Slashdot Mirror
Caldera Per Seat Licensing
Motor writes "Caldera is to "introduce per-seat licenses for their upcoming OpenLinux Workstation 3.1." I'm not sure how I feel about this. I guess theoretically they can do it, although it sure feels wrong somehow.
But I've always been somewhat wary of Caldera.
Here's what I got -- RH 1.x (re-branded to Caldera, with some updates, while RH was working on 2.x), and a bunch of proprietary software. Bearing in mind that this was a LONG time ago, these were useful:
- Gallium font server (let you use TrueType fonts)
- Looking Glass desktop (it was that, or fvwm -- mc was still an infant, and there wasn't a decent desktop project yet)
- NetWare utilities (mars_nwe? HAH! ncpfs? not yet...) -- although they didn't support NW4 yet -- it was too new
Oh, and having that license let me purchase WP for Linux 6.0. I wonder how many they actually sold...The transition RH made with 2.0 to RPM shook up the Caldera distro quite a bit. (All recent bleating to the contrary, about helping RH develop RPM, they pretty much dug in their heels and refused to put it in for the preview -- it was the release that finally had it.)
It, however, convinced me not to use Caldera in the future. They stopped support on the version pretty soon after the next one (with a hefty upgrade price) came out, and the proprietary software they bundled had a tendency to have free (and better!) replacements within a year or two.
At the present, I work for a Linux company (we don't do distributions, thankfully). Our products have turned up missing (practically core!) libraries (libttf, libesd, among others), and the Caldera distros have consistently been far enough behind the curve that it's typically a headache to even install on their systems.
Not to mention that the RPM situation mentioned above is, well, problematic for the user. They can't update, and Caldera has (traditionally) been pretty bad about maintaining a decent contrib section.
The worst part is, the only real strength Caldera has is the add-ons. And those become outdated so fast that if you blink, you'll miss it.
Let 'em die piss in their own well by restricting their customers more. They haven't been a mainstream distro for years...
Your insistence on buying from companies with a good business plan etc. is only relevant when buying proprietary products. When buying commodity products you basically want to be satisfied of the immediate condition of the product because you can get service anywhere. It makes no business sense to treat Linux as a proprietary product- just because Caldera are demanding extra money does not mean their demand is sensible or justified.
I don't see how their unclearness on the concept qualifies as a good business plan to compete with commodity software.
Caldera is a third-rate company desperate for a business model. They can't compete with any of the other Linux distros on quality - their distro sucks and they're slow to issue updates, security fixes and new packages, all of their additions have been proprietary and generally not as good as what SuSE and Mandrake have come up with.
Right now there's no compelling reason to go with Caldera over other Linux distros - and now they're pissing away the advantage that Linux has over Microcrap products - namely no licensing fees. Right, that's going to be compelling for people considering Linux - Look, we can choose SuSE or Red Hat and pay for support where we need it but not worry about licensing fees, or we can go with Caldera - a company that doesn't know what to do with SCO now that they spent their wad on it, and they have no innovations that make their distro compelling. I wonder what the CFO would say to that...
RMS called it - Caldera is a company of parasites. Let's hope they go bankrupt soon - if they do, they'll have not only put the community out of their misery, they'll also have knocked off SCO Unix as a competitor to Linux by thoroughly bungling it and screwing over all the SCO resellers in the process of the slow and painful transition from SCO to Caldera. (Odd that no one seems to be talking about that...) If they don't like the GPL, then let 'em make their own *BSD distro instead.
Well, this is more of a rant than a focused post. Sorry, but Caldera was quick to jump on the Linux bandwagon and try to act all "community" when it suited their needs - but that didn't cure their woes, so now they're just as eager to piss all over the community that built 90% of the software in their distro.
I think the GPL is the way to go, but there are days when I'm tempted to design a license that is similar to the GPL but forbids bundling with licensing schemes like Caldera's - why should parasites like that be allowed to siphon code off the Linux Community without giving anything back? What have they ever contributed to the community? I've never even seen evidence of so much as a bugfix originating from Caldera, much less an actual GPL'ed program.
Posted by polar_bear:
Well, as far as I'm concerned whether it's possible for Linux to make Red Hat or Caldera a profit is of minor importance.
Most people who contribute Free Software do so because they feel that's the ethical thing to do. If you can make money on Free Software without perverting the licensing or screwing other people over, then that's great. If you can't, oh well. Life goes on.
While many companies have contributed code to Open Source and Free Software projects, I am fairly sure that their contributions don't equal the contributions of individuals who have written code for the sheer joy of it and to solve their own problems.
Free Software is a very sensible model for computer users who are willing to be part of a community that provides a wealth of tools with the understanding that you won't steal those tools from the rest of the community, and that a large number of the community will give back contributions to the overall collection of tools and help keep the community alive.
Linux IS NOT ABOUT A BUSINESS PLAN OR TURNING A PROFIT. Please drill this into your respective heads. Free Software is not about business. It may be wonderful for businesses, it may allow people to make money, but that is not the core focus. The fact that Caldera chose to base their business on Free Software and then complain later that it's impossible to make money that way is simply a demonstration of the short-sightedness of their management, and possibly a sign that they simply employ too many useless managers and promotions folks and not enough consultants. Maybe, just maybe, they simply got greedy.
It's unfortunate that the discussion keeps focusing on profit rather than individual freedoms and ethics. Those are far more important topics than money.
Posted by polar_bear:
Oh, if Caldera dies he'll just get a freaking "pundit" column like John Dvorak and spend the rest of his career spouting crap that's even more widely publicized.
Let's face it, with a name like "Ransom Love" he's bound to find a magazine or publication that will snap him up...
The computing industry recycles its failures rather efficiently...
Interesting. I suspected Caldera would one day try something like this; Caldera has constantly demonstrated an old-school mentatility. I'm sorry they cannot make it any other way.
Although I wish Caldera the best, this is not a good sign. They are alienating the group on whom they most rely-- the developers and community of Linux.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
A little of both. Why do you ask?
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I'm just sad that Caldera Doesn't Get It. They are implementing this new licensing policy about the same time Red Hat announces their first real profit-- sad, isn't it?
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
News flash 2: Per-seat licenses are a way of making money.
News flash 3: So is extortion, blackmail, forgery, and contract killing.
Doesn't make them right.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
One of the selling points of Linux that is easy to communicate to business people is that it saves on license compliance costs. This is a non-trivial point, when you are talking about a large organization with hundreds or thousands of workstations/servers.
By introducing per-system licensing into the Linux world, Caldera muddies the waters somewhat on this point.
They could have accomplished the same thing, but worded it differently (i.e., "support serial numbers"), while preserving the "less licensing hassles" image of Linux.
For example, SCO, NetWare (not Unix), even Solaris - and NT for that matter. You could purchase a "X user(s) license" version.
For Caldera to try this approach is a little backwards, IMO. What are they trying to restrict? Unless it's some software they added to the distro, I don't see how it would really work... Someone could just recompile or reinstall the effected package and be done with it.
Then there's the whole "NT Workstation vs. Server" debate - that being that the two versions are actually the same, albeit for a few tweaks.
>major competitors, most notably Redhat, Mandrake, and SuSE, who would
>probably love to soak up Caldera's share of the Linux market, both
>present and future.
Oooh, that will have them quaking in their boots: all the non-paying customers will go to the other distributions, leaving them with ony, uhh, the ones willing to pay
I'm sure Redhat, et al, are drooling over the prospects of people driven away by not getting it all for free .
:)
hawk
:)
hawk
You can't and you shouldn't. Thousands of hackers have not given their time so that somebody can make a quick buck. It's about fun, not profit.
--
Ransom Love clearly does not understand Linux. By attacking Richard Stallman, and now starting this proprietary form of licensing, Caldera is going down the path of self destruction. Ransom Love, already an unlovable person to the community, will just move closer to the image of Bill Gates, and he will never receive love nor his ransom (the price he demanded for OpenLinux, since people will prefer more open choices like Red Hat).
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
And the benefit of buying support from RedHat over paying Caldera's extortion (er licensing) fees is that you only pay for the level of service you need (and can afford). Plus, if RedHat has lousy service you can find another support contractor. All the software is Free Software, so there are plenty of people that can dig around in the source and fix things. RedHat knows this, and so they have plenty of incentive to do a good job.
With Caldera's new distribution important parts of the distribution are closed source commercial binaries (otherwise their license would be easy to circumvent). If Caldera's distribution doesn't work you are stuck with waiting for Caldera to fix it (even if you have the requisite skills yourself). Even worse, if their support is sub par there is nothing you can do about it. You are stuck. And since Caldera got their money from you up front, they have little or no incentive to have good service.
Bottom line is that this isn't going to work. Caldera Linux is simply going to become less popular than it already is and die. I personally can't wait. The sooner Caldera runs out of money and goes bankrupt the sooner Mr Love and his inane comments will disappear from the computer press.
Exactly, this isn't about GPL licensing issues. Caldera is perfectly within their rights to charge money for proprietary software that happens to run on Linux. However, they are competing in a marketplace with competitors that are willing to give an almost identical set of software away for free. Why would anyone in their right mind pay a per seat licensing fee for Caldera when they could get something as good (or perhaps better) without cost from one of Caldera's competitors?
Caldera can whine all they want about making a profit, but RedHat is turning a profit giving software away, and the Debian group doesn't need to turn a profit because they don't have employees. Both of these groups are more than happy to give their distribution away, and to be competitive Caldera will have to do likewise.
The Linux community doesn't even have a problem with making a profit licensing Linux. We simply aren't complete imbeciles. Honestly, why in the world would I purchase Caldera Linux with their ridiculous per seat license when I can purchase one copy of RedHat Linux (at a lower price) and install it on as many machines as I like.
Heck, RedHat is even more popular than Caldera, and it runs more software. Every piece of Linux software (free or proprietary) runs without major issues on RedHat. The same can not be said for Caldera.
And if my Linux servers are mission critical it still makes more sense to purchase RedHat for several reasons. First of all RedHat's per incident support means that I only pay for the support that I need and can afford. Second, since RedHat is more popular, it is easier to hire contractors that have a thorough knowledge of the RedHat distribution.
Caldera should be fighting RedHat by making their distribution more popular, not less. Raising prices is simply going to make them even more of a bit player.
I personally am a Debian user, and I like Debian, but that doesn't make Debian a very useful distribution for newbies. Debian is the distribution you switch to after you have had to upgrade your RedHat machines manually for the fourth time.
Besides that, Debian is not any more "open" than RedHat. RedHat has consistently released the software they develop under the GPL, and they develop quite a bit of software. And RedHat's freely redistributable version of their software has been useable for a very long time (my first RedHat install was version 4.0). Even back in the early days when RedHat was bundling commercial software (like the Red Baron web browser or the commercial X Server) they still made a distribution that was perfectly useable without their proprietary bits. Caldera, on the other hand, wouldn't even install without their proprietary installation routine. They have also taken great pains to comply with published standards. The folks at Caldera have been belly-aching about RedHat and the LSB forever, and yet RedHat is more File System Hierarchy compliant than Caldera ever plans to be, and RedHat is more LSB compliant than anyone besides Debian. RedHat even took a stand on early version of KDE and the non-free versions of QT. This position allowed Mandrake to come into existence. Early versions of Mandrake were little more than RedHat + KDE.
In other words, RedHat has generally been pretty darn "open." Surpassed only in openness by Debian Linux.
However, while RedHat and Debian were both nearly equal in terms of "openness" RedHat was miles ahead in terms of ease of use. Back when RedHat was taking over the market Debian Linux was so hard to install that it was ridiculous. My first Debian install was version 1.3. I paid more for those CDs than I had ever paid for a RedHat distribution, and the dselect install was physically painful. RedHat also came with a neat set of administration tools. Debian had five versions of vi. Heck, until apt came along there really wasn't a reason to use Debian. It was simply too painful to install, with little benefit over it's RPM based brethren.
Debian has come a long way, but it still isn't nearly as easy to install as RedHat, and for newbies (the newbie market is an important market for Linux because there really aren't that many folks with experience) RedHat makes a lot of sense.
