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

Eating Our Young

[outlander78]

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

Re:Eating Our Young

[wackysootroom]

I agree with you to a certain point, but by not releasing the source on an alpa or beta level project, they are losing most of the benefit of open source, which is the community.

Are they forgetting that there are thousands of programmers out there willing to audit their source code for free, or are they just afraid that they will lose a few bucks by people trying to compile around their '$99 preview fee', which seems extremely steep to me.

Re:Eating Our Young

[jwinterboy]

That's absolutely true. If you want to run a business, you need to be able to make decisions of this sort, and control the quality of what makes it out of your shop.

The only problem is that it sets precedent. Microsoft would like nothing more than to co-opt the GPL. Sure, the FSF would be much more aggressive if Microsoft attempted to do the same, but Microsoft could then point to Lindow's use of the GPL in this manner to do the same thing. The point is that Lindows is making $99 off every beta release.

Admittedly, if the FSF, a private party, is lenient on enforcing the GPL, it's not the same thing as a legal precedent. However, over time, if more and more companies start using the GPL in this way, it will change the meaning of the words incorporated in the GPL. Once the meaning of those words change, it can affect other open source licenses too.

Re:Eating Our Young

[Quixote]

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?

Then this will become the new way to skirt GPL: grab other peoples' GPLed code; modify it somewhat to add some functionality; sell it for a year or so all the time claiming that its not "final" yet; and then release the source.
Folks, the GPL has been around for quite a long time. These sorts of issues would not be coming up unless there's an attempt to do an end-run around the GPL.

Re:Eating Our Young

[evilviper]

So, how long should we let him delay? 6 months? Who knows, we might end up in a Eazel situation, with Lindows making some money, then disappearing before they relase their changes.

The point is that he is NOT following the GPL. It says that you MUST give the source to anyone who bought the product. So, if nobody has asked, no problem. If someone asked and they were turned down, or their request is being delayed, they should be talking to a lawyer right now. Hell, I don't use the GPL for any of my code, but if I was one of you that did, I'd be worried that the GPL will loose all of it's legal status because of continual and repeated unchallenged violations.

In all honesty, I think it's ridiculous that every time someone says two words about the GPL, it ends up on the front page, but that's an entirely different subject.

Re:Eating Our Young

[Fluffy the Cat]

what's wrong with waiting a few months?

If they've made an alteration to a piece of software that I'd find useful now, I have to wait a few months or reimplement it myself. If they go bust between now and finally releasing the source, we may never get our hands on it.

People who release their software under the GPL are explicitly stating that they don't want their software redistributed unless source is available. They weren't under any obligation to do that (unless they based it on already GPLed code, but they weren't under any obligation to do that, either), but they did. Perhaps they did that because they don't like the idea of commercial organisations modifying and selling their code without them being able to get at the improvements. Maybe they thought that it was important for users to be able to get the source of the software they use. Possibly they were mad. Who knows? Whatever the reason was, that code was released with an explicit statement requiring companies provide source to software they distribute based upon that code.

Now, you may not think that that's important. The Freeness (in the GNU sense) of software may not be much of an issue to you. But that doesn't change the fact that Lindows is distributing people's software in a way that they have no intrinsic right to do, and which the authors of the software have specifically stated they do not wish to occur. Lindows didn't need to do that. They could have based their product on non-GPLed code.

These dirty-laundry-in-public attacks damage open-source credibility, and that is not a good thing.

One of the most important things about the GPL is that the source is available. Not complaining about companies ignoring that is significantly more damaging to open-source credibility.

This isn't about eating our young. This is about pointing out that the reason much of this code is under this license is because we care about the implications, and companies who want to use this code should abide by the wishes of those who wrote it.

Re:Eating Our Young

[thing12]

The point is that Lindows is making $99 off every beta release.

But this begs the question... has any individual who spent the $99 asked Lindows for the source to the programs they received? I realize the FSF is asking for it, but did they purchase the product? The GPL does not require that you give away your code for free to anyone who asks for it, only to those who you distributed the binary.

That's not to mention that we don't know which programs have been 'enhanced'. Wine? XFree86? KDE? Who's to say... they might have written completely proprietary code to do all their special Windows-esque things and they won't have to release any of it.

