PDA

View Full Version : I-magic OS $79: Is this a joke, or what?



swoll1980
April 27th, 2009, 04:49 AM
Check this out (www.imagicos.com/index.html) Also, wouldn't they have to provide the source code on the website somewhere?

SomeGuyDude
April 27th, 2009, 04:52 AM
Ahahaha, the mighty IMagicOS. You should have seen the claims they made a while ago about how it gave you access to "millions of programs" amongst other things.

gymophett
April 27th, 2009, 04:55 AM
Linux pre-loaded with WineHQ? For $79. WTF?!

CharmyBee
April 27th, 2009, 04:58 AM
lol, Firefox is "Internet" and Konqueror is "Explorer"

Skripka
April 27th, 2009, 04:58 AM
Linux pre-loaded with WineHQ? For $79. WTF?!

By some cosmic sense of divine irony, WTF and FTW are palindromes.

Artificial Intelligence
April 27th, 2009, 05:03 AM
Seems like they following the footsteps of linspire and xandros? $79 is aweful alot of money IMHO.
Nice Desktop theme though, but it look like they have taken the exact same apps you have in every other linux distro and renamed them.

swoll1980
April 27th, 2009, 05:10 AM
Seems like they following the footsteps of linspire and

They even have the same naming scheme, but instead of Lin-whatever_the_app_does it's Magic-whatever_the_app_does.

doorknob60
April 27th, 2009, 05:17 AM
And it looks like they made some really crappy progrms too. Look at MigicWriter, looks worse than even Wordpad. And the Music one looks bad too. The least they could do is use OpenOffice and Amarok and programs that will actually work right. The only positive I see is that it comes with licenced versions of Crossover, both Office and Games, instead of Wine like most of these crappy distros usually come with.

juancarlospaco
April 27th, 2009, 05:18 AM
Desktop sucks!!!

swoll1980
April 27th, 2009, 05:20 AM
The only positive I see is that it comes with licenced versions of Crossover, both Office and Games, instead of Wine like most of these crappy distros usually come with.

I thought Wine, and crossover were the same thing.

swoll1980
April 27th, 2009, 05:21 AM
Desktop sucks!!!

You might not like it, but I don't think it sucks. It looks like they put alot of effort into the look of it.

kerry_s
April 27th, 2009, 05:26 AM
ohhh, sighn me up, where's my wallet?
:lolflag:

MaxIBoy
April 27th, 2009, 05:31 AM
And it looks like they made some really crappy progrms too. Look at MigicWriter, looks worse than even Wordpad. And the Music one looks bad too. The least they could do is use OpenOffice and Amarok and programs that will actually work right. The only positive I see is that it comes with licenced versions of Crossover, both Office and Games, instead of Wine like most of these crappy distros usually come with.They actually do use OpenOffice-- they just renamed it to iOffice or something.

Skripka
April 27th, 2009, 05:33 AM
ohhh, sighn me up, where's my wallet?
:lolflag:

Click BuyNOW!! 111!!!

Kareeser
April 27th, 2009, 05:37 AM
They actually do use OpenOffice-- they just renamed it to iOffice or something.

MagicOffice :P

doorknob60
April 27th, 2009, 05:39 AM
I thought Wine, and crossover were the same thing.

Almost, but Crossover has official support for some programs like MS Office and Steam, among others, and setup for the supported programs is usually very easy and is less buggy and more straightforward than in Wine. Crossover is based on Wine, and Crossover is the official financial support for Wine, so without Crossover, Wine probably wouldn't be where it is today.

BGFG
April 27th, 2009, 05:39 AM
Scalpers trying to make a quick dollar. They offer nothing that a few days of research could not provide a noob. better you just burn your money.

TjankMjaster
April 27th, 2009, 05:48 AM
I was staring at that announcement, scratching my head, going, "WTF am I getting for 79 bucks???" Yeah Slow,...](*,)](*,)

anyone see ANYTHING in there that's not already available for free??


PS - DoorKnob60, "the Microsoft Vacuum",.. I just shot soda out my nose...

Noblacktie
April 27th, 2009, 05:55 AM
Some people attach a stigma to all things free and feel something can only be worthwhile if they pay for it.

iMagicOS is out to part these people with their money.

Sinkingships7
April 27th, 2009, 06:00 AM
Well, it's a very nice website. I'll give them that.

Stupendoussteve
April 27th, 2009, 06:04 AM
Meh, perfectly legal but not well presented. I really would have no problem if more distributions were commercial enterprises. There is nothing barring this. Of course, they probably wouldn't get too popular, especially because someone would make a free (price) version (A la RHEL > CentOS).

There is, of course, that long held belief that the free in free software means gratis, which is not the case nor was it meant to mean that.

They only have to give the source to the people they distribute to. If this is available then there is no problem.

chucky chuckaluck
April 27th, 2009, 06:32 AM
might be worth it for the incredible effects. and don't laugh about changing the name of konqueror. whenever someone asks why people don't like kde, the most common response is that people just don't like the 'k' branding on everything. smart move on their part.