I really do believe that this is how RedHat got their marketshare. They had the best product at the lowest price, and they have followed up their early distributions with a fairly solid run of cutting edge Linux, nicely packaged. Debian might be slightly more "open," but RedHat is nearly as open, and still useable by mere mortals.
Yes, that's true, he probably will be recycled. But at least no one will take his word as an industry insider. When our PHB asks us about the Ransom Love column in ComputerWorld we'll be able to laugh and say:
Quite frankly, even though Caldera is still kicking Ransom doesn't get much play as a Linux spokesperson. The only folks that ever pay any attention to him at all are the rabidly anti-Linux journalists, and they just trot him out to make Linux look bad. And now that RedHat actually has made a swipe at positive cash flow, he won't be able to say that making money with RedHat's business plan is impossible. If making money from Linux requires proprietary software and license fees then how come his company is still deep in the red while RedHat is in the black?
Most PHBs understand those sorts of arguments.
Whatever. Almost all Linux software nowadays comes as an RPM, and that RPM is almost always targetted at RedHat's latest distribution. Sometimes if a packager has really done his or her homework they will give instructions on how to force install on SuSE or Caldera. Now, I don't use RedHat anymore (I am a Debian user myself), but I am sure that PHP works fine (although they may still be using the GPLed version PHP3 instead of PHP4, I don't know).
The Python issue is similar. It's not RedHat's fault that Guido and Co. screwed up the licensing for Python 1.6 to 2.0. The fact that RedHat pays attention to these sorts of licensing problems is actually a good thing as it means that I don't have to hire a lawyer to do it for me. Python is a very popular "embedded" scripting language. The fact that several versions of Python were not GPL compatible was a big concern. RedHat did the only sane thing by not including it by default (you could still get Python2 rpms, I have seen them).
Debian did something very similar, and for very similar reasons. These organizations understand that legal issues like this are a big deal, even if they seem to be trivial.
The fact of the matter is that RedHat is on top because they concentrated on making Linux easy to use and then released their source. While SuSE and Caldera were busy trying to herd their users into proprietary Linux add-ons RedHat was becoming the de-facto standard by releasing software. RedHat's installers weren't as flashy, and their admin tools were second rate, but you could fix them, and you didn't have to worry about licensing fees or vendor lock. While Debian was impossible to install, and Slackware was aiming for the tarball elitists, RedHat was trying to make a Free operating system that normal people could use.
So now, like it or not, RedHat is the gold standard for Linux. Applications that don't run well on RedHat get fixed (perhaps by releasing RPMs of the necessary auxilarly packages, but they get fixed all the same). Commercial Applications that don't run well on Caldera (but do run well on RedHat) come with a free RedHat CD. It's as simple as that.
This is not about RedHat flag-waving. I don't even use their distribution, but I do recognize suicide when I see it. Caldera charging per seat licenses is suicide, plain and simple. They are going to drive their few paying customers to someone else (probably RedHat). Sure, Caldera has got some nifty features, but it has always had nicer features than RedHat, and it never has helped. Linux users would just as soon have a poor piece of free software that they can fix over a fancy piece of commercial software that they can't. You would think that Caldera would have learned this by now. They have watched their fancy commercial applications get upstaged by RedHat's wimpy free ones time and time again. And RedHat hasn't always been bigger than Caldera either. Back when Slackware was the distribution of choice Caldera's desktop was a hundred times better than RedHat (and they both used the precursor to RPM as their packaging manager, Love is always pointing out the fact that Caldera helped develop RPM). RedHat was free, Caldera was not. Caldera lost. And they will lose again with their newest hare brained scheme. They are practically driving the industry towards RedHat.
I don't have moderator points, and can't moderate in this thread anyhow, but this response deserves to be seen...
Actually, Caldera spends quite a bit of time complaining about Linux compatibility. They realize that RedHat is the de-facto standard now, and that RedHat is what is used by most Linux developers (both in the free software and commmercial software world). This means that when a developer packages an RPM of their work they basically only test against RedHat, leaving the Caldera users to build the software themselves (assuming that it comes with source), or to install the correct libraries (if it is closed source). This is a pain. So when someone does pay for a Linux distribution, or signs up for service and support which distribution do they choose? Well duh, they choose RedHat. It's the most popular. It has the most developer support, and it runs all current Linux software "out of the box."
Caldera, in their infinite wisdom, has decided to combat this by charging a per seat licensing fee, which is basically guaranteed to make their distribution even more unpopular. I personally thought that Caldera saw the light some time ago when the GPLed their installation routine. Caldera has always had a fantastic distribution, but RedHat was more open (if not quite as good) and so RedHat got the market share (and the sales). It turns out that most Linuxers would rather have an inferior piece of software that they can fix over a fancy proprietary piece of software that they can't. Being open is the only way to survive in the Linux game. It is certainly possible to sell proprietary add-ons to Linux, but the base distribution has to be Free Software or your customers look elsewhere. There are very few Linuxers that are interested in building their software on anything but a truly open platform.
I would have guessed that Caldera had already learned that (the hard way), but apparently they need another smack or two with the clue stick.
Because, when all is said and done, the folks that are willing to pay for Linux software and support are much more likely to pay for the most popular distribution. Caldera is never going to be the most popular distribution if they keep these tactics up.
The Linux users that are testing their applications on a "free" version of RedHat are very likely to be the folks that sign up for service and support when their Linux application becomes mission critical. And you can bet they won't be signing up with Caldera.
This is a prime example of the idiocy I wanted to get away from. You know, it's bad enough basing your business on a piece of closed software from someone like IBM or Sun, but at least with them you know that they'll be around for a while.
I'll be damned, however, if I'd trust my company to some non-Free software from a Linux startup. No offense to RedHat (hi, Doug!), but as a whole, that's a pretty flaky business sector.
Please think about this before you mod me down. Seriously, would you like to be the one who recommends a proprietary lock-in to Caldera to the CIO?
I'll stick to the Open stuff, thanks.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
And not necessarily altogether bad, either, IMO.
:) and most PHB's are certainly not members of the Linux community anyway.
First, readers of LWN.net/daily will probably have read the response to RMS by Ransom Love regarding Caldera's relative Linux contriubutions. From the article:
"To bring it to the point: The only way to make Linux a successful business is to cash in. This is the other side of the medal. In the future, all Linux applications will have a price tag."
I don't necessarily agree with him, but it certainly clarifies his viewpoint.
Also, from another standpoint, per seat licenses make some sense. I don't know if it is illegal to install CLWS3.1 on a computer without a license, but you sure wouldn't be able to get any support from Caldera for it. They're just charging per machine to pay for the eventual support they expect to provide.
Probably won't do much for their general standing in the overall Linux community. But I've never used Caldera (strictly Debian for me, I'm an apt addict
The question isn't whether you should be able to make money from Linux. Noone has a problem with that. What people have a problem with is using freedom-restricting practices to do so. Just because we find a particular _way_ of making money off of software offensive does not mean that we find all ways offensive. You should really take the time to read the stuff in the Philosophy section of gnu.org.
Engineering and the Ultimate
No, this is not about paying for things. This is about paying for ideas. A CD is a thing. Software is not a thing. Noone is asking Caldera to provide CDs or boxed sets for free. They are simply asking them not to restrict the user's freedom with the abstract software. To think that "software" in the abstract can be owned is to believe in Plato's "world of ideas" theory. If you believe in it, fine. Just remember that software doesn't classify as a "thing".
Engineering and the Ultimate
No that is incorrect. One method of paying for software is paying for the distribution of the software. For example, you don't have to make your software downloadable. You only have to allow the people who have purchased it to have their freedoms.
Even if the software is freely downloadable, there is merit in selling CDs. Just because you _can_ download it, doesn't mean that it's free for you to do so. If you have a slow or metered connection, paying for it makes sense. Do you consider tipping Pizza Delivery people a "donation"? I sure don't.
The best method, though, is to contract improvements. For example, if company X wants feature Y in emacs, but doesn't have the ability to do it themselves, they hire you to do it. This is the best way of making money. A lot of people do it, too. In fact, you could say this is where _all_ I.T. money comes from.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Many people are making money off of Linux. Just not the public companies. Also, most of them don't sell a distribution as their primary product. Most of them are consultants who add extra pieces to whatever software their customers need. They aren't in the spotlight, but these are the real workhorses. The ones who add on to gcc, Ada, HtDig, and all the little projects that make your life just a little easier. If you add in the companies who are writing/improving and releasing free software not as their main business, but just as part of their IT infrastructure, that figure grows a whole lot.
The difference between free software and proprietary software is that they are from totally different sources. Proprietary software says "TAKE WHAT I BUILD" while free software grows wild without any overarching leader. You can't expect them to make money in the same ways.
Engineering and the Ultimate
You do have a freedom to make money. You just don't have the freedom to make money by violating others' freedoms. In the U.S., I have lots of freedoms. But I don't have the freedom to punch other people. Why? Because that violates their freedom.
Making money is not the problem. There are many ways that many people have made money on free software. Violating user freedoms is the problem.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Actually you are mistaken. Caldera puts a _lot_ of closed software in their base distribution. Their configuration tools, integrations tools, etc. If you use Caldera, it is _hard_ to be only using free software.
You are also incorrect about the GPL. The GPL doesn't just require you to make the source available, it requires you to allow the binaries to be copied as many times as you want. This only applies to the GPL part of Caldera's distribution. They can put whatever license they want on their own binaries.
Caldera is a mix of several different licenses, but to really use the distribution, you have to be using many non-free tools. For someone like me who values Linux for its freedom, this is totally unacceptable. This is why I always bought RedHat instead.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Actually, the corporate buyer _is_ RedHat's target market. Your corporation obviously either (a) has in-house support staff, or (b) doesn't care about support. In the case of (a), then RedHat doesn't have any additional value to pass on to you past the first copy they sell you. They recognize that, and do the moral thing and don't charge you for extra copies that _you_ create. In the case of (b), RedHat is more than happy to sell you support for your servers and workstations, and consult with you about how to better use free software to make your organization more productive.
A large part of their revenue stream is from selling GnuPro to large corporations, who pay a lot of money for it ($200/seat, I think), all the while you can get the download the whole thing off the internet. They pay for it because the support is valuable.
So, my two points - (1) If you do your own support, vendors don't give you any added value past the first copy. Moral vendors recognize this and don't continue charging. (2) For those without in-house support, vendors add continuing value through support.
As for GNU, RMS used to make all his money selling emacs for $150/tape. Those people were definitely not making a donation - most of them didn't have access to the net.
Anyway, all that to say, RH's target market _is_ the corporation, and they are doing a pretty good job making money there. And they do it without freedom-restricting licensing.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Where exactly can I find a GNU CD compiled for VAX? Or HPUX? Or Solaris? You are forgetting that GNU supports a number of architectures that may or may not compile right in the latest version of GNU. $5000 is not just copying a CD. It's building all the packages for bizarre architectures.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Actually, it is immoral. It is immoral to put up imaginary boundaries between people. It is immoral to place restrictions on sharing without good cause. I would find it immoral for me to purchase a lawnmower, and then come home and find that I can only use it on my lawn. Yes, it is the same as other licenses, because I can only use the CD I purchase on one computer. I could see it being at least reasonable to replace restrictions on copying CD's (even if it is not the _most_ moral way to go), however, preventing someone from using that machine on multiple computers is, especially when the agreement comes as a post-sale agreement (I've already bought it, but now I have to sign a contract to use it).
Anyway, also don't get me wrong on my use of immoral. I'm not calling the people immoral people, any more than you or I are immoral. I can usually count at least 20-30 immoral things I do each day. I'm just trying to alert people to what they are doing, so that they can try to do better in the future. I'm not trying to claim any moral superiority, because, as the Apostle Paul said, "ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", meaning that we all suck, and the differences between our suckinesses don't really amount to much.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Also, where can I get a deluxe distribution for _any_ architecture compiled with GCC 3.0?
