Slashdot Mirror
Interview: Corel CEO Michael Cowpland Answers
Corel Linux and Red Hat Linux
by ajs
At The Bazaar, I asked you if you recommended to your customers that they install Red Hat Linux as their server OS, and you said "Yes." Is this still Corel's stand, or are you moving toward the server market as well?
Cowpland:
Corel's Linux focus has always been on the desktop. Our goal when we created Corel LINUX OS was to take the rock solid Debian distribution and KDE desktop and build an easy to install and simple to use Linux distribution for desktop users that would act as a platform for our applications (WordPerfect Office 2000 for Linux and our graphics suite for Linux). That is still our focus - and providing a distribution that non-technical users would be comfortable with was key to bringing our applications to Linux. We have made a few partnership announcements in the past few days with Newlix and O/E One, but these partnerships are part of our core competency - creating user-friendly applications and GUI. Newlix is creating a server that will run Corel LINUX OS - we are building the GUI. O/E One is building information appliances that will be based on Corel LINUX OS and use our user-friendly interface. Certainly configuration for Samba and other server tools are available in Corel LINUX OS as they are in other distributions, but we want to maintain our focus on the desktop and provide a clean, easy experience for our users.
Corel Office
by LostOne
How committed is Corel to porting their office package over to Linux? Will we see the same functionality in the Linux versions as in the Windows versions when the ports are completed or will there be functional differences? For that matter, will the applications be able to talk to other X applications using the standard X protocols?
Cowpland:
We will begin testing beta 1 of WordPerfect Office 2000 (WordPerfect 9, Quattro Pro 9, Presentations 9, Paradox 9 and CorelCENTRAL 9) this month and anticipate the office suite will be available on store shelves in April. To make WordPerfect Office 2000 a viable choice for users, we needed to focus on the core functionality of the applications and ensure we provided users with a complete productivity suite that has all of the functionality most users will ever need. There are some limitations in the underlying transport layer that prevent a 100% feature parity. Please note that these areas are under active evaluation and development.
Our goal is to provide the same functionality on both Linux and Windows platforms. Features that are heavily dependent on the operating system, may be delayed until the Linux operating system supports them. Rather than try to develop applications that meet the lowest common denominator, we are taking advantage of the strengths in each of the operating systems and this will most certainly show up as minor variations. Our first generation of Linux applications will depend on a porting layer and this porting layer can be extended to talk to other X applications. We recognize that interoperability with other X applications is important and that will become a focus once we complete our interoperability with legacy documents and applications.
Canada and Corel
by dbarclay10
I'm a proud Canadian citizen. Despite the "brain drain," I still feel that Canada produces top-notch hardware and software. However, many of our highly skilled people have taken jobs in the U.S. and abroad because they get paid more. I must say, when offered nearly twice the pay, and with a lower cost of living in some U.S. cities, I'd be tempted myself. My question: How dedicated are you to keeping Corel a Canadian company? Are there any political/business issues you wish to see resolved to help keep Corel a Canadian company?
Cowpland:
It's a major advantage for us to be in Canada - an excellent workforce with super productivity and easy access to world markets and we don't see this picture changing.
Corel Linux Licensing issues
by Anonymous Coward
One of the biggest issues most of us in the Gnu/Linux community face when considering Corel Linux is that of figuring out your commitment to Open Source / GPL software. First, there was the flack over your beta not being GPLed in spite of containing GPLed code, and then there was the weird situation with you licensing a product developed by people under 18 only to consumers over 18. Would you care to comment on these issues, and on what you can say to reassure those of us who, frankly, doubt Corel's commitment to the ideological positions we hold dear?
Cowpland:
Unfortunately there was a misunderstanding when we initially began beta testing Corel LINUX OS. The intention of the agreement was to keep Corel-specific code under non-disclosure until we were ready to release the product. The reason why we wanted to do that was 1) to protect our reputation for producing quality products by not releasing code before it was fully tested and 2) to ensure that someone didn't copy the Corel-specific code and begin distributing it under our corporate name before it was ready to be released. Once we realized that the agreement was not clear and was causing concern in the open source community, we immediately amended it and sent new agreements to all the beta testers that spelled out more clearly what we intended. I think our quick response to the open source community actually earned Corel more respect and support because it showed that we do listen to the community and take their complaints very seriously.
The licensing agreement isn't intended to prevent anyone under 18 from using the product, however, in most jurisdictions in North America, someone under 18 cannot enter into a legally binding contract. Basically that means that someone under 18 can read the GPL licensing agreement, agree to the conditions, download the product and then not be bound by the terms and conditions of the contract. That idea may seem far-fetched and wasn't really a factor for developers throughout most of the life of Linux. But as Linux becomes more and more popular, I think the open source community needs to make sure its interests are protected. That's why we require a guardian or parent to agree to the GPL license on behalf of someone under 18 before downloading Corel LINUX OS. The intent is just to ensure the GPL is enforceable.
Corel and ASP
by Schnake
Does Corel have an ASP (Application Service Provider) strategy?
Cowpland:
Linux offers an excellent solution for Corel's ASP strategy. The basis of the ASP model is providing service and value to customers, by offering a reliable and Low Total Cost of Delivery package to ASP partners. Because Linux is developed in an open environment, and the different versions of the operating system are available at no charge on the Web, Linux is also a good value-based alternative for different ASP providers.
Corel recognizes this, and is positioned at the forefront of the Linux movement, with the release of WordPerfect 8 for Linux, Corel® LINUX® OS, and upcoming releases of its entire office suite and graphics suite in 2000. By developing innovative technology like Linux and strategic industry partnerships, Corel is a leader in providing low cost of delivery technology to its ASP partners.
Corel recently announced a licensing agreement with GraphOn to include licenses for its GraphOn® Bridges technology which enables software to be delivered from a server to any client desktop-regardless of the operating system used. In this scenario, Windows NT® software could be delivered from a server to a Linux desktop, significantly lowering overall implementation costs and increasing the number of software applications made available to ASP clients. Taken a step further, the native Linux software would be delivered from a Linux server to a Linux-based desktop-offering an exciting value proposition.
Free as in Beer
by Th0th
...is there any concern that the WordPerfect Office 2000 suite for Linux will be financially unsuccessful due to the fact that personal users of Linux, used to getting software for free, will be unable/unwilling to spend hundreds of dollars on an office suite?
Cowpland:
Certainly there are people in the open source community who will continue to download and use free software like WordPerfect 8 for Linux and we encourage them to do so. However, there are many new Linux users and technology enthusiasts that want to try Linux but have been deterred by its difficult-to-use reputation. These customers believe in the value of the Corel brand and want to purchase a complete office suite that includes support, a user manual and a well-known company like Corel that stands behind its products. And as Linux moves more into non-traditional Linux markets like small business and home users, the Corel brand and technical support will play an even greater role. Many customers have already demonstrated their willingness to pay for these features, as evidenced sales of Linux products from companies like Corel, Red Hat, Caldera, etc. and we believe the market for Linux products will continue to grow.
I also want to let you know that we intend to offer WordPerfect Office 2000 at prices comparable to our Windows suite which are already very aggressively priced. High prices should not be a factor in keeping people away from Linux.
Giving Back to the Community
by Jon Trowbridge
There is a general sense that, besides trying to increase shareholder value, Red Hat and VA are giving back to the community by employing GNOME hackers, kernel hackers, etc.
Red Hat and VA benefit from doing this, of course, but only in the sense that it benefits the free software community as a whole. What sort of things are Corel doing along these lines? Have you hired any free software celebrities and given them the mandate to hack on anything want? What non-Corel development projects are you funding? Besides bigger and better graphical installers, what benefits will the average non-Corel Debian user derive from your involvement?
Cowpland:
The average Debian user might not derive any immediate benefits from our involvement because what we are doing with Linux on the desktop is probably too simplistic for him or her. We want to bring Linux to non-technical users and that doesn't typically describe a Debian user. We believe that an easier-to-use Linux with familiar applications will encourage more people to try Linux and once they do, they'll stay with it. Eventually Linux will move into mainstream markets, creating more demand for Linux developers, and that's where Debian and other Linux developers will see benefits.
We will also continue to contribute the work we do on Corel LINUX OS and the Wine project to the open source community. We're also using our position within the business community to evangelize Linux to other ISVs (independent software vendors) and encourage them to bring their technology to Linux. In the long run, we believe this will help further the development and acceptance of Linux.
Other projects we're currently working on include a printing API that will be released to the open source community. We needed to create a printing API now so that our applications will be able to print once they are released in the spring, but by releasing it back to the open source community we hope that Linux developers will provide feedback and suggestions to improve upon it.
--------------
Features that are heavily dependent on the operating system, may be delayed until the Linux operating system supports them.
uhm,iz this to say that the only OS on which they intend heavily to depend is windows?
Call it free enterprise. I doubt Corel wants to go in the direction of a server market--but if they do, what's so terribly wrong with that? What I think we're seeing here is our community being wary of yet another Commercial entity entering our midst while all along Corel is just one of many. Relax, it's a win-win situation!
