Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lindows - Where's the Source?

Posted by timothy on from the it's-in-there dept.

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."

18 of 483 comments (clear)

  1. Re:He's right by drbyte · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes, the GPL is great. We should all share code, no matter how small or large we write something for.

    But I think Lindows is doing an okay thing. The moment they have a final release, go ahead, and release the source. At the moment, keep it quiet for a bit, so no one "steals" the product before it can be released (hint hint at Redmond maybe?)

    I too recommend gcc and vim (yeah, not emacs for me ;) ) for OS related projects. It just makes sense. But then again, a good IDE usually helps.

  2. More GPL theft than you'd think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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... )

    1. Re:More GPL theft than you'd think by david_bonn · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I'd amend that. There is lots of intellectual property theft in general.

      About a dozen years ago, I worked for a small, heartless high-tech startup. The cash money pay was good, my immediate manager was extremely clueless, and the founders and senior management had (for once) greatly overestimated the complexity of the development effort. This made for an extremely leisurely work schedule that (almost) made up for their other obnoxious habits.

      My first week there I was writing some code to interpret the logfiles for their product, when I needed to Read the Manual to figure something out. While an MS C Compiler was installed on my peecee, I didn't have copies of the manual and figured they must be around someplace.

      Twenty minutes later I discovered that (1) the only copy of the manuals was in the (locked) office of my boss, and (2) there was only one C compiler for about a half-dozen coders. My boss was in meetings all day and didn't want to be disturbed. It was a Friday so I went home before lunch to start my weekend early.

      On Monday morning I got the manuals from my boss, fixed the code, and had this entertaining conversation when I returned the manuals:

      Me: We need a few more copies of the compilers, at least so more than one coder can read them at a time.

      My Boss: We don't have the money for that.

      Me: So? We're violating the license agreement. I'd hate to cross MS on something like this.

      My Boss: Don't worry, those agreements are impossible to enforce.

      I went back to my cube with much to think about. Only a week before, I had signed a fearsome stack of employment agreements with terrifying and nasty language. The employee packet also had an intimidating memo about employee's stealing any company property -- it left me with the impression that I'd end up in jail if I accidentally took a pen home.

      ... and my boss said that "those kind of agreements are hard to enforce"???

      Well, like I said my boss was clueless so I kind of let it slide. But I noticed that for a company with over thirty people, there was only two or three legal copies of any word processing or desktop publishing software around the office. Later that week there was a big dust-up and two of the six engineers quit. In order to patch up the morale a cozy meeting was arranged that friday with the company president, my boss, and the remains of the software group of which I was a part.

      At one point I brought up the software license issues:

      Me: Y'know, having only one C compiler for four engineers is illegal. We really ought to buy more copies.

      President: We'd rather hire really good people than buy software.

      Me: So you're saying we should steal to support the company?

      President: It isn't really stealing...

      Me: I doubt Microsoft would agree with you. What you're doing gives every employee who walks out of here with a beef, like [the two guys who just quit], a way to shut this whole company down.

      He didn't know how to answer that. My boss gave me a dirty look. A few weeks later a "working group" was set up, headed by my boss, to identify what software we needed to buy and buy it. This group met weekly for over six months and probably after -- well past when I left the company. As far as I know, they never did spend any actual money correcting the problem.

      In the following months I noticed that a fair amount of code in the company's products had also been lifted from various places. Some of it was harmless and easily corrected. Some of it went a long way towards explaining why the company was rather secretive about how it had managed to build its products. I told my boss about it and he basically blew me off by adding it to the list of "issues" (e.g. cases of intellectual property theft) his "working group" was looking at.

      I quit after less than six months on the job, taking a well-deserved year being mostly unemployed. The company failed a couple of years later, warmly despised by its ex-employees, customers, and probably anyone else who came into contact with them.

      My boss was probably more clueless than average, but I don't think crap like this is at all uncommon.

      How do you fight this silliness?

      If you are into persuasion, I'd try an argument that goes something like this:

      We're a technology company. Our primary assets are intangible. One of those assets is the intellectual property represented by the source code to the software we sell. Putting a dollar value on any such software is highly subjective and very vulnerable to perception, both positive and negative. We want to avoid any negative impressions which might cause difficulties, in particular during a due diligence process such as during an acquisition, business partnership, or when raising money from investors.

      Probably the best approach is pretty gentle. Make friends with some people in your accounting department. If you've already got a friend there, so much the better. Tell your friend about this problem, emphasizing what it might do to the company's stock price or how much trouble it might make during an acquisition. People tend to lend more credence to information from someone they know than from some person they never met who comes to them with a story of gloom and doom. Unfortunately, this becomes a lot harder in a larger company.

      A less discreet approach might be to write a nice memo on paper on the above themes, print it out and sign and date it. Keep a copy for yourself, give a copy to your boss, and give a copy to your CFO or VP of Finance. Emphasize that these kind of intellectual property violations could cause problems with the value of the company or the company's products.

      A final approach is to discreetly contact your company's auditors. Auditors have a bad rap right now and are hence pretty stuffy about any iffy situations. They are involved in assigning a value to any assets a company has (like software that might have a license violation) and they will probably be very interested in what you have to say. This can make quite a bit of trouble for your company if you aren't sure it can be fixed easily, so be a bit careful with this approach. However, it is less of an escalation than going public with the embarassing information.