Engineering and the Ultimate
I think you misunderstood my statement. I was correcting the poster who thought you could put restrictions on the binaries as long as the source was free. You also may have been misunderstanding what I meant by "their own binaries". I was meaning binaries of applications they had written themselves.
Engineering and the Ultimate
But that's the thing. They are selling convenience and knowledge. They know how to build it completely right, and they know all the funky compiler switches, and they ship it all together with printed documentation - meaning they print it for you.
When you buy a computer from Dell or Gateway, do you consider it a donation because you could have built it yourself for $1000 cheaper?
Engineering and the Ultimate
Actually, the three posts were because I had three different thoughts at different times.
3 92 35&cid=243
The only imaginary boundary the GPL puts up is the "must distribute source" boundary, which, although I disagree with, I find that the rest of the license makes it the best option, because it prevents others from putting up imaginary boundaries.
As for "good cause", I would say that _if_ no software would have been written without such boundaries, then _possibly_ they are useful. However, given the current state of free software, that is obviously not the case. There's also the question as to whether most software is really useful or not. Is there anything _useful_ MS Office does that emacs doesn't? Does page-designing _everything_ actually count as useful? I don't think so. Most software that I use on a daily basis is more pretty and interesting than useful. In fact, I would say that the current "I must have all new technology" syndrome is causing corporations to bleed out cash. Anyway, that's another rant for another day, though.
Obviously, my morals are my opinion. Even when taking morality directly from the Bible, you still have interpretation to consider. So, eventually, much of morality not directly mentioned biblically is essentially opinion.
As to the discussion of whether or not having contracts preventing sharing is moral or not, you can see a previous post of mine at
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/06/25/19
Engineering and the Ultimate
I don't see property ownership as imaginary. I see intellectual property ownership as imaginary because I don't believe in Plato's theory of the forms, which leaves there to be nothing left to own.
:)
In reply to your other question, I would generally prefer no software at all. However, I have a general distaste for most software
I might agree that if it was the only way to get the software written. But, obviously (by the current state of free software), it is not.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Anyway, first off, you said - Users are free to choose a free product, or one that costs money. That's where the freedom thing really is
First off, I'm going to assume that you meant to say "choose a free product or a proprietary one" because that actually makes the sentence make sense with the rest of the paragraph. However, you seem to imply in your first paragraph that free software zealots don't like people making money. I haven't seen but maybe one or two slashdotters who were upset that someone was making money, only that software was proprietary. Anyway, that's not the good part of your argument. I'll skip that because it was obviously not well thought out. The good part is this:
I know you didn't mean to imply that users freely agreeing to MS's licensing terms and using their software was somehow violating their rights, right?
Aha! An actual, worthwhile argument. You are saying that you don't think it's a violation of user rights for them to freely agree to MS's restricted licensing terms. That's quite a fair statement. Definitely not one that can be rebuked out-of-hand. Let me address at least a few issues related.
First of all, not all licensing terms _can_ be freely agreed to. For example, in some states certain warrantees cannot be waived no matter how many papers the customer signs. Also, you can't sell yourself into slavery, and the like, no matter how many papers you sign. So, obviously, at least by current standards (which may or may not be valid), it is illegal to have contracts which the signer gives up too many rights. I would gather that the people who wrote these laws thought it immoral, too. I would have to agree, although I don't know where exactly to draw the lines. So, in general, I would say that you _can_ violate someone's rights even in contracts they freely agree to. We'll get back to whether or not it is the case here later.
First, let's go over the "freely agreeing" part. When you buy software, is the license on the box? No. If I open the box, and see the license, and decide I don't like it, can I return it for a refund? Almost always - no. Personally, I have no moral problems with ignoring any post-sale contracts (I don't ignore them because of legal issues, however). I don't have any problem with lying to _my_ computer about anything. Being a programmer, that's actually how I make my living. I do think there's a difference between lying to my computer and lying to a remote computer, because then I'm ultimately lying to someone else. If I just lie to my computer I'm only lying to myself. Anyway, so the whole idea of post-sale contracts in my mind is completely bogus. Using them at all I think is totally wrong.
Now, let's say instead of post-sale, someone decided to do the right thing and make the contracts pre-sale. Is it good now? Personally, I don't like _any_ contract where one side has no leverage. What I mean is that one side is dictating all of the terms, and the person bying can't even talk to the person who made the terms. However, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on that, considering how widespread the practice is.
So, let's say they did pre-sale contracts. Is it good now? Well, I'll say it's better. I'm not sure whether or not it falls into the category of "rights that you shouldn't be allowed to give away", however, I think asking someone to do so without a _really_ good reaaon is morally questionable. It's morally questionable in the same way letting people who are bad with money own credit cards is morally questionable. Most users don't understand what they're giving up. Is it right to even ask that of someone? Maybe in some cases. In most, definitely not.
So, I'll conclude by saying that if they made pre-sale rather than post-sale agreements it would be much better, but I still find that they force such limits on rights to be a very questionable practice.
Anyway, I hope I answered your question. Sorry for being so verbose. It's late.
Engineering and the Ultimate
now raise your hand if you don't use Windows as your desktop. hmm only a couple? Yeah... thought so.
---
It seems the only method of making money the FSF considers acceptable is requesting donations. (That's what it is when people can still use your product without paying.)
It is immoral to put up imaginary boundaries between people.
So then it's immoral that you don't let me come into your house as I please.
It is immoral to place restrictions on sharing without good cause.
What if the only way a developer can get funding is to establish restrictive licenses on their code. Isn't that a good cause? Which is better, to not have the software at all, or to have it but with the requirement that you must pay for it?
Read carefully what the FSF says. They say you can make money, but not for your code. You either have to do something else on the side, or you have to request donations/tips.
Where exactly can I find a GNU CD compiled for VAX?
Okay, you've got 2, maybe 3 buyers there...
Or HPUX?
Google?
Or Solaris?
sunfreeware.com
The only platforms where one would actually need to buy binaries from GNU are platforms that virtually no-one uses. And even then, you don't have to go to GNU. You could get the source and build it yourself. The fact remains that GNU wouldn't exist without donations. That isn't viable for non-RMS software developers...
When you buy a computer from Dell or Gateway, do you consider it a donation because you could have built it yourself for $1000 cheaper?
I would if "building it myself" just meant I had to type "./configure && make all"
But back to the point: people don't pay GNU for any form of convenience. If they wanted convenience, they wouldn't be using a VAX. The only people who pay GNU are people who want to donate to the FSF.
Amen brother/sister
Gee, and I was thinking they meant comp.os.linux.announce!
Just because you've never looked to see what software Caldera has released to the community doesn't mean there isn't any. The first thing that comes to mind is a whole lot of Netware support stuff. Then there was DR DOS, which they forked to create the commercial OpenDOS. They're also serious about the LSB, have contributed code to Samba, and that's what's off the top of my head.
Heaven forbid they create some admin and install tools, or maybe a really nice network browser they want to keep to themselves in order to be able to sell a polished product? They're not withholding kernel modifications or enhancements to, say, KDE itself. They can't. Those are GPLed.
Where is it written (besides some new Microsoft EULAs) that GPL'ed tools can only be used to create GPL'ed software?
Stallman's a swell guy and all, but some people program to make money. We can't all teach and give lectures for a living.
Isn't Linux suppose to be about freedom? You can do anything you want with GPL'd products so long as you give the source back. Let them try, nobody else is making real money on Linux yet. Right now we are running off a crap load of IPO money that will run out and many of the dedicated Linux programmers funded by these companies will be forced to take positions at companies that don't give a rats ass about Linux. Linux is not exempt from the fact that it needs money to grow and prosper.
An exploration of mixology, spirits and bartending.
It is, in fact, just you. "Open" has nothing to do with whether or not you have to pay for it. If you'd RTF literature, you'd know that.
Not that I support this, but if you're going to go off at least get the basics right. I think this particular action flies in the face of Bill Gates and his gang of idiots by showing just what can be done within the confines of the GPL.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
Not really. This question has been asked and answered many times before... merely collecting differently-licenced pieces of software into one package does not bring the GPL into play. Go and read it, it's not very long and it's quite easy to understand.
Yeah, that one got me too...
The way RedHat is trying to turn a profit by selling subscriptions to its update services and things is acceptable. What Caldera is doing does not seem acceptable.
They need to tie the licenses to some other criterion than the ability to use the software. They could tie it to a support contract and put in a clause that lets them sue for 150% of lost revenue if the person gets support and has more installations than licenses.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
(more from the GPL)
So, Caldera sells a (modified, presumably) version of the Linux kernel (with some proprietary tools, to install it, etc).They then say 'you may only install this on a single system'.It seems to me this is clearly not allowed under the GPL. However, the above quote includes the word 'herein' - meaning in the GPL. The GPL specifically states:
A strange situation occurs (based on the information I have now): Caldera disallows use of their softare on more than one system, but it does not disallow redistribution. Much like 'shareware' licenses, which allow free distribution of the software, but use is limited.
Some people have argue that once you've obtained the software it's yours to do with as you please, but to redistribute the software (modified or not), you have to have permission from the copyright owner.
I don't think Caldera's model can survive. It can only work if none of the copyright holders decide to sue Caldera, and they actually have a much better distribution (to compensate for the loss in goodwill).
If this holds up, however, there is no longer any added value to the GPL versus some of the less restrictive licenses (BSD/MIT/X11 etc).
-- Buddy
Uh...it's sort of sad to see everyone here getting so fucking bent out of shape because a company wants to impliment per-seat licensing. I don't see how thats one step closer to Microsoft, they charge per fucking user. They're trying to sell their distro to corporate types and they need to make it clear to PHBs how they charge for their product. Charging just for a box with CDs and a manual isn't something PHBs or even accountants are used to with software products. The need a term on the price and also a condition for the price. Charging per seat is Caldera's way of clarifying what they're selling.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
What will make someone buy Caldera over some other distro, after they do something like this?
Is there ANY advantage of their version of Linux over lets say Mandrake (or any other)?
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
Except that anyone who looked at RedHat's numbers realized that RedHat did not turn a real profit. They lost almost 30 millions bucks. In other words, a couple more years worth of quarters like this last one for which they claimed a profit, and they'll be bankrupt.
Cheers,
I see your point, but Caldera has a snowball's chance in hell of increasing thier miniscule market share by charging more money when there are more popular ("better" is too subjective) alternatives available for free.
Funny, but not quite fair. Caldera has one of the more recommended NetWare interface tools. And Mars NWE is, appearantly, broken under Red Hat 7.1.
Pity. I'd been thinking of buying a copy (of Caldera).
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
A) I think you're right.
B) I don't like SuSE either. Mainly because of their proprietary installer. (But I never claimed I didn't think it was legal. Merely sleazy.)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
And, at least for me, that was the only possible basis for preferring them.
I bought one prior version of Linux from them for precisely that reason. But it didn't connect to the Novell server any more than Red Hat did. Or Mandrake. Or...
There doesn't seem to be any software for connecting to a Netware network as a client, rather than as a server, that works. (Which, of course, really means that I've never gotten it to work.)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
That's clearly overstating things. It's always preferable that your vendor remain in service, even when you do have alternatives. And especially when the alternatives are more expensive to you.
Maintaining code yourself is generally more expensive than getting someone else to do it, especially if that someone else is a Linux distributor. So you loose a lot if your vendor sinks. You just don't loose (nearly) everything.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Yes, but if you added some "proprietary" stuff on top of the kernel, I can't legally do anything with the entire package without conforming to your overall license. If I want to strip out the free bits (via the source) and give them away, or try to install them on the rest of my LAN, that'd be OK, but who in their right mind is going to do that? It'd be like a less-friendly version of Slackware. So although I think Caldera are loony and will probably go out of business soon, they are presumably "free" to do this.
