webadmin-list — Webmin users mailing list

RE: [webmin-l] Webmin Shorewall manual

[Rouke de J. <rou...@gm...>]

Aaah, yes, well, if it's ok, I will include your links in the manual then?
Rouke

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: web...@li...
[mailto:web...@li...] Namens David W. Brown
Verzonden: zondag 18 september 2005 1:56
Aan: web...@li...
Onderwerp: RE: [webmin-l] Webmin Shorewall manual

Hello Rouke, you're not wrong. Just as I stated: maybe there are some
Webminers out there that are not aware of the PDF manuals. :-) David.

On 17/Sep/2005 07:32 Rouke de Jong wrote ..
> Ah yes, I have looked at the links, but that's the standard manual for
> configging Shorewall, not for creating a Shorewall config with webmin,
> that's why I made mine, correct me if I'm wrong though.
> 
> Rouke
> 
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: web...@li...
> [mailto:web...@li...] Namens David W. Brown
> Verzonden: zaterdag 17 september 2005 9:48
> Aan: web...@li...
> Onderwerp: Re: [webmin-l] Webmin Shorewall manual
> 
> Hello Rouke, I am a longtime user of Webmin and in particular: Shorewall
> (the reason my box is still on the web). I thought you may be interested
> in
> the links posted by Tom Eastep on his Shorewall users ML. These are PDF
> manuals and I used them to create Webmin/Other/Custom Commands for those
> features not currently covered in the current version of Webmin. Maybe
> you
> have already seen the PDF manuals but just in case there are other
Webminers
> out there that have not seen the PDF manuals. 8-) David.
> 
> ftp://slovakia.shorewall.net/mirror/shorewall/pdf/
> http://slovakia.shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/pdf/
> rsync://slovakia.shorewall.net/shorewall/pdf/
> 
> 
> On 16/Sep/2005 07:55 Rouke de Jong wrote ..
> > Hiya
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > First time ever posting on the list, so let me introduce myself first,
> > I'm
> > Rouke de Jong, Shorewall and Webmin user :-). I have been working with
> > Shorewall for quite some time now to much satisfaction. I love the way
> > Shorewall administration is integrated in Webmin, but unfortunately I've
> > never been able to find a proper manual how to configure Shorewall using
> > Webmin. So I took it upon myself to make it, as is common in the linux
> > world, it's not totally finished, but I wanted to ask some of you about
> > your
> > opinion regarding my work so far. The link is
> > http://130.89.226.17/hd3/shorewall%20webmin/Shore-Webmin.htm but please
> > be
> > gentle, my connection is not up to massive visits. Well, thanks in
> advance.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Rouke
> David Brown
> IT/Systems
> KBR - Gov. Ops. - USMI
> Kirkuk, Iraq
> Camp Warrior
> APO 09359
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF.Net email is sponsored by:
> Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server.
Download
> it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
> Sony(tm)PSP.  Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
> -
> Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at
web...@li...
> To remove yourself from this list, go to
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF.Net email is sponsored by:
> Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server.
Download
> it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
> Sony(tm)PSP.  Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
> -
> Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at
web...@li...
> To remove yourself from this list, go to
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list
David Brown
IT/Systems
KBR - Gov. Ops. - USMI
Kirkuk, Iraq
Camp Warrior
APO 09359



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP.  Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
-
Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li...
To remove yourself from this list, go to
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list

RE: [webmin-l] Webmin Shorewall manual

[David W. B. <dw...@we...>]

Hello Rouke, you're not wrong. Just as I stated: maybe there are some Webminers out there that are not aware of the PDF manuals. :-) David.

On 17/Sep/2005 07:32 Rouke de Jong wrote ..
> Ah yes, I have looked at the links, but that's the standard manual for
> configging Shorewall, not for creating a Shorewall config with webmin,
> that's why I made mine, correct me if I'm wrong though.
> 
> Rouke
> 
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: web...@li...
> [mailto:web...@li...] Namens David W. Brown
> Verzonden: zaterdag 17 september 2005 9:48
> Aan: web...@li...
> Onderwerp: Re: [webmin-l] Webmin Shorewall manual
> 
> Hello Rouke, I am a longtime user of Webmin and in particular: Shorewall
> (the reason my box is still on the web). I thought you may be interested
> in
> the links posted by Tom Eastep on his Shorewall users ML. These are PDF
> manuals and I used them to create Webmin/Other/Custom Commands for those
> features not currently covered in the current version of Webmin. Maybe
> you
> have already seen the PDF manuals but just in case there are other Webminers
> out there that have not seen the PDF manuals. 8-) David.
> 
> ftp://slovakia.shorewall.net/mirror/shorewall/pdf/
> http://slovakia.shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/pdf/
> rsync://slovakia.shorewall.net/shorewall/pdf/
> 
> 
> On 16/Sep/2005 07:55 Rouke de Jong wrote ..
> > Hiya
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > First time ever posting on the list, so let me introduce myself first,
> > I'm
> > Rouke de Jong, Shorewall and Webmin user :-). I have been working with
> > Shorewall for quite some time now to much satisfaction. I love the way
> > Shorewall administration is integrated in Webmin, but unfortunately I've
> > never been able to find a proper manual how to configure Shorewall using
> > Webmin. So I took it upon myself to make it, as is common in the linux
> > world, it's not totally finished, but I wanted to ask some of you about
> > your
> > opinion regarding my work so far. The link is
> > http://130.89.226.17/hd3/shorewall%20webmin/Shore-Webmin.htm but please
> > be
> > gentle, my connection is not up to massive visits. Well, thanks in
> advance.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Rouke
> David Brown
> IT/Systems
> KBR - Gov. Ops. - USMI
> Kirkuk, Iraq
> Camp Warrior
> APO 09359
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF.Net email is sponsored by:
> Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
> it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
> Sony(tm)PSP.  Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
> -
> Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li...
> To remove yourself from this list, go to
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF.Net email is sponsored by:
> Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
> it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
> Sony(tm)PSP.  Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
> -
> Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li...
> To remove yourself from this list, go to
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list
David Brown
IT/Systems
KBR - Gov. Ops. - USMI
Kirkuk, Iraq
Camp Warrior
APO 09359

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license

[Roger B.A. K. <ro...@qu...>]

Barry wrote:

> The crux of my argument is that you can not attach a dual license to
> previously GPL'd code base that is incompatible with the GPL. that is
> subtly different.


You betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what a license is.

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license

[Roger B.A. K. <ro...@qu...>]

Barry wrote:

> The important point is that a program once GPL'd is always GPL'd.



But code is GPL'd *to* *the* *user*.  It's not "GPL'd" bing-bang-boom.

A license applies to a product *and* *a* *user*.

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license

[Roger B.A. K. <ro...@qu...>]

Barry wrote:

> I was with you until the last sentence. The GPL absolutely *does* 
> impose limitation on the copyright owner.



This is fundamentally untrue -- impossible, in fact -- under the law.

Licenses can only affect those licensed.

The copyright owner is never licensed, so not a single word in the 
license applies to them.

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license

[Roger B.A. K. <ro...@qu...>]

Barry wrote:

>> and thus it can be licensed in any way he (or the company) choose to 
>> license it, including a non-Open Source license.
>
>
> Assuming the copyright is held by Jamie, this is true only to a point.
>

Nom it's true 100%.

> GPL'd code can not be "un-GPL'd". You can attach a dual license to it, 
> but only within the constraints of GPL. In general, this mean that the 
> license must not be *more restrictive* then GPL.



GPL is only relevant to the non-copyright-holder.

*Licenses* do not affect the right of the copyright holder.

> Look at it this way please: If you are writing code to a GPL code base 
> (which I am sure you agree you are), then any derivative works are 
> GPLd by the definition of GPL.


Something written by the copyright holder is not a derivative work.  A 
derivative work is one written by another party using the copyright work.

>> The GPL is a license.  A license dictates what folks who do not hold 
>> the copyright can do with code.  It does not have any bearing on what 
>> the holder of the copyright can do with the code.  
>
>
>
> That is absolutely incorrect. The GPL very clearly states what can and 
> can not be done with the code. Derivative works *must* be GPL. Every 
> copy of GPL plainly states this, and saying otherwise here will never 
> make it so,


The GPL very clearly states what people who use the code under the GPL 
can do to it.  This does not apply to the oener because the owner does 
not need to be granted a license.

A license aplies not only to the code, but to the speficic people who 
have to be licensed.  no license required -- no GPL effect.

> Not "free as in beer", but it does create an obligation to make it 
> "free as in speech" forever.


ONLY to people who mult be licensed to use it.


> The FSF  is the definitive place to start with licensing issues. Look 
> at http://www.fsf.org/fsf/licensing for example. Note that below there 
> it states: "Members of the Free Software community are encouraged to 
> consult with the FSF regarding licensing issues."


You don't ask a Catholic about the authority of the Pope.  You ask a 
scholar of religion.

RE: [webmin-l] Webmin Shorewall manual

[Rouke de J. <rou...@gm...>]

Ah yes, I have looked at the links, but that's the standard manual for
configging Shorewall, not for creating a Shorewall config with webmin,
that's why I made mine, correct me if I'm wrong though.

Rouke

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: web...@li...
[mailto:web...@li...] Namens David W. Brown
Verzonden: zaterdag 17 september 2005 9:48
Aan: web...@li...
Onderwerp: Re: [webmin-l] Webmin Shorewall manual

Hello Rouke, I am a longtime user of Webmin and in particular: Shorewall
(the reason my box is still on the web). I thought you may be interested in
the links posted by Tom Eastep on his Shorewall users ML. These are PDF
manuals and I used them to create Webmin/Other/Custom Commands for those
features not currently covered in the current version of Webmin. Maybe you
have already seen the PDF manuals but just in case there are other Webminers
out there that have not seen the PDF manuals. 8-) David.

ftp://slovakia.shorewall.net/mirror/shorewall/pdf/
http://slovakia.shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/pdf/
rsync://slovakia.shorewall.net/shorewall/pdf/


On 16/Sep/2005 07:55 Rouke de Jong wrote ..
> Hiya
> 
>  
> 
> First time ever posting on the list, so let me introduce myself first,
> I'm
> Rouke de Jong, Shorewall and Webmin user :-). I have been working with
> Shorewall for quite some time now to much satisfaction. I love the way
> Shorewall administration is integrated in Webmin, but unfortunately I've
> never been able to find a proper manual how to configure Shorewall using
> Webmin. So I took it upon myself to make it, as is common in the linux
> world, it's not totally finished, but I wanted to ask some of you about
> your
> opinion regarding my work so far. The link is
> http://130.89.226.17/hd3/shorewall%20webmin/Shore-Webmin.htm but please
> be
> gentle, my connection is not up to massive visits. Well, thanks in
advance.
> 
>  
> 
> Rouke
David Brown
IT/Systems
KBR - Gov. Ops. - USMI
Kirkuk, Iraq
Camp Warrior
APO 09359



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP.  Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
-
Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li...
To remove yourself from this list, go to
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list

RE: [webmin-l] Webmin Shorewall manual

[Rouke de J. <rou...@gm...>]

Hiya

I haven't seen the pdf's, will do soon, thanks! I did post the manual on the
Shorewall ML, and had it looked at, but will compare it to the pdf's. I do
think that a html manual is easier to handle though :) But thanks for the
links.

Rouke

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: web...@li...
[mailto:web...@li...] Namens David W. Brown
Verzonden: zaterdag 17 september 2005 9:48
Aan: web...@li...
Onderwerp: Re: [webmin-l] Webmin Shorewall manual

Hello Rouke, I am a longtime user of Webmin and in particular: Shorewall
(the reason my box is still on the web). I thought you may be interested in
the links posted by Tom Eastep on his Shorewall users ML. These are PDF
manuals and I used them to create Webmin/Other/Custom Commands for those
features not currently covered in the current version of Webmin. Maybe you
have already seen the PDF manuals but just in case there are other Webminers
out there that have not seen the PDF manuals. 8-) David.

ftp://slovakia.shorewall.net/mirror/shorewall/pdf/
http://slovakia.shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/pdf/
rsync://slovakia.shorewall.net/shorewall/pdf/