  3. GPL is GPL by Cato · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. Re:Eating Our Young by Cyclops · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The GNU GPL is very strongly fit into copyright law. If you do not want to respect the GNU GPL, you loose the rights to use and/or distribute the code.

    The FSF, by publicly alerting the Lindows project, surely has done so after fruitless discussion with the project managers, and so they have the need to publicly call for respect of the GNU GPL.

    Lindows is specially based off Debian GNU/Linux, which uses almost exclusively Free Software. It has building processes that include source packages.

    That way, if the source packages for the betas are not there, then they are distributin software under copyright law violation by not respecting the source.

    This is the second beta. The FSF surely has been trying to talk privately with the Lindows project so bad publicity could be avoided towards the project.

    They choose not to respect the GNU GPL terms of distribution. They choose to either ignore or disregard attempts to privately solve this problem (NOTE: this is speculation).

    The FSF must've seen no other choice than making a public alert, as the inventors of the GNU GPL.

    There are other Free Software licenses, but The FSF has responsabilities with the GNU GPL and GNU LGPL.

    This is not eating your young. Imagine it was Microsoft snithcing to the BSA that Lindows was not respecting the software licences? They would probaly then close the project down.

    Hugs, Cyclops

    ps: silly question? definitely not.

  5. If we dont like the idea... by jordanpwalsh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Then all we gotta do is not use lindows.

  6. Damn I hope I'm wrong... by MadFarmAnimalz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  7. Re:No, *DO NOT* Let Lindows do what they want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

  8. Hmmm by jgerman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  9. well by waspleg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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 ;)

  10. Re:Eating Our Young by ipsuid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...what's wrong with waiting a few months?

    The GPL and other licenses are legal documents. Which means common sense does not always apply. By waiting a few months before doing anything, you are setting a precedent of non-enforcement. That gives other license breakers ammunition if they are ever brought to court. ("Your honor, so and so, and so and so did the same thing, and they didn't get yelled at... I thought it was ok.").

    Legal contracts, which are precisely what a license is, are not worth the paper they are written on. The real license or contract is what is actively enforced in a courtroom. The legal system is not about who is right and who is wrong, its entirely based on what combinations of words people knowingly agreed to abide by.

    Given the already shaky nature of open source licenses in the dog eat dog world of commercialism, it is a GOOD thing that groups like the FSF are "nitpicking" this issue. The only bad thing about all this is the FSF lacks the funding to police the entire open source community - which only weakens the cause.

    --
    It appears Ockham lost his razor and grew a beard.
  11. Re:Think about this. by BreakWindows · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I think we all agree that using it on my company's computers only is not distributing it.

    I don't agree. Nor does the FSF. If you give binaries to anyone, no matter what company they work for, what distribution they use, what color their hair or whether they think the week begins or ends with Sunday, they must receive source if they request it. This is the point of the GPL; keeping individuals "free" from restrictions in its use. If you don't want to give out your code when it is requested, and don't want to allow people to use it freely, don't GPL it. Once a "free" binary exchanges hands between 2 people, both are entitled to full access. The key word here is "freedom", not "I own it, it is mine, I am the authoritarian who dictates how it will be used".

    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

    If Joe requests source, Joe gets source. If you "don't think so", that's fine...but your program isn't GPL'd. There are many licenses you can use, none better nor worse in my opinion. But if you want your program to be "free" software, you can't pick and choose who gets to be free from restrictions. That's what freedom is all about.

    While we're on it, if you value Joe's input into UI design, why wouldn't you want him to have the source? Maybe he's secretly a great programmer and can fix your mistakes. ;) This is the other point of the GPL: community input into common problems.

    So.. anyone know what *really* constitutes distribution?

    From GNU.org: ' Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

    The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

    The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

    The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

    The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

    A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms.'

    Distribution is distribution. Don't think of it from the distributor's point of view, think of it from the user's. If I use this software, I have the right to use it how I want. I can modify it, change it, etc. If I don't have these freedoms, it is not GPL'd. Lindows needs to allow access to the source upon request, or they're in obvious violation.

  12. In a related story... by bokmann · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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."

  13. Re:What is Robertson complaining about? by iCEBaLM · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well I would like to emphasize "closed" nature of the pay beta program. I am not an expert on this matter and I won't pretend to be one. Yet the way I see this is, the beta program of lindows is actually an internal process. The payers may access this internal process after signing a NDA. They are not selling or giving away their betas, betas are also not free to copy, they are closed and whole proces is internal.

    One word: illegal. The GPL'd software may not be relicenced into this kind of a license unless by the author. Lindows cannot sell linux for $99 under NDA and tell people they can't share it. Internal means just that: internal. This process is anything but internal as they are distributing the software to third parties for a fee of $99. The only way it would be internal is if everyone were employees of Lindows.

    -- iCEBaLM

  14. Parallels with MP3.COM by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  15. Re:Eating Our Young by cymen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    http://www.lindows.com/lindows_products.php

    Take a close look at the screenshots. Those are KDE programs with new names.

  16. Re:OBEY THE GPL!! by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Plus, Robertson would be a great test case for the GPL, because he is an idiot- he has really no clue for what is legal and what is not. He's capable of going into a GPL lawsuit that he can't win. That's the ideal test case for GPL licensing- against an idiot who thinks he can spin the facts with publicity.

  17. calling the Lindows bluff by ztwilight · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?