There's nothing wrong with them doing this at an ethical level. I mean as long as they follow the terms of the various licenses then it should be kosher. The only problem I see is that I can't imagine people paying per-seat unless it ends up being substantially cheaper than similar offerings from other companies who have simpler licensing schemes.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
This is no different than a free OS that restricts copying of ISO images (OpenBSD)
OpenBSD does not restrict providing ISOs. In fact, they couldn't if they wanted too, they use the BSD license. They *do* refuse to concider any ISO release "official" OpenBSD, which they are allowed to do. Plus, the majority of the OBSD community believes in contributing some money, so they buy CDs from openbsd.org anyway. Anyone asking about ISOs on the OBSD mailing lists tends to get flamed into next week, but no one has ever claimed you can't make them if you want.
-WintermuteI'm sure Redhat, et al, are drooling over the prospects of people driven away by not getting it all for free . ..
No, but they will get a lot of customers from Caldera that are more than willing to buy *one* copy, but don't want to deal with client licensing. No CALs are one of the reasons corps and governments are looking at Linux, especially with MS on a license compliance rampage lately.
-WintermuteThat's all well and good, but I'm not seeing any "freedom-restricting" practices here. Caldera is licensing their distribution _as_a_whole_ under per-seat terms, but every bit of free software included in the distribution is still under its own terms. This is no different than a free OS that restricts copying of ISO images (OpenBSD) or includes proprietary applications (SuSE, Redhat, etc).
No, you can't burn a copy of the Caldera CD and give it to your friends. But you can give them all of the free parts inside...
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Ho hum. Do you know anyone who actually paid $5000 for the Deluxe GNU Package, who didn't think that they were making a donation?
Free Software is great! But it's not a salable item by itself. You can make people pay for the copies they get from you, but you can't make them pay for copies they get elsewhere.
Caldera is a good case of this. They are targeting their distro towards corporations. Why should a corporation pay for a thousand copies of Caldera for their thousand workstations? We have about one hundred Redhat installs at my work, but only one copy of Redhat was ever purchased. That doesn't bother Redhat, though, because the corporate buyer isn't their target market.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
...but RedHat was more open (if not quite as good) and so RedHat got the market share (and the sales).
Do you really believe that why Redhat got their marketshare? Really? Then why isn't Debian three times are big as Redhat? They're much more open than Redhat....
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
They recognize that, and do the moral thing and don't charge you for extra copies that _you_ create.
It's neither moral nor immoral. There is no moral difference between selling a software license allowing unlimited copying and one that only allows ten copies. Or one. So long as the customer is fully informed as to the status of the software ownership, there is no problem. That I find much more utility in Free Software than in proprietary is beside the point. Utility is not morality.
As for GNU, RMS used to make all his money selling emacs for $150/tape.
Anyone buying that tape today who thinks they're not making a donation? Back then the internet was no where near as prevalent as today. But that was then and this is now. When you can download the entire works of GNU for free plus a little time, or on CD from a variety of sources for only $2, how can you consider spending $5000 for it anything less than a donation? Even considering that the Deluxe edition comes with printed manuals, that's still not worth price when I can get the very same manuals from fatbrain for a fraction of that.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Man, three replies to the same post. I must have really upset you on that one :-)
...especially when the agreement comes as a post-sale agreement (I've already bought it, but now I have to sign a contract to use it).
Actually, it is immoral.
In your definition, maybe. In RMS' definition, certainly. But so what? Simply saying that something is immoral does not make it so. You need to give reasons why it is immoral (as opposed to merely uncouth, odd or different).
It is immoral to put up imaginary boundaries between people.
Then why the fudge is RMS putting up imaginary boundaries around his software! That's what the GPL, or any other license, is. A set of restrictions that define an imaginary boundary around a piece of information.
It is immoral to place restrictions on sharing without good cause.
I am restricting no one from sharing of their own properties by restricting how my property is to be used. By using and encouraging the use of copyrights through the use of the GPL and other free software licenses, RMS is emphatically asserting that software can and should be owned. Fine. I own my software. It is mine to do with as I please, including letting other people use it under a restricted set of conditions.
However, some restrictions are immoral. The purchaser of software has indeed bought something, and that something is his property. But it isn't the information. It is the CD and the use of that information. I cannot restrict him from giving the CD to his friend and I cannot restrict him from using the information in ways that I disagree with. But that particular set of information that is my expression of speech does not belong to him.
I would find it immoral for me to purchase a lawnmower, and then come home and find that I can only use it on my lawn.
If you were not made aware of the restrictions on the use of that lawnmower at the time of purchase, then yes, it would definitely be immoral, because it would constitute fraud. But if you were aware of those restrictions, and bought it anyway, you first have to blame yourself before you blame the seller. The seller may or may not be immoral for selling you such a restricted lawnmower, but the blame still falls upon you.
If you don't like the terms of the software license, don't buy the software. Period. Don't buy CDs that you can only use on one computer if that's not what you want!
I absolutely agree with you here. I think shrink-wrap licenses and other similar items are very immoral. They are immoral because they are fraudulent. But don't extend the immorality of a few software manufacturers to cover all of them.
"ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"
Certainly. As a Christian I wholeheartedly agree. But I still see no reason to go out and invent new sins.
RMS and the FSF have invented new sins. Yes, it is a sin not to share. But sharing does not mean giving everything you own away. And that's what RMS wants, for me to give away every single byte of software that I write. It's good to give money to the poor, but it is not a sin to fail to give every cent you own to the poor.
When I get home from work I write my own software on my own time. I do not need this software to live on. It is my "surplus" so I freely give it away. I use the BSD license so that there are as few restrictions as possible on it. But somehow that isn't good enough for many GPL advocates. They want me to place additional restrictions on my code.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I agree totally, and comming from a location nearby caldera I hear a lot about them and watch continually for stories about them on slashdot. Funny thing, new releases and innovations never get mentioned like other distros, yet whenever Something Contraversial comes up about Caldera Rob, er, Slashdot, is the first to jump on the "Caldera is bad" bandwagon.
YES
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
It's been a long time since I've messed with it, but it seems that Caldera is intended not for hackers, but for corporate desktops and servers, particularly when support for DOS and/or Novell networks is essential. The market may be slowly dwindling, but it will take a long time for it to dry out. I think some of the stuff required for smooth integration are proprietary, the "package deal" has to carry a "proprietary" license. BTW, since Cheapbytes still carries Caldera, I wouldn't worry too much about the GPL. Personally I prefer Red Hat (closer to the bleeding edge), but I wish Caldera and their customers all the best.
Guess i'll just have to use a different distribution... oh wait.. I already DO use a different distribution...
Seriously though.. IS there anyone who uses Caldera Linux?
You are also incorrect about the GPL. The GPL doesn't just require you to make the source available, it requires you to allow the binaries to be copied as many times as you want. This only applies to the GPL part of Caldera's distribution. They can put whatever license they want on their own binaries.
You're mistaken as well.
The GPL does require you to provide source on request to anyone you distribute your binary to.
It does not require you to make it available for download.
http://www.bullnet.com
I guess you've never tried to run Star Office on Red Hat 7.1, or any PHP apps for that matter, or anything that requires Python > 1.5.2 (a ridiculously old version).
I'm pretty sure Caldera at least tested one of the most sought after Linux apps on their distribution where Red Hat apparently didn't.
I'm not defending Caldera's per-seat licensing but I can understand where they add value: Webmin, desktop support, Novell integration (a big one I must say), etc.
Mainly, however, I'm constantly annoyed by mindless Red Hat flag-waving. Not all of us use Red Hat and not all of us develop or test for it. There's a lot of software out there that runs far better on Debian, Slackware and SuSE, which are all more sanely put together (IMO). I don't use Caldera either, in case you were wondering.
Check out the forums on sun.com. A *lot* of people are having major troubles, such as total crashing. SysRq keys won't work either.
According to Sun, they currently do not support running it under Linux 2.4, despite the fact that it runs happily on my 2.4.5 box here.
Just after I posted that message, I got a gut feeling and found that the problem was with certain XFree86 4 drivers. There is an environment variable you can set so that Star Office avoids certain X operations.
That will certainly make half of the developers at work happy, as they won't have to downgrade to 6.2... A horrible thought.
I still hate the broken PHP and the ridiculously old Python (I have a feeling that they did that so they wouldn't have to update their Python tools)
Companies like RedHat/Mandrake/Debian, for example seem to survive without charging a visible amount for their software, yet Caldera seem to think they need to charge a per-seat license.
And they probably do. The big difference between RedHat, and Caldera is that I actually know people who use RedHat (no, really I do).
This just seems to me to be the last grasp at some Linux-distro $$$ by a company on it's way down the toilet.
After all, plenty of other companies have survived long enough by seemingly giving Linux distros away. But they have a strong user-base.
What's so special about Caldera then, that they think we'll pay per-seat to use it?
Nothing... and I wonder whether they're going to find that out the hard way?
"How much truth can advertising buy?" - iNsuRge - AK47
"How much truth can advertising buy?" - iNsuRge - AK47
With OpenBSD ISO's do not make sense. The distro is just too small. The second reason is that installing with FTP is a really viable option under OpenBSD. I tried it with Debian but that didn't work. I had OpenBSD installed within 20 minutes. NO SWEAT! OpenBSD is a non-voodoo distro. It is extremely clean and has very good installation documentation (many programs can learn from that).
So you have two options:
-for the bandwidth inclined: get the CD. Downloading an iso is wasting a few 100 megs.
-for the bandwith-elite: do the ftp (20 min) because it is faster than downing an iso (20 min), burn it (5 min) and then install it (negative time here??).
OpenBSD ISO's are for dummies and contributors.
nosig today
To clarify: official CD's are for contributors and bandwidth inclined. Downloading ISO's is for dummies.
nosig today
These competitors are not requiring site by site licenses for their products which are, for all intents and purposes, the exact same product as Caldera's.
Except that Caldera is charging a per seat licence. Which has a greater effect on TCO than a site licence.
With a site licence it is simply a case of buy it once, no need for additional administration to ensure you have enough licences.
Linux IS NOT ABOUT A BUSINESS PLAN OR TURNING A PROFIT. Please drill this into your respective heads. Free Software is not about business. It may be wonderful for businesses, it may allow people to make money, but that is not the core focus.
A "business plan" is just that, a plan for creating and operating a business. If a business has a good plan they make more profit, if they have a bad one they cease to exist.
The problem for Caldera is that they appear to have chosen to apply a business model which can only work for proprietary software to open source software.
Something which makes as much sense as running a passenger airline as though it is a trucking company.
The fact that Caldera chose to base their business on Free Software and then complain later that it's impossible to make money that way is simply a demonstration of the short-sightedness of their management.
Or that their business model was flawed. Putting the blame of "free software" is a case of the bad workman blaming their tools.
Requiring a COLA per workstation will, IMHO, greatly increase productivity and worker satisfaction.
:)
One per workstation won't help that much. They'd need something more like a 4 litre per day, per workstaion supply
They are pulling a Microsoft... Taking GPL code that they didn't alone develop, adding proprietary crap to it, and using the existance of their proprietary "extensions" to deny redistribution rights, or even the ability to use it YOURSELF, in what manner you see fit...
In other words "viral licencing"...
Per seat licenses for a GNU GPL licensed OS would seem to me to be illegal.
Fraud and copyright infringement more specifically.
How is a Linux distribution company supposed to turn a profit if a 1,000 person company buys one license and installs it on 1,000 workstations?
They ensure that the price they charge for goods and services is higher than whatever it actually costs them to provide them.
Should we come up with a GPL II that forbids the inclusion of the program in question on any per-seat licensed OS?
The GPL already forbids relicencing further the DMCA gives the copyright owner the rights to control distribution. In order to be legal Caldera would need the agreement of all the copyright holders.
Yes, but as a customer I don't _care_ about my vendor's profitability.
Exactly and all too often in the last couple of years we have seen all sorts of nonsense about a customer being somehow obliged to ensure a supplier's business model works.
Caldera's value-add stuff does NOT necessarily qualify,
Also "value added" is very much a subjective criteria. It could just as easily translate to "expensive junk addons". If the customer needs some feature then it has value, if they don't then the same feature can have no value (even negative value.)
The viable (and ethical) business plan is to charge for new development, maintenance, and support (of software you or someone else wrote, doesn't matter). It is not to charge for each copy of software you've already written, and certainly not to charge for each copy of somebody else's software.
