Slashdot Mirror
Lindows - Where's the Source?
bbh writes: "NewsForge has an article about the Free Software Foundation asking the makers of LindowsOS a simple question, 'Where's the Source?' Lindows CEO Michael Robertson has an interesting take on what the GPL means."
That Lindows has more in common with the Redmond OS than just a similar name?
However, Lindows is under no obligation to release the source. They only have to do that if a) they are selling the binaries and b) someone requests it. And of course, if somebody does they have to release both the source of those binaries as well as the source of any tools that helped created those binaries. That's why it's always a good idea to use gcc and emacs for your OS projects.
These are the kinds of silly questions that give open source projects trouble. Business projects, as a rule, have a manager who is (more or less) obeyed. Linus, the closing thing to a Linux manager, obviously can't fire anyone, and the tree can be forked an infinite number of times. This is a good thing, since he can't take his toys and go home when someone finally gets under his skin.
However, when attempting to run an open-source-based business, some semblance of order is required. If the guy says he'll release the code, give him a chance. These dirty-laundry-in-public attacks damage open-source credibility, and that is not a good thing.
I agree that the guy is playing fast and loose with the rules, but I think we should give him a chance by waiting until he meets his deadline. Then, if he doesn't open up, a lawsuit may be in order, but otherwise, what's wrong with waiting a few months? Do we really want alpha- and beta-level projects released and visible to people who will immediately compare them to Microsoft Windows? Let's not forget that there is no such thing as a rough draft - when we see a prototype, we form lasting first impressions. cheers, Andrew
cheers,
Andrew
This is exactly what I dislike about the Linux community: the constant whining when something doesn't go "the way it should". When Lindows doesn't want to release the source until they ship the definite version, let them. If they don't want to release the beta version under the GPL let them! This was a beta version! What are we complaining about? What is wrong with not releasing the source right away?
When the definite version is released and then the source doesn't get released, only then you have a (maybe minor, because it's a company's own decision to use the GPL or not) reason to complain. For now, let Lindows work and maybe they get something great done.
Really, sometimes the FSF can be as bad as the BSA...
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Open Source and GPL software advocates are very leery of anything that hints of not properly observing the software license. Lindows is a new player in this field, and they need to watch their step here, so they don't piss off possible advocates. JMHO
Robertson is not Stallman or even a highly recognized executive. I think he's treading on thin ice.
I have the feeling that there's quite a lot of GPL'd code out there being used in products without source being provided. I recently found that my employer (who are large and well-known, and I shall say no more than that) are selling such a product without offering source for download. (I'm posting anonymously cos I want to try to persuade management to talk to the FSF about fixing this. If they refuse, I'm going to have an interesting ethical choice before me...) This product has been on the market for a few years now, and it's not hard to discern the signs of GPL if you're familiar with Free software in general; it just seems that no Slashdotters use it... which seems unlikely.. or, that no-one's been bothered to look for the source, or if they have, that they just shrugged and thought "not my problem." (Incidentally, any suggestions about what I should do if management refuse to publish the source? I don't want to leave except as a last resort... )
What an idiot... to claim that Lindows is a work in progress and therefore they wont include the source with preview releases is BS. All open source projects and linux distros are a work in progress, yet no one else seems to have any problem distributing their source.
To take an example (and yes I know that the MPL is not the GPL) but if Mozilla had taken GPL software and extended it and not yet released their source code because they're not yet to version 1.0, then obviously the FSF would have already jumped up and down on AOL/TW/Netscape/Nullsoft/etc.
Lindows could define all of their releases as beta, whatever that means in practice, and then would never have to comply with the GPL. The FSF know what they're doing here folks.
-- Azaroth
However, before I became the world-renowned physicist I am today I was a lawyer for the Free Software Foundation (I was LawGenius back then). I wrote significant portions of the GPL as well as grooming ticks from RMS dense face foliage. I know whereof I speak and you are a troll.
yeah, interesting question indeed 'where is the source'....
This isn't even worth a slashdot thread till the thing's released.
That's when we can debate till the cows come home whether he's complying with the GPL.
Anyway I make its a rule in life to not comply with any rules, regulations or laws I don't agree with. Life would be bloody boring if everyone complied with the rules.
The GPL is a legally binding licence agreement, that no-one is forced to use. If you want to benefit from others work and build on top of GPL'd code then you can do so, but that benefit comes with obligations.
There's no discretion to GPL's applicability or separate rules for Linux friendly companies or whatever. Either the GPL does cover Beta release (note that people PAID for the "Beta", which would seem to destroy any position they may otherwise have had), or it doesn't. The FSF appears to think that it does, and I believe they know more about it then either you or I do.
It's not about whining, it's about sticking to what the GPL requires. IANAL, but I understand that when you distribute the binary of a GPLed program (such as Linux), you must also distribute the source code (or make it available, e.g. via the Net). If this is not acceptable to Lindows, they should have chosen another OS with a more permissive license, e.g. one of the BSDs. They can't have the developer base and mindshare of Linux without doing what the GPL requires.
If Lindows had licensed a commercial software component and were breaking its license terms, would that be a 'silly question'? For some reason, conforming to open source licenses is considered by some people to be an optional extra...
The only real issue IMO is whether some delay is acceptable between releasing the binary and the source, particularly for betas - this seems to happen with some projects, in practice, but if the project/business goes away in the mean time, the users are left without the source.
The GPL doesn't talk about "selling" anything. The point of the GPL is that if you get the binaries, you should be able to get the sources and redistribute them if you like. If Lindows is based on GPL code in the sense described in the GPL license, then they must make sources available along with their binaries to anybody who asks. There is no exemption for beta software or non-commercial software.
Hmmmm if your boss makes you lift GPL'd code you have moral and professional choices.
The noble, upstanding thing to do would be to report your company to the FSF. In essence, using GPL code without providing the source is stealing. They wouldn't expect to get away from an audit by the BSA if they were running cracked software, so why should they get away with GPL violations?
However, the noble, upstanding thing to do is often the one that leaves the 'hero' jobless and labelled a security risk.
So, if you feel up to it, take a leaf out of Dogbert's book, and use this opportunity to further your advancement in the company. Hideously cynical, I admit.
Of course, this could just be an adminstrative error. A previous employee could just have used GPLed code as a stopgap way of developing their own solution, and not notified management and / or sourcecode maintenance about the original code.
Point it out to management, and let them know the scope of the legal issues involved. If they've got any sense, they'll release the source.
This is all assuming that the GPLed code exists in 'chunks' within the main codebase. If your company is selling a full GPLed application, start sending your Resume out!
(I wonder why the originally was modded down to -1 30 seconds after posting)
Gimme a real dmesg of Lindows... huh? A bitmap? ;)
If that doesn't fit into his business plan, he shouldn't have used GPL'ed code; it's not like anybody was tricking him into accepting a license he didn't understand. He shouldn't complain about it, and if he persists in not complying with the GPL, he will lose all rights to using the code in perpetuity. The GPL needs to be enforced in order to be meaningful. If companies can get away with flaunting it, abuse of GPL'ed code will become widespread.