Eisenwinter
April 27th, 2009, 07:18 AM
Recurring discussion. This has been posted at least 3 more times.

jespdj
April 27th, 2009, 09:30 AM
Last time someone posted about iMagic OS they had different versions of it that looked like Windows and Mac OS X. It really looked like a project from some highschool kid.

It is sold as closed-source, while it is based on Linux and a lot of other GPL software. I think they are blatantly ignoring the GPL. Have a look at the EULA (http://www.imagicos.com/get.html) - it looks like a copy of something that you would get with Windows, but with "Windows" replaced by "iMagic OS". Especially this is directly violating the GPL:

2. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS.

All right, title and interest in and to the patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, and any other intellectual property rights in the Software, including source code, documentation, appearance, structure and organization, are held by Licensor and/or its licensors. You may not copy or otherwise use the Software, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in this Agreement. Title to the Software, or to any copy, modification or merged portion of any of the Software Programs, shall at all times remain with Licensor and/or its licensors, subject to the terms of the applicable Third Party Agreement(s) to the Software Programs under consideration.

It might be interesting if someone seriously questioned them about the license.


Meh, perfectly legal...
I doubt that, since they are presenting GPL software with this proprietary, closed-source license.

billgoldberg
April 27th, 2009, 10:13 AM
Well, it's a very nice website. I'll give them that.

You think so?

To me it looks very amateurish.

inobe
April 27th, 2009, 10:27 AM
i don't know about the license, may need someone with the skills to review it.

after a brief look there are proprietary codecs and possibly crossover bundled with it.

that may explain the cost, i just can't see the reasoning ?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

edit: it doesn't have much of anything, it's complete crap........

DracoJesi
April 27th, 2009, 11:09 AM
Check this out (www.imagicos.com/index.html) Also, wouldn't they have to provide the source code on the website somewhere?

they don't have to put the source code on the site, I haven't seen it on say Ubuntu.com,

but seeing as how they can't charge for Linux, only the disk it's on, they're going to find themselves in some legal troubles...

a blank disk =/= $79 :lolflag:

so unless they some some non GPL software on there, they are breaking the GPL,

and can you imagine the angry letters they're going to get when t:lolflag:eir customers realize not everything runs in wine....

now if the $79 includes that netbook they mention....


this is a clear violation of the GPL , it's code stealing, illegal and disrespectful of t he thousands of hours of work people have put into creating free software..



To me it looks very amateurish.

it looks ok, but other than the graphics used, it's nothing special, no on hover buttons, or anything, and they need a border or something for that scrolling text frame.... looks choppy....

DracoJesi
April 27th, 2009, 11:11 AM
Last time someone posted about iMagic OS they had different versions of it that looked like Windows and Mac OS X. It really looked like a project from some highschool kid.

It is sold as closed-source, while it is based on Linux and a lot of other GPL software. I think they are blatantly ignoring the GPL. Have a look at the EULA (http://www.imagicos.com/get.html) - it looks like a copy of something that you would get with Windows, but with "Windows" replaced by "iMagic OS". Especially this is directly violating the GPL:


It might be interesting if someone seriously questioned them about the license.


I doubt that, since they are presenting GPL software with this proprietary, closed-source license.

so how do we go about informing Linus and everyone else....

Artificial Intelligence
April 27th, 2009, 11:15 AM
Meh, perfectly legal but not well presented. I really would have no problem if more distributions were commercial enterprises. There is nothing barring this. Of course, they probably wouldn't get too popular, especially because someone would make a free (price) version (A la RHEL > CentOS).

There is, of course, that long held belief that the free in free software means gratis, which is not the case nor was it meant to mean that.

They only have to give the source to the people they distribute to. If this is available then there is no problem.

Absolutely, it just seems they done it the wrong way. I don't mind paying for stuff, but they have to offer something that I can use to the right prize. If it comes with professional 24 hours per day support for a year $79 it would be cheap, but I doubt I-Magic OS offers that other than they have a small forum to post questions.

In the Mandrake days I paid for my versions (close stuff + support). My first Linux distro I paid for as well, Corel Linux, which came with a 6 CDs, a huge manual about using command lines and explanation + online/phone support. Very Professional.

Johnsie
April 27th, 2009, 11:21 AM
I think it's a great idea. Charging for the software provides money to invest in applications development.

A major problem with alot of Linux applications is that there is a major lack of financial investment in them.

cb951303
April 27th, 2009, 11:23 AM
where is the source. they don't have to put it on the website but they have to provide it somehow. does anyone mailed FSF already?

Artificial Intelligence
April 27th, 2009, 11:33 AM
I think it's a great idea. Charging for the software provides money to invest in applications development.

A major problem with alot of Linux applications is that there is a major lack of financial investment in them.