Creating a distribution of software or a physical media copy is actually a "service" rather than "selling a copy". But it's a service where you cannot charge too much...
It's been a long time since I've messed with it, but it seems that Caldera is intended not for hackers, but for corporate desktops and servers,
Exactly the sort of situation where per desktop licences are most likely to be unwelcome.
How much more effort does it take to allow more user per system? NONE! So, why charge for it?
This has been going on for quite a while. e.g. Netware server licences where the only difference is a variable, the code is identical. A concept which Microsoft copied and extended with Windows NT.
When NT came out on some Comdex, they had two "Systems" - server and client. I thought: utter bull! Multi tasking = multi user, the OS is the same, just scam the world into thinking they are different and charge...
As well as having a server which drags stuff only really needed for a workstation around with it...
News flash 2: Per-seat licenses are a way of making money.
Only where no competitor does not do this. Otherwise they are a great way of having fewer customers.
You do have a freedom to make money.
Actually in a free society a business has the freedom to attempt to make money. Only in some kind of socialist society would businesses have the right to make money.
The GPL does not (cannot in fact) cover other pieces of software you happen to ship on the same CD.
Nor can the licences for other software shipped with CPL software cover the GPL software. Which is more the issue here.
> And you're telling me PBS is profitable?
> That it would exist without government aid?
> That it's not a socialist institution?
This is a common misperception. Most public stations no longer get the majority of their funding from governmental sources, and the funding that does come from government comes at the state and local level. For example, my home station of WITF got only 6% of its total annual funding last year from Uncle Sam (per their annual report).
Please check your facts before throwing them around.
No the hang up there was not the hangup with Debian is that Debian does not put "non-free" software in main and the KDE people did not want to put it in non-free.
You just made that up. Read Debian's official stance on the (previous) situation. Note:
However, the GPL insists that you grant the right to modify the complete source of a program distributed under its terms, which is clearly in conflict with Qt's licence conditions. [...] So, we have been denied the right to ``distribute the Program at all''. (emphasis added)
It is fine to distribute GPLed and non-free software together just fine.
There you're correct. The issue for Debian is that they were linked together, which is a whole 'nother story.
--
Damn. I really do like the Caldera distro, mainly on the more broad implementation of keyboard shortcuts. This may seem like a dumb thing to most of you, but I *hate* it when I have to reach for the mouse (usually a trackpad on my PCs, in case you hadn't yet figured out what a weirdo I am) to get a menu item. Of course this is probably why the Caldera version of the kernel is a bit nonstandard, but getting the keyboard shortcuts is worth it for me.
Granted the Caldera KDE implementation is rather Win95 like... which I don't consider a bad thing since the MS Win9x/NT4+ user interface is extremely consistent and pretty well thought out. The irony of buying Caldera for Windows-like user interface and getting MS-like licensing isn't lost on me, however.
Pray tell, what is so unique and amazing about selling proprietory software?
How we know is more important than what we know.
Raise your hands if you use Caldera as your desktop. Yeah... thought so.
I've said it before, I'll say it again, I even said it in Random's conference room in Utah:
Caldera is run by fucking idiots.
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
However, this is a good thing! In the very least it gives a no-brainer, one-liner counter-example to the rantings of some lunatics about whether or not proprietary code can be integrated with GPL'd code. This is so simple that even PHB's will be able to get this. It'll work like this:
Personally, I think it's really dumb for Caldera to be doing this, but I'm glad they're doing it, and not Red Hat.
--
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
--
150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for slashdot.sig (129323052 bytes).
I love how idiot trolls on /. assume that everyone else has exactly the same opinion, and then criticize the Slashdot "collective" for disagreeing with itself.
(The parent poster doesn't understand the GPL, incidentally.)
--
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
Actually, based on my own experience with Caldera as my first Linux distro, people buy it because it comes with none of the above and they don't know any better.
--
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
Yes. There aren't any.
Whenever they develop something for Linux, they keep it to themselves. How could they convince people to buy their distro if it didn't come with Proprietary Fubarmatic 2.0?
--
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
No, but asking people to pay for the low-quality proprietary crapware that Caldera shovels into their distro (just to make you think there's some benefit to buying the non-free version from them) is.
One of the main selling points of Caldera 2.2 was that it came with PartitionMagic. I was new to Linux, and I fell for it, not realizing that RedHat already had a partitioning tool then. And it turned out to be a really cut-down "PartitionMagic Lite" which had very little in common with PartitionMagic except the logo, and would do nothing but create a Linux partition of one of three specified sizes, and faced with my hard disk which already had 3 Windows partitions, it even failed at that.
Oh yeah, it also came with the proprietary WordPerfect 8, but that was free for download anyway. And it had this amazing "Caldera Open Administration System" which was kind of like linuxconf, except it didn't work, and wouldn't tell you what it was attempting to do.
--
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
You don't need BS like per-seat licensing for Linux to make money on Linux. We are supposed to have some differences from the proprietary world. I believe this is one place where we should be different.
Are you forgetting that Linux is Open Source? This means it is perfectly legal to make copies of Linux and give them to your friends. Talk of suing for this basic freedom we all flocked to Linux for is ridiculous.
Certainly not.
However, asking people to pay multiple times for things that do not cost you to reproduce most certainly is.
The article says that OpenLinux Workstation contains "proprietary" material. From what I've seen, it's nothing that adds any true value to the system.
Therefore, now that Caldera has made anti-consumer policies their official stance, I would recommend just getting it from linuxiso.org or better yet, get Debian (with a support contract from Progeny if needed), instead.
They cannot make the free software in their distribution any less free. . . All they can do is add a little non-free software to the distribution and limit seats based on that.
And who cares? It isn't like they're adding anything so compelling that one is forced to use Caldera. The only practical effect is that folks who care about copyleft will use another distribution.
So long as we keep supporting GPL, we will be fine. (Caldera will probably go under, but that's their lookout.)
No, we are all for making money, it pays the rent.
But money is not the only (or most) important thing. Some of us care _how_ we make our money.
If Caldera had written all the software in their distro themselves, there would be no argument. We might not respect them (a la Microsoft), but they would definitely has the right to do as they pleased.
Of course, they wrote 1% (to pick a number out of a hat), so it smells a little, but they still have the right to limit the distro as a whole (presuming they put some non-GPLed stuff into it).
But since they cannot hold GPLed software hostage, it isn't likely to help Caldera much in the long run. Discriminating customers will simply turn elsewhere.
Technically, RedHat is making money from Linux, and they're not charging per-seat on the software.
No fence sitting there...
*scoove*
That's why I said "technically" - according to the rules of the market, they made a profit, which is still remarkable considering the economy, the total disruption of the tech sector, where Redhat came from, what Redhat sells, etc.
*scoove*
in the workstation area? We all know it works very well in the server market. But it has not made much of a dent in the client/workstation market. Is charging for it really the way to go?
Jason
The difference between NT Workstation and Server is in 2 registry settings.
While I agree NT was created to make money and Unix to do a job, I don't think those goals are mutually exclusive. If NT does the job, as well as make money, it's a win for people. As Linux matures and can continue to establish that it can do the job, there's no reason it shouldn't be allowed fair compensation for that service.
Keep in mind, there are other free OSes that do an extremely similar job to Caldera, equally effectively. If your game is service, you can easily use one of those distributions, or put together one of your own and save the money on licensing to contribute to your services draw on those services.
Bottom line: it's all up to you what you wish to do with all the free software that makes up a distribution. If you prefer one that charges licensing fees, it's your prerogative to use one that does not.
Linux rocks!!! www.dedserius.com
www.dedserius.com
VB != VisualBasic
Most people understand money. They want something, they are ready to shell out for it. We've been giving it away for free and people have been willing to pay, so why not have them pay?
You should charge what the market will bear. If the market will bear a per-seat license, then per-seat license it is.
Also charging stops having to explain about giving stuff away for free. Saves time, and time is money, so charging them saves you money, and makes you money too!
Actually, it says that it must be provided for no additional or only nominal charge to people to whom the binaries are provided. It sets no limit on charges for the binaries and sets no requirement that it be provided to non-customers.
If you want to charge $9999999 for your linux distribution, you can. You need not provide sources to anyone but your customers.
Granted, however, that since your customers can redistribute it once they have it, that might not be a good business model. However if you can make just one sale, maybe that would be enough...
And you're telling me PBS is profitable? That it would exist without government aid? That it's not a socialist institution?
I would say open mouth insert foot, but in this case Caldera is doing . .
Open mouth, insert MegaTon Weapon.
Caldera must actually want out of the Linux Desktop business.
Of course I didnt read the license... if this is simply for paid support, it would be a good idea.
This is about a convoluted as logic and get. And wrong. The New License covers the whole distro, not the parts.
Caldera is entitled to do what it wants with it's parts no arguement. It's that parts that are not Caldera that is the problem. I really feel that there's something dirty about not being able to copy this thing without a certificate for each copy.
No don't pin me down, I didn't say it is dirty, I said it feels dirty. License for support OK, License for installation, it just doesn't feel 'Linuxish'.
The business model for Linux is tricky for traditional business, be it supplier, or end user.
It's not 'viral' in the Microsoft sense, but it is non-traditional in the business sense. Red Hat (with it faults) has it right with building a support model to pay for the development arm. Of course we know RH turned a profit, on other investments not RH-Linux, but the direction is there.
In some odd way this reminds me of the PC, Atari, Amiga battles to keep bootcode on floppys a licensed item, even though doing so seemed on the surface to hurt the business model (in accounting).
Ramble Off
I see this as a step that will ultimately reduce fragmentation in the Linux arena. It will do this by bumping Caldera out of the Linux arena. Don't think SCO will save them after that, either. Hopefully this will drive the final nail into the coffin of both these odious companies.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Caldera has changed the license on its OpenLinux Workstation product for the newest version (3.1) to require one license per system the distribution is installed on.
I don't need to read the rest, but I imagine it goes on to describe the certificates of authenticity, and some specifics of the EULA, and probably some kind of disclaimer that while Linux is GPL, Caldera adds proprietary software that justifies the new license, and blah blah blah.
But it doesn't matter, all that matters is the bullet in the foot, which will prove to be a fatal wound, making the rest of the happy horse shit irrelevant.
Edith Keeler Must Die
It doesn't matter that they're trying to turn a profit. What does matter is that they're doing it in about as foolish a way possible (short of selling subscriptions a la MS). If they're trying to turn profit, alienating your core constituency is not the way to do it! It's simple marketing, and Caldera seems to have forgotten it.
They also seem to have forgotten the fact that they have a bunch of major competitors, most notably Redhat, Mandrake, and SuSE, who would probably love to soak up Caldera's share of the Linux market, both present and future. These competitors are not requiring site by site licenses for their products which are, for all intents and purposes, the exact same product as Caldera's. This is a lot like charging more for the store brand, which is suicide.
If Caldera wants to turn a profit they should really rethink this move and try and take a cue from Redhat. Brand some stuff like a database as your own. Don't restrict your core products, but provide services like the Redhat network. Help the community (Caldera already does this with Webmin) and don't try and alienate the people who are your best friends.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
There isn't any ethical or legal problem with this at all. Their products are proprietary add-ons and services, it's hardly different in kind to what RedHat does. When they modify GPL code, they are obliged to GPL the mods. When they write their own code from scratch, they are not. There is no requirement that proprietary programs be GPLd to run under a GPL OS (ever heard of Oracle?)
Bottom line, as long as they comply with the terms of the GPL when it comes to GPL code, they can put whatever license they want on their own. There might be a minor nitpick if their license doesn't make it clear that it only applies to their proprietary programs, not the OS as a whole, I'll grant, but if that is the case it will be easily fixed. There was a similar flap awhile back about Corel's license, and it didn't turn out to be any big deal, I recall.
First off the KDE/QT deal was a totally different issue. KDE was making Free, not proprietary software, yet they were using a library with a license incompatible with the license of their own software. Much more serious problem. Fortunately that one got fixed, though it wasn't easy, and for all the flaming certain immature individuals gave RMS over it, they should be thanking him - if he hadn't raised a stink KDE might still be in a legal limbo, and QT unfree.
