with a better way of distributing his work than “hiding” it in randomly named “dot” directories on public FTP servers.
Look, I don’t agree with such a compulsory donation scheme either, and I would much rather see a voluntary donation scheme, but that is not a sound reason to be disrespectful and discourteous to another developer’s choice. It’s his god-given right to supply his users with his software in a way he deems necessary. You may not like that, but that is no reason to disrespect a developer who works really hard on his project in his free time, and post links to his work on fast servers - despite the fact that you are not legally prohibited to do so.
since Mr Holwerda portrays DistroWatch as a backstabbing organisation with little respect for other people’s work…
That’s a bit drama queenish of you. I am just saying that what you are doing with Elive is an ungentlemanlike thing to do, and I just pointed it out to you. You could have just added a “my take” or whatever to the newsitem, stating that you find it unacceptable of Thanatermesis to uphold such a donation scheme.
…while picturing OSNews as a moral-high-ground holding bastion of purity and innocence, here is a question to the author of the blog post: DistroWatch has donated close to US$14,000 to open source software projects over the last three years. How about OSNews, Mr Holwerda?
As a proper journalistic outlet [1], OSNews does not take sides by donating money to anything. We are an independent news outlet, and as such, we do not take donations, nor give them to anyone. We want to maintain our unbiasedness, and donations (either to or from OSNews) do not fit into that. So, even if we did give/receive donations, we would not talk about it.
Personally, I am not the type to scream my personal donations off the rooftops. I contribute to my free software project of choice in the best way I can, and on top of that, do the community a service by working hours and hours a day, unpaid (I don’t get a penny for my work on OSNews), on a website that provides that community with publicity. My donation habits are strictly personal, and not anyone’s business.
Apart from that, even if you donated tenhundredmillionbillion Dollars to the free software world, that does not give you the right to disrespect individual developers. No matter how many lives a doctor has saved, it does not give him the moral right to kill someone.
Morality is not for sale, Distrowatch.
[1] OSNews is a voluntary effort, and our editors and webmaster do not get paid in any way for the work we do. In other words, the word “proper” in this context is relative. I’m honest in that.
Wow, HE clearly told you what was reported to you is untrue. Yet you gloss right over everything he has told you and continue as though what the developer has reported MUST be true. So far I am seeing VERY little in the way of unbiased.
Comment by Garret — July 9, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
Yes its the devs god-given right to decide what he does.
BUT its my GPL given right to redistribute that devs work, wherever i wish. If someone posts a link to, OR hosts the iso, thats GPL baby!
There are plenty other licences for devs who dont like the GPL. Ah yes but that would mean starting a distro from scratch.
Comment by wegface — July 9, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
Exactly, there’s nothing disrespectful about posting a link to download a GPL distro. As much as i like what Elive could become once it’ll be more stable, the attitude of the developer is pretty lame. Trying to pervert the meaning of a donation & whining about him having to pay bills like his user base was stupid or so… if he wants to go commercial let him do so without playing games.
Further your statement about him providing a free link to a slow server isn’t true anymore. I would say shame on you for removing the link to download elive in the comments of your article about Elive. Just means you don’t understand the meaning of free software.
You can keep your 2cents worth of morality as far as i’m concerned.
Comment by ShakaZ — July 9, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
I also think that when a developer decides on doing his work as GPL, then there’s nothing wrong with someone redistributing it at will. Open source is about free software, and wanting money for ‘better access’ to such software, for me, IS wrong and disgraceful. Making donations should be a free choice of users who appreciate the work of developer/developers. By making those who donate, better than those who don’t (which is done here, by offering them a better server for download) is not open source, since we’re aiming for evenly free software for everyone.
That’s my personal opinion.
Comment by Ithan — July 9, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
distrowatch.com/pub/incoming/ does not exist (tried google cache and web.archive.org)
Comment by anon — July 9, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
“No matter how many lives a doctor has saved, it does not give him the moral right to kill someone.
Morality is not for sale, Distrowatch.”
Useless flaming.
Comment by barf — July 9, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
A little correction.