I highly doubt that any of the money goes to any of the devs who made the apps and libs on I-Magic, besides that I.Magic have to pay Crossweaver for Cross office. But it would be a good idea to suggest I-Magic to do it.

tbroderick
April 27th, 2009, 11:34 AM
If it comes with professional 24 hours per day support for a year $79 it would be cheap, but I doubt I-Magic OS offers that other than they have a small forum to post questions...

Well, it does say it comes with support and it comes with Crossover Pro, which costs $69.95 online.

DracoJesi
April 27th, 2009, 11:39 AM
Meh, perfectly legal but not well presented. I really would have no problem if more distributions were commercial enterprises. There is nothing barring this. Of course, they probably wouldn't get too popular, especially because someone would make a free (price) version (A la RHEL > CentOS).

There is, of course, that long held belief that the free in free software means gratis, which is not the case nor was it meant to mean that.

They only have to give the source to the people they distribute to. If this is available then there is no problem.

you overlooked something though, they aren't selling it under the GPL, here's their user agreement:


iMagic OS End User License Agreement

THIS END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT") IS ENTERED INTO BY AND BETWEEN iMagic OS ("LICENSOR"), AND YOU -- AN INDIVIDUAL END-USER ("YOU") -- AGREEING TO A LICENSE FOR PERSONAL USE ON THREE COMPUTERS.YOU AGREE TO CAREFULLY READ THIS AGREEMENT BEFORE INSTALLING OR USING THIS SOFTWARE PRODUCT, INCLUDING ALL ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTATION, ENHANCEMENTS, UPGRADES AND EXTENSIONS THERETO (COLLECTIVELY, THE "SOFTWARE"). INSTALLING OR OTHERWISE USING THE SOFTWARE INDICATES YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT YOU HAVE READ THIS AGREEMENT AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY AND COMPLY WITH ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THIS AGREEMENT, YOU SHALL NOT HAVE ANY RIGHTS TO INSTALL, USE OR OTHERWISE BENEFIT FROM THE SOFTWARE. SELECTING THE "I ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT" OPTION FURTHER CONFIRMS YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THIS AGREEMENT.

1. LICENSE.

1.1 License.

You agree to the following terms of this Section 1.1: the Software is a modular operating system made up of individual software components (each individual software component and all accompanying documentation, enhancements, upgrades and extensions thereto are referred to herein as "Software Program(s)") that were created either by Licensor or various individuals and/or entities. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Licensor grants You a non-exclusive, non-transferable license (without the right to sublicense) to use the object code form of the Software for Your personal use in accordance with the accompanying documentation. You may download and use the Software on one computer owned, leased or rented by You. Subject to Section 1.2 below, You may not (and shall not allow any member of Your Household or any other third party to): (i) copy, reproduce, distribute, relicense, sublicense, rent, lease or otherwise make available the Software or any portion or element thereof except as and to the extent expressly authorized herein by Licensor; (ii) translate, adapt, enhance, create derivative works of or otherwise modify the Software or any portion or element thereof; (iii) decompile, disassemble or reverse engineer (except as and to the extent permitted by applicable local law), or extract ideas, algorithms, procedures, workflows or hierarchies from, the Software or any portion or element thereof; (iv) use the Software or any portion or element thereof to provide facility management, service bureau or similar services to third parties; or (v) remove, modify or obscure any identification or proprietary or restrictive rights markings or notices from the Software or any component thereof. You shall keep a current record of the location of each copy of the Software You make.

1.2 Third Party Agreements. Many of the Software Programs included in the Software are distributed under the terms of agreements with third parties ("Third Party Agreements") which may expand or limit Your rights to use certain Software Programs as set forth in Section 1.1. Certain Software Programs may be licensed (or sublicensed) to You under the GNU General Public License or the GNU Lesser General Public License (copies of which are attached hereto) or other similar open source license agreements ("OSLAs") which, among other rights, permit You to copy, modify and redistribute certain Software Programs, or portions thereof, and have access to the source code of certain Software Programs, or portions thereof. In addition, certain Software Programs, or portions thereof, may be licensed (or sublicensed) to You under terms stricter than those set forth in Section 1.1. As a condition to sending the CD, Licensor may charge you Licensor's cost of providing you with the CD. You acknowledge that you have read, understood and agreed to the terms and conditions of each such Third Party Agreement. In addition, the Software includes an mp3 software decoder incorporating licensed MPEG Layer-3 audio technology. Under this Agreement, You are only licensed to use this software to play mp3s on Your multifunctional desktop personal computer. Any use of the mp3 software decoder, including the technology therein, outside the scope of the restrictions of this Agreement, will require You to acquire additional patent and/or software licenses.

1.3 Violation of Licensing Terms. Any violation by You of the applicable license terms set forth in Section 1.1 or Section 1.2, as appropriate, shall immediately terminate Your license to use the Software. If You do not agree to comply with and be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement or the Third Party Agreements, do not install or otherwise use the Software.

2. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS.