I also wonder what kind of strange plans that company is hatching that they aren't developing out in the open. Why isn't their code on a public CVS repository already?
OK, so to follow the letter of the GPL and to encourage community goodwill, Lindows should probably have released their code under the GPL, at least (as I understand it) to those who have been given binaries.
However, it is just a beta of a commercial product after all, and he did promise to adhere fully to the GPL when the official product release occurs.
Cut the guy some slack, and see what happens. If they release the 1.0 version and don't release source, then it's time to get mad. It's a one-time thing, no need to bite their heads off.
If you distribute GPLed software, you have to distribute source. It isn't exactly hard to find that out, and as legal licenses go it is pretty easy to read.
Since when is it whining to tell people that they should be doing what they are legally obligated to do? If you don't want the legal obligation, then you don't have to use what people are giving away (fairly generously I might add) on those terms.
God, anyone says something negative about Linux or the Linux community and he's flamebait. Someone does the same with Windows, and it's +5 insightful.
That's what makes me suspicious, and that's what the FSF is probably responding to -- companies historically have a tendency to support any given "community" only when it serves the company's best interests (which I can't fault); however, they also historically tend to retain the willingness to arbitrarily pull that support, no matter the cost to that community, if it will better their standing.
So, when some business says it's helping the Open Source community, doesn't follow through on part of the obligation, then doesn't give a straight answer when asked "why not", it sort of seems duplicitous in a way. Note that most of the article is Robertson pleading that he's done so much for Open Source, as if to say, "But look at everything else we've done!" Yes, those things are commendable. It doesn't free you from your other obligations, though.
I hope it was just bad reporting on the part of Newsforge. If not, the FSF seems pretty justified in asking what the deal is.
- Jonathan
You are very wrong in your emphasis on selling binaries.
It does not matter if you sell it, rent it, give it away, lend it or anything like that. As long as you distribute it, you have to abide by the GPL.
You are however right in that they don't have to provide source unless someone requests it. Now someone HAVE requested it however, and they have to comply with that request.
Then all we gotta do is not use lindows.
It seems to me that CodeWeaver's stuff is proprietary, isn't it? If so Lindows may not be allowed to reveal the Codeweaver part of what was implimented before the Codeweaver/Lindows divorce., which may be a big piece of their coded cake.
Rien n'est plus beau que le creux du 0.
Codeweavers is responsiblefor Wine switching to GPL, this is good and bad.
Codeweavers is pretty much against Lindows and Transgaming, the whole "release the code" thing, codeweavers is trying to bully Lindows in the same way they bullied transgaming in the past.
Transgaming released some of the code, but code weavers wants all of the code released most likely so they can use it in their product.
Anyhow, theres more to this than just "release the code", if you look at the wine mailinng lists you can see the fighting between code weavers, lindows and transgaming.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
So I think FSF is right in giving the company a note about potential GPL violation --- just don't do real things (like firing lawsuits) before that caused any real trouble.
And the Lindows company should provide the sources, maybe with the note "This software is beta, so if it breaks, please try not to spread bad words about our company", etc.
I would really have Stallman's view and comments on all this. Anyone heard anything yet?
Rien n'est plus beau que le creux du 0.
Lindows is certainly an admirable effort for bringing Linux to the desktop, but by GPL'ing it, they agreed to a contract. Contract law is contract law, and therefore, a lawsuit should be filed ASAP. This isn't about community whining, it's about the rule of law and protection of the GPL itself. Lindows CEO Robertson must be made to tow the line, before he gets his company and Lindows too far out of line. There shouldn't be any exceptions.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Let Lindows release before attacking it.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
The GPL explicitly states that in all cases of binary distribution, a detailed tutorial on the subject of dereferenced pointers must be included in full color with glossy pictures of little cartoon characters who bear uncanny resemblances to RMS, ERS, and GWB (which of course helps keeps the interest of those who otherwise wouldn't care), as well as instructions on how to run the tutorial, and futher a win32 version of said tutorial. Thus the GPL reasonably assumes that Joe Random, unlike yourself, has a good basic understanding of dereferenced pointers, and you must therefore supply Joe with the source code of any GPL'd binaries which you distribute regardless of having received compensation for the binaries themseleves. Of course, however, you do not have to supply the source code to the tutorial itself, since the copyright to that is owned by Jack Valenti's miniature poodle. By the way, your aluminum foil hat is crooked.
but I have one word for this chap: LEECH.
I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when I came across:
Kword repackaged as Wordpublisher
and other rebadged stuff
Major credibility plunge there. Not to judge the rest of the package, but it looks more like they're just grepping through the source for places where they can splash the words lindows and/or Michael Robertson. No value added.
Like I said, leech.
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
I know all the parties who are around this mess, so I'm posting as anonymous - who knows...
Lindows release PR2. It's the EXACT same thing as Xandros OS which also went out with beta 1 (not public). Xandros, if I recall correctly, doesn't give the sources (yet), so why the FSF doesn't nit-picking them? Is it just because Lindows got a much better PR then Xandros?
You really want Lindows sources? here's what you'll need to do:
* Grab Corel Linux OS (the latest one which you can grab), apply KDE 2.2.2, kernel 2.4.18, nvidia binary drivers, XFree 4.1.0, and remove all the servers services (sendmail, ssh, you know the suspects).
* Grab WineHQ CVS snapshot + Freetype 2.0.8 and turn fonts hinting on - now you got the wine part. That doesn't mean you can install MS Office since this needs few tricks to make it run, simulate reboots, hack tons of registry tricks, etc - but it's more or less the same Wine..
* The Lindows installer - same as Corel Linux installer, hacked a bit to support more devices and updated more...
Thats it! thats the whole thing, more or less - (well, Lindows got Xandros file manager - which sucks, anyway - and I think it's a closed source) and Lindows got their app which does apt-get install some stuff from their web site, and no Konsole icon...
So FSF people - I would suggest you WAIT for the final release. There are other Linux distributions who did some tricks also with their source code (guess who's the company who didn't release in their beta their partition resizing tools source code?)
With most people following the GPL not making tons of money from their efforts, who will enforce the following of the GPL? I mean, boycotts do not work, and the masses will purchase something without knowing what it means. "Excuse me sir, what is the GPL?" The response would be, "Huh?".
Click here or here.
Lindows may be trying to discourage public criticism of their operation by holding back the source until they make "An official release". If Lindows is subject to public attacks from the GPL community (in addition to microshaft, etc.) a public release may never occur, and any source code could be lost.
This company appears to be very willing to take advantage wherever possible, but not fulfill its obligations. It seems to be selling right now a binary-only commercial product based mostly on GPL'd code. Lindows must release the source immediately.
Lindows isn't selling their distribution yet, reall--they're letting people pay for the privilege of being beta-testers; the final product isn't even done yet. Beta testers are commonly defined by their contracts/livenses as employees and forbidden from distributing copies of the beta software. So, Lindows has a real point here. They're not publicly distributing their OS or selling it to the public yet, so they don't need to release source yet. It's only available for beta testing and in most of the software world, that's considered internal.