Re:Eating Our Young

[BlueWonder]

what's wrong with waiting a few months?

What do you think would happen if I copied Microsoft Windows from a friend, and when the police knocked at my door, I'd reply "Sure, I'll pay for a license in a few months. Right now, this product seems like a beta-level project to me; I'll think about complying with the license when it's more stable."

Re:Eating Our Young

[Anonymous Coward]

But this begs the question... has any individual who spent the $99 asked Lindows for the source to the programs they received? I realize the FSF is asking for it, but did they purchase the product? The GPL does not require that you give away your code for free to anyone who asks for it, only to those who you distributed the binary.

No, you have it backwards. It is immaterial whether anyone who bought the product has actually asked for the source. If this product has been derived from a GPLed work, the GPL requires that it be accompanied by the source code or a written offer to provide the source code. If you don't supply the source along with the product on the same distribution media, you need to at least notify the users where they can get it. If the Lindows folks are not doing so, they have a problem.

The FSF (and other copyright holders), not the users, are best suited to enforce the GPL in a scenario like this. Their licenses are what require the Lindows source to be made available. If those licenses are being violated, then they can certainly get involved, regardless of whether they are users of the product themselves.

AC.

Let Lindows do what they want

[_Ash_]

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.

Re:Let Lindows do what they want

[Quixote]

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?

But what if there is never a final release? They are selling access to this "beta" version ($99); if someone pays for this version, then under GPL they are entitled to get the source. Remember, the GPL does not say "the source code can be released when convenient".

Re:Let Lindows do what they want

[Phosphor3k]

Kinda funny how the same people who ignore Microsoft EULAs turn around and whine like little girls when they think the GPL is being "stretched" or even slightly mis-interpreted.

Just a thought.....

Re:Let Lindows do what they want

[Fluffy the Cat]

The GPL gives you rights that you would not otherwise have under copyright law. The Microsoft EULA restricts your rights beyond what you would otherwise have under copyright law. Comparing the two as if they're morally equivalent is misleading.

Re:He's right

[hymie3]

I thought Lindows was L-GPL? And as far as the selling thing is concerned there was a recent lawsuit against a certain software company which alleged that they were selling a web browser for $0.00 in order to gain a market advantage. Even though Lindows is open source, wouldn't the same argument apply?

Work in Progress

[gabeman-o]

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.

Re:He's right

[gorf]

No, because Microsoft has a monopoly, and Lindows.com don't.

Hmmmm if your boss makes you lift GPL'd code

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

What is Robertson complaining about?

[Anonymous Coward]

The application of the GPL license in this case is absolutely clear: anybody who pays $99 for the preview should be able to get sources to Lindows if (as it seems) Lindows is based on GPL'ed code. That was the deal his company signed up for. There are no exemptions for "beta" code or "previews".

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?

Not perfect, but give them a chance

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I don't understand the evasion

[brink]

Maybe it's because I just woke up, maybe it's cause I missed something in the article, but it seems a simple thing for him to say, "Oh, we didn't include the source due to x y z." But instead of giving a straight answer, or even an answer that hedges a bit, he starts blathering on about how the company has done so much for the community.

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.

Re:Doesn't really surprise me

[GauteL]

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.

Re:GPL is GPL

[squiggleslash]

There are, however, other Unix desktops, and the Lindows people could have licenced them. CDE is one example, put a half decent window manager on it and it actually looks half decent.

I'd compare this, to be honest, with bundling components of Microsoft Windows with Lindows and then claiming that they don't have to furfill the usual obligations that Microsoft licencees are under because it's only a small part of the whole, and they did all the hard work putting it all together. Nobody, absolutely nobody, would defend them under these circumstances, but for some reason large numbers of Slashdotters think it's ok to similarly ignore the obligations KDE and GNU place on their licencees.

There are alternatives:

• Licence one of the many, many, desktop alternatives and combine with BSD or negotiate a deal with Caldera and bundle with Unix
• Write the damned thing yourself, or take some of the public domain ones that aren't quite there and improve them.
• Write a replacement for EXPLORE.EXE. IIRC the "real thing" is a crude framework around the listview control, and presumably WINE has a standard listview otherwise it wouldn't work.
• Negotiate a licence with the KDE and GNOME people directly.