All right, title and interest in and to the patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, and any other intellectual property rights in the Software, including source code, documentation, appearance, structure and organization, are held by Licensor and/or its licensors. You may not copy or otherwise use the Software, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in this Agreement. Title to the Software, or to any copy, modification or merged portion of any of the Software Programs, shall at all times remain with Licensor and/or its licensors, subject to the terms of the applicable Third Party Agreement(s) to the Software Programs under consideration.

3. WARRANTIES.

LICENSOR MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, OF ANY KIND WITH RESPECT TO THE SOFTWARE. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITH NO WARRANTY. YOU AGREE THAT YOUR USE OF THE SOFTWARE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMISSABLE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW, LICENSOR EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THE SOFTWARE, INCLUDING WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, SATISFACTORY QUALITY, ACCURACY, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT, AND ANY WARRANTIES THAT MAY ARISE OUT OF COURSE OF PERFORMANCE, COURSE OF DEALING OR USAGE OF TRADE. LICENSOR DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE SOFTWARE WILL OPERATE IN COMBINATION WITH HARDWARE, SOFTWARE, SYSTEMS OR DATA NOT PROVIDED BY LICENSOR, OR THAT THE OPERATION OF THE SOFTWARE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE.

4. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.

THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE RESULTS AND PERFORMANCE OF THE SOFTWARE IS ASSUMED BY YOU. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, NEITHER LICENSOR NOR ITS AUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTORS, SUPPLIERS OR LICENSEES SHALL HAVE ANY LIABILITY TO YOU OR ANY OTHER PERSON OR ENTITY FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOSS OF REVENUE OR PROFIT, LOST OR DAMAGED DATA OR OTHER COMMERCIAL OR ECONOMIC LOSS, EVEN IF LICENSOR OR SUCH DISTRIBUTOR, SUPPLIER OR LICENSEE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, OR SUCH DAMAGES ARE FORESEEABLE. IN NO EVENT SHALL LICENSOR'S OR ITS DISTRIBUTORS', SUPPLIERS' OR LICENSEES' LIABILITY EXCEED THE LICENSE FEE PAID BY YOU. THE LIMITATIONS IN THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY WHETHER OR NOT THE ALLEGED BREACH OR DEFAULT IS A BREACH OF A FUNDAMENTAL CONDITION OR TERM OR A FUNDAMENTAL BREACH.

5. DISTRIBUTION.

If You are permitted to redistribute any Software Programs under LGPL, it is Your responsibility to comply with all export laws, rules and regulations in the jurisdictions where the Software Programs are exported from, exported to, or re-exported from time to time. You ARE NOT permitted to redistribute the Operating System as a whole, merely the LGPLed Software Applications and Modules.

6. TERM.

This Agreement is effective until terminated. You may terminate this license at any time by destroying the Software, together with all copies, modifications and merged portions in any form. This Agreement will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with any term or condition of this Agreement. In the event of such termination, You agree to promptly destroy the Software, together with all copies, modifications and merged portions in any form. The provisions of Sections 1.2 and Sections 2 - 8 shall survive termination.

7. GENERAL.

This Agreement, together with the Third Party Agreements, is the entire agreement regarding Your use of the Software, superseding any other agreement or understanding, oral or written, and may not be changed except by an agreement signed by Licensor. Except as set forth in the appropriate OSLA, You may not assign Your rights or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of Licensor. Licensor has no obligation to provide support, maintenance, upgrades, modifications or new releases under this Agreement. If You are an agency or instrumentality of the United States Government, the Software is "commercial computer software" and "commercial computer software documentation," and pursuant to FAR 12.212 or DFARS 227.7202, and their successors, as applicable, use, reproduction and disclosure of the Software are governed by the terms of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, U.S.A., excluding that body of law applicable to choice of law and excluding the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods and any legislation implementing such Convention, if otherwise applicable. Any dispute relating in any way to this Agreement shall be submitted to confidential arbitration in San Diego County, California, U.S.A., except that, to the extent You have in any manner violated or threatened to violate Licensor's intellectual property rights or other proprietary rights or the license granted pursuant to this Agreement, Licensor may seek injunctive or other appropriate relief in any state, federal or foreign court, and You irrevocably agree to submit to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction and venue of such courts. Arbitration under this Agreement shall be conducted under the rules then prevailing of the American Arbitration Association. The arbitrator shall not have the power to alter, modify, amend, add to or subtract from any term or provision of this Agreement, to rule upon or grant any extension, renewal or continuance of this Agreement, or to award damages or other remedies expressly prohibited by this Agreement, including, without limitation, punitive or exemplary damages. The arbitrator's award shall be binding and may be entered as a judgment in any court of competent jurisdiction. If, as a matter of law, the foregoing arbitration provision is not enforceable as to a particular claim brought by one party against the other, then that claim shall be instituted solely in a court situated in San Diego County, California, U.S.A.; for this purpose, both You and Licensor irrevocably agree to submit to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction and venue of such courts. In any action to enforce this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to costs and attorneys' fees. English is the authoritative text of this Agreement, regardless of the existence of counterparts translated into another language, and all communications and adjudications hereunder shall be made and conducted in English. If any provision of this Agreement is declared by an arbitral panel or a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, such a provision shall be severed from the Agreement and the other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. At no time shall a failure or delay in enforcing any provisions, exercising any option or requiring performance, be construed to be a waiver of such provision, nor a continuing waiver.