:-)
So, I see no problem here--as long as the code is released once the product leaves beta. Though, it does open the possibility for an interesting loophole--perpetual beta! Of course, if they kept the product in beta indefinitely while selling their product through beta-tester registration fees, I'm sure a Court would easily determine they're acting in bad faith and violating the GPL. I just thought I'd point out that scenario before someone else did.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
What do you want to bet Lindows contains some Windows source that they are busy cleaning up before final release? or they are using strait Windows binaries in some cases that they cannot release the source for because they don't have them. Perhaps they stuffed them in some sort of .pak file but they would be there for all to see if they released the source now. Who knows?
What I would like to know is what is the definition of an "End User"? Anyone outside the company that gets a binary should have the source? If that is the case is there any way for the big distros to compete with each other without destroying the whole?
If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.
"We battled for the consumer at every step."
Danger, Will Robinson.
Call me user, call me prole, hell call me Ishmael,
but when I am "consumer" little warning lights go off. I suddenly become the doofus who doesn't need to be troubled with all that irritating source. You know what, I wouldn't do a damn thing with the source. But the fact that he waffles about releasing it brands him as someone who has used other people's work to create something that HE SELLS. He received information and will not return his contributions to the pool.
That kind of behavior is bullshit.
"And while the code is important, that is not what it will take to get Linux to "20 million desktops." Robertson says to help more people understand Open Source, better marketing and lobbying is needed. "And yes, battling Microsoft and their huge coffers which influence OEMs, retailers, politicians, and the press in ways you only understand if you talk to them personally, which I have."
Huh...one way of understanding open source is...to release the source.
Robertson seems dismayed by the FSF's attempt to enforce the GPL. "No wonder there's virtually no healthy Linux companies. The community seems to attack them when the real focus should be elsewhere."
So what's he trying to say here, we shlould ignore gpl violations because they're on our side? No. That's a good bit of the reason we don't like MS. They bend the rules for those on their side, admittedly they use strongarm tactics to force companies into it, but that's beside the point.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
I might be completely wrong or misunderstanding the GPL, but...
If you read the GPL you will notice that it says that you have to ACCOMPANY the source or the offer of the source TO THE DISTRIBUTED BINARY.
Which means that you have to offer the source only to the people who you have given the binary to. So currently i think only the members of the beta program are in a position to demand the source.
Redundant? Most likely. Troll? Hardly.
/bull/shit. This can only help deliver credibility to GPL code. If you're a business, what do you choose? Those freelance hobbiests who ask nicely if people would please please pretty please follow their rinky dink little license, or the vicious horned beast that protects its own interests?
Guess what, people? The GPL is a license. Be it a 'good' license or a 'bad' license is up to the individual software developer. Whether or not they think they can 'ignore' the rules of that license is most certainly not.
"It's only beta!" "They'll release it when they're ready!" No deal. You use the GPL, you release the source with the binaries. Last time I checked, there's no 'Beta-version Exception Clause' or 'But Really, When It's Convenient Paragraph'.
"This type of behavior soils the image of GPL software in the eyes of business/home users/your mother.."
Call me crazy, but I'd choose the latter. Businesses sure as hell won't take GPL'd software seriously if we let others walk all over us.
By the way i dont think it is a whole, i think it simply is a provision that allows people to sell open source software.
Subject says it all.
There is a lot of excitement around Lindows. Especially for people who use Windows, but are too afraid to start into Linux. Lindows has a very good chance of becoming popular and gaining some market share if it does everything it says it will.
So I propose that we let them tweak their software with these beta releases. Then when they release a final version we will see the source code. Why do we need to see it now? It almost sounds like a bunch of three-year-olds that can't wait to open presents.
I don't need to see the source code to make any fixes. That what the Lindows programers get paid for. So let them do their jobs and when Lindows is released THEN we can poke at the code.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
This kind of uncertainty hurts the Linux and OSS movements a lot, particularly with businesses. The one thing businesses hate above all else is uncertainty, and when the whole world sees the Linux/OSS community arguing constantly in public about what the GPL and LGPL "really" mean it only adds to that uncertainty.
More than ever we need a rewrite of these licenses that lays out in crystal clear prose what you can and cannot do and what you are and are not obligated to do. (And removing the stupid political bullshit from the licenses sure wouldn't hurt the cause, either.)
They even kept the .KWD extension! How funny!
I would greatly appreciate a listing of the files
in a Lindows install. If you can do this, please get in touch.
LILO boot: linux init=/usr/bin/emacs
It doesn't work any differently with GPL. If you want to redistribute software that is GPL, you are required to do so under the terms of the GPL, because nothing else grants you the right to redistribute the software.
This isn't whining; it's just a request for license compliance.
"Beta" versions are not granted an exception to the terms of the GPL; if you are redistributing to anyone outside your organization, you must comply with the terms.
So, "Lindows" needs to start complying with the terms forthwith.
Selling my software without the rights I EXPLICITLY reserved to my users is illegal.
How hard is it to understand that? How hard is it to understand that "Because I don't want to yet" is not an excuse for dodging your legal obligations?
Lindows.com is selling people my software without supporting their right to modify and re-distribute the software. This makes them no better than some Far eastern outfit selling counterfeit Windows CDs. Everyone here understands why THAT is illegal, so how come Mr Lindows here is a paragon of virtue for ripping me off?
If they don't provide the source with the binaries right away, they have to accompany the binaries with a written offer for the source.
The world's first consistent and complete theory of everything.
What you seem to have forgetten is that according to Gödel's incompletes theorem, no sufficiently strong system can be both consistent AND complete (Sufficiently strong being defined as being able to represent all primitive recursive properties.)
Therefore, if your theory really is universal, it must be inconsistent or incomplete, and I suspect it may be both.
It is good to see some scientific research devoted to the trolling phenomenon, but I must urge you to be more careful in your reasoning.
No security through obscurity: my password is goatse. Stop me before I troll again.
the last line says it all
;)
"The Codeweavers/Lindows association was terminated in part because Lindows wanted to be able to keep its Wine modifications private.
"
look what else they want in their crown jewel set
Linux is dying. If they would switch to FreeBSD as a base, they wouldn't have this problem.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
File the first lawsuit.
Like having an argument with a five year old.
/is/ bedtime isn't it?"
Parent:
Time for bed, Johnny
Johnny:
"I don't want to go to bed!"
Parent:
"Look at the clock Johnny, it
Johnny:
"The clock doesn't matter!"
Parent:
To bed this instant!
Johnny:
Why?!!!?
When arguing with children, there is no logical foundation to the argument. They will whine and wheedle in any way they can to get what they want. No need to let little things like reality get in the way of an angry child.
And Robertsons arguments seem to go like this:
GPL:
"Robertson, you are a sentient being who was fully aware
of the GPL before starting your business. Fullfill your part of the agreement"
Robertson:
The agrement doesn't matter! Look at all the nice things I've done. Therefore the agreement doesn't matter!