I’m not on anybody’s side here, but unlike has been suggested above, under the GPL you’re not entitled to take an image and just upload it to others if the developer asks money for it. You may of course take the source and rebuild; this is the case in the Red Hat Enterprise Linux ~> CentOS process. But then you have to remove all things copyrighted (in this case, Elive logos, etc.).
As for all the accusations in the Elive affair, which is far too immature for me to understand, you be nice and sort that out. Next time, send Mr Bodnar an email first, he actually answers them, you know.
Comment by h3rman — July 9, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
I can’t help but think that DistroWatch made an honest mistake in posting the direct file link to Elive. There was no malicious intent, just a concern for the Linux community, and a desire to point them to a distro (free?) that appeared to be difficult to get to. DistroWatch serves the community, not Elive. They apologized, and made their case. However, you have been doing a lot of truly childish name-calling: shameful, uncourteous (discourteous), ungentlemanly, disrespectful and, most recently, drama queen. Seriously now, who’s being a drama queen here. Where’s your apology for your part in this misunderstanding? You seem to have misunderstood DistroWatch’s role in the Linux community, and are truly embarrassing yourself. Has anybody responded with complete support for your stand? Apologize like an adult, and drop this public display of what should be a simple private dispute. Reserve rants for when you ask DistroWatch to do something reasonable, remember to say please, and they refuse. Rant when they intentionally cause you grief, as you seem to be doing to them. I don’t see DistroWatch going on a rant. That is the moral high-ground.
Comment by Basil — July 9, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
Apologise for what misconception? I wrote on my _personal_ weblog why I have _moral_ problems with this action by DistroWatch. They posted a direct link to an .iso file, even though it was _crystal clear_ the developer did not want that.
I find that morally unacceptable, and hence, am perfectly within my right to rant on my _personal_ weblog.
And my morals don’t magically change just because DW wrote a reply, you know. Then my morals would be worth exactly shite.
Comment by Administrator — July 9, 2007 @ 2:14 pm
I was amused reading the explanation and comments thereon. If Elive developers do not want distrowatch to publish download links, then they should request distrowatch and observe whether distrowatch removes link or not. If not removed. then this game can continue.
It is a issue between Elive developers and distrowatch. Elive developers appear to be silent and others are fighting. If there is a burgalry in a house who should complaint, burglar or owner?.
Comment by Arun Kalyankar — July 9, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
I find that morally unacceptable, and hence, am perfectly within my right to rant on my _personal_ weblog.
Which you link to on OSNews.com, which you maintain.
Comment by h3rman — July 9, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Where did I link to this entry on OSNews’ frontpage?
I think you are mistaking the staff blog with OSNews. They are two different entities. The staff blog is just a place where our three blogs are fed to for convenience.
Comment by Administrator — July 9, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
Comparing distrowatch to a doctor/killer is such a piss poor analogy. Always with the extreme ones, lame. WTF is up with the eyes watching you on the elive download page ? Is that supposed to make us feel guilty if we don’t donate ? Big brother from 1984, anyone ?
http://www.dallmeierart.com/21352c110.jpg
Distrowatch should take it down if he doesn’t want it mirrored on their server. I can understand him needing donations, and he probably gets more with guilt than kindness, but it doesn’t mean I have to like it, or that I will donate.
Comment by mikesum32 — July 9, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
I think you are mistaking the staff blog with OSNews.
So what? It’s on OSNews. All you have to do to see the words “Shame on you distrowatch” is to scroll down. You allow that link to be there, or who else did?
You even announced to “punish” Distrowatch on your “personal blog”. Of which the first url you come across is http://osnews.com/staff/permalink.php/1539/shame_on_you_distrowatch.html, which is on OSNews.
I quote:
I will be sure to not link to any Distrowatch story until this situation is resolved.
And in which quality do you “punish” distrowatch.com? As Thom the blogger or as Thom the OSNews staff member?
Comment by h3rman — July 9, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
@h3rman : obviously you need an update on your GPL knowledge, even Red Hat Enterprise isos can be redistributed as is perfectly legally, this has already been acknowledged by the Red Hat team. It is true however that links to those isos are not that easy to find which is a shame.