8. LGPL

You may alter, modify, and freely distribute all Software that is under the GNU Lesser Public License, and any other Modules also under the GNU Lesser Public License. You ARE NOT permitted to sell, modify, trade, or in other ways redistribute the Operating System as a whole, merely the GPLed Software Applications and Modules.

Here is the GNU Lesser Public License in its full entirity for Your own Uses:

GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 3, 29 June 2007

Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://fsf.org/>
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.


This version of the GNU Lesser General Public License incorporates
the terms and conditions of version 3 of the GNU General Public
License, supplemented by the additional permissions listed below.

0. Additional Definitions.

As used herein, "this License" refers to version 3 of the GNU Lesser
General Public License, and the "GNU GPL" refers to version 3 of the GNU
General Public License.

"The Library" refers to a covered work governed by this License,
other than an Application or a Combined Work as defined below.

An "Application" is any work that makes use of an interface provided
by the Library, but which is not otherwise based on the Library.
Defining a subclass of a class defined by the Library is deemed a mode
of using an interface provided by the Library.

A "Combined Work" is a work produced by combining or linking an
Application with the Library. The particular version of the Library
with which the Combined Work was made is also called the "Linked
Version".

The "Minimal Corresponding Source" for a Combined Work means the
Corresponding Source for the Combined Work, excluding any source code
for portions of the Combined Work that, considered in isolation, are
based on the Application, and not on the Linked Version.

The "Corresponding Application Code" for a Combined Work means the
object code and/or source code for the Application, including any data
and utility programs needed for reproducing the Combined Work from the
Application, but excluding the System Libraries of the Combined Work.

1. Exception to Section 3 of the GNU GPL.

You may convey a covered work under sections 3 and 4 of this License
without being bound by section 3 of the GNU GPL.

2. Conveying Modified Versions.

If you modify a copy of the Library, and, in your modifications, a
facility refers to a function or data to be supplied by an Application
that uses the facility (other than as an argument passed when the
facility is invoked), then you may convey a copy of the modified
version:

a) under this License, provided that you make a good faith effort to
ensure that, in the event an Application does not supply the
function or data, the facility still operates, and performs
whatever part of its purpose remains meaningful, or

b) under the GNU GPL, with none of the additional permissions of
this License applicable to that copy.

3. Object Code Incorporating Material from Library Header Files.

The object code form of an Application may incorporate material from
a header file that is part of the Library. You may convey such object
code under terms of your choice, provided that, if the incorporated
material is not limited to numerical parameters, data structure
layouts and accessors, or small macros, inline functions and templates
(ten or fewer lines in length), you do both of the following:

a) Give prominent notice with each copy of the object code that the
Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are
covered by this License.

b) Accompany the object code with a copy of the GNU GPL and this license
document.

4. Combined Works.

You may convey a Combined Work under terms of your choice that,
taken together, effectively do not restrict modification of the
portions of the Library contained in the Combined Work and reverse
engineering for debugging such modifications, if you also do each of
the following:

a) Give prominent notice with each copy of the Combined Work that
the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are
covered by this License.

b) Accompany the Combined Work with a copy of the GNU GPL and this license
document.

c) For a Combined Work that displays copyright notices during
execution, include the copyright notice for the Library among
these notices, as well as a reference directing the user to the
copies of the GNU GPL and this license document.

d) Do one of the following:

0) Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of this
License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form
suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to
recombine or relink the Application with a modified version of
the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the
manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying
Corresponding Source.

1) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the
Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (a) uses at run time
a copy of the Library already present on the user's computer
system, and (b) will operate properly with a modified version
of the Library that is interface-compatible with the Linked
Version.

e) Provide Installation Information, but only if you would otherwise
be required to provide such information under section 6 of the
GNU GPL, and only to the extent that such information is
necessary to install and execute a modified version of the
Combined Work produced by recombining or relinking the
Application with a modified version of the Linked Version. (If
you use option 4d0, the Installation Information must accompany
the Minimal Corresponding Source and Corresponding Application
Code. If you use option 4d1, you must provide the Installation
Information in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL
for conveying Corresponding Source.)

5. Combined Libraries.

You may place library facilities that are a work based on the
Library side by side in a single library together with other library
facilities that are not Applications and are not covered by this
License, and convey such a combined library under terms of your
choice, if you do both of the following:

a) Accompany the combined library with a copy of the same work based
on the Library, uncombined with any other library facilities,
conveyed under the terms of this License.

b) Give prominent notice with the combined library that part of it
is a work based on the Library, and explaining where to find the
accompanying uncombined form of the same work.

