Caldera CEO Says Linux Is Proprietary

Carnage4Life writes: "ZDNet has an article on Ransom Love's (Caldera CEO) speech at the Comdex/Spring 2000-Linux Business Expo. The high points of his speech include his fears that the Linux revolution may be silencing lots of others by its success; [the contention that] proprietary software isn't all bad (Sun's Star Office is his example); Linux is as much a proprietary system as any other since the GPL forces one to adhere to it's rules just as proprietary licenses do; a brief description of the road map of Caldera's Linux development in the future; and finally a few comments on what he felt was the too-strict demand by some open source licenses that all code should be opened." Some good points, but mainly a lot of unsurprising viewpoints considering Caldera's outsider position in the actual Linux Community.

Comments

Re:He doesn't seem to understand how it already wo

[Black Parrot]

> Oof course, the GPL doesn't require you to publish your changes if you don't distribute your changes.

Which brings up something I've been wondering about. What does "distribute" mean? If a corporate IT department hacks The GIMP and then puts the employees to work using it, do they have to provide those employees the source as well?

Hairs want to be split, you know.

--

If by proprietary you mean "not public domain"...

[ethereal]

Under his definition, any software with a license is "proprietary", so the only non-proprietary software is public-domain software. Thus, any restrictions == proprietary software.

Open source does not necessarily mean non-proprietary, Love contended. Users who make changes to software such as the Gimp image manipulation software must publish those changes under various open-source licenses, but the mere fact that there is a license obliging users to share code means that someone has set proprietary parameters on the use of the software.

Technically, there are no parameters on the use of the software, just on the distribution of modified software based on the original GPL'd software. For the majority of people who are software users but not software writers, the software is effectively non-proprietary - the file formats are open, code can be inspected for security, efficiency, and effectiveness, and unlimited copies of the software can be used for free.

"Some open-source licenses may go a little too far," he said. "It's one thing to facilitate open access, but another to demand it. That's what you are trying to get away from."

In the end, revolutionaries could do more to marginalize the operating system through zealous adherence to a misguided interpretation of the open-source movement.

What license is "demanding open access"? Is this a reference to the GPL, or is this just an attack on some GPL supporters who insist that all software should be GPL'd? Who has a "misguided interpretation" - is someone misinterpreting the GPL, or misinterpreting the ideals behind it? The article is practically a troll at this point - there are no justifications or examples for these accusations.

It seems to me that we settled for "good enough" proprietary software for a long time, but that didn't lead to the changes we are seeing Linux bring about today. Only the "zealous adherence" to open-source ideals has brought about the wave of changes that Mr. Love has found himself caught up in. After all, if he has all the answers on how open source is supposed to work, shouldn't he have helped start the movement a while back, rather than just jumping into it once it became profitable?

It's too bad the press quotes this guy all the time rather than one of the people who are really leading - of the well-known (whether deservedly or not) Linux figures, he suffers from foot-in-mouth disease the most often. Oh wait, I forgot, the real leaders of the open source community are too busy writing code and creating the software that keeps Mr. Love in business.

What is proprietary anyway then?

[mind21_98]

According to Caldera's CEO, proprietary is something with a software license.

Well, without a software license it's in the public domain. Once in public domain, the creator can't stop it (unless you're the MPAA ;)

Software licenses are necessary to assert the positions of developers and users. The licenses explain the limits of the users. In the GPL, the condition pressed on the users is that they have to release source code if they release another version of it. In many other software licenses it could be restrictions on copying it.

In general, this sounds very fishy. He may be backing down from Microsoft, but whatever he's doing it's not good for business.

Good points

[zpengo]

I wouldn't dismiss Love's statements based on Caldera's "outsider" position in the community -- often it is the outsiders that have the clearest viewpoints.

1. To say that Linux is silencing others because of its success is probably exaggerating things a bit, but on the other hand it's partially true. Linux has a public relations momentum that most other alternatives don't. It's Pepsi to Microsoft's Coke. I'm sure that BeOS and others wish they had even a part of what the Linux movement now takes for granted.
2. Is proprietary software all that bad? I would say no, as long as it is in moderation. People should have the right to make proprietary software if they so desire, as long as they realize the benefits they are missing out on. The strength of the Linux movement is that it is primarily open source and free-as-in-speech. Nevertheless, every movement needs some variety.
3. In a sense, the GPL is a strict and binding way to make things free and public. Does that sound contradictory at all? I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just that I see his point.
4. Is it possible that the demand for open source code is to strong at times? Personally, I don't think so. What makes Linux wonderful is that if you want to change something, you just dig in and do it. I disagree with Love on this particular point.

Proprietary and open-source are not antonyms!

[ltcordelia]

*sigh*
The hardest thing here was decided who had the best post to respond to. PigleT, you win.

"free" anything means a number of things, but I prefer Not controlled by obligation or the will of another. The open-source movement protects the investment of the first programmer, not his so-called rights. Programmer A invests his/her time into writing an app under the GPL. If Programmer B wants to take advantage of Programmer A's effort, s/he must provide their work back to "the community," thus providing Programmer A a nice return on their investment. Note that Programmer B did NOT get "free" code from Programmer A - Programmer B was obligated to provide service back to Programmer A.

Note that companies are getting around the GPL by creating new software based on GPL'ed components, and selling service to their customers. Since they are not providing binaries to their customers, they are under no obligation to release their modifications to "open-source" software.

This company is restricted from selling their software (Hmm, I wonder if they could give an NDA to their customers prohibiting the re-release of their source code?) by the GPL. Their "rights" are not being protected here.

AS to the value of StarOffice, note that many of us are forced to work in an MS environment, where management and other divisions frequently send MS-Office documents. Having an interoperable product, which is seamless to the other users, means I can run Linux where otherwise I'd be forced to run Windoze.

Information wants to be free