RMS is no fan of Caldera, in fact he has expressed what could only be termed contempt for CEO Ransom Love in particular. But I'll be surprised if he loses his objectivity on this issue. If they need to clarify the wording of their license, that's fine, that's not the end of the world, and the FSF has always worked to resolve these little bumps quickly and quietly in the past. The GPL is not, and was explicitly never intended to be, anti-business. It's designed to allow writers of Free Software to share code without fear of their code being proprietarised (the major weakness of the BSD license.)
See this entry in the GPL FAQ. Calderas proprietary products are aggregated, not integrated, and as long as that is so, they can license them under any terms they wish.
"That old saw about the early bird just goes to show that the worm should have stayed in bed."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Yes, actually there is. Remember the roots of Caldera are in Novell. Novell is still deeply rooted in many companies - and for good reason. For many, it combines the best of NT (ease of use) and Unix (power, speed, reliability.)
For companies with millions invested in Novell systems, the advantages of Linux are offset by the learning curve and the difficulties in integrating it into their existing systems. Caldera is a godsend for those companies, and they aren't going to even blink at these licensing fees. A lot of Calderas work is available under the GPL, yes, and it's quite possible to take any other distribution and integrate it perfectly into a Novell network - but it still isn't the easiest thing to do. Pay Caldera and they do the work for you. You get a system that is "plug and play" for that environment, instead of one that can be hacked into shape for it, and you get topnotch support from people that know both linux and novell inside and out.
I don't expect Caldera to ever get much mindshare out of the hacker set (excepting the ones they pay) however it has always been very attractive for enterprises that use novell and need a linux system that will fit into their existing network with minimal fuss. And, I repeat, those customers aren't going to blink at the licensing fees. It's still far more attractive than the alternatives to them, and it's a drop in the bucket compared to what they are used to paying anyway.
This was probably a very good decision for Caldera - the only people that it's going to bother are the ones that weren't going to be their customers anyway. And I'm sure they can use the revenue.
"That old saw about the early bird just goes to show that the worm should have stayed in bed."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Well... the money-making scene is rather fucked. Everyone seems to know it but rarely is it talked about. What's the deal with that? Is it that it's a necessary evil but to point out the evilness of it is considered juvenile? Yelling at the darkness rather than lighting a candle? Hardcore greed-motivation is efficient (whatever that means); but it's ugly, unhealthy, stinky, etc. Like I said, everyone knows it. It's a fucked system and naturally the major hagfishesque players in this system of sewage and rotting meat are the most obviously blatantly fucked. The degree to which you pursue the dollar is the degree to which you are a shiteating spreader of filth and disease. Duh! What's the alternative? When your neighbor starts pissing on trees and waving his gun what alternative do you have but to enter some kind of who-shoots-who-when and piss-distribution standoff? Non-violent non-participation?
Is such a thing even possible?
---
Book(n): Utensil used to pass time while waiting for the TV repairman
Caldera even from the beginning, just like corel, was too simple, to "'dozeish", and just plain sucked. Now with this new liscensing deal, even less people will want to get it. I'd say that Caldera is one of those Linux companies which is kind of a Free Software based Microsoft, in the sense that its beginning to slowly get tighter and tigher on its liscensing policies. Can we expect the next release to have a EULA when you're installing? CD keys?! If Caldera continues this behaviour, I'm more than willing to bet that it will slowly strangle its capitol in the same way that its beginning to slowly strangle its users.
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
Perversely greped and groped by PowerPenguin
The primary benefit of the GNU General Public License is that consumers of software have no distribution restrictions that prevent them from sharing software. I point particularly to Now the question is whether their distro being merely a conglomeration of proprietary and Open Source software is immune from the above requirement of the GPL or whether they must specifically exclude GPL-based portions of their distro from their per-seat license. Interesting indeed.
--
Although OpenLinux Workstation contains the Linux kernel and a variety of open source software, there are a wide variety of licenses, each with different distribution restrictions Additionally, Caldera includes some of its own proprietary software as well as other Copyrighted material." (Quoted from this on LinuxToday)
So what's it all mean? This shows pretty conclusively that you can indeed build a proprietary product on top of Linux. If they've done it right, they'll show that you can do it without getting tripped up the the GPL. Nyah nyah MS. Whether they can sell it is another question. I wish them luck.
I think that MS has pretty well made a fool of its collective self with the GPL=cancer nonsense. This kind of thing can only help point up the essential absurdity of that position.
See what I've been reading.
Then again, maybe it is a ploy to get at the Stepford IT people who pay lots of money for their Micros**t products and think that free software is BAD, expensive software=good.
blessings,
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
Why, how DARE they even THINK about charging people! They're using Open Source products and tools, and therefore they should be GIVING THEM away for FREE! Why, the only thing they could be doing that would be worse than this, I think, would be using advertising on top of the product that other people put together. Idiot. You do realize that the FSF used to sell their stuff too, right?
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Unless.. the other distributions follow suit or Caldera has some jewels hidden in their distribution. Does anyone know about it? Is there an office software package equivalent to M$oft's products?
This multi seat is where the scam starts.
I think it violates the spirit of OSF, software reusability and all.They should suffer for doing that!
How much more effort does it take to allow more user per system? NONE! So, why charge for it?
When NT came out on some Comdex, they had two "Systems" - server and client. I thought: utter bull! Multi tasking = multi user, the OS is the same, just scam the world into thinking they are different and charge...
Unix was created to do a job, NT was created to make money!
then don't buy it. shut the fuck up. end of story. its all about freedom of choice right?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
They can't charge a per seat fee for GPL'd software. The fee must either cover support or some closed product bundled with the GPL'd software.
So, this won't keep you from copying (or even reselling) the GPL'd portions of their bundle. It will just keep you from calling up their tech line and scamming for free support and/or illegal copying of bundled closed products. Surely many on /. will balk at the idea of bundling closed-source, but you it's hard to argue for a more fair way to charge for support other than a per-seat.
In other words, this is YASFA (Yet Another Slashdot False Alarm).
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
This is absolutely, 100% wrong. Just check out this if you don't believe that. For those who don't want to follow the link, the FSF say, in part [emphasis is theirs]:
That sure doesn't sound like being opposed to selling the software. Nobody claims that RedHat or Mandrake are evil for selling copies of their software. The objection is to hooking a small bit of proprietary software onto a boatload of Free Software and using that as an excuse to restrict peoples' ability to use the Free Software as they choose.
Actually, IMPO, this is going to wind up hurting Caldera more than anyone. Why would somebody want to pay Caldera per-copy licenses when they could buy one copy from RedHat, Mandrake, Debian, etc. and install it on many computers? It's not as though Caldera's selection of packages, packaging system, or proprietary extensions make their product enough better to justify the additional charge. This is just going to scare away potential customers.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
I love how /. insists that the GPL has tainted Caldera, but that MS is lying when they say that the GPL taints codebases.
Make up your mind...
(Depending upon how you look at it, Windows 3.1 was either the end of DOS or the beginning of universal GUI for intel-platform computers. Either way, it was a true milestone in computer history.)
Is it me or does the Caldera logo look confusingly similar to Disney's?
To directly address your question, GPL states anyone is free to charge for the cost of distribution, or providing support or guarantees. Oh, I guess it is obvious to me now...IBHT
cat
A good point I did not consider. Maybe they get around it putting GPL stuff on "Disc 2" and their proprietary stuff on "Disc 1". I'll bet their installer is on "Disc 1". Since GPL also says no warranties, I suppose it is fair game to distribute GPL code without a reasonable installer, although you must include the Makefiles. No warranty implies that it is not fit for any purpose. GASP! I'm acting like an amateur lawyer.
I agree that this is more likely to harm them.
cat
I'm not going to use Caldera, since one of the benefits of using Linux is not having to worry about silly per-seat licenses.
1) They want to charge liscensing fees for their software. They are putting a whole bunch of code they they developed onto a CD and selling it under some sort of single desktop license. Good for them. Why?
2) They want to make money. One way to make money off of software is by selling licenses. Nearly every player in the software world does this. There is nothing wrong with it. If you don't want to buy it then don't buy it. There is no need to get your panties in a twirl. But you say. . .
3) What about the GPL? Well, what about it? Nothing Caldera is doing violates the GPL (at least, I can't prove it). Is their proprietary stuff derivatie of GPL work? Probably not. Are they restricting your freedoms as guaranteed by the GPL? On GPL'd software, probably not. Remember, they only need to make the source available for you, as well as any changes they have made to it. If they do that, they have lived up to their end of the bargain. You can take the source off their CD, repackage it, roll around in printouts of it naked, so on and so forth.
This certainly isn't new. Take a look at the SuSE license. You can make copies of SuSE's proprietary code and give it to all of your friends. The moment you try to sell copied ISO's, SuSE legal will come down on you like the hammer of god (ok, maybe not that hard). They are out there to make money. They produce value added software and sell it (along with service). It's common, and not anything to get excited about.
The great thing about the I86 computing world is that you have a choice. You can choose Red Hat, Debian, Caldera, FreeBSD, Windows 2000. . .anything that you want! If you like Caldera (I tried it, didn't like it), good for you. Use it. If you don't like their politics, good for you. Don't use it.
The middle mind speaks!
Honestly, why in the world would I purchase Caldera Linux with their ridiculous per seat license when I can purchase one copy of RedHat Linux (at a lower price) and install it on as many machines as I like.
OK, according to the press release
, this distribution includes Borland JBuilder 4 from Borland. Since JBuilder is proprietary software with a seat license, Caldera is obligated to charge for each install. Its not a matter of charging for GPL software, but a matter of honoring Borland's license for their closed source software.
If you want to do Java Development (which is what Caldera is targeting with the distro) this is probably a good deal, since JBuilder costs $49.99, and the cost of the distro is $59 with support. I think that compares favorably with Red Hat's vanilla 7.1 version that checks in at $39.95.
Somebody please, tell this machine I'm not a machine.
I guess you've never tried to run Star Office on Red Hat 7.1I guess you've never tried to run Star Office on Red Hat 7.1 ---> Eh? I run Star Office on RH 7.1 several times every day. It works fine.
I didn't have to fiddle with it or anything; just install-and-go. Same as when I ran it under RH 6.0, 6.1, 6.2, 7.0.......
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
nice little troll!!
Quite hard to kill of linux now, dear.. Better luck next time...
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
5 years from now they will be the only Linux company around - their the only ones with a business model.
Modifying the old saying, "You have to charge money to make money."
..Isn't the GPL supposed to 'infect' anything it touches?
Has Caldera been vaccinated?
air and light and time and space
Caldera expects each customer to have a COLA for each system that deploys OpenLinux Workstation.
..but I just want water..
air and light and time and space
No the hang up there was not the hangup with Debian is that Debian does not put "non-free" software in main and the KDE people did not want to put it in non-free. It is fine to distribute GPLed and non-free software together just fine. :(
The main chunk of "proprietary" software that they are talking about here is the code to make it work well with Novell and a couple of admin tools and some stuff they got when they bought SCO. None of which has any real analog that is GPLed. So no that is not the problem.
So it is natural that Ransom would do this and udner the terms seems legal as well. BTW I go to a LUG with most of the Caldera developers and not one of them agree with this. But it is about the only Linux job in town.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Has anyone gandered at the new license? My first question is whether it attempts to prevent you from distributing *parts* of the distribution or just the distribution as a whole.
This is going to get messy. Two observations.
1.) Wasn't distribution of KDE (QT license) with GPL licensed software the big hang-up with Debian? IIRC, it was the fact they were packaged and distributed together that caused issues with the GPL. So doesn't the same hold true for Caldera's 'proprietary software'?
2.) How can a company that has developed Free Software for years _not_ let GPL'd code influence the development of their 'proprietary' software?
We all knew Ransom never _really_ cared about the community - but this is over the top.
