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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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
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.
(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.)
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!
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.
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 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?'"---