@Thom : apparently your high moral standards are more keen to protect the lame revenue scheme of a developer than to protect the freedom provided by the GPL which make his distro legally redistributable. Thus providing a link for people to download & try out that distro has nothing to be shameful about it is only an application of that freedom which you should respect, moreover considering that his distro wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the work of so many other developers which he relies on for free.
As your “moral” dictates you to respect the intention of the elive developper, what about respecting the intention of the GPL which is that software be free, free as in beer… not free as in “not gratis”.
From the respond there are to your ramblings it seems almost noone supports your view on this matter. Are we all just being immoral or could it be that you’re ‘moral’ is just inadequate in this case???
Comment by ShakaZ — July 9, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
You’re really not getting it, are you?
Like I said _in both blog entries_, there is _nothing_ illegal about what DistroWatch has done. However, that does not make it morally the right thing to do. When an old lady is standing on the sidewalk (not a pedestrian crossing in sight), waiting to cross the road, I will pull over, and allow her to cross the road, _despite_ the fact that I am 100% allowed to not stop.
I _know_ the GPL allows for the redistribution, I _never_ contested that. _All_ I said on my blog here is that I morally _disapprove_ of the practice. Is that really worth all the fuss? I have the _right_ to express my opinion, just like DistroWatch has. I am not “ordering” DW to respect the developer and do as I want them to, I _just_ expressed my discontent, _on my blog_.
Contrary to DW, who blew this thing way out of proportion.
From the respond there are to your ramblings it seems almost noone supports your view on this matter. Are we all just being immoral or could it be that you’re ‘moral’ is just inadequate in this case???
Nonsense argument. My moral values are not dictated by a few DistroWatch readers.
Comment by Administrator — July 9, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
You’re the one who seems to not get it… What is so morally unacceptable about exercising the right to redistribute provided by the GPL???
Comment by ShakaZ — July 9, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
obviously you need an update on your GPL knowledge, even Red Hat Enterprise isos can be redistributed as is perfectly legally, this has already been acknowledged by the Red Hat team.
Well, I’m happy to receive that update here and now. :)
If what you tell me is true, I stand corrected.
However, what about the copyright issues? Red Hat Enterprise Linux, when installed, contains various logos and other copyrighted material which is not covered by the GPL. Even for the Fedora developers it is explicitly not allowed to use the Red Hat logo. Could you clarify that? I thought it is perfectly allowed by the GPL to create a Linux distro and distribute it only to paying customers; the GPL rights can still be exercised by those that rebuild the software from the source (the source-rpms in this case).
Also, please do provide me with a link to Red Hat saying you can freely distribute their RHEL isos.
It is true however that links to those isos are not that easy to find which is a shame.
Why do you need them? There’s CentOS, White Box, etc.
Comment by h3rman — July 9, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
@Herman : I agree with you that now those links are less useful then they could have been by the past.
As i understand it those copyrighted logos can’t be used in a new distro without RedHat’s approval, a bit like it’s the case with Firefox hence the appearance of IceWeasel. Firefox can though be redistributed as is with those logos included.
@Thom : You might also remember that those responding to your blog might as well be OSnews readers, as is my case. But i’m pretty sure that even if 99.99% of OSNews readers would disagree with you, you’d still be 100% sure your “moral” view should prevail, whatever valid arguments we could throw at you to prove you wrong. Open Source is also about Open Mind, which implies admitting that you might be wrong… sometimes.
Comment by ShakaZ — July 9, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
I feel it should be reiterated that Thom’s opinion of Distrowatch is that of Thom and not necessarily of OSNews, LLC or any its volunteer staff except Thom. Whatever action Thom chooses to take, right or wrong, is not representative of the rest of the OSNews staff.
Comment by Adam — July 9, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
The STAFF blogs on osnews have a big fast disclaimer: “All opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of OSNews.com, our sponsors, or our affiliates.” These are simply RSS feeds there found in one place for convenience, not part of osnews’ official line.
