thelinuxlink.net

Many projects dont keep the iso files of the old releases. Try searching for RedHat 6.0 or Slackware 3.0 iso files. That bothers me, I wanna keep an archive of these wonderful distros which were cutting edge in their day and may have lost their luster in time. Wouldn't it be nice to have a location where we could download the old linux/unix CDs we used as noobs ?

I searched on the net but couldn't find any location. I am planning to register the domain oldunixcd.org OR oldlinuxcd.org and keep an archive of the iso files. Any existing project going on that I can contribute to ? Any suggestions will be appreciated in this. Should I go for http/ftp downloads OR torrent files? But then again with many ISPs throttling torrent traffic it might not be the best way to get the files.

Anyways, is it even worth it

Have you tried contacting the maintainers of these projects and asking for old isos? I think it might be a worthwhile project, for sure, but it might get difficult to manage, quickly - imagine distrowatch with revision control and storage issues (that many isos is going to ~*EAT*~ space). Or are you only considering a very select few distros?

It will be just a directory of torrent files for some of the larger distros around.

1. Slackware
2. RedHat
3. Debian
4. Ubuntu
5. Suse
6. FreeBSD
7. OpenBSD
8. NetBSD

And ofcourse for any others people think of.

I got the domain http://www.oldunixcd.org
Which CMS should I use? Joomal or phpwebsite ?
I don't want Drupal since it's too much for such a small site.

I would probably be more interested in the source code than the finished cdroms. http://WWW.linux.org has a fair amount of old cd's. Simple html and or a scripting language would do the trick for starters. Good luck!

Speaking of the source code. If you're gonna distribute old versions of GNU/Linux, keep in mind that the GPL still applies on those, and if you can't find the source code for the binaries you want to distribute, you can't distribute the binaries at all. This is very important. This is the rules even if you don't have a place to get the source code to supply to people, to whom you distribute the binaries. Trust me on this one, I have read all of GPLv2 like 5 or 7 times.

That's lame, I can't give out free software to someone if I don't have the source code. Does this apply to me giving my friend the latest ubuntu disc ?
By the way should it be a problem even if I am pointing to the original project's website for the torrent? I already put up FreeBSD 5.5 Release CD torrent links, the links just point you to the FreeBSD BitTorrent Tracker page for the concerned disc image. Have a look and tell me if this is fine. I know, I know with FreeBSD there is not liability of the GPL, but as an example.
-- http://oldunixcd.8tt.org/blog

kedardamle wrote:That's lame,

Well, that's a matter of opinion, if it was not a requirement, what you'd have is the BSD/MIT/X11 licenses.

kedardamle wrote:I can't give out free software to someone if I don't have the source code.

That is correct, and the reason is, if it was not this way, Apple could easily use GPLed code in Mac OS X, and their kernel sucks, so I can only imagine Steve Jobs wanting to use the Linux kernel. I mean seriously, this is a basic requirement of the GPL! Copyright law, by default says "all rights reserved buddy, hands off!", the GPL is the only channel for lessening that total lock-down. So if you violate the GPL, which terminates your permission to distribute the software, you obviously cannot distribute the software.

kedardamle wrote:Does this apply to me giving my friend the latest ubuntu disc ?

Technically, yes. This is a reason why GPLv3 is really sooooo much better a license for today's world, for which it is written. Remember GPLv2 was written in in 1991, this was before ANY average person in society had any sort of fast Internet. If you gave me an Ubuntu disc, and I asked you for the source code, it would technically be a GPLv2 violation for you to simply point to Ubuntu's servers and say "Go get it there", even if you're 100% sincere about it, although I doubt anybody in the world would sue you for it, unless it was preventing me from getting the source code. The reason is that GPLv2 requires every "node in the network" if you will, to provide source code, you can't simply point to a central point. The reason for this, is that back in the day, Internet accessibility and speed would be a technical barrier for people to get the source code. If I only had ASS-SLOW dial-up, and you only offered the source code on Internet, I did not get the four freedoms in reality, only in theory, and the purpose of the GPL in any revision, is to absolutely and completely safeguard the four freedoms, NOT to be a good development model as Linus Torvalds seems to think.

kedardamle wrote:By the way should it be a problem even if I am pointing to the original project's website for the torrent?

Torrent files themselves, does not contain any data, it just contains file information and hashes etc. etc. so that is no problem. And torrents in general is not a problem, because it's not a central point.

kedardamle wrote:I already put up FreeBSD 5.5 Release CD torrent links, the links just point you to the FreeBSD BitTorrent Tracker page for the concerned disc image. Have a look and tell me if this is fine. I know, I know with FreeBSD there is not liability of the GPL, but as an example.
-- http://oldunixcd.8tt.org/blog

Actually there is, because FreeBSD does include, GCC etc. etc.


Anyway, the main thing you need to watch out for. Is if you start to distribute stuff like Red Hat 6.0. GPLv2 only requires people to provide source for three years:

GPLv2 wrote: b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,

Unless you can dig up the source code for that stuff, you cannot distribute the binary. The reason is the same basic requirement to provide source code that prevents the likes of Apple, from (ab?)using GPLed code inside of the parts of Mac OS X that is not under GPL, because they must then provide source code for the entire program under the GPL. If you distribute a binary, you MUST provide the people you give it to, the source code, so that they can have the same four freedoms that you had. And if you don't have the source code, it's too bad, to put it frankly, but there just can't be any exceptions to this rule, otherwise, Apples would run amok!

Tsuroerusu wrote:

kedardamle wrote:By the way should it be a problem even if I am pointing to the original project's website for the torrent?