On 16/Sep/2005 07:55 Rouke de Jong wrote ..
> Hiya
> 
>  
> 
> First time ever posting on the list, so let me introduce myself first,
> I'm
> Rouke de Jong, Shorewall and Webmin user :-). I have been working with
> Shorewall for quite some time now to much satisfaction. I love the way
> Shorewall administration is integrated in Webmin, but unfortunately I've
> never been able to find a proper manual how to configure Shorewall using
> Webmin. So I took it upon myself to make it, as is common in the linux
> world, it's not totally finished, but I wanted to ask some of you about
> your
> opinion regarding my work so far. The link is
> http://130.89.226.17/hd3/shorewall%20webmin/Shore-Webmin.htm but please
> be
> gentle, my connection is not up to massive visits. Well, thanks in
advance.
> 
>  
> 
> Rouke
David Brown
IT/Systems
KBR - Gov. Ops. - USMI
Kirkuk, Iraq
Camp Warrior
APO 09359



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP.  Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
-
Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li...
To remove yourself from this list, go to
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list

Re: [webmin-l] graphical du

[Jamie C. <jca...@we...>]

Hi Pat,
That is a pretty cool idea for a module actually, and one that I could use myself. I think it would have to use a background job to build the usage of each directory, as this could be a fairly slow process ..

 - Jamie

-----Original Message-----

From:  "Pat Erler" <mai...@pa...>
Subj:  [webmin-l] graphical du
Date:  Sat 17 Sep 2005 5:09 pm
Size:  1K
To:  web...@li...

hi jamie, listmembers,

one of my more regular tasks is wondering where my diskspace has gone. du  
is fine for this du --max-depth=1 even better, but its slow and in case of  
this tedious job an image would really say more then a thousand words.

so, i wonder if this woudn't be a wonderful job for a little webmin module  
or an extension to an already exsiting one. one could even think about a  
cache for du, regularly updated by a cronjob similar to the nightly  
"updatedb" to fuel the locate command.

it would show a bar graph and numbers in definite kb or Mb or GB (not  
blocks or whatever uninformative nonsense du on some systems tends to  
spill out) - nothing fancy..

jamie? :)

PAT

--


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP.  Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
-
Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li...
To remove yourself from this list, go to
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list

Re: [webmin-l] Webmin Shorewall manual

[David W. B. <dw...@we...>]

Hello Rouke, I am a longtime user of Webmin and in particular: Shorewall (the reason my box is still on the web). I thought you may be interested in the links posted by Tom Eastep on his Shorewall users ML. These are PDF manuals and I used them to create Webmin/Other/Custom Commands for those features not currently covered in the current version of Webmin. Maybe you have already seen the PDF manuals but just in case there are other Webminers out there that have not seen the PDF manuals. 8-) David.

ftp://slovakia.shorewall.net/mirror/shorewall/pdf/
http://slovakia.shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/pdf/
rsync://slovakia.shorewall.net/shorewall/pdf/


On 16/Sep/2005 07:55 Rouke de Jong wrote ..
> Hiya
> 
>  
> 
> First time ever posting on the list, so let me introduce myself first,
> I'm
> Rouke de Jong, Shorewall and Webmin user :-). I have been working with
> Shorewall for quite some time now to much satisfaction. I love the way
> Shorewall administration is integrated in Webmin, but unfortunately I've
> never been able to find a proper manual how to configure Shorewall using
> Webmin. So I took it upon myself to make it, as is common in the linux
> world, it's not totally finished, but I wanted to ask some of you about
> your
> opinion regarding my work so far. The link is
> http://130.89.226.17/hd3/shorewall%20webmin/Shore-Webmin.htm but please
> be
> gentle, my connection is not up to massive visits. Well, thanks in advance.
> 
>  
> 
> Rouke
David Brown
IT/Systems
KBR - Gov. Ops. - USMI
Kirkuk, Iraq
Camp Warrior
APO 09359

[webmin-l] graphical du

[Pat E. <mai...@pa...>]

hi jamie, listmembers,

one of my more regular tasks is wondering where my diskspace has gone. du  
is fine for this du --max-depth=1 even better, but its slow and in case of  
this tedious job an image would really say more then a thousand words.

so, i wonder if this woudn't be a wonderful job for a little webmin module  
or an extension to an already exsiting one. one could even think about a  
cache for du, regularly updated by a cronjob similar to the nightly  
"updatedb" to fuel the locate command.

it would show a bar graph and numbers in definite kb or Mb or GB (not  
blocks or whatever uninformative nonsense du on some systems tends to  
spill out) - nothing fancy..

jamie? :)

PAT

--

Re: [webmin-l] More Virtualmin

[Jamie C. <jca...@we...>]

On Sat, 2005-09-17 at 01:13, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:
> Jamie Cameron wrote:
> 
> >Ah, I see .. Unfortunately, that kind of setup is not yet supported. However, it may be in future, since it seems quite common.
> > 
> >I do have a question though - what is the advantage of using several different IPs for name-based virtual hosting, rather than a single IP?
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> Legacy reasons.  We're merging smaller servers onto one larger one, and 
> since we don't control all of our users' DNS, it's easier just to not 
> change it.

Ah, I see .. that makes sense now.

Actually, you may be able to support this configuration in Virtualmin
already, if you are talking about a server that has the DNS hosted
elsewhere. Because the apache virtualhosts that virtualmin creates are
like :

<VirtualHost *>
ServerName www.foo.com

All you would need to do is add a directive to httpd.conf like :

NameVirtualHost 1.2.3.4

where 1.2.3.4 is the IP that www.foo.com resolves too. Even though
virtualmin thinks that the IP for the foo.com server is the main IP for
your system, the website will still work.

 - Jamie

RE: [webmin-l] File; Folder Ownership

[Vernon J. S. <ve...@ve...>]

Please do not get this vernon confused with the vernon that writes the
Virtualmin 3rd party modules. We are two different people. =3D-)

I am the on that writes the some Virtualmin 3rd party modules if you =
notice
my email address, to whom it may concern or cares.