GPL:
Robertson, you are abusing the goodwill of thousands of people who realeased their software under the condition that that goodwill be perpetuated.
Robertson:
That doesn't matter! Look at all the nice things I've done!
Relax people. Redhat, who is one of the strongest corporate supporters of open source, has been doing this for a long time. They get contracts (the Cygnus part of the business) to do custom work on things like gcc where some company pays them to port/optimize for their new processor or instruction set. Then Redhat does the work, gives the company the product and goes about their merry way. After about 6 months or so to make some money/make sure the port is stable, they release the source. They did this with the 128 bit Mips MTX 7860 instruction set support that they added to binutils and gdb. Anyone can get the code as a patch if they ask for it, it just isn't released for general consumption right away.
In Soviet Russia, hot grits put YOU down THEIR pants.
Robertson's argument is, "It's a work in progress. We're hopeful our first release will happen around the middle of the year. When we release an official version, all the GPL pieces will be properly distributed".
There is no clause in the GPL saying, "This license only applies to official release software. Betas are exempt." A binary release is a binary release.
If the beta tag is enough to circumvent the GPL, what's to stop companies from following the ICQ plan: everything is a beta. Despite being around for years and having (relatively) stable software and user-friendly feature set, ICQ remains "Beta" and is likely to do so forever.
The key words in articles 3a, 3b, and 3c of the GPL are "Accompany it." This means accompany *every binary release* with the source (or a link to get it) at the time of release, not promise to provide it later.
-e
Well, Gödel is just another troll.
You must admit that his theorem is rather trollish.
But nevertheless, all factual and logical errors in my theory are just there to troll you.
-- unfortunately AC due to account ban
According to the Lindows Licensing Information page Source code is available for download at http://net2.com/lindows/source/. Of interest is the statements to check the main developer trees for products they use (KDE, Denbian, Wine), as most modification made by Lindows have been accepted and integrated into the main trees.
The dates on the source files are 12 Apr 02, although the downloader is cautioned in two places the Lindows OS software "has not even been released in beta", so the source may not reflect the most current build.
"To travel the paths of human imagination you have to be willing to unlearn all you know"
I have not familar with the GPL beyond the rabid postings on this site so forgive me if I am speaking in error, but it occurs to me that there is some latitude in the meaning of the word "distribute." At one extreme you have free posting to the internet, everyone has access to the binary and doesn't have to pay anything. I believe this is clearly "distribution" under any definition. Closer to the other extreme is internal testing of binaries for QA purposes by employees of the company. I don't know that having your employees test software would constitute distribution.
WHat is going on here appears to be somewhere in between, although closer to former example than the latter. It appeared from the article and other posts that anyone could get the beta by paying some fee (i.e. there was no numerical cap on beta testers). The simply "pay to preview" aspect reeks of commercial distribution rather than real testing. In addition, a lack of numerical cap also would push the conduct towards any reasonable definition of distribution (if there is no cap, that is).
I am a lawyer and have seen firsthand the effects spiteful litigation can have on emerging companies. Linux needs all the help it can get to gain a desktop foothold beyond a small elite group. As numerous other posts have said, give the guy a chance to release the code when the product is really released. With Linux companies not doing so well recently, does the community really want to spawn litigation against another that very well might not be necessary (if we can just wait a few months)?
Microsoft should contribute lawyers to defend the GPL in order to sue Lindows out of existence. One less viable Windows implementation for Microsoft, one more notch on the tally of credibility for GPL.
One more pig learning how to fly.
according to Gödel's incompletes theorem [...]
:-)
Well, that's a theorem, as you say. Do you have any proof?
Anonymous coward are... well, cowards.
I admit to this, but I think I'm just an inch from getting over it... modding up the PoD and the subsequent ban from moderation helped, of course. I'm now 80/20 "thank you"/"fuck you" negativekarmanow.
Perhaps may be a quite profitable abuser of GPL that people refuse to point fingers at?
It is after all a common business model with email tools.
Distribution is not defined. That is one of the problems with the GPL.
I mean, say I am working on a piece of code, based on GPL stuff. Say it's for internal use only within my office. I think we all agree that using it on my company's computers only is not distributing it. Now let's say I want to send a copy to Joe because I value Joe's input into UI design, so I send a binary to my pal Joe. AM I now obligated to give Joe source? I don't think so. I am not distributing my new work. I am merely SHOWING it to joe so he can give me feedback. The GPL should not prevent this.
Now.. what Lindows is doing is different.. the bastards are charging people to see a beta, which is slimy to begin with...
So.. anyone know what *really* constitutes distribution?
The GPL states that they should release the code....they should release the code. They could have chosen to do BSDdows. However, this is indicative of a larger problem. Linux companies KNOW that as soon as their source is released their product becomes Free-as-in-beer. And as other linux companies found in much better economic times, selling something that consumers can get for free (from you or elsewhere) isnt going to fill your coffers with millions of techie dollars.
If you are selling software, GPL is no good. IBM might make good with their linux business but lets face it, they are selling HARDWARE. The only viable business model that includes GPL is one where the principal product being sold is "immune" to GPL (hardware in IBM's case). Other companies who have tried this (VA, Cobalt etc) have made the mistake of trying to use linux to sell commodity PC hardware in a nice package.
GPL has a future whereever it can be used as a tool to sell a proprietary product. Companies have tried with embedded devices but have largely failed due to slow time to market or coming out with incomplete barely usable products.
Selling support as a GPL assisted product didnt really work, and if you think about it its easy to see why. Linux is unix, companies pay sys admins to run their unix boxes, why would they pay a support company for a big support contract (basically a helpdesk) when they are already paying a unix expert or two who usually know how to (or can quickly find out via free sources) fix virtually any problem that crops up?
Non-GPL'd software is a possible "product" for GPL assistance. This could be as simple as selling a closed source product for linux, or by creating a whole non-GPL aspect to the OS (the MacOSX model, though I'm well aware that APSL !=GPL). The one problem with this is that the community tends to cry foul to the "spirit" of GPL in these instances. They want the whole ball of wax for free...even if no GPL code is used.
Where are the success stories. I like the idea of open source. I like being able to reuse successful code, and change things to suit my needs.
the lindows web site has a place for released source code. It also claims that all the wine source has been contributed back to the wine tree.
It souds like compliance to me ??
http://net2.com/lindows/source/
They aren't the only ones that are evading the GPL by claiming "it's not ready yet."
Check out RsyncX for MacOS X. They continue to refuse to release the source, and I and several of my friends have asked repeatedly. They are also under the impression they don't have to release the source until it's "final," even though they are already distributing a binary version!
Straight from the huckster that made money and cashed out on the MP3 buzzword, now he's trying to cash in on Linux without actually contributing anything. Robertson likes to take advantage of buzz for his own profit. That's all he's about. I will never, ever give him a single dime of my money.
It is my source.
And your source.
And everyone who has made some GPL contribution.