I know you might be trying to be sarcastic, but, yes, that is what they are trying to do (on the interface side). If they make a system that have Linux's reliability and advantages, while maintaining windows' ease of use, they have something great. As you might understand, this system will have two major advantages over Windows: reliability and PRICE (corel linux is free, packaged version is 1/3 of windows).
OK, here I'm not replying to the original comment, but to all those comments talking about "we dont need no newbies (or the likes comments)". I think its cool to know linux, to know that I can do stuff other people can't, and that I use this system that other stupid people can't use. OK. But if you can't admit that you need those other people to adopt this system and use it, you are wayyyy dumber than them. If not for the general population, the "newbies" as they are called, Linux would never be going anywhere. Oh, yes, I know all about it, how Linux came from nothing and now have 20 mill users, without any commercial support at all. But fact is, the commercial support is there, and it has been gaining. They are adding drivers and HW support, and without this Linux would bve nothing. Yes, you could type some cool drivers with your friends, but it would be about ten years before you had a total functioning system. And by that time, most people would be coding stuff for some other system. You better get off your fucking high horse and see that this is good for the system. Dont be a freaking prick trying to hold on to your exclusivity by not allowing people to join. The commercial addition is MAKING this a viable alternative. THEY are giving you drivers for 3D cards, sound cards, printers and whatnot. And this is not just about you having your little Linux system to play around with. This is about people having an alternative to Windows. Not just any alternative, but an open alternative. Sorry, just had to let that out. I've read about enough elitist Linux propaganda here. I'm not complaining, except if you can't allow other people to enjoy your advantages, and especially if you cant admit the advantages of big corpo support, just go off to a deserted island and type you own cool code.
You *bought* StarOffice? Case closed.
One good thing about packages is that you don't neccessarily need the source code for all the dependencies. Who has a fortran 77 compiler installed anyway ( retorical question )? Another is that it is alot faster to install a binary than compile something ( especially on slower computers ). Finally with some programs you can't just ./configure ./make ./make install Then there are always compiler bugs to watch out for ( oh dam the -fno-exceptions flag I thought I would add to get a speed boost fucked up my binary ).
SCO is getting active in Linux and Microsoft IS one of their two biggest stockholders. I have been surprised that nobody has been said anything about this.
Nah, your just dumb.
In other words, attempt to do what M$ tried with Windows???
I *like* ghostscript/lpd. I think it *rocks* compared to that windows crap.
I just wish ghostscript was better integrated into linux distributions and whatnot. Getting an epson photo 700 connect up is not a job for an amateur.
Does the age of the original person who decoded DVD encrypted data have any impact on the case?
What about Gate's (20 year old) comments on trade secrets covered by NDA -- specifically -- and not in consumer grade software?
Damn, is she open source too?
>Increasing the user base of Linux will only >lower the Lowest Common Denominator.
Nah, not true. Take a look at SWAT (the Samba web config tool). It is *very* easy to use, but smb.conf is still smb.conf and I can still hack it all I want to by hand and SWAT just works with it. Very nice. Just one example of easy-to-use != feable.
Even LinuxConf allows you to mess with config files if you like - although IMO it doesn't do as well as SWAT.
I totally agree that Linux *MUST NOT* be made less flexible, I just don't see how that is a guaranteed outcome of a larger user base.
-Glen the AC
That's why we require a guardian or parent to agree to the GPL license on behalf of someone under 18 before downloading Corel LINUX OS. The intent is just to ensure the GPL is enforceable.
From the GPL:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
I assume that since you are not required to accept the GPL, Corel would be violating the license by forcing other people to accept it. There are no restrictions on using or downloading GPL software.
In the latest Printing HOWTO, I have begun to advocate the use of PDQ instead of the lpr command as the primary user interface to printers. This lets users select print quality, duplex mode, paper types, etc, and lets both users and superusers define printers.
I'm struggling to connect all the people working on printing software. There are CUPS, gnome-print, PUP, PDQ, PPR, LPRng, apsfilter, magicfilter, printtool, printool's impending rewrite, rhs-printfilters, gimp's print plugin, something in KDE, and now this "Corel Printin API". The flurry of development is good, but people are developing in all directions, and at least in Corel's case I'm sure that they've just hacked up something like the Windows model so they can get their software out the door.
- Grant Taylor
(Slashdot is awkward and klunky. Demand NNTP!)
This is hurried but... A lot of responses to this post talk about dumbing Linux down and make it easier. Note that as long as things are done in layers, there is nothing wrong. Why not put a nice GUI shell around mv/cp/ln/rm? The important is to not remove the textual shell...
heh, in your rush to be first, you ended up being firts.
Yes; these are usually defined for application use in a "PPD", or "Postscript Printer Definition" file, which includes the options and Postscript snippets to include for them. In practice, many PPD files contain PJL commands since Postscript implementations don't usually include all the options.
PDQ's option specification syntax provides a superset of PPD functionality, and allows full control of printer options regardless of print job language. Automated translation of PPD files into PDQ driver declarations is on the todo list; any volunteers?
You should be able to say, give an option to a print dialog box that says the destination printer is "bob_lj4@bobs.com" or some such and have it get the options that printer supports, give you a second "options" dialog which you manipulate, and click "print" and bob gets your sales flier.
Yes, this sort of thing is what the Internet Printing Protocol (as partly implemented in CUPS) promises. In practice, however, no one in their right mind is going to open up printers to print jobs submitted from random people on the network. Network print server vendors are also unlikely to support cryptographic authentication, or even simple access control lists in the forseable future.
Generally, it'll be easier to send bob a PDF file. If bob is keen to have it on paper, let him print the thing.
PDQ, FWIW, allows printer "installation" by simply matching the printer model to how it's connected to you; if IPP ever becomes popular, then that'd be the choice. In the meantime, one-off printing to LPD printers can be done with the program rlpr.
- Grant Taylor
(Slashdot is klunky and awkward. Demand NNTP!)
I think we're seeing the lines more clearly now between the OSS people and the Pro-Linux/Anti-MS at any cost people.
Well, the position stated by software companies is that when you buy a "Frobozzoffice" CD you are not buying the right to use the software, but the media in which the software is written, and a chance to agree to the license.
If you don't buy, you can't legally get the bits, and you are not being given the right to accept the license.
I especially agree with this, and wanna add one thingsthat would also helps newbies and experienced users alike: 1. A complete and usable package manager for tar.gz, one's that adhere to "configure; make; make install" that is. I know there are a couple clients out there like this, maybe someone can correct me here with a good example. The Gnome Install Project is on it's way, but needs a better way of uninstallation. The Encap Package Manager has a good idea about putting packages in one directory then just using symlinks for bin, lib, etc. Uninstall the package? Just delete the directory, and it should be easy to make a script that removes broken symlinks in /usr/local/bin etc. RPM's and Deb's are great, but since most packages are at least released as tar.gz's utilizing Make files, why not create a easy yet powerful GUI to compile/install/UNINSTALL common source packages? I know compiling and installing is actually pretty easy if there aren't broken dependencies, but I would REALLY like to be able to uninstall cleanly the source packages that I've installed (not all Makefiles have a "make uninstall" rule, and a database would just be cleaner)
What makes you thing you can decide on good moderation better than the moderators?
Actually, Corel is making a profit from Corel Linux already.
They made over 3 million in revenue in the last quarter, on expenses of about 2 million to produce it.
And it was only out for 6 weeks.
Now, O Wise Moderator(s) that marked my comments a "troll", please explain how that was a troll?
Not only was it not a troll, but it was on-topic and consistent as a follow-up to the comments preceding.
"Troll" indeed.
My point was that my family was Corel's business to lose. (For the business-terms impaired: that means they had an advantage. In this case: it was their product that was originally preferred.) And lose it they did.
I'm surprised I had to explain this! Tho perhaps I shouldn't have been.
I think it is good Corel is in the Linux business, but why did they get into it? They were in trouble and needed a new market. Their current attitude (which looks like it hasn't changed from when they made closed products) makes me not trust them so much.
If they should make a comeback on the Windows market... they may go closed source again. During the interview the CEO things sound all nice and stuff, but one wonders about their motives.
(Were this ties in with post I replying 2)
If they were truly open source... they would have released the beta and the community would have fixed the bugs, evaluated it, and helped Corel make a better product.
It seems to me that they don't trust us (think people will just use beta and not purchase full product) or they are not full open source. Even though I run Corel Linux and think it is a nice product... I still don't trust the company.
Is it progress if a cannibal uses a fork?
The correct URL for the un asked question is http://slashdot.org/co mments.pl?sid=00/01/17/1119222&cid=110
High prices should not be a factor in keeping people away from Linux.
Corel seems to be under a rather interesting impression that they are the reason people are switching to Linux in the first place. I'm quite amused.
// zyqqh
No, it doesn't. Windows provides an API derived from its graphics functions to allow applications to print. This is not obviously better than always using Postscript, which is standardized and very stable; various libraries are available to help generate good Postscript.