I'm not saying people shouldn't pay. I'm a programmer myself and it's how I pay my rent. Other folks get money for what is essentially information (authors, musicians, designers of most any kind) and nothing concrete (how is Mozarts music score any more or less concrete than a couple zeros and ones on a CD). It's just we've seen the change from paying for hardware, to paying for software where hardware (in the PC world) is a nearly interchangeable commodity, to soon paying for services. Just struck me for some reason.
The open-source community typically shies away from any really serious, challenging discussion of turning a profit from products like Linux.
Let's face it: people do not run a company [like, oh, RedHat or Caldera] because they are philanthropists. They do it because they want to make money.
So someone comes up with a way to do that, and suddenly people are squirming. I'm not objecting to the licensing per se, but rather to the "Gee... I dunno" reaction.
Either you can make money from Linux or you can't, but enough fence-sitting.
Honorary Member of Jackie Chan's Kung Fu Process Servers
I mean, would they really be using MS software if it was free?
This is not about making closed software; the software will still be available for download (GPL requires this). What they are doing is requiring every system running it to be licensed. It is still opensource, it is still GPL'd.
What they've done is, prevent you from downloading or purchasing a single copy and running it on all your systems in your organization. You still have the source code, you just can't copy and run it on all the systems you want without paying Caldera.
Whether or not this *is* a smart thing to do... well I guess we'll let f*uckedcompany.com decide. It tends to go against the philosophy that grew Linux over the years: download, try it out, give it to a friend, repeat. One of the things that has allowed Linux to grow (above all of the ultristic GPL stuff) is that fact that it has been free (cost wise or beer) to use and share.
newsflash:
point taken. The slashdot community dispises people that make money. I thought linux was about "Freedom"? What about MY freedom to make money?
or is freedom defined as: what's good for the better of the community as a whole.
the person that moderated this down to 0 is an asshole.
I don't suppose it would do any good to point out that this is per-system licensing, not per-seat... nor that licenses don't have to cost money, and in fact, SCO has been giving away free licenses to their UNIX products for noncommercial use for years and years.
That's a great feature! I wish that I could get a Certificate of License Authenticity for my Debian workstation. I would also like to be able to use Postgresql for only $199/Month.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
hmmm... questions...
Can they charge for the Kernel and all the GNU stuff...? Can I take the Linux Kernel, put it on a cd and charge per seat...?
If not, does that mean all you have to do to avoid paying is install Caldera Linux on one workstation, delete all the Caldera crap, and then clone the workstation over the network?
Or better yet... just use Slackware...
it sure feels wrong somehow
What is this "pay" thing you MS users speak of?
"Freedom of speech has always been the abstract red-headed stepchild of the Constitution"
"Freedom of speech has always been the abstract red-headed stepchild of the Constitution"
-Suck
It's only GPL incompatible if you change GPL software and distribute it without allowing others to change and distribute freely.
The GPL does not (cannot in fact) cover other pieces of software you happen to ship on the same CD.
As someone above suggested - take out all the Caldera-proprietary stuff and you can copy without paying Caldera a penny.
Honestly, I don't understand what all the fuss is about.
Unless you're the kind who likes to pay for water, just use one of the many other Linux distributions out there that don't have such odious licensing terms. It's not like there aren't any alternatives out there.
Or, better, you can use something with no restrictions at all on how you use it.
If Caldera wants to shoot themselves in the foot, who are we to stop them?
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
Yes, charging for it is a great idea. This allows someone to fund development of more GPL software. Personally I'm a big fan of the way Yellow Dog did this, selling CDs for a while before posting the ISOs for anon FTP.
Is charging a per seat license a good idea? Not at all. Especially not when the bulk of the distribution consists of GPL and GPL-compatible software. That's likely to leave a sour taste in a lot of mouths. It seems to me that a lot of people do consider the free speech aspects of Free Software to be an important piece of why they use Linux.
FWIW I think even at $100 for OpenLinux + support they aren't going to rake it in. Their decision to move to per seat licensing is not likely to win them many fans. Especially if they're making money, but only using it to develop more proprietary pieces to put on top of Linux. Can anyone comment on Caldera's returns to the community? And for those zealots among us, there's always Debian main.
I do not have a signature
The per seat license may be comfortingly familiar at some site that's fed up with MS. If that site has the resources (corporate budget, man-power) to take their custom apps and put them on Caldera I say it's a good thing. It may even be more likely soon if it's a Delphi shop; Kylix to the rescue! I don't think they're trying to compete with RedHat. That's where most of us who have the inclination to hack go. For a corporate site with end-users incapable or unwilling to delve into the machine, the per seat license may be more easily justifiable to management. Or at least I'll bet that's Caldera's thinking.
Does it? I just thought it was "just another distribution".
With a company who has resources coming to the table to give yet another choice that has been missing for so long, both proprietary software and open software, together they can be very powerful.
Think of AcceleratedX when it was first available. It is faster and for some people runs better than XFree, but it's a choice people are willing to make. Since Caldera wants to make money in a more "business like" manner, they can do it this way, without having to worry about a lot of "Service Offerings" the way RH and so many others do their business.
This new business model, if executed correctly can allow other businesses to perhaps contribute where they otherwise might now. OpenSource won't get hurt by this, (won't get helped either), but business viability[of linux] can be helped by this.
I for one am taking a wait and see opinion here, it could be a train wreck, or perhaps it will be hightly successful.
My only gripe is that it seems VERY Microsoft like. And if I recall, didn't MS give Caldera some investment money? Just a thought.
-SuperBug
--SuperBug
With a company who has resources coming to the table to give yet another choice that has been missing for so long, both proprietary software and open software, together they can be very powerful.
Think of AcceleratedX when it was first available. It is faster and for some people, runs better than XFree, but it's a choice people are willing to make. Since Caldera wants to make money in a more "business like" manner, they can do it this way, without having to worry about a lot of "Service Offerings" the way RH and so many others do their business.
This new business model, if executed correctly can allow other businesses to perhaps contribute where they otherwise might not. OpenSource won't get hurt by this, (won't get helped either), but business viability[of linux] can be helped by this.
I for one am taking a wait and see opinion here, it could be a train wreck, or perhaps it will be hightly successful.
My only gripe is that it seems VERY Microsoft like. And if I recall, didn't MS give Caldera some investment money? Just a thought.
-SuperBug
--SuperBug
Well, if they can make money that way, and provide a good alternative to the windows in the long run. Hell with it, I will even pay for it.
Well, first of all, _nobody_ drives anybody to purchase Caldera's flavour of Linux. People buy it because it comes with the best support, best installation, best choice of packages or w h a t e v e r. You want to have it free, go ahead and build your own. But now that you like Caldera you go and _pay_ them for the work they have been putting in it. And if they chose to change their license model to per-seat licenses it is there decision. You do not like it, you go away. All people go away, then either Caldera goes away or they will change their business model. The people at Caldera want to pay their bills, send their children to college, buy a house or just go out and drink themselves silly because they need to relax from all the hate-mail they are getting. Give them a break!
Just my $.02
I bought the boxed product Version 2.3 ISBN number 0-9672852-3-2. Anyone want to explain what market forces will entice me to purchase the next upgrade from them instead of going to Red Hat, Susie or someone else? Unfortunately we live in an open market society. I like the product (v2.3) even though it is getting older now. I always try to get the best value. Market forces will either support or not support this business model. I support the companies that put a boxed retail package on the shelf. It's the best way to get joe sixpack to discover Linux and show IT departments it's ready for prime time. Caldera Systems will have to compete somehow to survive.
The truth shall set you free!
Ok, I think it is time for all of the people who have enjoyed a free OS to wake up and realize that the only way Linux will ever compete in the market is if somone develops a viable business plan, which it appears Caldera is trying to do. Companies do not survive by giving their time away (as much as we all wish they would). I have no problem paying for a piece of software that
1) will do the job
2) Is backed by a company who has enough business sense that they might be there in a year
3) Is supported by said company.
Caldera bought SCO for one reason, the channel. Like it or not, SCO had a very good presence in the industry, and now Caldera has an opening into that market. I am sorry, but I cannot complain about a company who may potentially redude my costs by $1000 or better on a server, but only if they will be there 5 years from now. If they give the software away, they won't. At least this way, they might.
Also, if I heard Linus Torvalds correctly, his license does not restrict a company from selling Linux, it only requires that they make the source available. If Caldera will improve upon existing work, then let them. Let's face it, Linux in it's present form will never appeal to John Q Public. The end user wants a product that is all wrapped up with neat little buttons that they dont have to think about to use. Maybe this is the first step in that direction.
And should we take their action lieing down... ;-)
- Derwen
http://fsfeurope.org/
Linux-Mandrake News. Between these two new features and Mandrake Forum, the availability of information on Linux-Mandrake is starting to rival that of volunteer distributions like Debian, where almost all information is available on-line. It is a model we strongly encourage for all distributions or development projects, since such a news source can do a lot to bind a community together, as well as providing a valuable historic resource.
(...)
Caldera News. This past week, some members of the caldera-users mailing list began to speak openly of moving to alternate distributions, due to frustration with Caldera and the lack of recent releases. No specific links are provided, since members of such a list should have the right to vent a bit without becoming a media focus. Nonetheless, if Caldera is still interested in having a user community, we certainly hope they are reading their own mailing lists. These people liked OpenLinux and don't want to leave it, but felt they are reaching a point where they have no choice.
2/ (http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/fnews.php3)
May 22, 2001 - New US Linux market figures - LinuxGram has released the retail market shares for the USA during the first 2001 Quarter (Source: LinuxGram Newsletter/PC Data). (...)
(...)
When I installed linux last year I tried corel, SUSE, redhat, mandrake, and Caldera. The install was great and the tech support was the BEST bar none. It lived up to its advertisement. I think the price you pay is well worth it. That being said, they blew it here.
The problem is that they're bundling commercial apps with the distro. There is nothing wrong with that, but it's how they are presenting it and how it comes accross. They should have their free "bare bones" linux disc, and a "professional edition" like what mandrake does. That way it is more clear about what is commercial and what is not. As it stands, they deserve the flames that they are about to receive.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
>Should we come up with a GPL II that forbids the
>inclusion of the program in question on any
>per-seat licensed OS?
You totally misunderstood GPL. "Free" is as in the freedom not in free beer. There is nothing wrong selling GPL'd software, enforcing per seat licences, etc. As long as you find somebody who is paying you, that is fine.
The problem is that the seconf kind of licence you are talking about won't be GPL and it is against the principles of GPL. Go read www.gnu.org .
If you don't have RedHat selling linux software, you shouldn't be having any problem Caldera selling per seat licences. It is exactly the same thing.
You can always get GPL'd software for free, but if you think Caldera adds enough value to justify the per seat license, then go buy Caldera's version. If you think shrink wrapped redhat server with support is worth $100, go buy it.
The same folks who continue to run Novell probably would spring for whatever they charge..
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
1. How is a Linux distribution company supposed to turn a profit if a 1,000 person company buys one license and installs it on 1,000 workstations? 2. Has anyone asked Caldera for a list of their proprietary components? Suppose that I want to install their distro and remove the proprietary components. (I just asked them and await their reply.) 3. How is this different from non-GPL OS distributions like Windows? Oh, yeah. Microsoft paid software engineers to develop their code. Caldera took software that people wanted freely distributed and bundled it into a per-seat license arrangement. 4. Should we come up with a GPL II that forbids the inclusion of the program in question on any per-seat licensed OS?
CD /usr/src/
Caldera OS panic: ILLEGAL OPERATION, we'll see you in court >>:-]
----------
www.shockthemonkey.org
Photos.
it sure feels wrong somehow.
/. /    |\/| |\/| |\/| / Run, Bill!
Not really, look at Redhat Enterprise Edition Optimized for Oracle 8i. I'd recommend people buy it when there's a need.
You can hire me to optimize your Oracle server on Linux, but I'd probably charge you more than $2500. ^_^
Commercial needs commercial grade solutions. It's not about the cost, it's about 'saving cost'.