Lindows actually does relatively little development... it is based on Debian via Corel via Xandros.
Below the article there was a comment asking whether a EULA could be used to waive your right to the source under the GPL. I don't know whether you can do this or not, does anybody have any ideas about this?
?-|||-----x<*))))><
Nothing to wait, no lin-dows, no source, no expectantions on it, no license discussion, doesn't matter.
Remember some hacker got into M$ stole code about a year ago. That code has to be out there somewhere. Possibly Lindows has some M$ code and that is why no source. When they release the source and people use it, it will infect GPL projects with illegal code. Then M$ will have grounds to put all GPL code in question of ownership. Guess you could call it a source virus.
This guy just annoys me. He violates the GPL then calls it "Open Source". I think as a community we should launch a quick and painful boycott campain, either comply and give the FSF proper credit by atleast calling it by the right term or deal with thousands of free software developers discrediting their product. I, for one, am very insulted that they would use community work in this manner and plead the FSF to take swift legal action.
I'm not exactly sure how relevant this is, but I happen to be going through lindows' website, and I found this. Does someone know if what they say here is true??
Unless the copyright of the original works was assigned to FSF by the authors, FSF are not able to sue. Only the copyright holder can enforce a GPL breach.
/. but is there any proof that any GPL'd software is *actually* linked into Lindows?
There is a lot of conjecture and accusation here on
One of the problems of GPL in my opinion, is that it is difficult to prove that a product is derived from GPL without access to the source code. Catch 22?
Then after the company dies, it will turn out that none of the independant coders feels like doing the integration job, their little projects will fall into disuse, and we will be left with a patchwork of sort-of working half-solutions that only geeks can use.
The GPL needs a grace period.
Pushin' 'n dealin', shovin' 'n stealin'
Actually, if they distribute it, they have to. Doesn't matter whether they are selling it. Section 3a of the GPL states that binary distributions must be accompanied by source code. They say you CAN charge for it, but that is not a factor here.
Now, having said that, I tend to think that Lindows probably has their heart in the right place. Yes, technically they are violating the GPL but give them a break. Let's see what happens when they actually release the software. If they don't have source code available then to purchasers of the software, then it's time to raise hell. I think sending them a warning mesage is productive, but we shouldn't be writing them off as an agent of the devil in the meantime.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
-- Imagine how much more advanced our technology would be if we had eight fingers per hand.
... to Bindows.com!
They would make Bindows OS, using a BSD core. No more trouble from FSF *snicker*
The first product BTW would be codename Bistler...
It's right here on my desktop!!!
I see this infighting, time after time. Yes, I do agree with the GPL, but the BS that happens each time someone is a little slow to release source makes me glad I got hooked on the BSDL first.
And before you ask, yes I have released stuff under the BSDL, as a matter of fact I was a FreeBSD developer from 1993-2000 (Look under Alumni to see who I am.).
If people spent HALF the time coding instead of flaming, we might just have better code out there.
BWP
I recently took a new car out for a test drive. While I was going 75 miles an hour in a 35 mph zone, a cop pulled me over. I told the cop, "Officer, I am just testing this car for it applicability to my lifestyle. Once I complete the process and agree to buy this car, I will comply with all applicable laws."
Anyone who uses GPL code knows what they're getting into in advance.
I'm sorry if it doesn't fit into his business model or plans...perhaps he should have planned better. Its not our problem.
Our problem is that HE is violating the GPL, and that SOME in the OSS (Open Sourced Software) / FSS (Free Sourced Software) are ACCEPTING that.
The reasons for accepting this guys violationg of the GPL range from, "It's not even a beta release," to "Give him some time," to "All this bashing of Linux companies is what harms Linux". Sorry, none of those reasons cut it.
The GPL is a license, and he agreed to that license before using it. He agreed that in exchange for FREELY taking advantage of the HARD WORK of THOUSANDS of benevolent programmers, he would in return contribute his source modifications back to the community. By not doing that, he is taking advantage of thousands of programmers who generously GPL'ed their code.
Until he does release that code, he will and should be criticized. The FSF should contact him and try to get him to release the code; if that fails, a lawsuit is in order. In order for your contributions to the GPL to have any affect, the GPL must be obeyed.
When he does release the source, then we'll drop it. No hard feelings. We're not in it to ruin his company, his image, or his product. We simply want our license -- the GPL -- to be treated with respect.
Its not an unreasonable license. It has very simple requirements, which are more than fair when you consider that you're getting all this stuff free as in freedom, and usually free as in beer too. Its not like the EULA, where you have no rights and violations will result in multi-million dollar lawsuits. Violations of the GPL don't cost companies any money -- not like the EULA does. Lawsuit's brought are only to force the company to release the source, not to punish the company, bankrupt them, or make an example out of them, as the BSA does. There is no GPL-BSA which goes around raiding companies to see if they're violationg the GPL.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
by definition, a theorem has been proven.
Ceci n'est pas un post
Companie A releases GPL'd software without code. Companies B,C,and D:You can do that? ---20 years later--- companie C takes over the world in a MS way using the GPL.
"We battled for the consumer at every step. We battled for open formats. We fought against secure music schemes. And we made contributions to Open Source software, since MP3.com was entirely LAMP based."
Only a person with something to hide would make such a big deal out of this. I don't see any reason not to release the source if they are letting people use it. By making people sign away their rights to copy, distribute, or get the source from them, they are violating the copyright of all the GPL code they are giving out
(It sounds like they are giving away 'special' betas for a fee. If they arn't some one reply and let me know what, exactly, they're doing.)
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I think there is NO such reason. Even if we love lindows & MR, the principles of the GPL are too important to weaken them by saying: "usual people have to fulfill it point for point, but some for some special people we turn a blind eye".
Damned - who decides what is "beta", "final", "contributing enough open source", "good project for the free software movement" an so on? If we Let Lindows do what they want we will see more and more GPL violations and excuses "they let lindows go, why do they sue me?" (there is a post above exacly like this), "hey, i already published some GPL ware", "oh just wait a few month until my project reaches a status i define as 'release'" or "my project is so nice and good PR for the FS movement".
We should not behave like officials in the old soviet union: "everybody has the same rights and has to fulfill the same duties - except good old merited communists..."
Wow, I like this reasoning. Throw enough money at the community and you should be allowed to violate license agreements!!! Let's all sponsor Windows conferences so we can violate their EULA. Then again, you couldn't pay me to use Windows so forget about paying
-
1. (as you say) Lindows is required to give the beta testers the code if they ask for it.
- 2. Also the GPL says that those beta testers have the right to redistribute that code to anyone they please. i.e. Lindows cannot put additional restrictions on it.
That's it. And unless the beta testers are employees, it IS (non-internal) distribution.by definition, a theorem has been proven.
