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."

Comments

Re:He's right

[leviramsey]

The thing is, Lindows is vapor, as far as I'm concerned. I'm very suspicious.

Consider:

• The Screen Shots: the only shots that I've seen are by Lindows.com. They could easily be doctored. Every review I've seen just uses these screenshots. How difficult is it to take your own? Maybe nobody has because of...
• The NDA: every (paying) beta tester had to sign an NDA. If you're interested in hyping your product, wouldn't you want people talking about it before it was released? Or is it just that Lindows cannot deliver on the [in the scheme of things, minimal] hype that they've propagated? This makes them vapor.
• The Release Date: Robertson was quoted a while back as saying that Lindows would be out in Q1 2002. Well, that's passed, and we have nothing substantive, except for a few betas.
• Robertson Himself: Michael Robertson, as far as I can tell, is a man who's sole ability is to jump on a hyped idea, sell it to a VC, get his ass sued, and burn the company's money paying himself and legal bills. I wouldn't trust this guy to run a hot dog pushcart.

Re:He's right

[Fluffy the Cat]

They only have to do that if a) they are selling the binaries and b) someone requests it.

Any distribution (other than internal distribution) requires the source to be available. And yes, it's only required that they distribute it to people who have the binaries and request it. However, the implication of his statements is that they wouldn't do so anyway.

Re:He's right

[inburito]

I believe that the real requirement for releasing the source code is public distribution, including sale of distribution, of binaries. And once you're in posession of a gpl'd program you can do whatever the license permits you to do with it(redistribute, modify, use, etc..)

Once anyone is permitted to obtain access to the program it is considered public. There are no non-disclosure agreements allowed with the distribution gpl'd source or binaries. If there seem to be any restrictions they are there purely because the people holding the code or binaries choose not to redistribute them.

You are permitted to make an internal release, such as within a company, and are not forced to release any of the changes to anyone in public. The recipients of this internal release are entitled to the source code upon request and they can also release the source if they so wish thus making it public.

Once you are in posession of a binary release you're entitled to the source code upon request but there is one interesting aspect that involves the licensing of modified versions and is kind of a cornerstone of gpl. If you make modifications to an existing gpl program all the recipients of the original program automatically have a license for your version once it is released to the public(even if you don't have a copy yet you're entitled to it).

Of course if someone owns the full copyright for the source code they can also relicense it with a different license. The gpl'd versions and their modifications are still considered to be public but this does not apply to the relicensed versions.

To summarize:
If you have the binaries you can get the source. If you don't have them, stop whining.

There is one aspect that I don't fully understand.
If I have a program that is gpl'd but not released to the public and it is somehow stolen from me is it legal for other people to distribute it. Gpl does grant me the right to distribute but as I understand it doesn't allow other people to claim as their birthright..

Re:Nice troll, but IAAL

[dinotrac]

Gosh, I hope that you are a better physicist than you were a lawyer. I used to be a lawyer, too, and it sounds like I was a better lawyer than you.

The GPL is not keyed to selling anything. It is keyed to distribution. In fact, the closest thing the GPL contains to the kind of exception you're describing is in section 3(c), describing an alternative means of distributing source code whereby noncommercial third parties can simply pass along the information that informs recipients where and how to obtain source code.

Any distribution by the Lindows folks outside of their organization will be commercial whether they charge for binaries (Oh! Gee! They're even charging for the beta) or not. Lindows is a commercial enterprise and their releases are part of furthering that enterprise.

There is no serious question that people who purchase their beta are entitled to purchase or otherwise receive the source code. In fact, if you'll read carefully, they're entitled to receive it in machine readable form via the mail.

Oh, come on!

[Anonymous Coward]

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?)

Re:GPL is GPL

[Kraft]

I agree. The GPL is clear on this matter:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

What Lindows States They Have Made Available

[A_Mythago]

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.

Re:What Lindows States They Have Made Available

[Salsaman]

There's not much source even there, only bits of kde.

Re:That's the catch, though...

[mr3038]

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.

Hmm... lets see what FSF has to say.

"Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement?":

No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy of your version from you has the right to redistribute copies (modified or not) of that version. It does not give you permission to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.

" Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a nondisclosure agreement?"

Yes. For instance, you can accept a contract develop changes and agree not to release your changes until the client says ok. This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA.

You can also release your changes to the client under the GPL, but agree not to release them to anyone else until the client says ok. In this case, too, no GPL-covered code is being distributed under an NDA, or under any additional restrictions.

The GPL would give the client the right to redistribute your version, but in this scenario the client will choose not to exercise that right.

I understand this as: it's okay to develop under NDA (that is, you have access to source, but you're not allowed to distribute anything) but it's not okay to work under NDA and receive only binary. Of course, if this interpretation isn't correct, GPL could be circumvented by "hiring" all the users as employers for the wage of -99 bucks.

Re:So I suppose...

[einer]

The source can be found right here.

Re:More GPL theft than you'd think

[prizog]

Hi. I investigate licensing violations for the FSF. Please let me know what you feel Stalker is doing in violation of the GPL. You can mail me at license-violation@gnu.org. Thanks.

Bruce Perens has his say

[Gerdts]

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.

Re:Eating Our Young

[jmauro]

2) The software comes with a written offer to provide the source at a reasonable cost (e.g., not more than was paid for the actual software), good for 3 years or something, for ANYONE who asks.

No, you can only ask for the source if you have the accomping binaries. Anyone cannot ask for the source and get it. Most places let anyone get the sources for the programs, but they are not required to by any means.