Re: [cobalt-users] Support, Warranty and Hype

[Jeff Lasman <jblists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Carrie Bartkowiak wrote:

> The Cobalt software does not actually make changes to the existing
> free software file... it totally re-writes it. Everything is kept in
> that PostgreSQL database and when you need a change done (say, to the
> httpd.conf file), it pulls the info out of the database and lays down
> a completely new file with your updated data.

Read /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf, Carrie... go ahead... I'll wait
<smile>...

Okay, I'll make it easy... here's a copy of the first few lines

##
## httpd.conf -- Apache HTTP server configuration file
##

# This is the main server configuration file. See URL
http://www.apache.org/
# fo: instructions.

# Do NOT simply read the instructions in here without understanding
# what they do, if you are unsure consult the online docs. You have been
# warned.

# Originally by Rob McCool

This is the same header to the same file, as it exists in the same
verison of apache as that used in the RaQ.  It doesn't matter if they
wrote it from scratch or not.  Even if it didn't credit Rob McCool as
the original author (exactly as the one in the standard Red Hat
distribution does) it would still be opensource code.  In fact, Rob
McCool didn't even write it for Apache, he wrote it for NCSA.  So it's
roots go back quite a bit.

It uses the same directives and it wouldn't work if it didn't.  It's
open source.  If you write it, if I write it, or if Cobalt writes it. 
It's still open source.  While I have a lot of respect for Rodolfo, if
he said it wans't, he's wrong.

> I know that's how the GUI works with the httpd.conf and many other
> files (/etc/named/records, for example), but I'm not sure if
> Rodolfo's explanation is right on the mark. It seems close enough for
> me, though, to hold water and pretty much explain how Cobalt makes
> proprietary out of Open Source.  :)

You CAN'T make proprietary out of open source.  You can have separate
products.  And guess what; it doesn't matter if they're statically or
dynamically linked either.  If they're statically linked to NON
open-source libraries, then they're NOT open source, but otherwise they
are.  How you link it has nothing to do with open source.  It's the code
you link, not how it's linked.

But guess what... none of this has EVER been tested in court.  And the
whole concept of derivative work was developed long before we knew
anything about computers, so we have no idea at all what any judge is
actually going to say.

Jeff
-- 
Jeff Lasman <jblists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Linux and Cobalt/Sun/RaQ Consulting
nobaloney.net
P. O. Box 52672, Riverside, CA  92517
voice: (909) 778-9980  *  fax: (702) 548-9484