Just like the Theorem of Evolution!
although this is slightly off-topic:
it is rather ironic how some businesses developing products are wondering whether to use GLPed code, dsitribute the binary and not tell anyone, or make their own replacement. i whole-heartedly support the open-source movement,and believe that where the oss alternative (or the ONLY alternative) is 99% of the time better than a propriotary version of the same library.
so, basically, companies have only one legal and still acceptable option: write their own alternative that works, but poorly, and distribute the software, and then make a note of saying that although the library that is provided with the software works, the GPLed code is MUCH better and if you want better performance, use the GPLed library instead.
sure, that works, but it is rather circumventive. perhaps there is no solution, because as soon as any provision is made that allows ANY sort of GPLed use in commercial software, the GPL might fall apart because everyone will somehow abuse the new augmentation. OTOH, i think some thought deserves to be allocated to perhaps solve this problem. lindows is NOT an example of this, because MOST of their code is GPLed...but in the case of companies that use things like regexp libraries and say, some image processing libraries, perhaps there should be some solution that both allows the GPL to remain GPL, and also allow the company to use GPLed code commercially without making exhorbant work-arounds.
QED
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
LinuxBussinessWeek...x
http://www.syscon.com/linu
HEAD www.sys-con.com
200 OK
Connection: close
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 18:18:42 GMT
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
Content-Type: text/html
Client-Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 18:39:47 GMT
Client-Response-Num: 1
Page-Completion-Status: Normal
unbelievable...
The goal, since 1984, has been to give users freedom to the software they use. This means the right to copy, use, and modify the software. This is what free software is and this is why GNU/Linux exists.
Free software is what makes GNU/Linux different from ever other proprietary operating system and is what allows collaborative development to work. The goal has always been freedom.
This means we do not barter away freedom for popularity and we do not barter away freedom for business. And we definitely don't barter away freedom for more software. Sorry Lindows but if you want to use community software you need to follow community rules.
Also, I would hesitate to call this an attack. From the article it doesn't seem like we're at that stage yet. Release the source and I don't think anyone would be upset.
OFFTOPIC
I just wanted to mention that while normally an Open Source crowd, this article has seemed to produce quite a bit of Free Software Movement sentiment. It seems you guys aren't outraged by the lack of pragmatic benefits of the software (no one has yet said that they wanted software that doesn't suck) but rather concerned about the ethics of not providing source to the software they use. Could it be that the open source hype is dissolving and people are returning to their free software roots?
(yes, I know I'll probably get flamed for this)
Not just Linux coders but a lot of other free developers as well. People who contribute GNOME, KDE, GNU, and all of them nice applications--among others. I'm using Mozilla right now which is also not Linux.
It would seem that what you're talking about is Red Hat doing work for a corporate client, then waiting a while to polish it before making it available to the rest of the world at large. This is perfectly acceptable and is in fact probably in the strictest accord with the GPL - someone needs a program to be better, they hire some programmers to fix it. Red Hat will have to provide source to the corporate client, but they're not required to distribute anything to the public at large; they just do it anyway. Their only responsibility is to provide a copy of the source code to anyone they've given a binary to, and that is "on demand". If they only ever give the binary to their corporate client, they have to give the client source, and the same goes for the public release...as soon as they publicly release a binary they must publicly release source. Nothing says they have to publicly release the binary though.
And notice also that Red Hat doesn't do what Lindows is trying to do. Go to Red Hat's public FTP sometime and you'll notice that the current beta (I believe I linked to the right one there, it's skipjack right now, right?), includes a directory named "SRPMs". That's source for the beta, seeing as the GPL requires it to be available when they distribute binaries. That's exactly what Lindows is saying they don't have to do - their argument is "it's a beta release, we don't have to give anyone source for it". And that's wrong...the GPL requires them to give source to their beta users, and it's good sense anyway...it would help them find and eliminate bugs faster.
Personally, I would avoid being quite so hostile.
While I agree that they should release software code to those they distribute binaries to, whether they label it "binary" or not, I would avoid being vitriolic or mean about it.
Because it seem that their intentions are good. They want to distribute free software and make it easy for windows users to transition to a free operating system and this is a good thing to do. And they do have every intention on releasing the final software as free software. So it seems they do want to give their users freedom, they are just being lazy about it.
Did you mean THEORY of Evolution?
Robertson blew hundreds of millions of IPO dollars while at MP3.COM because of one simple, arrogant, mistake. He thought that by using a program to remotely verify your physical possession of a CD, that he could then make MP3's of the songs on that CD available to you online in a "virtual locker."
Indeed, this is a great idea and it was long overdue. But, that is not the way copyright law works in this country. Robertson was overconfident that the law would be no hindrence to his business plan, and thus ignored it -- at his peril. The copyright industry took MP3.COM to court over the service and won, they won bigtime. MP3.COM ended up blowing over half their IPO wad on just the pay-offs of the Big5 in the copyright industry. At $25,000 per song per copy maximum fines that $200M was actually a huge discount. But, come on man, a $200M mistake is a huge mistake nonetheless.
Fast foward to today. MP3.COM has sold out to Vivdeni-Universal and Robertson made out like a bandit on the sale. Now, here he is working on a very good idea, an idea whose time is longer overdue. But he is ignoring the law AGAIN because he doesn't think it should apply to his special case because what he is doing is so ground breaking.
Now, I am not saying that the GPL is equivalent of the RIAA bandits. But if Robertson weren't quite so gung-ho-with-blinders-on he might have made MP3.COM a true force for topling the copyright industry as was once his battle cry. Instead he sold out and the dream was killed. If he continues to follow true to form, he is going to end up adding little to nothing to the Libre Software community and may end up harming it in the process.
Grow up Mike, you should have learned your lesson the first time around. Ignore the rules at your own peril.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Looking over Linows' site, I found this link to some source. I'm quite sure it's not all of it, but there is some.
No, someone is taking something from me - my right to prepare and distribute derivitive works.?
You have no such right. All rights to create and distribute derivative works for a copyrighted work belong to the copyright owner of the original work.
Linux users. Lindows (and Michael Robertson) has done more for Linux in one year than ANY of you blowhards have in ten years. Market share is NOT about command line and running obscure/buggy apps. It's about being to use Linux just as you would Windows and running programs that you are familiar with in conjunction. Get off of your L33t thrones and shut the fuck up.
The FSF, RMS and SlashDot reads are the biggest cry boobies in the world. A great deal of free software users rake the developer over the coals who developed a program or put a group of tools together. If you want to download the iso to your fav linux distro (ick) you should inturn give them some money... just a few dollars... if you dup a cd of your friends linux distro download again you should give the distro some money if only a few dollars. Same if you use apache, ssh, mysql, postgresgl... the list goes on. Let a company who is tring to bring the linux community what they wanted (heaven only knows why one would want a linux desktop... but some do) get everything together. Let them get a final product out the door then ask for the crappy GPL code mods they made.