The Windows printing back-end, the drivers, renderers, etc are often junk. The only advantage to the Windows way is that most printers come with Windows drivers. Those drivers are often huge, unreliable, buggy monsters which break between Windows revisions and don't work on other OS flavors at all. Many vendors are known not to release updated drivers for old printers as new versions of Windows arrive.
Linux printer drivers generally work on DOS, OS/2, Windows, every Unix in town, and elsewhere. Ghostscript is in fact shipped as firmware in many printers; there's a lot to said for gs (and a list of problems, too: difficult compilation, a funky license, etc).
The main problem facing Linux is a modest shortage of drivers for some low-end printers, and awful support by distributions: Red Hat still doesn't support any non-vanilla-Ghostscript/Postscript/ascii printers like the Lexmarks (most of which mostly work) or HP's "PPA" printers.
- Grant Taylor
(Slashdot is awkward and klunky. Demand NNTP!)
Well, they have been contributing a lot to the Wine project, for instance. And they contributed a lot to the ARM port of Linux while developing the Netwinder.
What ever happened to the answers from the interview with Larry Augustine? The second half of the interview seems to be MIA.
And believe you me, you will like the result better than you like Red Hat!! (Warning, as a member of the Debian project, I may be accused of some minor bias here...:-)
Heh, I just discovered a week ago that Corel pays its developers less than Hummingbird. Pathetic.
--
--
Marc A. Lepage
Software Developer
Cygnus made money (millions) for years before being bought by RedHat. On a smaller scale there are plenty of people making money with Linux.
However, like the Internet boom that you mention, the Linux stock market boom is primarily driven by the anticipation of profits. It's certainly a gamble, but not as far-fetched as it may seem.
For example, Microsoft currently is the most capitalized company in the whole world. They have ammassed this wealth by creating and selling and supporting software (an OS primarily, but more recently all kinds of software).
Linux represents a chance for other software manufacturers to get on this gravy train. Sure, in order to nullify Microsofts huge install base RedHat and others have to give away large parts of the software, but on the other hand they also get a hand in the development of said software.
The end result is software that is arguably better than Microsoft's at a price that absolutely can't be beat. If Linux becomes the de-facto standard OS the Linux companies stand to make a lot of money selling hardware, consulting, proprietary Linux software, and support.
Enough people think that this is a possible future than RedHat is now worth billions.
Linux is not a zero-sum game. It is not a single product. Increasing the user base of COREL Linux will only lower the LCD for COREL Linux. The simplification of Linux is not(generally) happening at the kernel level. Therefore a multitude of distributions can have varying levels of simplification. This can actually make "your" vision for the Linux you want to use MORE possible. How? When there was primarily Redhat, Debian, and Slackware, and someone inadequately prepared to get going asked questions, you either had to tell them RTFM, ignore them, or help them. That meant that your "pure" distribution was being dragged down by newbies. Now, however, if someone is having BIG problems getting going with Debian, you can say, "Why don't you just try Corel, or Caldera's distro for now." After all Corel is expressing a willingness to take them in after you turn them away. That can raise the LCD for your distro and will only lower it for those for whom the lowering is not the great travesty you see it as.
LetterJ
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
The subject says it all ....
CP
What Cowpland said was, "Basically that means that someone under 18 can read the GPL licensing agreement, agree to the conditions, download the product and then not be bound by the terms and conditions of the contract." I interpret that as meaning that if someone under 18 downloaded a GPLed product they could do anything with it they please. They wouldn't have to follow the GPL at all! Talk about a hugh loophole...
> Corel can have the newbie market, and I encourage them to file out the rough edges for them. But don't tell me they all have to be like that. Sometimes complete control is important.
I don't recall that anyone _did_ tell you that all [distributions] had to be [newbiefied]. I'm sure RedHat is not planning to go out of business, just because Corel Linux takes off.
On another front, I suspect you'll find that CL is just as damned configurable as any other install of Debian, if you fire up a shell and know where to go. It will be interesting to see if the configuration tools that Corel has built atop it are as resilient in the face of discovered changes that _they didn't make_, like, say, Linuxconf, but hey...
Cheers,
-- jra
-----
A nice reply; thanks.
I was one of, and possibly the earliest, agitator for Corel to become involved with Linux, back even before the Netwinder project. It's pleasant to see things happening, even if they're not happening as quickly as some people might like to see.
I can't -wait- for Draw for Linux... with that and Ventura, I can dump Windows completely.
Cheers,
-- jra
Cheers,
-- jra
-----
>It's a sad testament that, in an effort to protect our children, our society decides to bind their hands and treat them as invalids before they reach a magic age at which point it is assumed they will have the ability to be "responsible".
Indeed. And this is precisely why 'Murrican law on the topic upholds the validity of contracts with minors concerning things essential to living -- as that phrase is interpretd by the judiciary.
IANAL, and I haven't researched it lately, but I think a home phone would count, rent and other utilities certainly do.
Cheers,
-- jra
-----
one thing for sure is that corel is getting in front of peoples faces. yesterday i was at best buy compusa and frys (i'm not proud of it but it's true) and corel was front and center at eye level with their slick looking packaging at each place. lots of print advertising too. i wonder what the numbers are like on sales and how many desktop joe's really are using linux for the first time since corel hit the shelves.
Good info in here, this needs to be read before the FUD spreads.
There are only 2 ways for me to take this. Either consumers are idiots (No real surprise though), or I misunderstood what they are saying.
If they don't want to pay for Corel Linux then use the download ("already created") version. And if they don't want to pay for WordPerfect, because they didn't "pay" for Linux, well, then all I can ask is have they never gotten anything else free before?
What is it with people when all they can say is "gimme, gimme, gimme". "You gave me that, now give me this". "I deserve that, I deserve this". So what are they going to do then? "Well, if I have to pay for Corel Office to run it on a free Corel Linux, then I'm just going to pay for both Windows and Office." What's more ironic is that they're probably the same people who are undyingly convinced that Windows is free because it came with their computers.
-BrentOther than stock traders, I still don't see any companies making decent money from Linux®. Are there any Linux® companies even making a profit? Like the internet stock boom, it seems like the bill will eventually be due whereby investors will eventually start demanding some profits. It's just hard to imagine the stock of all these companies, along with all the new ones yet to be launched, continuing to go up and up while so few are actually turning a profit. Just like all markets, you'd think that there'd be a shakeout evenutally.
Linux® is a registered trademark of Linux Torvalds.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
There's nothing wrong with someone being as big as an ogre. You don't want them to be as mean as an ogre. Fortunately, the GPL does not support "embrace and extend."
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Well, let me phrase this simply. I use Linux at home. I have been using it since RedHat 5.0
Now I am at RH 6.1.
The only thing keeping RH6.1 on my disk is the lack of Gnome under Corel Linux as RedHat has always claimed high and loud and still is claiming that it dosn't give a damn about desktop users and won't in this millenium. They want to run after appliances and I wish them good luck. However, I'd laugh myself out in 10 years when they start fighting for survival like SGI is doing now. You know the enterprise market is not as big as the home market, and I am not even talking about the supposedly future of appliances !!
The only think keeping Win95 on my disk is the lack of international in Netscape (try to read arabic pages there) But Mozilla have been working on this and I see advance. So there is hope here.
Now for Corel, put Gnome on your desktop and I swear I'll switch as has/will probably do a lot if not all current RedHat desktop users.
Ciao
The kernel needs a Gtk/Gnome-based post-install device configuration tools "a la" make xconfig. (Better sig coming soon
Well... Mr Cowpland probably is not allowed to answer some of the legal questions since the case is not over. I'm sure he'll issue a press release or give an interview when it's over.
:)
As for his wife, you can ask her these questions at: http://www.marlencowpland.com
Take care
nick
--
GroundAndPound.com News and info for martial artists of all styles.
I wish there was an easier way for us to get this kind of info from you. I have been trying to figure out for 6 months if Corel gives back to the community and now I can see they do. By some of the other comments in this discussion, it looks like a lot (or most) people are also confussed about this. Since this is something that would really benifit Corel's public relations, I would think they would do something to more widely publisize it. (Maybe they did but its hidden??)
what a short not interesting interview
Copyright laws still apply. Redistributing Windows would be a violation of copyright law.
In theory, minors could reverse engineer a piece of software legally (if the license agreement takes away that right, because (in theory) it would be invalid).
Because the GPL *gives* rights over copyright law rather than taking them away, a minor would have fewer rights (iow, not be able to redistribute the software at all), than someone who could agree to the contract, so no hole could develop.
There's nothing in the GPL that says you can't "sell commercially". Look at RedHat, for instance.
The GPL only requires that you give source code that matches the binaries.
---
This comment powered by Mozilla!
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
I like this explanation you've given - it appeals to my common sense. Some of the restrictions listed in some EULAs have always bothered me.
Does anyone know of any case law that deals with the enforcability of the common EULA?
I have to disagree.