------------------------------------------
Vernon J. Spangler
http://www.vernonspangler.org/
(520) 512-8410 Home
(520) 990-1863 Cell
ve...@ve...
------------------------------------------
  Powered by Windows XP Professional
    Sent by Microsoft Outlook 2003

-----Original Message-----
From: Vern [mailto:ve...@cw...]=20
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 5:05 PM
To: web...@li...
Subject: Re: [webmin-l] File; Folder Ownership

> You can't have two owners. =A0

I thought not.

> You can, however, create a group containing=20
> those two users (it can be a secondary group, and probably should be,=20
> since many systems have a specific primary group for normal users, or=20
> they auto-generate a primary group named after the user), and then set =

> the group ownership to that group. =A0Just make sure group can =
read/write=20
> your file, and all will be well. =A0

Well I created a super user at it where called Vernon and made it's
secondary group as=20
root. But still cannot write to the folder unless the folder has Vernon =
set
as user.=20
So how do I make it so that a group has write access?


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. =
Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP.  Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
-
Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at =
web...@li...
To remove yourself from this list, go to
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list

Re: [webmin-l] Webmin Shorewall manual

[Jamie C. <jca...@we...>]

Hi Rouke,

Your documentation is quite impressive, and much needed as I don't think
any of the webmin books cover shorewall. Do you mind if I link to it
from www.webmin.com ?

 - Jamie

On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 22:55, Rouke de Jong wrote:
> Hiya
> 
>  
> 
> First time ever posting on the list, so let me introduce myself first,
> I’m Rouke de Jong, Shorewall and Webmin user J. I have been working
> with Shorewall for quite some time now to much satisfaction. I love
> the way Shorewall administration is integrated in Webmin, but
> unfortunately I’ve never been able to find a proper manual how to
> configure Shorewall using Webmin. So I took it upon myself to make it,
> as is common in the linux world, it’s not totally finished, but I
> wanted to ask some of you about your opinion regarding my work so far.
> The link is
> http://130.89.226.17/hd3/shorewall%20webmin/Shore-Webmin.htm but
> please be gentle, my connection is not up to massive visits. Well,
> thanks in advance.
> 
>  
> 
> Rouke
> 
> 

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license

[Freddie C. <fca...@sd...>]

> Nathan Kurz wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:00:00PM -0700, Barry wrote:
>>> Joe Cooper wrote:
>> First, a disclaimer.  I am not a lawyer.  I am not even an expert.
>> But I do feel like I do have a pretty good grasp on copyright law
>> and the GPL, at least as interpreted in the United States.

>> IMHO, both of you are right on certain points:

>> 1) If you own a piece of code, you can relicense it however you
>> want. The GPL is a license to users, and as such grants rights where
>>  there once were none.  It does not reduce the owner's rights that
>> already exist.  The 'code' in the abstract is not subject to
>> copyright or the GPL, instead the particular released version is. If
>> the owner wants to make a new version and release it under a
>> different license, this is fine and good.  It does not affect the
>> instantiations already released under the GPL.

> I was with you until the last sentence. The GPL absolutely *does*
> impose limitation on the copyright owner. In particular, all
> *derivative* works *must* be GPL'd. This is the essence of GPL. There
> is no escaping it

Wrong.  Derivative works are those created by *others*.  The original
coders are *not* subject to the license they choose when they
*release* the code.

--=20
Freddie Cash, CCNT CCLP        Helpdesk / Network Support Tech.
School District 73             (250) 377-HELP [377-4357]
fc...@sd...               hel...@sd...

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license

[Craig W. <cra...@az...>]

On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 22:04 -0600, Nathan Kurz wrote:

> 
> Joe: I realize this discussion isn't specific to Webmin, but I think
> it is a very important one.  If future developers are afraid to
> license code under the GPL because of fear that it can then never be
> used under anything but the GPL, I fear it will harm the future of
> open source software.  And if I'm wrong, well, it would be worth a
> considerable sum to me to find that out now.  But if you really want
> this discussion to go away, request again and I'll disappear.
----
here's the deal - when you ask for a legal opinion, you control the
answer by how the issue/question is framed. These things are litigated
because not everything is as clear cut as it sometimes seems.

If you want opinion about applicability of a licensing scheme is proper,
you either A) hire an attorney with at least some reasonable expertise
in IP or B) ask legal staff at FSF C) debate it ad infinitum on a mail
list where it is certain never to be settled. 

At least if you want to debate it on this list - where is the
'licence' ? - it's not included with the development version that I just
downloaded and that leads me to believe that there is no license
accompanying the code as distributed - except for the LICENCE file that
accompanies webmin which is clearly not a GPL license and clearly not a
ransomware license. What is the license being discussed? The very vague
description on Joe's web site?

But since this is Joe and Jamie's baby, they are entitled to make the
call of the license and have the responsibility for its suitableness and
I don't see them asking for our opinion, in fact, I read just the
opposite.

Lastly, offering a wager on your opinion as a challenge against someone
else's opinion to be judged by yet another opinion is rather silly,
isn't it?

Craig


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license

[Nathan K. <na...@ve...>]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 06:05:06PM -0700, Barry wrote:
> The beef, in a nutshell, is that doing so appears to be an unprecedented 
> interpretation of the GPL.
>
> I am willing to stand 100% corrected and say so publicly if someone 
> shows where this is an accepted interpretation of the GPL by the fsf, 
> and the gpl defense community as a whole.

I appreciate your willingness to test the idea.  I think both of us
are more interested in learning what the actual answer is, rather to
simply trying to convince people we are right.  It's just that we are
both equally convinced that we are right.  So...

Exactly what proof would you accept?  I'm a little leary of the 'and'
in your last sentence, since it would be hard to establish the 'as a
whole' part.  Is there an individual of suitable stature (employed or
not by the FSF) whose opinion you would be willing to trust?

And exactly which interpretation we are talking about?  Can we state
it as: "Assuming that a previous version of a body of code has been
made available under the GPL, is it necessarily illegal for the
undisputed owner of that code to offer to license a newly created
derivative of that code under terms not compatible with the GPL?"

Depending on your choice of arbitrator (and any revisions to the
question), I'd be willing to wager up to $1,000 USD on a 'no' answer.
The money would be escrowed in advance, you would win on a 'yes', and
the bet would be cancelled on any answer requiring equivocation.  Or I
could also be happy with a smaller token bet if you would prefer.

Nathan Kurz
na...@ve...