6. Revised Versions of the GNU Lesser General Public License.

The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the GNU Lesser General Public License from time to time. Such new
versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may
differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the
Library as you received it specifies that a certain numbered version
of the GNU Lesser General Public License "or any later version"
applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and
conditions either of that published version or of any later version
published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Library as you
received it does not specify a version number of the GNU Lesser
General Public License, you may choose any version of the GNU Lesser
General Public License ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

If the Library as you received it specifies that a proxy can decide
whether future versions of the GNU Lesser General Public License shall
apply, that proxy's public statement of acceptance of any version is
permanent authorization for you to choose that version for the
Library.

shuttleworthwannabe
April 27th, 2009, 11:40 AM
Give them credit for thinking of a "shiny" theme---looks different from plain KDE4 and GNOME vanillas. Something, Canonical could easily adopt, make Ubuntu/variants unique.

Otherwise, clever way to sell FREE software.

S

jespdj
April 27th, 2009, 11:42 AM
Otherwise, clever way to sell FREE software.
You mean: Clever and probably illegal way to rip off people.

Giant Speck
April 27th, 2009, 11:42 AM
Give them credit for thinking of a "shiny" theme---looks different from plain KDE4 and GNOME vanillas.

That's because it's KDE 3. The use of the digital clock and KBFX is blatantly obvious from the screenshots they provide.

Artificial Intelligence
April 27th, 2009, 11:42 AM
Well, it does say it comes with support and it comes with Crossover Pro, which costs $69.95 online.

Yes, I know the Cross Office pro is expensive and I have seen an E-mail adresse where it says support. But does it work? Do you really get the support? Everybody can but an e-mail up and claim to do support.
I think it needs to be more transparent in that matter. What do you actual get.

And if it's not working, do you get your money back?

Wiebelhaus
April 27th, 2009, 11:43 AM
Check this out (www.imagicos.com/index.html) Also, wouldn't they have to provide the source code on the website somewhere?

How about the Professional outfit Pioneer (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tapioneer.com%2F&ei=q4v1SeWCGs2blQfegqjODA&rct=j&q=pioneer+linux&usg=AFQjCNHsYajUm-Ucefa3e7gt2__Qlq0iNQ&sig2=RZ8qG82gEZix8anziCA9KQ) One of the guys in our shop tried to load the Live Disc on his Tech PC and it crashed before it even rendered the desktop , A PC that runs linux mind you.

lol

DracoJesi
April 27th, 2009, 11:52 AM
Give them credit for thinking of a "shiny" theme---looks different from plain KDE4 and GNOME vanillas. Something, Canonical could easily adopt, make Ubuntu/variants unique.

Otherwise, clever way to sell FREE software.

S

you know, I don't know why some people complain about the default theme, really, not only does Ubuntu come with multiple themes,there are thousands of Gnome, KDE, Emerald, ect. themes out there in every category, free to download, and it's so easy to mix and match elements from multiple themes...

Canonical really doesn't have to feel that gap, there job should focus on efficiency,stability, features and compatibility... theres no reason for them to spend time in theming....

and as for shiny, check out Ubuntu Studio's taskbar er.... docks

much shinier than vista IMO, I don't like the circles for minimize/maximimize/close but again, mix and match

racerraul
April 27th, 2009, 11:54 AM
iMagic huh?
I'm more interested in them developing new Atari 2600 games.

swoll1980
April 27th, 2009, 01:11 PM
Yes, I know the Cross Office pro is expensive and I have seen an E-mail adresse where it says support. But does it work? Do you really get the support? Everybody can but an e-mail up and claim to do support.
I think it needs to be more transparent in that matter. What do you actual get.

And if it's not working, do you get your money back?




LICENSOR MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, OF ANY KIND WITH RESPECT TO THE SOFTWARE. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITH NO WARRANTY. YOU AGREE THAT YOUR USE OF THE SOFTWARE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMISSABLE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW, LICENSOR EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THE SOFTWARE, INCLUDING WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, SATISFACTORY QUALITY, ACCURACY, TITLE AND NON-INFRINGEMENT, AND ANY WARRANTIES THAT MAY ARISE OUT OF COURSE OF PERFORMANCE, COURSE OF DEALING OR USAGE OF TRADE. LICENSOR DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE SOFTWARE WILL OPERATE IN COMBINATION WITH HARDWARE, SOFTWARE, SYSTEMS OR DATA NOT PROVIDED BY LICENSOR, OR THAT THE OPERATION OF THE SOFTWARE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE.

Looks like your on your own if you buy it.

xArv3nx
April 27th, 2009, 02:39 PM
If you don't get the message from all the other posts on this forum, then I'll just reiterate it: DO NOT BUY THIS PRODUCT!

I used to "work" with Carlos, and the guy practically unpacks the debs, edits the files in them, then "packs" them back up.

hcorey
April 27th, 2009, 02:59 PM
No one has figured out how to moniterize the desktop--Corel, Red Hat, Linspire all failed. The best way is probably to be honest with the consumer--point out that the software is "free", and what they are actually paying for is 24x7 phone or email support, written documentation, legal codecs, legal player for encrypted DVD's, etc. If the total package is really good, people will pay for it.

fatality_uk
April 27th, 2009, 03:40 PM
They have to grant you access, but afaik, dont have to provide a direct link to the source.