.com IPO's and most OSS IPO's
You have to put your pants on before your shoes... just like you need to have a product to before you can release the code to it... as for the $99 per cd hey how do you expect a company to hire the workers needed to make the distro, get the money for the ISP... last I check Linux IPO are lame ducks, just like most
Fooks just deal with it... get a life and most of all mod me down because I don't have the same brainwashed ideas you and your friends share. After that bash me for spelling a word wrong of phrashing a statemnet wrong. Then bash me for cutting my hair, wearing socks or the pants I do. Then look yourself in the mirror and give youself a nice pat on the back. After all your the bigger person for bashing someone who doesn't share your views and proclaim free speech is great... proclaim free software is great... proclaim that anyone who dares say a bad world about Free Software must be bound and gagged.
Lindows isn't selling their distribution yet, reall--they're letting people pay for the privilege of being beta-testers; ... Beta testers are commonly defined by their contracts/livenses as employees and forbidden from distributing copies of the beta software.
... it does open the possibility for an interesting loophole--perpetual beta!
They obtained a license to make copies of the source code - modified or otherwise - which requires them to provide source on demand and an automatic sublicense to any party to whom they have given or sold the object. Period. There is no exception for "employees" - especially "empoyees" who have PAID for the privilege. If they fail to do this they are in violation of the license - regardless of how much they have "helped the open source movement" in the past or concurrently.
Further: For an open source project having the source, modifying it, and installing the mods ARE PART OF THE BETA TEST.
Which is PRECICELY why the open source community, and its FSF spearpoint, can't afford to let the loophole exist, even for a short period. If it is OK for a while you get into a perpetual battle of defining what is "a while". In the software biz a few months of lead time - FOR EACH RELEASE - is all it takes to make a monopoly. If it's not OK AT ALL, the problem is nipped in the bud.
If you pull up the FIRST weed to sprout in your lawn before it goes to seed you avoid thousands of its offspring.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
No, someone is taking something from me - my right to prepare and distribute derivitive works.?
You have no such right. All rights to create and distribute derivative works for a copyrighted work belong to the copyright owner of the original work.
I have no such right because congress took that right away from me.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Bruce Perens as sent an open letter to Michael Robertson requesting that they release the code to the software that he wrote that they are distributing.
It seems like Corel has started a new trend:
"We are only violating the GPL while our product is in beta. It will only be a *short* time."
If only someone pulled out a NuSphere style injuntion against Corel, I doubt anyone would be following in their footsteps.
FWIW someone already posted two quotes (from GPL FAQ I believe) about NDAs with GPL. It seems one can indeed put an NDA for development purposes but not for distribution. But it also seems that by NDAs, you can only put limits redistribution; anyone with binary access still has access to source.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
Really, the only reasons they released it under the GPL are
1) Attracts more attention
2) They can steal other GPLed work
I really don't see why it is taking so much time to come out with a beta....all they have to do is basically steal code and modify it.
I, for one, will not be jacked by Lindows, and I think that most developers feel the same way. They have not made any significant contributions to any open source projects plus you have to pay $99 to get the source.
IMO, the whole thing defeats the purpose of the GPL
The FSF may think the "right" thing to do is to force Lindows to hand over the code. But it seems like the FSF is shooting themselves in the foot. The world is watching this event, and it's proving to them right now that going Open Source is a bad idea for business. If you look at some of the failures of Open Source (Eazel, Netscape) and consider what troubles Lindows has to overcome, most businesspeople have enough reason to never think again about contributing to or joining the Open Source community. This is not the public image that we need, like Hewlett Packard slamming Compaq in public because they don't want a merger. This is the equivalent of Bill Gates writing a book about Microsoft being evil! A house divided against itself will surely fall. If Lindows has to stand up to Microsoft AND the Open Source community, then they're doomed for sure. Perhaps we should be asking ourselves by the CEO is insecure about releasing the source code. Is it because he doesn't trust Open Source developers with his changes to the code? I highly doubt it. I think it's because he doesn't want the Open Source community to expose his hype about his Linux distro being the next successor to Windows. Think about it. What could his measly team of 20 developers, working for a year, possibly contribute to the work of thousands of developers who have worked on Linux for several years? He is definitely having delusions of grandeur, just as many have when creating their own distro: "I have created my own Operating System! I will become bigger than Microsoft. Wow, I'm so smart!"
Who moved my sig?
That's preposterous. What you're saying is 'I know Robertson is violating the license he agreed to when he built his project, but we should let him continue to violate the license until he tells us he's comfortable.' (after all, he sets the deadline you're saying we should be waiting for).
If he wants to be able to do what he's doing, he should have chosen a non-copylefted free software project to base his work on. He didn't pick solely non-copylefted free software. He chose code covered by the GNU GPL, a copylefted free software license. Now he's in violation. The question is will the copyright holders whose license he's violating defend their license or not? This is why it is important to care about software freedom, kids. This is why copyleft is an important concept and developers need to pay attention to licensing.
Digital Citizen
The GPL was never designed to be 'business' friendly to say the least. There's a few things that allow it to work to an extent with businesses, but it requires a very specific business model.
... if they depend on selling proprietary software. Someone seems to be always willing to clone another proprietary package, and make a GPL'd program that's similiar. And I'm quite content to see this happen ... since I don't believe in capitalism as a system that benefits EVERYONE in society.
Essentially the GPL is anti-capitalism. Sure you can capitalize on the distribution of the software, but you can't capitalize on the software itself. If people are expecting 'Pengiun Power' to take over the world, it's not going to be through mass-marketed sales.
No one forces these developers to release their code under the GPL unless they're 'borrowing' other GPL'd code. So a developer can choose to contribute and volunteer to GPL'd code, OR they can just go work for a business that sells proprietary code.
If businesses are concerned about GPL'd code, they should be. It most likely does threaten most software firms in one way or another
Correct, and your post is not a troll regardless of what the moderators say.
Reading some of the other commentary on this issue, I think the go-along-to-get-along mentality is the GNU GPL's weakest link. There's little difference between a copyleft and non-copyleft free software license if the copyright holder is spineless.
Digital Citizen
Much of what you say is spot-on, but this leaves me wondering what part of common sense says you shouldn't defend your copyright in a case where the license encourages sharing? What part of common sense says Robertson should be allowed to infringe the GNU GPL?
Actually, this is a golden opportunity to learn the difference between the freedom-minded free software movement and the freedom-dismissing open source movement. The GNU GPL is a copylefted free software license. The open source initiative did little more than place it in their list of approved licenses. Calling the GPL an open source license misrepresents the philosophy and authorship of the GPL. Defending software freedom is very much at the heart of this issue.
Fortunately the FSF handles many cases like this every year and the vast majority of them are amicably resolved long before anyone goes to court. The NuSphere MySQL case is the exception, not the rule.
Digital Citizen
sue the Lindows people.
Yes, yes, yes, SUE THEM AND SUE THEM TIL THEY BLEED. A ton of high profile lawsuit will be a surest and quickest way to get rid of all this GPL foolishness.
As companies learn that using GPL software means lawsuits, then they will get wise and forbid the use of GPL code in their office.
There is one way that we can solve this.... I know I've been dying to try this "Lindows" stuff.... Someone upload a Lindows ISO to an FTP, it's perfectly legal under the GPL, AFAIK. But, IANAL. (Enough acronyms?)