Although I do worry about the "dumbing down" of Linux, I do think it needs to be done. The alternative is to have a monopolistic/proprietary OS. Any proprietary OS has the ability to be monopolistic and controlling of other technologies. So whether it be Be, Sun, MS, Apple, if they become dominant, then they can control what is out there. Having Linux (or Free BSD for that matter) keeps the playing field level. We need a Linux client that is "dumbed down" for non-technical users. But make it configurable.
The thing that can keep a dumb Linux from being as insecure as Windows, is not to have the default options that Windows have. Let the user configure Linux to a less secure system. For example, have system operations done only as root, unless the user states (at installation, or as root) that they can do something as administrator. I know that this can be done today, but make it more application dependant and user friendly. IOW, let the user turn off security with a push of a button and a warning message, so that they know that they are in trouble.
Like the Mellisa virus. The main Word template/macros were modified so that any document that was opened was infected. If this was in Linux, then Word (Word for Linux?) would have been installed by an adminstrator any only that administrator could modify that template, so the Mellisa virus would not spread as easily.
Security is an issue, and I do believe that ease of use and security are reversly proportional, and you will see Windows getting more complex as it tries to be secure.
Windows and Linux are trying to be both secure and friendly. Windows is trying to get the secure/stable environment and Linux is trying to get the friendliness environment.
It's like Windows is this beautiful glass house trying to build a solid foundation. Where Linux is a strong brick building trying to become beautiful. It's easier to take a strong building and make it beautiful then a fancy but weak building and make it strong.
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
The GPL places no restrictions on what you describe... I can compile it, I can sell commecrcially, I can file for an IPO, as long as I distribute the source... Being underage and released from the contract wouldn't be an an advantage, unless you are a 17 year old that has a bunch of source that you don't want to share, which wouldn't be very exciting.
Juln
>>... but who's to say they won't go after the
>>server market in a couple of years time?
Subject says all.
1000 SlashDot sigs
Okay so where does that leave code written by minors and placed under the GPL? If the *author* cannot enter into a binding contract...
BTW, I recognize that Cowpland was talking about the user agreement for the website, but wouldn't it also apply to the GPL?
...And what about code written by insane people?
I agree--their contribution is not insignificant. The same could be said of anyone who develops apps that run on Linux.
I remember one of the issues the tabloids, er, I mean "computer industry press", made a lot of hoopla about in the "Mac is dead" years was that they were losing developer support, and less apps meant less users meant less chance that the platform will continue to exist.
Of course the situation isn't quite the same with OSS, because development is done largely by people who aren't asking to get paid for their work by 5 million users, but on the other hand, more developer support (more apps) => more users => more developer support => more apps for all of us to use on our preferred OS (okay, so I use my Mac more than my Linux machine--but I DEFINITELY prefer Linux to M$'s junk).
Convert RSS to HTML - integrate webfeeds into your website
As a game developer, I'm constantly arguing with my co-workers that we should be porting our games (Linux, Be, Mac, etc.) The counter-argument, which I partly agree with, is the Linux game market isn't as now where as big compared to the Win32 gaming market. Yes I know, if we're not part of the solution, we're part of the problem. :-( At least I have 2 other co-workers who use Linux, so we have some interesting discussions on porting.
In the meantime, if customers want to see more Linux games, write to the game developers and politely ask them to port their games to Linux. Its not much, but its a start.
Cheers
I'm a firm believer that people should be made to take responsability for their actions. And I don't think age should be any real factor in making that judgement. How are children to learn to manage their own affairs if we continue to attempt to shield them from life for 19 years and then thrust them into it? Obviously they will need time to learn about life, and that's what good parenting is about. But the idea that the government should set their own ages for when a child can and cannot do certain things is to me a bit much. As this case illustrates, the main people who get hurt are the achievers. Those who excel faster, and want to accomplish more are told that because many of their peers generally are not as responsible as them they should be denied the ability to do certain things (ie take part in certain open source software).
But as I've said before, being young myself probably skews my viewpoint, although hopefully it doesn't skew anyone elses view of my opinion (but who would I be kidding if I thought it didn't).
Maybe it would help you think of a novice-oriented desktop environment as a special application that provides a specific (limited) interface to certain system resources (files and printers mostly), and acts as a launcher for productivity apps that also respect this sandbox view.
Think of this type of application in a corporate environment, rather than just in a home user environment
Any good Windows network administrator will attempt to lock down as much of the desktop interface (Control Panel, Run command, etc.) as is possible so that computer users can get on with typing that letter or entering those numbers, without the desktop getting in the way (and without the user mucking up the computer).
Now why shouldn't this desktop environment be running on a Linux computer? Or do you think that a Windows desktop is per se more easily and thoroughly secured than a Linux desktop?
Certainly, I remember having a shell account on my ISP's Sun box and running Pine for my email back in the days when I knew nothing about Unix. Try thinking of the modern corporate desktop in terms of that shell account. Sure, the actual hardware has been moved from the server room to the desk, but it should be possible to retain that model of use.
Look at it this way: The modern desktop user in today's corporate environment is analagous to the single user in the multi-user systems of old.
Actually, he's not. The idea of not releasing the code was in order to protect the reputation of Corel as a company that puts out quality code. They didn't want the flawed corel specific code from getting out into the public and being used and credited by other programs. They would be known for releasing buggy code. although that doesn't mean much in the open source community, we already know that corel is not an expert in open source. The good thing is that they're trying and embracing open source.
It's like buying a dog from the pound. For the first little while you're not to sure about the dog so your still a bit stand-offish, but when you get to know the dog he becomes your best friend
Unfortunately, this sounds hard and I don't want to do it, and most people I've talked to about it said "You're not using RedHat? We have RPMs these days." Redsoft, Microhat, whatever.
keeping the world safe for prematurely grumpy old men for oh, about 7 years now
The idea, though, you see, is to wrest control of the desktop away from any one company. This way, WE, the oss community, are in control of protocols, standards, and the like. We can fully and cleanly implement things which adhere to common industry standards without having to play second-fiddle to a company implementing things that only run on their products. It's about having more options to do more tasks more ways for whatever your time:money ratio is, without being restricted by a profit making entity in charge of user experiences.
keeping the world safe for prematurely grumpy old men for oh, about 7 years now
Maybe you can explain how you can get a "legitimate" copy of a piece of software from, say, Microsoft installed on your computer without having agreed to the license in the first place.
You say that you already have the right to do stuff with the software once you've "legitimately obtained" it. The way I see it, the only way to do that is to obtain it via Microsoft-approved means. If all of those means require agreeing to the EULA, then you're pretty much up a creek right?
I'd personally rather that if they are designing/engineering a whole new printing subsystem for *nux, that they try to think PAST windows. For example, in windows, every workstation has to have the driver to render from windows gdi/abstract format to printer native format on the local workstation. That's absurd. translation to printer specific format should be done on the print spooler/server!!
See, users shouldn't have to "install" a printer on their workstation to use it(unless the printer is attached to their workstation, perhaps, or it is a stand-alone box), just select it from a list of printers that they have rights to. In the specific case of what corel is working on, it would seem to me that the simplest, most logical solution would be to ship the document over the network as PostScript, write a bunch of drivers for ghost-script (that seems to be the most major problem of all for linux printing, lack of drivers for ghost-script, secondly is front-ending the printer setup to be simpler than lpr/lpd), and then have their printing sub-system call gs to convert it.
Anyhow, that's just one example of how they should design beyond windows' implementation of printing. I'm sure there are many other stupid things about windows printing I could come up with, but that is the most anoying to me, as a tech.
Does anyone know if Corel has a webpage/site up about this printing API that anyone could go and look at and make suggestions?
I'd love to hear any thoughts anyone else has on the subject of how *nix printing could be made a superior printing solution. Email me: jschmid|-AT-|uakron.eduNospam.
But is there a better way? This issue has been debated for a long time now.
The age based system may incovenience or be wrong for some, but frankly, it works most of the time.
Here's an example: The Corel version, during installation, won't install make by default because there are few newbies who would want to compile. For those of us who hack code, however, it's very useful. (Sure, there's always gcc--but who has the time for that?)
Corel can have the newbie market, and I encourage them to file out the rough edges for them. But don't tell me they all have to be like that. Sometimes complete control is important.
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
Interesting. If one is not old enough to be legally bound by a contract or license agreement (i.e.; the GPL), how can one legally incorporate and file for an IPO?
// TODO: fix sig
Don't get me wrong. I was a newbie once, but I'm not a typical computer user. I'm an apache configuring, perl coding, Unix administrator. I don't see the point in taking Linux to the "end-user". I don't want to see Linux dumbed-down, and I don't want to see Linux split off into 30 different levels of complexity to fit from "techno-phobe" to "techno-god".
/etc/inetd.conf file, we make it less powerful, less robust, and more prone to "stupid user tricks". Linux will be blamed because some solitaire player out there "rm -rf /*" and doesn't quite know what he did. That is some of the problem with Windows now. You don't honestly think that all of the horror stories are because of M$ coding, do you? Some of it is user-error.