So, no, what Thom wrote is his personal opinion, not OSNews’ official line — no matter if the rest of the osnews editors agree or not. If it was the official line, it would have been posted in the front page of osnews. But it didn’t. What was written, was Thom’s PERSONAL stance on the issue.
And speaking about the issue itself: This is a dispute that the Elive developer must clear up. He told Thom that he was bummed that Distrowatch was linking to the ISO directly. Clear as day. So Thom’s blog post was constructed on the belief that this was the case. If Elive’s developer LIED to Thom, or he didn’t pursue the matter with Distrowatch further, that’s ultimately his problem and the real originator of the whole issue.
Comment by Eugenia — July 9, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
“As a proper journalistic outlet”
From my understanding one of the things that separates Journalists (particularly proper ones) is that they at least try to get both sides of a story.
Now I fully understand that posting the link while perhaps not illegal is not very sporting. Understood. But where in both of your postings did you attempt to get the other side of the story? Also when a question arose on the legitimacy of some of Thanatermesis’s statements you hid behind the “it’s what he said” lame cover.
Yep his words, which you printed and did nothing to verify nor did you attempt to at least get the other side. You claim to ride the moral high ground when your postings are nothing but regurgitation of unverified statements. Seems ungentlemen like thing to do.
I beg to differ with your last statement, it DOES appear that Morality is for sale, you just have to twist the terms to suit you.
Comment by Nnyan — July 9, 2007 @ 5:13 pm
We know that, Adam. :)
@ShakaZ
I’ve been reading stuff here and there and I’m starting to feel that you’re not entirely right. You cannot distribute the original RHEL isos, since it would mean distributing copyrighted material owned by Red Hat. You can only download the source and rebuild. Which is what Oracle, CentOS, Startcom, White Box, and others did. The fact that you *can* freely distribute several other distros, including their copyrighted logos that would be on the installed system, is that unlike Red Hat, they gave explicit permission to do so.
In any case, running CentOS 5 like a charm here. :)
Comment by h3rman — July 9, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
Thank you Adam and Eugenia.
And yes, Eugenia, I have already emailed Thanatermesis.
At Nnyan:
Please, as you’re reading this, take a look at your browser’s address field, and tell me if it reads “www.osnews.com”, or “cogscanthink.blogsome.com”.
Again, this _personal_ weblog is _not_ OSNews. On OSNews, we do our very best to uphold proper journalistic measures. On this weblog, I can be as unjournalistic as I very well please. Nowhere do I claim that my personal weblog is a bastion of journalistic prudence. _Nowehere_.
Comment by Administrator — July 9, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
@Herman : here’s a link in french about that subject : http://linuxfr.org/2004/06/20/16610.html
I’m sure you can find plenty others with you friend Goooogle ;)
@Thom : Yes we know, even though having the opinion of other members of the staff could be interesting in this discussion.
@Eugenia : I really don’t care about who lied or whatever… the only thing that matters is what the “moral” stance should be regarding the links to redistributable isos, when those aren’t provided for free on the download page of an opensource OS. I personally think that to remain true to the spirit of free software such links should either be provided by the news sites or at least not be censored when they appear in comments to stories.
I don’t think the intention of the OS developers or the morals of the news editor should prevent the right to redistribute free software from being exercised.
Comment by ShakaZ — July 9, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
Great. I have a different moral regarding this issue than you or DistroWatch. You look at this issue from the standpoint of the software’s license, and I try to look at the people behind that software.
I personally think that to remain true to the spirit of free software such links should either be provided by the news sites or at least not be censored when they appear in comments to stories.
You are free to start your own website. But as long as I am the managing editor of OSNews, it will be my morals that shine through its content. That’s not something you can blame me for. I wouldn’t like to betray my own sense of what’s right and wrong.
The comments to this entry will now be closed. The issue has been discussed enough, and we’re not getting anywhere. I will await Thanatermesis’ reply to my email, and then I’ll report back. On my blog - not on OSNews.
Comment by Administrator — July 9, 2007 @ 5:44 pm