Simply taking stuff that's out there, ignoring the licences, and including it anyway, is unfair and unethical. And it's probably illegal too.

That's the catch, though...

[Chasing Amy]

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. :-)

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

[roybadami]

" Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a nondisclosure agreement? [gnu.org]"

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.

I think you misunderstand. In this example, a company tells a third party contractor to take the original, public copy of some GPL'd code, and have them develop a modified version.

This is OK; if the company distributes anything to the contractor, it's the original, unmodified public source, which of course everyone already has access to.

The contractor produces his modified version, and then gives his modified version back to the company that's paying him. This is distribution, but it is fine as long as he gives the company source (which is of course what they're paying him for).

So this example is irrelevent and has no bearing on Lindows.

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

[Chris Johnson]

But that's EXACTLY the problem- it is REALLY a violation of the GPL to forbid people to distribute copies of the software. That is a far more serious offense than, say, charging money for the software.

Calling it beta testing is frankly bullshit- WHAT Free software is really, truly 'done'? What proprietary software is? The whole concept falls apart. In regards to Free software there is NO SUCH THING as 'beta'. It is ALL like a growing organism as opposed to a manufactured product. There is also NO distinction between 'consumer' and 'producer'. The GPL uses legal, binding language to establish this state of affairs and there isn't a word wasted. It doesn't HAVE to define 'beta' software: software is software to the GPL. Calling it beta doesn't stop it being software and turn it into, for instance, office supplies, staplers, ballpoint pens. It is GPLED SOFTWARE, and to effectively forbid the distribution of copies AT ANY level would mean losing the right to distribute the GPLed software at all.

Read that again. "To effectively forbid the distribution of copies AT ANY level would mean losing the right to distribute the GPLed software at all." If you give a copy of GPLed code to YOUR EMPLOYEE and he wants to distribute his copy on the internet, your only recourse is to forbid your employee from doing so- meaning that he cannot legally comply with your restriction and the GPL at the same time- meaning that he can't legally produce GPLed code under those conditions! (normal companies treat GPL coding as a public process in the first place, making it a nonissue whether the person posts their code or not).

Your employee might have no reason to want to post their first draft of modifications to GPLed code on the internet. But you as an employer CANNOT FORBID them to do so without placing them in a situation where they can't legally work on GPL code at all- if they can't distribute, they don't have rights, and if they don't have rights they have no business making modifications for eventual distribution. You can't set up sweatshops for hacking on GPLed code- the license doesn't allow it.

Consumer

[Hellburner]

"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.

Shut up or get the hell out of dodge.

[Anonymous Coward]

Redundant? Most likely. Troll? Hardly.

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.." /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?

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.

Don't bite the hand that feeds you

[acoustix]

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.

Re:Don't bite the hand that feeds you

[gilroy]

Interestingly, I think this proverb cuts exactly the other way. Lindows is getting material and monetary benefit from all the unpaid work of all the Linux coders who came before. They released their work into the wild without compensation, in the understanding that follow-ons would adhere to the same principle, thereby encouraging the growth of useful projects. Now Lindows comes along and says, "Well, shucks, thanks for making all that code available to us -- it's been downright useful. But if you want to see what we came up with, well, sucks to be you."

This is just another case of the digital commons being fenced off to benefit a few sheepherders. It's better to stop it early than when it has momentum.

Re:Don't bite the hand that feeds you

[dachshund]

So I propose that we let them tweak their software with these beta releases.

I'd have a little bit more sympathy for your argument if they weren't charging $99 for their beta releases. That's a pretty high price to charge someone who's supposedly going to be helping you tweak your software.

Now, I don't think it makes much of a difference under the GPL whether they're charging or not. But the fact that they're making a profit by selling sourceless GPLed code certainly hurts their "good-faith" argument in my eyes.

Re:Don't bite the hand that feeds you

[carm$y$]

There is a lot of excitement around Lindows. Especially for people who use Windows, but are too afraid to start into Linux.

Exactly for this reason, they *should* release the code. The have no chance at beating or "harming" M$ in a one-to-one fight, with rules that M$ not only masters, but over the time suggested, improved, and outright invented.