We appear to have a Catch-22. If we make Linux secure enough, and easy enough for the typical techno-phobe to install without having to hack the
Increasing the user base of Linux will only lower the Lowest Common Denominator.
I say that we should keep Linux as the geek reserve and server room wonder that it is now. It will keep a more pure product.
Just my $0.02. I hope I didn't offend.
On most new computers with OEM versions of Microsoft products, the EULA is the first thing which comes up when the machine boots for the first time. So the software might be pre-installed, but you still have to agree to the license before you can use it.
But still it's nice to see that through Corel, linux may become more and more used in offices, and so it will likely make it more popular and brings more companies to devellop for Linux (like the printing API) and pay hackers to do so.
guillaume
----------
cheers
I've seen concerns on the Debian mailing lists that Corel is simply trying to raise stock price by jumping on the Linux bandwagon and isn't really contributing anything back to the community.
Well, I'm glad that at least Cowpland justified their position by saying that they are focusing on the "newbie" market. OSS Purists probably thinks that anything less than source-level contribution doesn't count, but I'd like to say this: I'm also a hardcore OSS advocate, but this is the real world.
Agreed. Folks who've been in the Linux world may not understand this (it is not necessarily sensible), but in the Windows world, people pay a good deal more attention to what Corel is doing than to what is going on with traditional Linux distros. They do this because Corel is an established player in the Windows world, so its shift to Linux attracts attention.
But never fear, Corel is not completely abandoning the Windows world. Today, Corel announced a multi-millon dollar deal with DoJ to supply WordPerfect Suite to 55,000+ seats. Another small blow against MS, never a bad thing.
I would not wonder if Corel would have their own CVS of Wine and only snoop all the changes in the main Repository and add them to their own tree.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
I hope so. If I could run Everquest on Linux I would no longer need Windows at all. Isn't it interesting that the only thing holding some of us to that platform are the games we love? At least the Quake players have their wish...
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
Well, I was referring specifically to Corel Linux.
But yeah, their past (and current) support of Wine, etc., seem pretty much in line with Cowpland's attitude in this interview. This is a good sign, IMHO.
mikre he sophia he tou Mikrosophou.
Looks like everyone picked up on the error except me :)
You have given me plenty of things to look at to compare with the random comments I have been hearing.
I hope that your comments are moderated up enough that people see your response to my ponderings.
Exactly. I got into Linux because I wanted to learn and become invloved in something more technicaly complicated, more (you must be this smart to use this product). It pains me sometimes to see these companys taking this "if we can't make a smarter user, we'll make dumber O/S" approach. Lets keep Linux pure and continue our efforts to educate people on how to use it.
Munky_v2
Jay
Just because you make something easier to use does not mean you have to dumb it down. If you can hide the majority of the config file editing & system configuration behind a GUI it would be great. If we could have something like Windows (although without the security holes, bugs etc...) on top for those who are learning linux, and those who know what they are doing can go in and edit the config files manualy, it would be great.
I applaud the efforts of Corel to bring the average Joe to Linux (of course I would prefer FreeBSD). And I think that many people will switch only because they know that they can get their work done using Corel Office Products. I still use my Win98 machine for MS Office 2000. I happen to have more than one machine. I think that the average joe doesn't, and if I was put in the position where I could either have a stable desktop with no solid business apps or an unstable desktop OS with productive business apps, I'd stick with the productivity. Now for the but...
But, the responses given irked me a little. The answers seemed geared toward the general business public, not for the "News for Nerds" crowd. I can't think of a better marketer response than: Corel recognizes this, and is positioned at the forefront of the Linux movement. This sounds only like a self promoting ad. Not that a CEO shouldn't hype his company every chance he gets, but it shouldn't sound like pure business BS if it is to a technical audience.
His response to the Giving Back to the Community response irked me even more. It sounds like he thinks that joining the market is the single greatest thing a commercial company can do. What about IBM? They produce code and give money to development projects. What about COMPAQ (or DELL, or any others that provide computers to the public with the option of Linux pre-installed)? I think the ability for a consumer to get Linux pre-installed on a computer is even more beneficial to the spread of Linux than a single commercial company's software suite. This just seems like the marketing man's way of saying, "We can't really afford to give back that way right now. We don't really have any plans other than releasing the source code to help our apps print better."
Kudos on the printing API, even if I think that it is a token effort.
Network Security: It always comes down to a big guy with a gun.
Anyway, stupid anecdote, but the point is that Corel is right. A minor can do anything he pleases after agreeing to a license agreement. There is little recourse that can be had. Of course for that child to get the business license and whatnot to resell that code... ;)
Second thought: imagine an army of little kids setting up their own "Code Mafia." They steal your code, kick you in the shins, then run away, thier high-pitched laughter haunting you in your dreams for years to come. Now THAT would be a movie story line to rival them all!!
In case you are wondering, I am copywriting that story line... Unless you are a minor, you can't touch it ;)
Network Security: It always comes down to a big guy with a gun.
No kidding, I thought that is important too. But I'm not sure why using postscript as an API is a problem, unless they are talking much lower interfaces. My printer is using the ghostscript as an filter so that I can pring postscript files. Sometimes doing another API is like re-inventing the wheels, hope this is not the case.
- Etam
but Corel is evidently thinking logically and rationally about how to make money without damaging the energy and vitality of the community.
Certainly not out of the goodness of their hearts, though. Not damaging the vitality of the community that produced Linux and its tools is in their long-term best interest.
That may be, but that in and of itself is already a step forward. Think about how many software companies view open source as inherently inimical to their way of business. The fact that they understand the importance of not killing the golden goose- that they can make money because of, not inspite of, the open source community- is a big win.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Knowing nothing about printer driver under either linux or windows, that's probably a dumb question. But why not write some sort of device that utilizes win drivers?
I was thinking this myself. It seems to be a popular thing to do these days. I am thinking of Be Inc. here, jumping on the free (beer) software bandwagon.
Any association with the word Linux pretty much guarantees a jump in stock price. However, if I remember my CS history correctly, didn't Corel stock tank when they released that Java office suite? History would show that Corel has a tendancy to jump on any bandwagon that looks good.
I was asked by a friend to explain open source. After monumentous effort to get her to understand, her final response was:
"Wow. So basically, someone found a way to get thousands of users to develop software for them. At no cost?"
Obviously I had to start explaining again. This is a major problem I see with the eventual adoption of Linux as mainstream. People just can't wrap their heads around it. And when they finally do, they are going to say "Hold on! I get all this stuff for no cost, and then Corel, who came along and took a basically already created product, added some bells and whistles, and now expect me to pay for an Office suite? No way!"
And they thought that the Windows environment promoted piracy?
Just my $0.02 US ($10,000,000.00 CDN) worth.
Sakhmet
"When I want to do something mindless to relax, I reinstall Windows 95."
Ban the Nukes! Save the Whales! Screw it. Nuke the Whales!
the great thing about it is that it's open source. There are lots of competitiors, and should always be.
if there were 10 windows distributions, and I could download any one I chose for free, and get the sourcecode free, I would probably not be here. And neither would a lot of others (don't try to get them to admit it though. :)
I don't have any problem with Corel selling an office suite under linux ... as long as there are open source alternatives, of course. But it's their emphasis on the distribution which is a little worrying. If its distribution stays as simply a vehicle to allow novice users access to linux, fine ... but who's to say they won't go after the server market in a couple of years time? ... the last thing we need is to topple one giant ogre and replace it with another ...
> agree to the conditions, download the product and then not be bound by the terms and
> conditions of the contract.
Of course the main purpose of the GPL is to prevent anyone from adding more restrictive terms to free software they didn't write. Someone who cannot enter into a binding contract would have a tough time doing that. They could, I suppose, add functionality and then refuse to release the source code, or make & distribute Corel Linux CDs without a copy the GPL or some such dastardly thing.
Odd though it may seem that Corel is concerned about a contingency that the Debian don't seem to be concerned about... well, they are a company, after all, and paranoia is part of the trade. Does anyone know if RMS has said anything about this < 18 business?
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
Granted, this makes it more difficult for other WINE developers, as perhaps Corel has already solved something someone else is working on, and at some point there is going to be a huge CVS commit all at once. However, this does make a certain amount of corporate sense: If you're going to be selling a Linux-ized version of your product, but it uses WINE in some capacity, why would you want a really,really functional WINE before you have your products ready? Simply put, if WINE works _too_ well before your targeted products are marketed, people could run *gasp* Windows versions of your products, which they've already paid for, and you get no return on your investment except perhaps some goodwill. So, WINE is useful, but it could potentially backfire on their corporate strategy.
So, I can personally see where they're coming from. It does kind of defeat the purpose of Bazaar-like development, though.
Regardless of whether a minor can enter a contract or not, a minor still has to follow all applicable laws. Even without Microsoft's EULA, pirating software is illegal (copyright violation). So while Microsoft may not be able to prosecute for breach of contract, they could very well get the kid for simple copyright violation.
