A GNU/Linux Distro Needing Windows To Install? 174
dgun writes "I recently put together a new PC. When I purchased the motherboard, I noticed that it came with an instant-on OS, a small GNU/Linux distro called Splashtop. I assumed that the OS was on a ROM chip on the motherboard. To my great annoyance, when I tried to boot to this OS, a message said that it was not installed. It turns out that motherboard comes with an install disk for this GNU/Linux OS — that you can only run from Windows, to install Splashtop on the hard drive. First of all, doesn't installing it on the hard drive defeat the point of having an instant-on OS? If I wanted to dual-boot a small GNU/Linux OS, there are plenty that I could choose from. Second, if distributing GPL'ed software by means that completely preclude it from being used without Windows is not a violation of the GPL, should it not be?"
give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, if distributing GPL'ed software by means that completely preclude it from being used without Windows is not a violation of the GPL, should it not be?
No. Stop being absurd. There are plenty examples of GPLd programs meant only for windows. While this might be a little silly in this case there is nothing "wrong" with it and you need to stop getting so upset about it.
The GPL Angle (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, if distributing GPL'ed software by means that completely preclude it from being used without Windows is not a violation of the GPL, should it not be?
I don't think so. GPL is mostly about granting access and rights to the source, under certain conditions, so you can modify the code to work on your system, not about requiring the author to make it work on your system. If it only runs on Windows, so be it, as long as the source code is Freely available so it can be fixed.
Now, if they're not making the source available through reasonable means, well, that's another problem, and is a violation of the GPL. But the "requires Windows as distributed" thing is the same as lots of GPL software.
Re:gpl violation? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you cannot use the binary, it wasn't even 'distributed'.
Sure it was. I don't think owning a DVD player is a prerequisite for Wal-Mart selling (distributing) a DVD to you.
How would it be a gpl violation?
It's not. Where OP pulled that out from, I don't know. Nothing in the GPL says "Don't use APIs and programming languages that aren't implemented on more than one OS."
Re:Which motherboard was it? (Score:3, Insightful)
it's kdawson special (Score:5, Insightful)
GNU/Linux absurdity (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:GNU/Linux absurdity (Score:3, Insightful)
At least they're not calling it Busybox/Linux. It's far more typing...
Re:give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)
No, this is a program that is *distributed* on CD- (or DVD-) ROM.
You can only install it using Windows, but as has been mentioned above, there's nothing in the GPL, and there never should be, anything about having software that only runs under Windows.
Re:it's kdawson special (Score:4, Insightful)
kdawson is single-handedly bringing /. to the point that I don't even bother checking it every day anymore.
Re:Not to mention (Score:4, Insightful)
Here in the future, we have CD-RWs that can be erased and rewritten. We also have DVD+/-RWs that do the same. Enjoy your stay, I'm pretty sure you'll find that things now are... um... rad?
Re:give me a break (Score:4, Insightful)
How does it being for a particular OS take away a user's freedom to use it or modify it to work standalone? Or do you think that all GPL software shouldn't require any OS, or any hardware at all? Sounds like you think the GPL is a "make whatever I don't like a violation" license.
Re:give me a break (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you're wrong: You can distribute this program very well without Windows. In fact, I can go and download it off the site right now using any OS I like, and then redistribute the program from there.
The fact that you can't install the program because you don't meet the minimum requirements (having Windows) is not covered by the GPL.If it did, we'd have to stop distributing GPLed software on CDs as well, because it requires that you have a CD-ROM drive, which usually includes closed-source firmware.
Re:it's kdawson special (Score:1, Insightful)
Why not just remove kdawson from your author list in your preferences?
It's like North Korea (Score:2, Insightful)
I swear some of you people are like the North Korean refugees who are afraid if they touch the ground in South Korea, their hands will rot and fall off.
Your glorious supreme leader and chief asshat-for-life, Richard M Stallman, is lying to you. If you use Windows, your hands will not rot and fall off.
The motherboard manufacturer obviously mistakingly though you were part of the 99% of users that used Windows, and gave you an easy tool to either flash directly (do not attempt this in linux) or flash a usb stick to install it on boot (cross platform would be awkward for that). In the days of incompatible mac applications, they would create hybrid disks with HFS+ layers that would offer the files to you with Mac metadata. You don't have this luxury in linux. There is no right way to distribute binaries, so the best they can do is offer Windows junk and assume if you have Linux, you probably occasionally boot into Windows anyway when you have to complete grownup work.
The issue is not INSTALLING A LINUX DISTRIBUTION. The issue is flashing a ROM on your motherboard. Windows has a much better grasp of the PC specification, for better or worse. I would imagine it's much easier to write a tool that flags the motherboard that it's time to write from (either a ROM or the filesystem) to the ROM on reboot in Windows (ASUS style) or to provide a canned solution to image a usb stick in Windows. If you are a linux user, you might find syslinux and an img file somewhere on the CD that you can easily just dd to a usb stick.
DO NOT attempt this in Wine, it's going to require a part of Windows that that's system/driver oriented. Wine is for high level compatibility, it does not know how to speak to the PC/BIOS/PCI system like Windows does. This is a situation where it's using the part of Windows that makes it an Operating System, not an API layer.
If your tinfoil hat is on so firmly that it can never be removed, and you are now afraid of any system that is not approved by your glorious leader, this might have a better shot of working in ReactOS than it ever would in Linux. Of course, I assume that, like every other PC system, they don't understand the PC specification either, so it's going to get close to working and break something. I take no responsibility but to laugh at you--that is my duty.
Read the GPL FAQ (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL FAQ [gnu.org] says no.
I would like to bundle GPLed software with some sort of installation software. Does that installer need to have a GPL-compatible license?
No. The installer and the files it installs are separate works. As a result, the terms of the GPL do not apply to the installation software.
Re:it's kdawson special (Score:3, Insightful)
I HAVE done that. Unfortunately, it doesn't work. I just verified again that his name is unchecked, and yet, here I am seeing another of his turds.