Microsoft is afraid of GPL, you can see this. GPL may have it's shortcomings, but on the short run, whatever is seen as a threat by M$ - and is not illegal, obviously - must be used against them.

Re:Yeb big bloody deal

[Jack Hughes]

But it *has* been released.

If you cough up $99 dollars you can download it.

Except for the source.

Re:Damn I hope I'm wrong...

[asv108]

Well I can understand why they rebranded kword as wordpublisher, kword or kanything does not make any sense to the mainstream consumer. If they are trying to make a distro for the common user, its understandable why they would change some of the names around. I can understand why some of the developers would be upset but as long as the include they source it's perfectly legal.

Robertson is a petulant child.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like having an argument with a five year old.

Parent:
Time for bed, Johnny

Johnny:
"I don't want to go to bed!"

Parent:
"Look at the clock Johnny, it /is/ bedtime isn't 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!

Think about this.

[mindstrm]

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?

Same old story.

[CottonEyedJoe]

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.

But it isn't Lindow's Source

[Jack Hughes]

The point is that it isn't Lindow's source that is not being released.

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.

OBEY THE GPL!!

[dh003i]

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.

all animals are equal but some are more equal

[graf0z]

There are many statement like MR is a good boy, lindows is good for the FS movement, they worked for wine (category "niceguy") or who needs the source, lets give them time or that's only trifle (category "trifle"). Does that count? The question is: are there any reasons to let somebody get away with violating the GPL? (if lindows does not release the code of their preview although the FSF asked for it, they violate the GPL, no matter if its free or not, if its beta or not, if they release the final code or not)

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..."

Re:He's right

[SecretAsianMan]

Bzzt! Wrong. Giving stuff away to achieve business goals happens all the time and is fully legal. Microsoft's behavior is contemptable for two reasons:

• With its monopoly market share, Microsoft has a nearly 100% safe revenue stream. It can afford to develop and then give away IE. We've seen before how well a company without monopoly power can survive with such a plan. Microsoft used its monopoly power to undercut competing browser makers, ensuring that they would never be anything more than niche players.
• By bundling IE with Windows, Microsoft makes the giving away of IE virtually mandatory. If you get Windows, you get IE. If you get a new computer, you most likely get Windows. This is, admittedly, convenient for end users who just want a good browser, but it makes it yet more difficult for third parties to compete.

Do they?

[ubernostrum]

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.

You know what is going to kill Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

You've found your own counter-arguemnt.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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.

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.

... it does open the possibility for an interesting loophole--perpetual beta!

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.

Re:calling the Lindows bluff

[Stormie]

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

So, what you're saying is: we shouldn't take a stand against these thieves ripping off GPLed software for their own personal profit, because if we do, we might scare off other companies who were thinking of ripping off GPLed software for their own profit? Sound thinking, dude.

GNU is pretty clear on GPL for beta releases

[dsoltesz]

The GPL FAQ seems pretty damn clear about this issue:

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.

As addressed elsewhere in this discussion, Lindows must make available all the GPL source code to users who have the binaries, and cannot charge more for the distribution of the code than the cost of distributing it. If these subscribed users are not able to get the entire set of matching source code that's under GPL, Lindows is violating the GPL. I don't think it will hold up in court that members of the Lindows Insiders subscription service are "internal".

Re:Doesn't matter

[Eric Smith]

Get real. Robertson complains about being attacked, and says we should instead praise him because he sponsors this, contributes to that, and benefits the community. The GPL requirement to make source available is not a great hardship; if he isn't willing to comply with such a minor thing, I'm not going to be impressed with the supposed benefits to the community that he's making, since violating the GPL harms the community in a very direct way.

What possible reason could there be for claiming that he'll distribute the source for the final release, but not the beta? Is there something in the beta that shouldn't be there? Is he ashamed of his modifications?

If the GPL allowed distribution in object form only of prerelease software, that would completely undermine the whole concept, since almost no free software is ever "final" (nor is most proprietary software, for that matter). Companies that wanted to keep their changes private, as Robertson apparently does, would simply release a never-ending stream of prereleases and betas.