As for the GPL, it seems safe to me. If the minor is not able to enter into the contract, the minor simply has no right to distribute the software, and would be in violation of copyright if he/she did so.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I know most of us don't get support for Linux from that companies that we work for, even though they spend tons on inferior products made by a certain other company. But if you can get your boss to fork over $100 for a Linux office suite instead of the big price they pay for that other one, do it!
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
I don't think so. When you buy the CD, you already have the right to use the software on it. You don't need to be granted any additional rights in order to do that.
Consider a book. If I buy a legitimate copy of "SedentaryZ's Guide to Getting Karma on Slashdot", then I already have the right to read it and to make use of the instructions within it. (By "legitimate" I mean that you, as the author, have granted the publisher the right to make copies and distribute them.) I don't need to be granted any additional rights in order to make use of it; it's mine.
(I would need to be granted additional rights if I wanted to legally copy and distribute the book, because I don't hold copyright on it. I could make any number of copies for my own personal use; I could even distribute excerpts from the book as part of a review of it (under Fair Use); but if I wanted to give out or sell copies, I'd need to obtain the right to do so from you (the author) or from someone else to whom you'd assigned that right.)
Since I don't need any new rights in order to use the book, any "contract" that purports to grant me those rights is pulling my leg: trying to sell me something that's already mine. If the only thing I'm "gaining" from this "contract" is these rights I already have, it isn't a contract -- there's no exchange. It may be a waiver (which I may disagree with and still use the book) or it may well be an act of fraud.
You can't waive a right by refusing to sign something. Refusing to sign something means that you don't have whatever rights signing it would give you, but it can't take away rights you already had (in this case, from buying a product). Refusal to sign an agreement leaves you in the same state, rights-wise, that you were in if the agreement was never written.
(If that were not the case, then I could write the following into an "agreement": "If you agree to this agreement, you owe me $500. If you do not agree to it, you owe me $500.")
That's (my non-lawyerly interpretation of) the state of common law. That's what UCITA would change. UCITA would (among other things) make statute law which let software companies create just that kind of Catch-22 agreement: "If you agree, you waive the right to use this product to do X, Y, and Z; if you disagree, you waive the right to use this product at all."
(Please note that this entire discussion, including the state of common law as well as UCITA, is founded on the notion of the legitimacy of copyright and other "intellectual property" models. These "rights" are constructs of statute and common law. In other words, they are monopolies created by government -- in the United States, monopolies proposed in the Constitution -- and are not natural rights in any sense.)
The law exists to protect minors, not the other party. IANAL.
Corel has already committed HUGE chunks of code and bugfixes to Wine, and that includes in the last couple of months. Corel paid Cygnus to add several MS Visual C++ compatibility features to gcc. These are now available free of charge for everyone in gcc 2.95.2. Even if they never submit another patch they'll have done a ton of good things for Wine, including many "unsexy" things that wouldn't normally get done in an open source project.
That said, they have indeed slowed down commits recently as they approach beta. It's because they want to have a stable tree to build a shipping product. This is perfectly normal, as anyone who's developed commercial software knows. (heck, or even non-commercial - the Linux kernel has code freezes too). They've been reasonably open about the process with the Wine team (ie, we don't know their ship dates, but we don't care either).
As far as future participation, they're going to merge back any Wine bugfixes they make post-codefreeze once their apps go gold. They are currently paying Alexandre Julliard (Wine's leader) to make a necessary major architectural change that should greatly improve compatibility for Win32 apps. (Keep in mind this change won't help their applications - it's only for running existing Windows binaries that it comes fully into play). Once all this is done and shaken down I think you'll see a real "beta" version of Wine rather than the current pre-alphas. So if you have a favorite Windows app that's misbehaving read wine/documentation/bug-reports in the Wine source distribution and get posting on comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine.
Finally, Corel's work is even helping their competitors - we are aware on wine-devel of a fairly major Mac/Windows app who's developers have it up and running on WineLib to prove to their bosses that a Linux port is easy and feasible. It's doubtful that would've happened this soon if Corel hadn't gotten involved and blazed the trail.
BTW, Wine is under an X11-style license (and is switching to the real X11 license as we speak). If it were GPL'd it would be useless for closed-source commercial applications such as Corel's.
-Ian, wine-devel and proud (grep "Ian Schmidt" ChangeLog).
See Wine run! Screenshots at http://home.twcf.rr.com/ischmidt/wine.ht ml
Interesting point.
All you 16 year olds out there, quick, compile GNU code, sell commercially, file for IPO.
Hurry, before the bubble bursts, and you're old enough to vote.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
I don't use WordPerfect for Linux because it wouldn't print the same characters as it displayed on the screen. I think I'll give it another try now that I have a True Type font server up and running, but I'm not too hopeful.
It doesn't matter whether they give anything back or not. They're not taking anything away from you.
And I think you underestimate the value of their evangelizing. I'm an Amiga user, and take it from me: the size of your userbase matters!! If more people start using Linux because of what Corel is doing, then more peripheral manufacturers are likely to supply Linux drivers, more application developers are likely to write Linux applications and games, etc. All Linux users, including the hackers, benefit from this.
Perhaps they'll never really be part of "the community" but they'll be an ally. That's better than nothing.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
If the command-line interface isn't good for newbies and a traditional graphical user interface isn't good for power users, then I say we need to change the interface completely. An interface that speaks in a language that pretty much everyone understands -- not C.
Understand where you, yourself, are at in the user-OS continuum. Step back and gain a new vantage of computers in general. Understand the user. Understand also that the most hard core hacker is also a user. See the operating system as a solution. Not for developers, system administrators, or desktop users; you and everyone else here is aware of these niches and rant about it constantly. But for every other niche out there. Separate yourself from the computer and its technology and ask yourself how the computer can be more useful for the on-the-field scientist, the engineer, the desktop publisher, the presenter, or the captain. Others too. These people need an operating system that doesn't necessarily cater to the masses too. They need a solution in a language they understand.
Do not simply but a happy newbie-proof shell on top of a sturdy OS. Make the newbie-proof shell THE OS. Make it a guru-proof shell, also, by compromising both. Consolidate. Innovate. Integrate. There are no free features. Don't hide the operating system, expose it. Don't cater to the techno-phobe, there are many companies who are willing to cater to them for profit. If the interface doesn't fit well with the operating system then change the operating system.
Understand this and you will know what World Domination really means.
Ignore it and you are only servicing yourself.
Choose. But do not take too long. Your hesitation may be our undoing.
Ok, so this brings up a question I've had about EULAs. Most EULAs that I've seen include a phrase much like this one from one of Microsoft's SDKs:
By exercising your rights to make and use copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, you agree to be bound by the terms of this EULA. If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, you may not use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
Isn't this the opposite of what you're saying? If I don't agree to the restrictions in the EULA, then I waive my right to use the product. As I understand it, the company is retaining all rights to the copy of the software that you have bought and is simply granting you rights to use it. This has always seemed screwy to me. Has this ever been challenged in court? Have software companies legally enforced some of the clauses found in typical EULAs?
Somebody moderate this moron down. This is exactly why I've told Rob we need a moderator rating for "factually incorrect". (Such a rating would be interesting in meta-moderation, to say the least...)
/.'ers? Is is just because of the Gnazi political bias?
This guy admits to posting IRC hearsay, and it gets moderated up to 5 even though there are at least two posts below from credible people who are actually in a position to speak with authority and provide facts showing that his slanders aren't even remotely true.
From where I sit, Corel is doing quite a bit for the community, but won't keep it up if they continue to get treated like this. Is that what we want? Gee, this community could (and may yet) drive away nearly everyone.
Why do we tolerate such sloppy work on the part of our fellow
(I don't mean to paint the whole FSF crowd with a broad brush, just those that are reactionary and flame anyone who dares to suggest that the GPL may not be appropriate for every situation in the world - that's pretty much my meaning for the term "Gnazi".)
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
They would be known for releasing buggy code.
No... they would be known for releasing a beta. Beta's are buggy.
In response to the question about not releasing the source code with their beta....
...The reason why we wanted to do that was 1) to protect our reputation for producing quality products by not releasing code before it was fully tested...
What does it matter if they release the code to some "Corel Specific" part of their distrobution? If they had released the code, they would be getting hundreds of bug fixes code submissions. These guys do not understand what they are doing.
Actually, I was confused by this, as both GNOME and KDE have a solide, reasonable printing API, and Corel already uses KDE.
Perhaps he meant that they would be re-architecting the back-end (currently GhostScript/lpd).
No. Just because the license is not binding does _not_ give you permission to distribute it ad naseaum.
Essentially, it makes it like a book or a CD, which do not have licenses. You can make infinately many copies for your personal use. You can reverse engineer it. You can install it on 50 machines (if you own them all). This is true for commercial software as well.
What you cannot do, is distribute it. Without the GPL to give you permission to distribute the software, you may not distribute it at all. You can make modifications, but not distribute them. Theoretically, you could distribute patches, though.