Torrent files themselves, does not contain any data, it just contains file information and hashes etc. etc. so that is no problem. And torrents in general is not a problem, because it's not a central point.

Thats a interesting question, I am not sure that Troels reply is so accurate and complete.
Warez sites that only contain torrents files have been shut down by various authorities, TorrentSpy are fined $110m . I think it would be the same if someone hosted fedora core 2 on a torrent and did not provide the source.

allix wrote:

Tsuroerusu wrote:

kedardamle wrote:By the way should it be a problem even if I am pointing to the original project's website for the torrent?

Torrent files themselves, does not contain any data, it just contains file information and hashes etc. etc. so that is no problem. And torrents in general is not a problem, because it's not a central point.

Thats a interesting question, I am not sure that Troels reply is so accurate and complete.
Warez sites that only contain torrents files have been shut down by various authorities, TorrentSpy are fined $110m . I think it would be the same if someone hosted fedora core 2 on a torrent and did not provide the source.

Google has yet to be sued for being a torrent search engine, look at this: http://www.google.com/search?q=filetype ... 8&oe=UTF-8
You can also use other sorts of search patterns to track down unauthorized copies of music etc. etc.

So I think that argument is moot, the reason TorrentSpy gets sued and all the rest is because the movie and music mafia have tons of money to lobby and bribe judges.

Tsuroerusu wrote:Speaking of the source code. If you're gonna distribute old versions of GNU/Linux, keep in mind that the GPL still applies on those, and if you can't find the source code for the binaries you want to distribute, you can't distribute the binaries at all. This is very important. This is the rules even if you don't have a place to get the source code to supply to people, to whom you distribute the binaries. Trust me on this one, I have read all of GPLv2 like 5 or 7 times.

I've still got Red Hat 5.2 and 6.0 in the box at home. In those days the source came on CDs with the distro. Can't see it being a major problem. Remember, in those days they didn't distribute ISOs. You bought a box.

The thing I'd be concerned about is if you're running torrents for the ISOs, the demand will be so low that you won't be able to maintain seeds. I'd be glad to contribute ISOs, if needed. In addition to old Red Hat through 8.0, I've got several old Mandrakes.

Gomer_X wrote:

Tsuroerusu wrote:Speaking of the source code. If you're gonna distribute old versions of GNU/Linux, keep in mind that the GPL still applies on those, and if you can't find the source code for the binaries you want to distribute, you can't distribute the binaries at all. This is very important. This is the rules even if you don't have a place to get the source code to supply to people, to whom you distribute the binaries. Trust me on this one, I have read all of GPLv2 like 5 or 7 times.

I've still got Red Hat 5.2 and 6.0 in the box at home. In those days the source came on CDs with the distro. Can't see it being a major problem. Remember, in those days they didn't distribute ISOs. You bought a box..

Excellent points. I just thought I would mention this aspect of the GPL so that we did not, by accident have an inadvertent violation, that has happened before for other people, just wanted to make sure it did not happen here. But anyway, yeah, since Red Hat includes source discs, then it's simply a matter of making those old source discs available.

Tsuroerusu wrote:Excellent points. I just thought I would mention this aspect of the GPL so that we did not, by accident have an inadvertent violation, that has happened before for other people, just wanted to make sure it did not happen here. But anyway, yeah, since Red Hat includes source discs, then it's simply a matter of making those old source discs available.

Also, I believe the GPL actually just says the source needs to be available on request. If no one requests it, there's no problem. If someone does and it's not available the worst that could happen is the ISOs would have to be removed.

I can't see someone getting sued over a Red Hat 7.0 ISO with no source code (even in America). I might be wrong, though. There's also the public relations hassle of a Linux oriented site appearing to violate the GPL.

Gomer_X wrote:

Tsuroerusu wrote:Excellent points. I just thought I would mention this aspect of the GPL so that we did not, by accident have an inadvertent violation, that has happened before for other people, just wanted to make sure it did not happen here. But anyway, yeah, since Red Hat includes source discs, then it's simply a matter of making those old source discs available.

Also, I believe the GPL actually just says the source needs to be available on request. If no one requests it, there's no problem.

Technically, that is true.

Gomer_X wrote:If someone does and it's not available the worst that could happen is the ISOs would have to be removed.

It's actually a little more serious than that, if you violate GPLv2, then to actually fully be on the legal side of the fence, you have to have your license reinstated by the authors, because GPLv2 does not automatically do that. So if I distributed Red Hat 7, and then didn't have the sources, which would be a violation, I no longer permission to distribute the software. This is not something that's ever gonna be a problem in real life, unless we're dealing with some company that has to be beaten in court to comply with the GPL (*cough*Verizon*cough*), then next to no software is gonna be mad over something like this.

Gomer_X wrote:I can't see someone getting sued over a Red Hat 7.0 ISO with no source code (even in America). I might be wrong, though. There's also the public relations hassle of a Linux oriented site appearing to violate the GPL.

Well, the FSF is quite vigorous in going after GPL violators, so I would not want to be on the "technical" border-line. Even for old versions of stuff, I can assure you the FSF are quite staunch about enforcing the license.


This is another area where I think GPLv3 is superior. If you make an inadvertent violation, your not in trouble in the same way. If you fix your violation, and do not receive a notice from the copyright holder within 60 days, your license is automatically reinstated.
This is covered in section 8 of GPLv3:

8. Termination.

You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).

However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation.

Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.

Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under this License. If your rights have been terminated and not permanently reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same material under section 10.

Thanks for all the info from you guys. I have got my hands on Slackware 3.2 iso and it has a source directory within. I will be putting up the torrent soon.