The guys behind this seem young to me, but then I am an old man now lol :D

I have no problem with them charging for Linux as long as they abide by the GPL for the areas of code they have used. If they have created new applications or new code for the distro, they have every right to do what they want with that as a package and charge for it if they wish.

I loved reading the posts here. People get VERY bent out of shape at the mere thought of someone charging for Linux. If the package includes the likes of 24x7 support, crossover and new apps, why the hell not? I wish commercial distro's every success.





*Adorn's himself in Nomex®

Johnsie
April 27th, 2009, 03:51 PM
what they are actually paying for is 24x7 phone or email support, written documentation, legal codecs, legal player for encrypted DVD's, etc.


All that adds even more overheads onto the already high costs of developing software. Yes software should be supported, but that can be paid for by selling the actual software. How many programmers are good on the telephone?

Simian Man
April 27th, 2009, 03:54 PM
this is a clear violation of the GPL , it's code stealing, illegal and disrespectful of t he thousands of hours of work people have put into creating free software..

What are you talking about? They only need to license the part of their system that is derived from other GPLed works under the GPL. Since Crossover is not GPL-derived, it doesn't have to be under the GPL. Likewise for their custom apps they don't have to be open source or free.

People are perfectly within their rights to sell customized Linux distros with multiple licenses. Do some research before making wild claims like this.

Of course *I* would never dream of buying it, but hey :).

Johnsie
April 27th, 2009, 03:55 PM
+1 for simian man

richg
April 27th, 2009, 04:20 PM
There was a lot of discussion in the Other OS forum but that forum has been removed. This thread pretty much says the same.

The imagicos people tried to get the Freespire forum to help them and were pretty much run out of town.

The imagicos people tried in the Ubuntu Other OS forum also.

I started with a pay OS, Lindows/Linspire in 12-2003. They have been gone at least a year or more.

Rich

DracoJesi
April 27th, 2009, 10:35 PM
What are you talking about? They only need to license the part of their system that is derived from other GPLed works under the GPL. Since Crossover is not GPL-derived, it doesn't have to be under the GPL. Likewise for their custom apps they don't have to be open source or free.

People are perfectly within their rights to sell customized Linux distros with multiple licenses. Do some research before making wild claims like this.

Of course *I* would never dream of buying it, but hey :).

but Linux must be under GPL, there license is not GPL,

and multiple licenses of Linux? being limited to install Linux on only a few machines is not open-source, it is not under GPL, Linux is licensed under GPL, so you can install Linux on as many machines as you want, this may not be true of the programs and code they made, or have put in the package, but it is so for Linux, and they need to be clearer on that,

in any case, why one would buy this product is beyond me....

you get everything in there with say Ubuntu...

I don't know all that much about Ubuntu's tech support, but Ubuntuforums seems adequate...

the only other thing I saw was crossfire,which, Wine works well enough, is crossfire better and if it is, is it worth the price?

plus, how often are upgrades provided and are they free?

seems very very fishy to me...

MaxIBoy
April 27th, 2009, 10:42 PM
You can bundle GPL software along with GPL software. It's totally legal. The GPL components are under a different license.

You can also sell a completely GPLed product (for example, you could sell copies of Ubuntu on the street for $100000000 a piece. You wouldn't sell any, but it's legal to try.)

Simian Man
April 27th, 2009, 10:43 PM
but Linux must be under GPL, there license is not GPL,

and multiple licenses of Linux? being limited to install Linux on only a few machines is not open-source, it is not under GPL, Linux is licensed under GPL, so you can install Linux on as many machines as you want, this may not be true of the programs and code they made, or have put in the package, but it is so for Linux, and they need to be clearer on that
Yes Linux is under the GPL, but Linux is a kernel - just a small part of what goes into a full Linux-based system like iMagicOS or Ubuntu. They couldn't modify the Linux kernel and distribute it under any license other than the GPL, but they *can* distribute a group of software some of which is GPLed (Linux, OpenOffice, KDE...) and some of which is not (CrossOver, their own apps...) and charge for the bundle. That is what I meant by "multiple licenses", and it is perfectly legal


in any case, why one would buy this product is beyond me....

you get everything in there with say Ubuntu...

I don't know all that much about Ubuntu's tech support, but Ubuntuforums seems adequate...

the only other thing I saw was crossfire,which, Wine works well enough, is crossfire better and if it is, is it worth the price?

plus, how often are upgrades provided and are they free?

seems very very fishy to me...
Crossover is supposed to work better than wine, but I haven't tried it. Also keep in mind that CrossOver sales help fund the wine project, so it is a good thing they are able to get some money for it.

Like I said, I wouldn't pay for this either, but it is perfectly legal.