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
With regard to newbies, I would say that Linus is actually better about preventing damage to the system. The reason I use Linux is because it's a better operating system, despite some difficulties. But I fail to see how making a bunch of easy graphical configuration utilities and a super-easy install script will result in a lower-quality OS. It seems to me that what you want is for only smart people to use Linux, so you can feel special. This narrow, "clubhouse" approach to computing unnecessarily discourages people everywhere from being efficient with computers. As long as those who are knowledgeable want their knowledge to remain sacred and "pure", the whole society is hurt.
When someone (BillG) comes along with the idea to put a computer on every desktop, everyone scoffs. And then look at the crap we get when he succeeds! If you want to keep Linux in the cabal, fine, but don't expect the rest of us who want the choice of an easy Linux to stay back in the Dark Ages with you.
Walt
but Corel is evidently thinking logically and rationally about how to make money without damaging the energy and vitality of the community.
Certainly not out of the goodness of their hearts, though. Not damaging the vitality of the community that produced Linux and its tools is in their long-term best interest.
The cake is a pie
I think it's great that they are building applications to fill the gap so that newbies can use Linux. Many of these applications that they are building are specifically made to enable the newbie user. It can only accelerate the process of making linux viable for the masses. Perhaps they will give input and help to the projects that they draw from in Corel Linux in the future...
You should have explained to her in simple economic terms such as efficient exchange of human resources. Of course, you also have to explain that competitive advantage in this context is not meant to make money. This fact is usually the hardest for people to understand.
...
As for the value added closed applications, the hybrid could end up working well. We don't have to be pure
Hah yeah, the same goes for business taxes. People don't think it affects them until they realize that the producer is increasing prices of their end goods and services because of them.
They are filling a particular need so that newbies can use Linux. OSS projects are just as free to do similar things that Corel is doing.
I don't know why you have to be completely against them. Can you provide me with a logical economic model where Corel would be able to actually profit from their work? I doubt paid support plans will have much success.
I'm sorry, but there are many things that we could do in making a more intuitive GUI, more legible documentation, and applications that fulfill certain needs that would be good for every user.
Of course, we also have to hide some functions from users in attempt to simplify, but that is what different distributions (or hidden more advanced menu modes) are for.
Other projects we're currently working on include a printing API that will be released to the open source community
This looks very interesting. Say what you will about Window$, but it has AMAZING printer support. What you see really is what you get. I would love to see a really good quality printing API for linux. Are there any out there already that do a good job (especially on non postscript printers)?
Yes. I've been boasting about linux to my friends for a few years now , but when they asked me how to install it i could only say
..) and you have a winnner. It's getting there folks..
" you need to know a lot about your PC before doing it. Partitioning, your IRQ's and I/O addresses of cards, your specific hardware, etc"
Now, i tell them to burn corel linux, make sure their CDROM is bootable, and off they go..
I'm certain others will follow with the easy-install, what i read about mandrake 7.0 SEEMS to follow with easy installation..
But, I do warn my friends, that once they have installed linux, any problems they encounter could become a technical issue. It's these issues that linux needs to address in the future and it's obvious it's going in that direction :
Make the utilities talk to each other, make printing flawless and easy, make configuring the desktop and other nifty things easy as pie. Make it such that anyone can perform basic troubleshooting and fixing, (.. etc
OH, and i know caldera has had a very easy to install distribution for a while, but it does cost money. =)
Oh purleeeeeeeeze!
Making Linux easy to install is not synonymous with making it insecure. Lots of Windows software installs itself with security settings that are plain stupid (e.g. Outlook Express running virus infected attachments). But just because this is true for one company's product and operating system doesn't mean that anything produced by, say, Corel will be result in the whole of Linux being "dumbed down". You will just get your same old, nice and secure, configurable Linux, with a nice set of easy to use configuration tools and easy to use installations. This doesn't stop you doing your thing - that's the whole point. In fact the more desktop Linux users Corel can help, the more likely you are going to be able to keep a job in the Linux server business (and the easier that job will be - do you want to do Win2k support?).
"What I look forward to is continued immaturity followed by death."
I really like Corel and their software. I think their focus makes sense. Between Sun, MS, Redhat the BSD siblings, and other Linux distro's, the big open niche here is the new desktop user. Makes sense to me.
I believe I will be purchasing Corel's Office 2000 when it comes out. Maybe I can even convert my wife to an avid Linux user. *grins*
"Anyone who can't laugh at himself is not taking life seriously enough." - Larry Wall
Well put. I think the Corel involvement is an interesting new situation for the open source community.
:-)"
Some (especially ESR) have been saying "We're not hostile to commercial interests. You can sell the software. You can make money at this. There's a place for proprietary software. Non-technical users are welcome. Investors are definitely welcome. Believe in the GPL and all sin will be forgiven
But Corel comes along, making no pretense about its intentions ($$$) but trying (with some difficulty) to play by the rules of this foreign community. Further, its strategy is aimed directly at bringing more heathen into the community.
Not unexpectedly, the true believers are wary. But will they stand by their principles: teaching, inclusion, freedom?
It will be interesting to see.
Disclaimer: another owner of Corel stock.
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
In a press release Microsoft announced today that they are entering into a stretigic partnership with COREL. This partnership will come about by a stock swap which will give Microsoft a 31% holding in COREL Corp.
This move immidiately brings Microsoft into the Linux arena with formidable weapons. COREL is Microsoft's main competitor in the Desktop Office Suite business. This not only gives microsoft a virtual monopoly on that front, but they now also have a Office Suite almost ready for the Linux Platform.
In addition to this, Microsoft has also in a single sweep entered the Linux Operating System Distribution arena with COREL's offering of the Debian based Linux distribution.
Seriously folks. Just think what a dark day it would be if something like this happens. Microsoft can virtually take over the market in one sweep. This is right in keeping with MS's embrace and extend policy.
Also uptil now MS had no direct method of entering into the Linux market, other than doing some of it's own R&D. This gives them a simple straight forward and effective avenue.
Hopefull antitrust laws will prevent this from happening though.
I really liked his ideas about bringing Linux to a more novice user base. Sometimes Linux can be very hard to jump right into. It would be nice if more people could move into a simpler version of Linux to start and as their knowledge grows they can move to a more robust, technical distribution.
kwsNI
OTOH, there's no binding way of enforcing any of the other "for profit" licenses, either... so theoretically a 14 year old and a CD burner could LEGALLY pirate Microsoft software...
Nope. If a 14-year-old cannot be held to the provisions of the GPL or the MS EULA, he is still subject to the copying restrictions of the Software Copyright Act of 1982, which sets the rules that unlicensed copyrighted software is sold under.
This, BTW, is why the GPL will probably never be challenged by a corporation in court -- defeating the GPL simply means you are bound by the more restrictive rules of software copyright.
Steven E. Ehrbar
Just a quick comment on people under 18 being unable to legally enter into a contract. I know what the point of this is, but doesn't it seem crazy that in an effort to protect underaged people from hurting themselves (financially), you merely limit their options?
As an example it is against the law in Canada to enforce collect on certain types of debt from anyone under 19. My specific example is a phone bill, where I know nobody under 19 can be forced to pay. Why do I know this? Well in a recent attempt to get a phone line hooked up for when I had to move out of town to get a job, it became clear that being under 19 I could not get a phone line. I had (in essance) been from the ability to actually get phone service.
The companies aren't really to blame in any case where people under 18 or 19 can't certain things. It's this general idea by society (north american society mainly) that once you turn 18 or 19 you are suddenly much more capable of being responsible.
I suppose I'm in a minority. But being under 19 I've already completed 2 years of University, and a year of work in the IT field. Yet because of my age I cannot: sign a lease (ie rent almost any residence), get a credit card, get an account at a video store, get a phone line, get cable, or do many other things crucial to actually living.
It's a sad testament that, in an effort to protect our children, our society decides to bind their hands and treat them as invalids before they reach a magic age at which point it is assumed they will have the ability to be "responsible".
Anyhow, just my biased rant.
If i'm not mistaking, corel posted jobs for full-time paid WINE developers on their jobs page.
Would this not mean they are automatically contributing to an exciting segment of the open source community?
Anyone remember when WINE would crash on Windows 3.1 notepad? I do.
Now i hear it runs tons of applications almost flawlessly. Now, with some real backing maybe it'll become exactly what it's creators envisioned of it. I can't wait.. One day we linux folk will be able to tell our friends:
"Install linux! It's easy to install, and runs all your windows applications! You don't need windows anymore!"
I've seen concerns on the Debian mailing lists that Corel is simply trying to raise stock price by jumping on the Linux bandwagon and isn't really contributing anything back to the community.
Well, I'm glad that at least Cowpland justified their position by saying that they are focusing on the "newbie" market. OSS Purists probably thinks that anything less than source-level contribution doesn't count, but I'd like to say this: I'm also a hardcore OSS advocate, but this is the real world. In the real world, sharing source code isn't enough; in order for Linux to continue to expand beyond where it is now, it must reach audiences other than coders and OSS advocates -- it must reach people who may not have the skills to contribute at source-level. I think Corel is taking a good step in that direction: catering for inexperienced desktop PC users and yet backed up by the superior quality of Debian. Although the contribution of Corel may not be apparent now (ie. we don't get that much in terms of source-level contribution), years down the road we might very well be thankful that companies like Corel did what they're doing now. If not for them, Linux could potentially be forever unable to penetrate the desktop market.