Joe: I realize this discussion isn't specific to Webmin, but I think
it is a very important one.  If future developers are afraid to
license code under the GPL because of fear that it can then never be
used under anything but the GPL, I fear it will harm the future of
open source software.  And if I'm wrong, well, it would be worth a
considerable sum to me to find that out now.  But if you really want
this discussion to go away, request again and I'll disappear.

Re: [webmin-l] File; Folder Ownership

[Jamie C. <jca...@we...>]

Hi Vern,
Standard unix permissions don't allow a file to have two owners. However, if your filesystem and OS supports ACLs, then use the ACL button in the file manager to grant access to a second (or more) user.

At the moment, ACLs are supported by the Solaris UFS filesystem, and Linux EXT3 with a kernel patch. I'm not sure if this patch is yet a standard part of the kernel.

 - Jamie

-----Original Message-----

From:  "Vern" <ve...@cw...>
Subj:  [webmin-l] File; Folder Ownership
Date:  Sat 17 Sep 2005 9:46 am
Size:  820 bytes
To:  "Webmin List" <web...@li...>

This may sound like a crazy question but it's never been an issue for me until now.

I was wondering if there is a way to have two owner's of a folder. If I go under the 
file manager and I select the folder and try to add two user names under the owenrship 
bu it will not let me. Is there any other way or is this not possible?

Thanks


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP.  Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
-
Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li...
To remove yourself from this list, go to
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license

[Freddie C. <fca...@sd...>]

You're forgetting one simple fact:  VirtualMin has never been
"released" to Jamie.  He's the originator, the coder, the copyright
owner.  He can do whatever he wants with the code.  His developments
are not derivatives of the GPL'd virtualmin code, as that code has
never been "released" to him.  He can change the license on new
releases as he sees fit.  Old releases are GPL'd and derivatives of
that *that others create* have to be GPL'd.

The license on the code only applies once Jamie releases it to the
public at large.  The code sitting on his computer that he is using,
coding, editing, is not under the GPL.  It is simply copyrighted,
nothing more.

It's only once the code has left his computer, that the license takes
effect.

If I write a program, I get to choose the license.  And I can pick a
separate license for every person I give it to, if I wanted to.  I own
the copyright, so I can do whatever I want with it.  Once it leaves my
computer, it is covered by whatever license I pick, and *only that
code* is under that license.
--=20
Freddie Cash, CCNT CCLP        Helpdesk / Network Support Tech.
School District 73             (250) 377-HELP [377-4357]
fc...@sd...               hel...@sd...

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license

[Barry <we...@i1...>]

Joe Cooper wrote:

> Hi Barry and all,
>
> I'm going to try this again, and hopefully, it will put this thing to 
> bed before the rest of the list gets tired of our legal ranting.
>
> Barry, the crux of your argument is that we, the copyright holders, 
> cannot make a commercial variant of something that we have previously 
> released under the GPL and that dual-licensing with the GPL and a 
> GPL-incompatible license is not legally supportable.


That is not the crux of my argument at all.

The crux of my argument is that you can not attach a dual license to
previously GPL'd code base that is incompatible with the GPL. that is
subtly different.

If you showed me that the other companies you described as having dual
licenses (they do have dual licenses, I agree) offer *different
versions* under different licesnses, then that would be very interesting
to me indeed. I culd find no indication that, e.g., the price paid by a
SleepuCat customer buys them one line of code different then can be had
for free under GPL at any time. I gooled "gpl dual license and found a
interview with a SleepyCat exec who described this insome detail. I
don';t have the url right now, but I am sure you can find it.

> You've stated this in dozens of different ways, but it all comes down 
> to whether we have a legal right to do so.  As I mentioned before, 
> this is a very common misconception about the GPL.  So, let's dispel 
> this myth first with a simple question:
>
> Who will sue the copyright holder for not following the letter of the 
> license under which they have released their code?

There are many ways pressure can be brought to bear with, or without
suing. I already listed a bunch of them.

But to answer you specifically, I suppose anyone who wants to can sue
you. The courst will sort it out later, and even if tossed, it is a hit
to your limited resources.

>
>
> A copyright infringement lawsuit would have to be brought in order for 
> any "legal mess" to occur, which is what you believe you're helping us 
> avoid with this discussion.

I haven't said one word about copyright infringements. I give you the
benefit of the doubt as to having ownership of the copyright. this is
not about that at all.

>
> So, who will bring this lawsuit?  You?  The FSF?  Virtualmin, Inc.?


Need not be a lawsuit, nor one aginst you. It could be open legal
questions that will tangle up your relationship with OPenCountry, or
generally the word mught get around that you are on questionable and
unresolved licensing ground  among potential sponsors or other financial
backers of your ventures. This might cause their behavior to be at more
arms-length with you then it would otherwise be, and prove detrimental
to your ovewrall efforts, and hence cause you to be less successful for
all your users.

Seriously. Ask Opencountry about it. Michael Grove is a good guy, he
will help you sort through this. I might ask him myself about these
issues discretely, without referring to you specifically, the next time
I bump into him around town. Or, if you would prefer me to ask him
directly, that is fine by me. I want you to have all the success you
could ever hope for and more.

>
> Of these three options, only one has a legal leg to stand on, and I'll 
> give you three guesses as to which one it is.  The first two guesses 
> don't count.


I am not suggesting that finding a lawsuit in your mail is your biggest
risk at all. You are not going to be liek the guys from Kazaa/Skype
slinking around avoiding lawsuit servers. It is the broad environment
that will lead to your better success that I am concerned about.

I am telling you, and you can ask around if you don't believe me, this
is the kind of stuff of due diligence all the time. If your product is
of questionable provenance, it is going to make it harder for you to
find financial support.

But, like I said, there is a way out of this maze, and it only depends
on the way you word the plan.

>
> It ought to be obvious from this simple question, and the obvious 
> answer, that there can be no such thing as a license that applies to 
> the copyright holder (a license has to be enforceable under the law, 
> and thus there has to be someone with greater rights than the license 
> grants).  


Good. Then show me examples where companies released non-GPL'd versions
of previously (and future as you plan to do) GPL'd code please. I know
you plan, and will do, only a temporary fork. I don't mistrust you. But
you keep claiming it is common without showing an example or three.