FraggedLocust
April 27th, 2009, 10:45 PM
but Linux must be under GPL, there license is not GPL,

and multiple licenses of Linux? being limited to install Linux on only a few machines is not open-source, it is not under GPL, Linux is licensed under GPL, so you can install Linux on as many machines as you want, this may not be true of the programs and code they made, or have put in the package, but it is so for Linux, and they need to be clearer on that.

I believe the GPL states you can charge whatever you want for a GPL licensed program or any of its derived works. And I believe you can also place restrictions on what you want the customers to do with your product as long as you let them have access to the source. I've only skimmed the wiki article on GPL, so I'm not to clear on GPL yet.

Viranh
April 27th, 2009, 11:59 PM
Not that I agree with them, but they're only charging the going retail rate for that Acer Aspire One with iMagicOS. Walmart recently marked them down from $350 to $300, but that was only a month or two ago. So they're not even charging you to pre-install linux on the netbook. It's a pretty good deal for a newbie who doesn't know anything about installing linux. Of course for $350, I'd buy System 76's new netbook.

Chilli Bob
April 28th, 2009, 04:47 AM
$79 is excellent value, and there should be more of this sort of thing. (Assuming it works, that is.)

Let me explain. I've just installed Jaunty a few days ago. Once it was installed I had to add all the restricted codecs, that took almost an hour thanks to my slow internet connection, then install the DVD libs. Then spend 2 hours fault-finding to get the DVDs playing (the problem was caused by VLC), and I havn't even tried getting my (non-supported) Brother printer working yet. That should take another half hour. So that comes to 3.5 hours (not including the 6 hours download time).

Now, if I price my time at $20/hr, that comes to $70. Add on $69.95 for the crossover licence, and you have near enough to $140. Someone newer to Linux would take a lot longer to set up Ubuntu, pushing the cost up to, or exceeding the price of a Vista licence, or not get it working at all. And wine will not give anywhere near the useability of Crossover (puts on flame suit).

Yes, I would not buy this because I enjoy spending my time doing geek stuff and don't put a price on my geeking time, but not everyone who wants to use linux is a geek. For them this would provide excellent value for money. (if, as I said, it actually works)

TjankMjaster
April 28th, 2009, 05:42 AM
Yes, I would not buy this because I enjoy spending my time doing geek stuff and don't put a price on my geeking time, but not everyone who wants to use linux is a geek. For them this would provide excellent value for money. (if, as I said, it actually works)


That's a pretty big "IF".... Vista would be a good value IF it actually w,.... no,.. strike that,.. Vista is not, would not, will never be a good value.

Being fairly new to the linux scene,... my 'geek' experiences in getting Ubuntu to run is worth the time. It's a learning thing.

Again, I don't see anything new in MagicOS that you don't already get in a free distro, other than support (forums here have been more than adequate) and a lot of legal agreements (lawyers like those things.)

PS - Anyone have 79 bucks I could borrow? :lolflag:

DracoJesi
April 28th, 2009, 06:52 AM
thanks for clearing that up...

this gets confusing though, because they said you can't install it on more than three pc's, the kernel being part of it and gpl, so isn't that taking away rights? I realize not all of it is GPL, .... but see I would have said in the license agreement that you can install the kernal and all the gpl stuff but not the non-gpl stuff instead of just being limited to not being able to install the kernal and other GPL stuff?

but then is the supposed to be understood while not clearly mentioned, since you usually can't go and pick every singel piece of code you want on install?

it may be legal, it may not be, but it's sure hard to tell, and thats never a good think...

speaking of monetary support for Linux, I think I'm going to go look at the Ubuntu store here in a bit...

which reminds me, I prefer the Ubuntu logo but as for the colors, I like the KDE logo, it has turquoise and purple on it :)

Edit: ok that last part was completely random and pointless...

ade234uk
April 28th, 2009, 07:08 AM
How much of this $79 dollars is being put back in to Open Source?
I have no issues with people charging, providing they provide something free in return.

Orlsend
April 28th, 2009, 07:19 AM
Its looks to me they wna to charge for ReactOS mixed with Linux.

fatality_uk
April 28th, 2009, 01:41 PM
How much of this $79 dollars is being put back in to Open Source?
I have no issues with people charging, providing they provide something free in return.

Then that's a restriction that the GPL specifically didn't want to lend it name to. People can sell GPL'd software, perfectly legally, without having to put ANYTHING back.

Now from a moral point of view, taking others work and just selling it without providing anything in return has to be questioned, but if someone makes a new distro that provides added value, above and beyond that which is delivered in the base, then that's fine.

swoll1980
April 28th, 2009, 09:53 PM
From what others have said, it seems that crossover alone covers the cost of the OS.

I-75
April 28th, 2009, 10:29 PM
might be worth it for the incredible effects. and don't laugh about changing the name of konqueror. whenever someone asks why people don't like kde, the most common response is that people just don't like the 'k' branding on everything. smart move on their part.

I agree, the K is way over used...

SomeGuyDude
April 28th, 2009, 10:35 PM
From what others have said, it seems that crossover alone covers the cost of the OS.

Which is hilarious, since CX is really, really not worth it.