I know some people would argue by saying "forget the newbie lusers, Linux is not intended for the masses." From an idealist point of view, this is true... but that doesn't justify not *trying* to make Linux usable by the average Joe person. Who knows, what if it works out well? Then the cause of Linux and OSS will be advanced much further.
mikre he sophia he tou Mikrosophou.
The answers seemed evasive in many areas, particularly in regards to "what has Corel given back". Wine was mentioned briefly, but if I am to believe what some of the Wine developers were telling me on debian.irc.net, Corel hasn't made ANY CVS commits to the WINE project in months. You will notice that no meantion was made of "we have done this or that" at all, just more political style rambling about commitment. And I don't think that trying to "evangelize Linux to other ISVs" to encourage them to use linux counts for much other than pure B.S. Like Cowpland is going to be hanging out at lunch casually mentioning "hey, why don't you guys port PhotoShop?" and increasing his own competition.
What Corel has done, from my understanding, is take the thousands and thousands of hours of work of the Debian maintainers (not to mention the work of the programmers that wrote the stuff to begin with) and used apt with their own proprietary installer to install the packages (some one PLEASE correct me if I am wrong and the Corel install stuff is GPL). Red Hat's install stuff is used by just about every other distribution and they have been very good about knowing that if they wanna play the Linux game, this is the way things just are gonna be. Debian could desparately use some more modern install programs, will Debian developers be able to take parts of the Corel installer and incorporate it? From what I understand, the answer is no.
Corel seems to have too much of the Gates style "Its ours, we aren't gonna share" attitude. I don't think they really "get it" yet the same way that Red Hat, et. al. have... that if you are gonna take all these people's work and make money off of it, you better damn well be ready to accept people using your work too.
I do not accept his politicians explainations of "to protect our reputation for producing quality products by not releasing code before it was fully tested". They are very used to the old model of "mine mine, don't touch" and this incident clearly showed they are not fully in step with how Open Source works.
I don't want to sound like I am totally trashing Corel. They can be a strong member of the community, I just think they need to 1- REALLY learn what it means to be a part of the open source community and leave their proprietary thinking behind and 2- actually give something back to the community. Vague comments about evanelising Linux and promises about Wine don't count. When they actually start doing some work with Wine instead of just talking about doing stuff with Wine, then I will be a lot happier.
But maybe Wine work is no longer planned because they feel Wine is no longer needed for them to run Win32 apps on Linux. That would explain their new agreement with (insert the name of the company I forgot here) and complete lack of adding anything to Wine CVS in months.
1) We contribute regularly to the WINE CVS tree. I have no idea why you think that we "haven't contributed anything in months". Check out the wine-cvs mailing list
2) We also have a parallel internal branch where we do some things that the WINE community doesn't want to see integrated into the main tree. For example, we did a KDE look-and-feel patch that the WINE community wanted to see turned into a full modularization of WINE theme code. We weren't prepared to do that work, so it just stayed in our tree. The patch is our there on the development lists, it just hasn't been commited to winehq cvs. Our tree also has other fixes that WINE developers have made that haven't made it into winehq CVS - Ove Kaaven's pthreads patch, for example. We haven't sent in many patches in December and January because we're working on our beta release, and don't have the time to spare to do a back-merge.
3) We also have contractors doing work for us - much of the work that Alexandre Julliard is doing on WINE right now is being paid for by us, for example. That work goes into both winehq and our internal branch.
4) We're planning on making our internal WINE tree available externally soon, so that other people are free to extend and merge some of our changes back into winehq.
5)We're not "just talking" about WINE. Check out this link for screenshots of our apps running on WINE.
6) All of the work that we did for Corel Linux is open sourced. All of the installer, KDE, and apt related code is GPLed or LGPLed. Code that we wrote from scratch is under the Corel Public License, a name-changed version of the MPL. The source code is all up here
---
Gavriel State
Engineering Architect - Linux Development
Corel Corp
...But as Linux becomes more and more popular, I think the open source community needs to make sure its interests are protected. That's why we require a guardian or parent to agree to the GPL license on behalf of someone under 18 before downloading Corel LINUX OS. The intent is just to ensure the GPL is enforceable.
A very important implication of this is that Corel sees the GPL not just as something they have to conform to, but as something they may themselves need to defend in court. That's probably a good thing...
Caveat: I own Corel stock.
The cake is a pie
Like some other readers, I found this interview to be lacking in meaningful content.
However, let's keep in mind what we're seeing here. Cowpland is the head of a commercial venture of some size. Most likely, his answers were checked by both his legal department and his corporate communications department. Anything truly substantial about strategic directions will be filtered out by those groups, and saved for venues where the companies can truly control what is said and how it is presented. Typically, this means a press release or a major keynote at a conference (remember, Apple doesn't announce new initiatives in interviews, but at Macworld keynotes).
The real content here is between the lines. Cowpland shows a sensitivity both to the needs of the open source community and to his responsibility to his company and his investors. Many companies want to make money in open source (and after the Red Hat IPO, you can bet that number increased dramatically), but Corel is evidently thinking logically and rationally about how to make money without damaging the energy and vitality of the community.
Sure, they may have bungled a few things, but they're learning. If more companies think about open source as well as Corel appears to have, we'll have a strong, revitalized industry on our hands.
Then we really will be able to tackle corporate and govenrmental behemoths.
-----
Klactovedestene!
Most of this interview was completely worthless, but the fact that someone is working on a new printing API is really good news.
The lack of solid, consistent and reliable printing under Linux has been a huge hole. Hopefully they'll do it right, and it will be up to the standards of Windows.
---
Does GNU have any specific comments on the validity of the license with regards to minors? If minors in the US can break contracts willy-nilly, there's doesn't seem to be any binding way of enforcing the GPL. OTOH, there's no binding way of enforcing any of the other "for profit" licenses, either... so theoretically a 14 year old and a CD burner could LEGALLY pirate Microsoft software...- -------
+----------------------------------------------
+------------------------------------------------
+ The urge to destroy is a creative urge
The GPL is not a contract; it's also not a "license agreement" like the MS EULA. It is a license, pure and simple. It doesn't say "You may not use this software in certain ways"; it says "You may copy and distribute this software in certain ways". It grants you privileges you would not otherwise have; that's what a license does. Without any license to do so, you have no right to copy the software (no "copy-right"); with a license, you do.
Contrast this with the MS EULA, which claims that by using the software, you are waiving certain rights which you would otherwise have. MS wants you to think that's a contract: in exchange for a "license to use" the software, you're agreeing to waive certain rights.
The thing is, you already had the right to use the software, because you bought a legally-made copy of it. When you buy a book, you have the right to use it, that is, to read it and make use of the information in it. The same applies to software, or any other work. This does not, of course, give you the right to distribute copies of these works; the right to use your purchase is not the same as the right to copy it.
So in fact the MS EULA is a waiver, not a contract: if you agree to it, you're waiving rights you had, but you're not getting anything in return. If you don't agree to it, you still have the right to use the software, just as if the EULA had never been written.
(A contract, FYI, requires an exchange of "considerations" --- goods, services, rights, or something else of value. If there isn't an exchange, there isn't a contract. The GPL isn't a contract because you're not giving the software author anything; the MS EULA isn't a contract because MS isn't giving you anything.)
(It may seem that under the GPL, you are giving the software author something: your agreement to follow the terms of the GPL. Yet this isn't the case. In fact, the terms of the GPL are the limits around the gift you are being given. If I give you an easement on my property, that you may fish in my pond from noon to 3PM on weekends, you aren't giving up a right to fish in my pond at other times; you never had such a right to give. Similarly, when you make a copy of GPLed software, you don't give up your right to turn it into a proprietary product; you never had such a right to begin with.)
In my non-lawyerly opinion, the GPL may freely apply to minors, because the minor isn't giving anything up; s/he is only receiving. Minors may, after all, receive gifts. However, the EULA may not apply to minors, because the minor is waiving rights s/he may not be competent to waive.
Neither is a "contract", but minors are protected from waivers as well as from contracts; they're not "protected" from being given gifts, which is what the GPL does.
The "One Important Question" link is broken (typo).
It's not a typo.
Here's the original link:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl ' sid=00/01/17/1119222&cid=110
Here's the fixed link:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid=00/01/17/1119222&cid=110
Note that instead of a ?, the broken link has a '. There's a bug in the script that converts the question marks in Roblimo's postings to tick marks. The script exists so that Roblimo's articles don't look like JonKatz?s. There's clearly some logic to prevent a ? at the end of a sentence from being converted, but it doesn't check to see if the ? is inside a URL.
That's my two cents, and I'm sticking to it...
The "One Important Question" link is broken (typo).
Fixed link here.
Anthony
"I think any time you expose vulnerabilities it's a good thing." -Attorney General Janet Reno