> So, there goes the argument that we have to license every line of code 
> we write for the rest of our lives under the GPL (whether it is part 
> of Virtualmin or not).  


I never said that. GPL'ing Virtualmin only means derivatives of that
code are GPL'd (and possibly dual licensed). If it is new code, then you
can choose how to liecnse it. fsf.orgf discusses what constitutes
derived code in some detail. You know and so does everyone else, this is
just a canard, although I feel you are frustrated. Take a deep breath
and ask your attorney's, or ask your partners at Opencountry to have
their attorneys assist you. They are qualified, I am sure.

> We simply don't, and no amount of arguing that we do is going to 
> change the legal facts.  I'm just not going to argue that point any 
> further.  If you still don't believe me, I'm sorry, there's nothing 
> more I'm willing to say on the matter.  Take it up with the FSF or an 
> attorney, if you like.  

Careful what you wish for :) shouldn't you be the ones asking? I amean,
if you already had legal advice on this matter, you would have stated
that at the very beginning.


> If you believe that we have the legal copyright necessary to license 
> it to others under the GPL *despite starting out with a different 
> license*, then you must believe we also have the legal rights 
> necessary to license it under other terms.


I don't follow you their. Did you start out with a different license? Hs
that license suddenly made a reappearance? are you basing virtualmin pro
1.0 on an old versions of virtualmin where this license applied? If yes
to all of that, well, OK maybe you are most of the way there in my book,
but you haven't posed it hat way until now, if at all.

What is the other license, and is it GPL compatible?

Is any of Virtualmin based on Webmin at the time it was GPL'd? If so,
the code may be infected with GPL license requirements form the
beginning, even if you didn't intend it to be. IANAL, but if that is the
result you are relying on, you should discuss it with someone that is.

>
> On to the other issues you've raised that are new to the discussion 
> and worth covering:
>
>
> If you believe you have contributed code to Virtualmin that you would 
> rather we not include, say the word and show me the code.  

I don't recall. A line here or there maybe. I know I have pointed out a
bug or two, or asked for a minor feature that Jamie has repaired.
Whether I dug through the code and suggested the fix, I don't know. If I
did, consider it public domain.


> Let's not be wishy-washy, and say "it may be that others, or even I"...

It is not important if I did. I don;'t want any contributions out of the
code even if I did. I suppose if you care to see if I ever posted some
code or not you can search the archives. I think I probably did not, but
I am not 100% sure. I also have made some adaptations for use on my own
machines, never released to anyone, as I have done with other GPL'd code
from other projects. What I have kept and what I have shared, I am not
really sure - it is not a matter of wishy-washy.

> Either you did or you didn't.  I don't believe anyone has been misled 
> into contributing code to Virtualmin without awareness that there had 
> been a non-GPL version in the past and there would be a non-GPL 
> version in the future. 

Nah - I don't feel misled - I think the ransomware part has been around
for a while, right? I jsut didn't notice the significance of it until
your 2 recent announcements combined with the recent Mambo fiasco (which
I also use).

BTW, the Mambo developers were able to rapidly acquire the assistance of
FSF attorney Eben Moglen to assist them sorting out matters regarding
copyright holder-entity formation, code forks, funding, and GPL issues.
I am trying to help you here - really I think you will do well to review
their case and contact them. They are kindred should to all of us, and
they have just wrestled with a lot of the issues you are wrestling with.


> But if there is a piece of code that fits that description, point it 
> out.  There's no time like the present.  I suspect you greatly 
> over-estimate the amount of non-Jamie-authored code in any version of 
> Virtualmin.


I don't know if there is *any* non-Jamie code. I rarely see code posted
to this list. What is provided off-list I don't know, but based on the
nature of most queries here, I suspect little to not much. Again,
whether or not you/Jamie are the copyright holders is not the real issue
here.

>
>
> OpenCountry has nothing to do with Virtualmin, Inc. or Virtualmin 
> Professional.  Virtualmin, Inc. is a Texas Corporation with two 
> shareholders: Jamie Cameron and me.  OpenCountry are a nice bunch of 
> folks who have sponsored Webmin development, and I applaud them for 
> their involvement.  There is no need to pester them about licensing of 
> Virtualmin...they'll have no clue what you're talking about.

I suspect they would care very much about the fact hat products they
intend to support and offer their clients are properly licensed as Open
Source: http://www.opencountry.com/news/webmin.html

I agree OpenCountry folks are nice. That is why I am asking you to ask
them discretely for assistance in this matter.


> Anyway, the long and short of this issue is that a copyright holder is 
> never subject to the license under which they distribute their own 
> code, even if that license is the GPL.  


I am not saying there isn't a pretty simple way out.

> I'm out of ways to explain this, and until you come to understand this 
> fact, we simply aren't going to end up talking about the same problem.

Point me to a web site that explains this with respect to the GPL and we
are almost home free. I am willing to commit to the end of this exercise
being that you have a dual licensed product. I am not so sure I am
willing to commit to the end being that there are two code branches,
brought back into sync periodically, where one of them is subject to GPL
and the other not unless I see convincing evidence that others have done
it and the gpl community at large is OK with it.



>
> If you don't want to take my word for it, take it up with anyone you 
> like.  The FSF won't be particularly happy to hear from you, 


Why not? Their web site invites questions if you have already read their
other material, in particular the FAQ.

> but they might be willing to answer your questions (I am a core 
> developer on another large Open Source project that approached the FSF 
> about turning the project into a GNU project, and now I know their 
> approach and when they have an interest in a project, and I can assure 
> you they don't care one whit about Virtualmin).


I think becoming a gnu project and answering questions about GPL issues
are two entirely different things in their organization. I suspect the
latter is probably much harder to get their interest in then the former.

And I wouldn't pose the question in anything other then a neutral,
non-project specific way anyway, so if for some reason they are
disinclined to care about virtualmin and/or anything associated with
you, well, you wouldn't be identifiable anyway.

>
> If you'd like to keep discussing it, let's make it private, as this 
> isn't really relevant to Webmin.  


