Talk:NASLite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Linux (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

No Screen Shots[edit]

This Artical [sic] has no screen shot of NASLite. Can anyone with NASLite or has any Screen Shots upload some. Thanks. Lwarf 05:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've got a screen shot up now but it's not free so can any one with a free screen shot up load it. Thanks. Lwarf 11:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Free file transfer software[edit]

As NASLite's current offerings are not currently Free software (somehow, they are proprietary), I'm removing this article from Category:Free file transfer software. --Hamitr 02:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Outdated article ?[edit]

From what I have read on the NASLite site, this article looks much outdated.

It says that NASLite can run from a floppy, but that is not the case, this is only true of NanoNAS, although it also says so in the article.

It is not a free distribution, and neither is NanoNAS, they are apparently a mix of Open Source and proprietary code. The SourceForge page only has VMWare usable disks.

Maybe this article needs a full rewrite. Unfortunately, my language skills are not that good to try to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.152.213.111 (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

GPL Violation[edit]

NASLite does not violate the GPL v2 in any way. Please see the website below for the FAQ's

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html

What does this “written offer valid for any third party” mean? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what?

If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it. If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?

Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.) The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.

Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?

Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary. SEDevTeam (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


From the GPL [1]:

You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

...

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

i.e. under the GPL.

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

i.e. the whole of the work must be under the GPL, not just bits of it.

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.


But as the NASLite-2 WWW site clearly states:

NASLite-2 is not freely distributable

which, as a restriction, is in clear violation of the above.
However! The GPL also states:

10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.

If this is the case, then there is clearly no violation of the GPL as it wouldn't apply.
I've added a "licencing" section to the article to allow for clarification; AIUI, the licencing issue has come up before, and is obviously materially relevant to the article.
Nuwewsco (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
"AIUI, the licencing issue has come up before, and is obviously materially relevant to the article."
And as you undoubtedly seen, there was no merit in any of the GPL violation accusations. SEDevTeam (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
If you can back that up with a citation, that would certainly be helpful, though it is pretty clear it does violate the GPL. (See the text of the GPL for details).
I'm a little uncertain as to why you think the GPL doesn't apply; are you saying that Server Elements has received written permission from authors of the software it uses for a licence exemption (as described in the GPL)? If not, please could you give a citation to back up what you're saying as the GPL certainly doesn't? Nuwewsco (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to contact http://www.gpl-violations.org/ about the alleged violation and they can correct you. Search their mailing list for a similar discussion and the answer they received. SEDevTeam (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Somehow, I'm disinclined to do your research for you, but like I said; if you can post a citation, what would certainly back up what you're claiming - I've yet to see anything which actually shows why Naslite and nanonas aren't violating the GPL, as it seems pretty clear it does, if you look at the GPL. Nuwewsco (talk) 08:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No one's asking you do our research for us. We've done our due diligence to insure compliance with the GPL prior to establishing our terms and release of the software. If you are inclined to make misguided accusations, then being "disinclined" to do YOUR research is not only irresponsible but malicious. Further, while you are doing YOUR research, perhaps you should review Wikipedias article policies regarding opinions. SEDevTeam (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Article should be renamed?[edit]

Considering that "NASLite" is a current non-free product which does not match the description as provided in this article, shouldn't the article be titled "NASLite v1.x" instead of just NASLite? Teleken (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"Working State" of article should be changed to either "depricated" or "no longer maintained"?[edit]

Considering that the article is about NASLite v1.x and that branch of NASLite has not been updated in nearly 2 years (Last provided package from January 2008) shouldn't the "working state" on the title be changed to reflect this? Teleken (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Free to download[edit]

NASLite is free to download from http://sourceforge.net/projects/naslite/files/latest/download?source=directory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzug (talkcontribs) 05:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Your current edits, removing references to the commercial developer, are disruptive. Please explain why you are doing this? NASlite is commercial software, with old parts (not updated since 2008/2009) that are available as free software. --Bob Re-born (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


My edits are to clarify a free version of the software from server elements vs other commercial software from the developer.

NASLite is freely downloadable, along with source from http://sourceforge.net/projects/naslite/, which is the homepage for this version on NASLite. Please provide a link to the developers page where the NASLite floppies are available for purchase on the developers commercial page or other references to substantiate your currently erroneous claim, otherwise your edits will be considered malicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzug (talkcontribs) 06:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)