 _
So we have a right to be angry with them for charging when they are violating the spirit of Open Source in that they aren't giving back. But don't waste your energy - instead support your favorite distro that DOES support Linux and the community. Instead of downloading that favorite distro - buy it. Tell your boss you need to buy RedHat/Debian/whatever version X.Y to experiement with it before deployment and buy the box set. If he balks remind him that you're deploying 20 servers and you only want one license (the deluxe or course) to get he Manuals, etc, etc. Spend your companies money and support Open Source at the same time! If your company is ready to take a leap with Linux and doesn't have the support staff in house - buy a support contract if you can.
Lets be realistic. Linux would not be where it is today without the influx of capital and resources from various distro companies. For things to CONTINUE to improve, we've got to support the distros we like with MONEY.
Be honest - for those of you who love PostgreSQL, once it became clear RedHat planned to move it forward and apprently return the improvements (ie no forking) you can't deny you were a little excited. I know I was. It just means there will be MORE help for the product AND it'll gain teh acceptance it deserves. And if you convince your company that PostgreSQL is the way to go, buy some support for RHDB if you can afford it and it doesn't throw your case for PostgreSQL in a loop. Lord knows the prices ORacle and IBM charge and even Microsoft will make it easy enough to buy a littel support from RedHat even if you can support it better yourself. Besides, IT managers want to know the vendor will be available right away to fix a problem with teh mission critical DB - well if you go with RHDB, they'll probably spring for the support contract and I assure you it'll be cheaper than whats out there today meaning it'll still be an easy sell.
So yes, it bites Caldera is making money of the backs of everyone else without contributing anything, but that's the nature of the beast. We just live with it and support the companies WE want to survive the best we can. Remember, deploying Linux in your business or personally can be done for free, but to help assure continued development at today's breathtaking rate, we have to throw some cash the dsitro way - otherwise it MAY blow up in our face and thigns will slow down to where Micro$oft pulls away. Shudder the thought.
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
I guess theoretically they can do it, although it sure feels wrong somehow
Call me to task if I'm wrong, but when you take the viewpoint that it is wrong for a company to do EXACTLY what is permitted under an "open" license, you are stepping very close to the "It has been EXPOSED, it is now infected with open code" viewpoint that Ballmer suggested.
BTW, I believe that BOTH Taco and Ballmer are wrong, but their motives for WHY are different.
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
Did anyone else get an eerie chill when they read "Workstation 3.1"? ...
"Ummmm..."
The moderators have been awfully anal the past couple of days.
--Blair
Too bad moderation does not have that option
The installer is excellent, it has ReiserFS, it has KDE 2.1 & KOffice, it has the Caldera Administration System, and their are no annoying penguins and cartoons to be seen.
It is a very professional distro, except for the games at the end of the installation process :-)
Is it me, or if Caldera is still going to call it "OpenLinux" that the license should then still be free, or does that go against the GPL, to require that something have a seperate licensing agreement then the GPL (which virtually all Linux software is distributed under)?
IF IT'S OPEN, WHY ARE WE GETTING CHARGED FOR A LICENCE? Has Caldera spent too much time in Redmond?
And that's precisely what worries me. The fact of them charging a license, althoug it does feel somewhat wrong, it's nothing. I'm worried about they forking away, releasing some kind of application that will work only on their system (because of the various "extensions" and "improvemements"). If some app has some widespread appeal, that could mean trouble.
The problem is, the people are used to pay for a license. Still are. And they feel almost uncomfortable if you ask for none, for crying out loud! They feel safe if they pay for the software, as if they think that a license is a support contract. That the provider will support them because they have paid for the program, or something. It's going to take a while changing those mentalities, and this kind of actions add to the confusion.
An at least initially successful forking could lead to others, things are a little bit tight now. I'm old enough to remember seeing Unix die (don't tell me it's not dead, you know what I mean), and the awful feeling that came with it. Take some Unix magazine of those times. They were as sure of victory as we are now with Linux. After all we had a much better product! Only a little tiny bit of unity and some common standards were lacking. All was lost in a sea of pettiness, uncompatibilities, and stupid bickering. I do not fear the same destiny. I do not know exactly what I fear, but I sure don't like this movement at Caldera. I expect they will be doing audits soon.
--
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
> No.. the only reason they have lasted so long is
:-)
> due to DR DOS, and the Microsoft Lawsuit that
> payed them (and Canopy Group, their primary
> investor) a ton of cash.
That could well be true. If someone could comment on the actual amount, that "settled" this matter between them and Microsoft, I'd appreciate it.
What I most certainly didn't appreciate was the fact, that as soon as the settlement became a done deal, Caldera/Lineo stopped development of DR-DOS (last version was 7.03) completely. While I supported their lawsuit, which IMHO had far more merit than anything the Department of Justice went after, I couldn't help the feeling, that the settlement money was the only reason Caldera ever bought DR-DOS and the rights to it in the first place. OK, they did try to put it into embedded devices...rumors have it, that those funky UPS pads they give you to sign for a package runs on DR-DOS, but eventually focused primarely on Embedded Linux instead. While that makes sense, it sure would be nice, if DR-DOS at least would be open-sourced and GPL'd, now that it's all but forgotten by them (it doesn't even show up anymore on the Lineo products page) and they more than amortized their initial investment towards it.
Aside from this, I feel that Caldera is ultimately doomed anyway, because I do not know even one person, who has it installed as a desktop/home system. That will by definition reflect on it's acceptance in the corporate world, whether servers or desktops, because (IT) people tend to recommend/install that, what they know best (run at home).
But then, you have to wonder why something like the following would happen: At the 2001 Linux Expo in NY, Caldera had a stand and some young guy was leading the presentation. I went up to him later on and asked, whether I could perhaps have a copy of eServer to check out, which he gave to me without thinking twice. Nice move, as I had come to expect from the usually very cool people they have representing them. But my lady was just getting into Linux and wanted to check out the various distributions before deciding on a specific one. So she asked the same guy for a copy of eDesktop (which they had masses of in the booth, meant to be given away...in fact, he gave one out just before she asked). He looked at her weird (woman?!) and declined in a rather disrespectful way. Later one she asked him again, trying to get the point across that she's really interested and doesn't just want it because it may be free, but to actually install and use it at home. Again, he wouldn't give it to her (meanwhile we observed him giving out copies of the same thing to males who'd stop by). I felt, that was pretty messed up. Granted, they don't have to give you anything, but it just would have been a cool thing to do, especially since she expressed a sincere interest, he gave it to other people with no problems and it was the last day, where the stands usually clear out their swag-inventory anyway so they don't have to lug it back home.
As irony of fate would have it though, there was this swag-drawing later on and she actually *won* a copy of the very desktop, she's asked for in vain. It was rather gratifying, that Mr. Dork had to give it to her now
Of course, by then it had become a tainted affair and she doesn't wanna use it anymore in favor of a different distro, who's people treated her with far more respect.
Another desktop, that won't have Caldera running.
(I do have to say though, that this guy stood out among the other Caldera guys. All, except him, were extremely friendly and helpful.)
Sorry, I couldn't resist the question. Feel free to kick me down to -1
I'm an Angry Clam. You would be angry too if you were a ball of snot in a shell.
With this new tactic, will they be changing to the product name from OpenLinux to MostlyOpenLinux?
It just smells funny (Apologies to Frank Zappa)
Reboot macht Frei.
the wrong way. Like it or not, they are a company whose ultimate goal is to be profitable (Just like Red Hat, VA Linux, etc.) Unfortunately, charging for a product that has not been successful when it was available for free won't work. Caldera believes its proprietary code is what is valuable because it offers benefits not available with free equivalents. If that's the case, who stands to gain the most by using those tools? The people who aren't using Caldera's distribution. They, since they aren't using Caldera's products, aren't getting the benefits (whatever they may be). But, how is Linux "sold" today? Unlike MS, Linux companies can't send droves of salesdroids to impress PHBs. Instead each distro has its own proponents, some of whom are in a position to push Linux in their organizations. For Caldera to get pushed, they need to convince those folks, and creating a separate distro with a per-seat license isn't the way to do it. They need to build upon the existing support for non-Caldera distros. So, instead of going it alone, they should work with the vendors of the most popular distros to make sure their products work with them. Notice I said work, not integrate. What's the difference? Now, companies such as Red Hat have a set of tools they can use as part of their service offering. The benefit to a customer is they get better performance or more features as a result of buying a service contract, the service provider makes money from the service contract, and Caldera makes money licensing their stuff to the service provider. The danger is that we will see a stratification of the Linux community. Companies can release true OS versions with less functionality than a version that has proprietary code (sort of a lite version), or simply chose to produce proprietary code from the start. Of course, the risk is that someone will develop a separate OS version that does the same thing - getting rid of the advantages of proprietary code (insert obligatory MS-bash and comment on why Linux originally was developed here). Of course, Caldera may find out that their proprietary code has little value, and no matter what they do it won't sell.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
hey it makes total sense if you want to turn a profit.
Big companies/orgs won't even care if its $100 (or more) a seat, as long as its a quality product that works.
For example,.my school is buying CAD software at $1000 a seat, for a 30 Computer Lab. They are also putting on 3d Studio max on all of these computers too. Money is not the problem for em, its getting it up, running, in as little time as possible.
As far as I can see its a smart move that RedHat will prolly copy pretty soon. I think it also implies that Caldera will need to provide better support if you are paying per seat.
I'm sure if they just trick their SCO customers into believing they're still using SCO, they could pull that off. bah.
And RMS for that matter.
The really funny part is that they're calling their distribution OpenLinux.
And if they get away with it (I say just let them, they'll only lose market share) we now have the final proof that GPL is not a viral license. Eat that Mr. Bill and Mr. Mundie! Got any convincing arguments left?
Eric Cartman will kick their ass. Heck, even Mr. Garrison could kick their ass.
-- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
i'll wait for the day i see a caldera .iso at fosis or broke up into 72 .rars on an ftp
Obviously the marketroids and suits who drove SCO into the ground with their insane pricing got control of Caldera after they bought SCO.
Seriously, though, isn't this a change to the existing Linux kernel license? Are they allowed to change it like this? Can Linus tell them they can't use the Linux name?
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
In related news, Caldera CEO Ransom Love denied charges of being a greedy capitalist and parasite, as RMS described him. Personally I'd add "fool". They just pissed away whatever goodwill they still had with the free software community. This is not where we want to go today, or any day.
Masochists. With lots of money. Who think open source is cool but don't understand it.
First of all, this is well within Caldera's right. Sure, they can't limit the distribution of the Free code in their distro, but they can charge for the value-added "total package" just as RedHat does. Only difference is, with RedHat you pay for the box, manuals, and support, but with Caldera you pay for the right to run the installer once :) I'll leave that to the GPL-nitpickers to figure out.
Secondly, I'll avoid making comments on the quality of Caldera's distros. I'm sure pleanty of other posters will do that for me. :)
But on to my point: Caldera's distros are aimed squarely at the business market. Businesses think in terms of business relationships. Businesses, in general, make their money by providing some value to customers in exchange for money. Therefore, it is extremely difficult for a businesses to comprehend that something can have value and yet and be free (as in beer).
If they're paying $50 a seat, however, they feel like they're entering into a business relationship with Caldera. Once money changes hands, there is the comforting feeling of mutual support. They are paying for the value that Caldera (presumably) provides. This is something that a business can comprehend.
IT departments are so accustomed to paying licencing fees that the concept that software can be had without them is utterly alien. Placing a per-seat licence paradoxically lends credibilty to Caldera in the IT manager's eyes.
Or maybe I'm wrong, and Caldera just shot themselves in the foot with both barrels.
(Consider also that Caldera has inherited SCO's user base, who are already painfully accustomed to paying per-user licences for OpenServer and UnixWare. Priced reasonably, this is still a major bargain and good incentive for SCO users to migrate to Linux.)
When I saw the Caldera logo I thought it was a Mickey Mouse ear on a globe. I hope Disney doesn't sue.
Doesn't make them right.
No, it makes them Microsoft! (Ok so we haven't been able to pin the contract killing on them... YET.)
m00.