Fair enough. I will be away over the weekend anyhow so maybe this will
cool down and you can have a chance to reflect. Next week we can move
forward offline. I don't think it will be difficult or rancorous.

> I just posted the announcement here as I know there are quite a few 
> folks here who in the past had shown an interest in the ransom or GPL 
> version of Virtualmin.  Just thought I'd fill them in on what we've 
> been working on, and I really didn't intend to start a firestorm about 
> licensing.


Agreed you had some bad timing - but you recall I did ask some questions
about forking and by extent licensing *before* the virtualmin
announcement too.

Best,

Barry

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license

[Barry <we...@i1...>]

Thomas E Dukes wrote:

>Hello all!,
>
>This thread is getting old.
>
>We have all enjoyed virtualmin _FREE_ for a long time!!  If Joe wants to
>make a dollar for his hard work, _GREAT_!! He deserves it!
>  
>

Me too! I agree he and they (Jamie too!) deserve it!

>I have been very greatful for what he has done.  
>

Me too!

>I probably will never
>purchase the "Professional" version.  
>

I might someday, or at least put in a good word, but they haven't 
discussed licensing terms yet.

>Many may and that's your prerogative
>just as it is mine not to.  I don't have the need.  I just have a few
>virtual domains that I own and operate.  Joe has promised all the features
>of the "Professional" version in the _FREE_ Virtualmin but delayed, so
>what's the beef?
>  
>
The beef, in a nutshell, is that doing so appears to be an unprecedented 
interpretation of the GPL.

I am willing to stand 100% corrected and say so publicly if someone 
shows where this is an accepted interpretation of the GPL by the fsf, 
and the gpl defense community as a whole.

>My system operates on CentOS a derivative of RedHat Enterprise Linux.  I am
>greatful RedHat makes their source rpms publicly avaliable as I cannot
>afford to pay for the support of their GPL'd product.
>  
>

They do so as a convenience really - but the source code to everything 
is available under one open license or another, and is available. You 
*could* build it all form the source code itf you wanted to. That this 
is a messy operation is precisely what caused distros to arise in the 
first place, and people were willing to pay for the convenience of the 
same features they could get at more trouble.

The point is, the RPMS that redhat gets some people to pay for are 
precisely available from other places in source code version.

If Vmin was to be available in a more convenient form for a charge, with 
the same feature set, or maybe a cooler skin was available for a price, 
or better service, then that would be something else.

>Without people such as Joe and RedHat, we'd all be bowing to Bill!!!!
>  
>

I use redhat  too (or at least Fedora) but they have had to confront 
these same issues, as has every open source, and especially GPL project 
eventually.

>'nuff said!
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: web...@li... 
>>[mailto:web...@li...] On Behalf 
>>Of Joe Cooper
>>Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 7:05 PM
>>To: web...@li...
>>Subject: Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license
>>
>>Hi Barry and all,
>>
>>I'm going to try this again, and hopefully, it will put this 
>>thing to bed before the rest of the list gets tired of our 
>>legal ranting.
>>
>>Barry, the crux of your argument is that we, the copyright 
>>holders, cannot make a commercial variant of something that 
>>we have previously released under the GPL and that 
>>dual-licensing with the GPL and a GPL-incompatible license is 
>>not legally supportable.  You've stated this in dozens of 
>>different ways, but it all comes down to whether we have a 
>>legal right to do so.  As I mentioned before, this is a very 
>>common misconception about the GPL.  So, let's dispel this 
>>myth first with a simple question:
>>
>>Who will sue the copyright holder for not following the 
>>letter of the license under which they have released their code?
>>
>>A copyright infringement lawsuit would have to be brought in 
>>order for any "legal mess" to occur, which is what you 
>>believe you're helping us avoid with this discussion.
>>
>>So, who will bring this lawsuit?  You?  The FSF?  Virtualmin, Inc.?
>>
>>Of these three options, only one has a legal leg to stand on, 
>>and I'll give you three guesses as to which one it is.  The 
>>first two guesses don't count.
>>
>>It ought to be obvious from this simple question, and the 
>>obvious answer, that there can be no such thing as a license 
>>that applies to the copyright holder (a license has to be 
>>enforceable under the law, and thus there has to be someone 
>>with greater rights than the license grants).  So, there goes 
>>the argument that we have to license every line of code we 
>>write for the rest of our lives under the GPL (whether it is 
>>part of Virtualmin or not).  We simply don't, and no amount 
>>of arguing that we do is going to change the legal facts.  
>>I'm just not going to argue that point any further.  If you 
>>still don't believe me, I'm sorry, there's nothing more I'm 
>>willing to say on the matter.  Take it up with the FSF or an 
>>attorney, if you like.  If you believe that we have the legal 
>>copyright necessary to license it to others under the GPL 
>>*despite starting out with a different license*, then you 
>>must believe we also have the legal rights necessary to 
>>license it under other terms.
>>
>>On to the other issues you've raised that are new to the 
>>discussion and worth covering:
>>
>>
>>If you believe you have contributed code to Virtualmin that you would 
>>rather we not include, say the word and show me the code.  
>>Let's not be 
>>wishy-washy, and say "it may be that others, or even 
>>I"...Either you did 
>>or you didn't.  I don't believe anyone has been misled into 
>>contributing 
>>code to Virtualmin without awareness that there had been a non-GPL 
>>version in the past and there would be a non-GPL version in 
>>the future. 
>>  But if there is a piece of code that fits that description, 
>>point it 
>>out.  There's no time like the present.  I suspect you greatly 
>>over-estimate the amount of non-Jamie-authored code in any version of 
>>Virtualmin.
>>
>>
>>OpenCountry has nothing to do with Virtualmin, Inc. or Virtualmin 
>>Professional.  Virtualmin, Inc. is a Texas Corporation with two 
>>shareholders: Jamie Cameron and me.  OpenCountry are a nice bunch of 
>>folks who have sponsored Webmin development, and I applaud them for 
>>their involvement.  There is no need to pester them about 
>>licensing of 
>>Virtualmin...they'll have no clue what you're talking about.
>>
>>
>>Anyway, the long and short of this issue is that a copyright 
>>holder is 
>>never subject to the license under which they distribute 
>>their own code, 
>>even if that license is the GPL.  I'm out of ways to explain 
>>this, and 
>>until you come to understand this fact, we simply aren't 
>>going to end up 
>>talking about the same problem.
>>
>>If you don't want to take my word for it, take it up with anyone you 
>>like.  The FSF won't be particularly happy to hear from you, but they 
>>might be willing to answer your questions (I am a core developer on 
>>another large Open Source project that approached the FSF 
>>about turning 
>>the project into a GNU project, and now I know their approach 
>>and when 
>>they have an interest in a project, and I can assure you they 
>>don't care 
>>one whit about Virtualmin).
>>
>>If you'd like to keep discussing it, let's make it private, as this 
>>isn't really relevant to Webmin.  I just posted the 
>>announcement here as 
>>I know there are quite a few folks here who in the past had shown an 
>>interest in the ransom or GPL version of Virtualmin.  Just 
>>thought I'd 
>>fill them in on what we've been working on, and I really 
>>didn't intend 
>>to start a firestorm about licensing.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Joe
>>
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------
>>SF.Net email is sponsored by:
>>Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App 
>>Server. Download
>>it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
>>Sony(tm)PSP.  Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
>>-
>>Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at 
>>web...@li...
>>To remove yourself from this list, go to
>>http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>SF.Net email is sponsored by:
>Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
>it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
>Sony(tm)PSP.  Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
>-
>Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li...
>To remove yourself from this list, go to
>http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list
>
>
>  
>