--j
It doesn't matter whether Robertson is on the level or not, we should leave him alone for now.
When Lindows comes out, either he'll release the source, or he won't.
If he does, then we win because we get the source, problem solved.
If he doesn't, then the FSF can sue after he's made some sales, when his pockets are deeper. We don't win as big that way, but at least we mitigate the damage.
Part of the GPL is that any software covered under it should be freely distributable (this is basically what 3/4 of RMS's lectures complain about). However, as The Lindows.com FAQ points out, people who get Lindows are not allowed to distribute it. Even if they don't distribute their source, this sure looks like a GPL violation to me.
File the first lawsuit. Good morning RMS.
So, for further clarity, You can only give pointers to third-party sources of the source code if that's how/where you got the object code you're distributing, and you're doing it noncommercially. On the other hand, if you distribute modified code, you have to point people to copy of your modified source. Generally, the easiest way to do this is to make sure that anybody who gets your object code gets {,access to} a copy of the source code, at the same time.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
In this case, it's especially ironic because they're attacking a company that could do a great deal to popularize Linux on the desktop. The fact that they're doing it anyway shows not only that they want to hurt software businesses but that it's their first priority. Providing an alternative to Microsoft isn't as important. Making things easier for users isn't as important. What matters to them is what mattered to Richard Stallman when he attempted to destroy Symbolics many years ago (cf the book "Hackers" by Steven Levy): to destroy businesses, big or small, that make money by writing software, and to prevent programmers from being able to make a livelihood that way. (Stallman, incidentally, states that specific goal for the GNU Project in his essay "The GNU Manifesto.")
The FSF has become as Draconian as the RIAA: It is d attempting to use legal threats to destroy software businesses in the same way that the RIAA used them to destroy Napster. Who's next?
--Brett Glass
They have released them and you can view and read about at http://www.lindows.com/lindows_products_license.ph p
and download from http://net2.com/lindows/source/
How long will their revenue model work after the product has left beta?
Will anyone pay for a product that is available as source?
... if Michael Robertson makes money off your backs while not compensating you a single cent, do you?
You do?!? Why??? He's being so very nice by adding to the value of Linux and contributing to that GPL sourcecode...
... in his own good time...
... whenever he gets around to it...
... whenever that is...
... when he's DONE, you understand...
... didn't you know that Linux was proprietary?
As companies learn that using GPL software means lawsuits...
You mean: as companies learn that abusing GPL software means lawsuits.
I'm sorry to post at top level, but the number of posts misreading section 3b is so large, I don't know what else to do.
Section 3b:
>b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for
>at least three years, to give any third party,
>for a charge no more than your cost of
>physically performing source distribution, a
> complete machine-readable copy of the
>corresponding source code, to be distributed
>under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a
>medium customarily used for software
>interchange; or,
If you take out the clauses and read the main sentence (which I've highlighted) straight through, you will see that what most people here are asserting is not true by the license, that only those who receive the binary are entitled to the source. It instead says that ANY person (third party) can receive it upon request. This written offer only needs to be given to the recipient, however, and not, say, published for a period of two weeks in a local newpaper or national magazine, as many notifications must be. IANAL DanielPut identity in the browser.
...Do we really want alpha- and beta-level projects released and visible...
Everythig except the quote above is totally unrelated to the issue at hand. The issue is that Lindows did release(distribute) the project. Of course only to those willing to fork over $99. I'm sure they would have been more than happy to accept $99 from the entire linux-using community so your point is meaningless.
Lindows is a perfect example of the corporate desire to re-market free beer. The GPL is nothing more than an annoyance for this kind of operation and the open-source community is a free source of raw materials. Does anyone honestly think Mr. Robertson would create anything other than a shrink-wrapped, restrictivly licenced, binary only product if he was not obligated to do so by the GPL? I think not.
TiVo (the PVR) uses Linux as well - so where is the source code?
Idiots idiots idiots ------
Idiots!!!!!
... a CEO whose establishment MP3.com had goals of promoting a format widely used to violate copyrights on music.
/.
. shtml
Now he's stealing your source code, and violating _your_ copyright, whereas in the MP3 trade, he was just violating _someone elses_ copyright, so that's ok.
And for some reason someone compared this behavior to Microsoft! Oh please, this is the reason why I turn the filter up to 5 and then laugh at only half of the responses to
Perhaps there should be a filter in slashdot that actually works. Also (off topic), my LOTR Two Towers trailer thread was never posted... go get it at: http://www.movie-list.com/l/lordoftheringstrilogy
Hypocracy is a 1.5 way street.
I have no such right because congress took that right away from me.
Correct. So, finally, you agree that the FSF is not taking any rights away from you contrary to your previous claim?
Correct. So, finally, you agree that the FSF is not taking any rights away from you contrary to your previous claim?
The FSF is acting in concert with congress to take away my right to infringe copyright. Congress provided the gun and the bullet, but the FSF pulled the trigger.
True. You have to make receivers aware of their right to aquire source, but it doesn't make my sentence any less true.
You only have to provide source on request.
I don't think that Michael Robertson minds the publicity, even if it is bad publicity. He's daring, that's for sure. Holding your own against Microsoft for naming your software like a Microsoft trademark minus a letter is pretty gutsy. Doesn't this mean that KIllustrator can stand up to Adobe now? How about Ghotoshop?
A THEORY like the THEORY of evolution has not been proven, but is based on empirical evidence (inductive). A mathematical THEOREM is proven deductively, using the rules of logic.
Ceci n'est pas un post
...what part of "no text" don't you understand???
:)
Last time I checked, the people in the QA and testing department didn't pay the company for the privilege.
If Person X pays Lindows (and $99 isn't a "nominal" sum) for the privilege of running their Linux distribution, they're a customer and not an employee.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
I have no sense of humor. I admit, I still don't see that the comment I replied to was joking.
Ceci n'est pas un post
Found where the Lindows source will be posted
QUOTE
All code changes made by Lindows.com to the above products are sent back to these organizations and/or will be made available for download here.http://net2.com/lindows/source/ (Keep in mind that LindowsOS hasn't even released a Beta version of LindowsOS, so the source code is very unstable and changing continually.)
Face it, there is no requirement in the GPL that your 3d-first-person-shooter game you developed that runs *ON* a GPL'd OS, has to be GPL'd itself. Many current games are like this, the game itself can be proprietary, it just happens to run *on top of* Linux.
Now, kernel tweaks they may have made to the Linux kernel code *would* have to be GPL'd, and distributed. But, if they wrote a large block of userland code that implements a lot of the functionality.. no, that does not have to be GPL'd or released as source.
It really depends on how it is implemented. I don't recall what the WINE license is (GPL?)...
Mods to any *existing* GPL'd software need to be released.. but any *new* software need not be GPL.
The "work" that this guy did recall the creation of Microsoft BASIC when all these IBMPC clones things start. That Bill Gate "endorsed" someone else's BASIC and sold it to make a fortune. I am amazed that identical tactics still works well today.