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license

[Barry <we...@i1...>]

Nathan Kurz wrote:

>
>This agrees with my interpretation and with Joe's (ownership caveats
>aside), but unless I'm misinterpreting you I think it contradicts what
>you are saying.  Am I somehow misinterpreting what you are saying?
>  
>

Yes, that is part of the picture, but not all of it.

The important point is that a program once GPL'd is always GPL'd.

Nowhere on the fsf site does it say:
- gpl can be revoked except by no longer distributing the program at all 
(but others are free to continue to do so)
- a dual license could be attached to code that is already GPL'd that is 
not compatible with GPL to the extent that some of the code is FPL'd and 
some of it (perhaps on separate code branched?) is not.

It is the latter that is what I believe Joe and Jamie are proposing in 
their words and deeds.

However I do not believe it is what they are proposing in their hearts. 
IN their hearts, they just want to be paid for their work, which is fair 
and allowed under the GPL.

I think they need to dig a little deeper into the available material 
(google "gpl dual license" for example) to find the way out of this 
little maze.

They are correct that others have found their way out of the maze 
before. They are incorrect that the way others have done so is the way 
they are suggesting they want to do.

Best,

Barry

>--nate
>
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>SF.Net email is sponsored by:
>Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
>it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
>Sony(tm)PSP.  Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
>-
>Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li...
>To remove yourself from this list, go to
>http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list
>
>
>  
>

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license

[Barry <we...@i1...>]

Joe Cooper wrote:

>
> Thanks for digging this up Nate.  Exactly what we all needed to see 
> (even Barry, perhaps, will believe it coming straight from the horses 
> mouth).


I never said there isn't a way out, or that it was even complicated. 
Only that the path you are proposing is not quite proper.

The bottom line is, GPL'd code must be released to the user under GPL. 
You can pick and choose out of context quotes form the fsf site all you 
want, but that is the bottom line.

The FSF site *does* give you the way out of this. I have hinted at it in 
my  messages but left it as a exercise to the readers to find. This 
wasn't it, but it *is* getting warmer.

>
> So, I'm losing moral standing in the community.  I reckon my moral 
> standing can take a down-tick without it hurting my self esteem too 
> much.  

Well, right, it is the moral standing that is going to cause you issues 
with other potential sponsors, who have fiduciary responsibility to make 
sure the products they include among  their own products and services 
have clean license lines.

> But, if anyone disparages Jamie's moral standing in any community, 
> I'll fight 'em.  Fisticuffs, mano y mano, the ol' sweet science, 
> anytime, anyplace.  Jamie is beyond reproach.  I aint kiddin'.  Y'all 
> know I'm from Texas, right?  ;-)


Oh so that is why you can't just take my advice and ask a IP attorney 
familiar with GPL issues? ;)

You do have one or plan to have one if you are gong to have a 
corporation based on developing such code, right? I can possibly help 
you find one that won't take an arm and a leg for a retainer...

Best,

Barry

Re: [webmin-l] File; Folder Ownership

[Craig W. <cra...@az...>]

On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 17:15 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 20:04 -0400, Vern wrote:
> > > You can't have two owners.  
> > 
> > I thought not.
> > 
> > > You can, however, create a group containing 
> > > those two users (it can be a secondary group, and probably should be, 
> > > since many systems have a specific primary group for normal users, or 
> > > they auto-generate a primary group named after the user), and then set 
> > > the group ownership to that group.  Just make sure group can read/write 
> > > your file, and all will be well.  
> > 
> > Well I created a super user at it where called Vernon and made it's secondary group as 
> > root. But still cannot write to the folder unless the folder has Vernon set as user. 
> > So how do I make it so that a group has write access?
> ----
> chmod g+r /path/to/file/or/folder
> 
> chmod g+s /path/to/file/or/folder # sticky bit so that any new files
>                                   # or folders that get created inside
>                                   # that folder retain the same group
----
brain fart

chmod g+w /path/to/file/or/folder # to set group write access

Craig


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: [webmin-l] File; Folder Ownership

[Craig W. <cra...@az...>]

On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 20:04 -0400, Vern wrote:
> > You can't have two owners.  
> 
> I thought not.
> 
> > You can, however, create a group containing 
> > those two users (it can be a secondary group, and probably should be, 
> > since many systems have a specific primary group for normal users, or 
> > they auto-generate a primary group named after the user), and then set 
> > the group ownership to that group.  Just make sure group can read/write 
> > your file, and all will be well.  
> 
> Well I created a super user at it where called Vernon and made it's secondary group as 
> root. But still cannot write to the folder unless the folder has Vernon set as user. 
> So how do I make it so that a group has write access?
----
chmod g+r /path/to/file/or/folder

chmod g+s /path/to/file/or/folder # sticky bit so that any new files
                                  # or folders that get created inside
                                  # that folder retain the same group

Craig


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.