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

He's right

[PhysicsGenius]

I use the GPL for all my software from simple utilities to invert a construction matrix all the way up the the Perl program that I wrote that controls our linear accelerator--and I always release the source because that way everyone who has a linac can fix bugs for me.

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.

What's the big deal?

[aozilla]

Really, sometimes the FSF can be as bad as the BSA...

Nice troll, but IAAL

[PhysicsGenius]

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.

Re:Nice troll, but IAAL

[PhysicsGenius]

I'm sorry, but as the holder of the ridiculous claim the onus is on you to prove your statement that I need to force source on Joe Random who doesn't even know what a dereferenced pointer is and wouldn't give a crap if he tried.

Re:I don't understand the evasion

[Royster]

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."

He did. They didn't include the source becuase they haven't released the product to the public.

The GPL distinguishes between modifications published (for which source is required) and modifications for internal use (for which source is not rewuired). Testing is usually an internal use.

Beta testing is a grey area, is it a public distribution or is it internal? But it seems to me a resonable interpretation.

maybe this will with with MS license agreements

[YOND R BOY]

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

The FSF betrays its true motives: Kill businesses

[Brett Glass]

The "Free" (not!) Software Foundation -- as well as Bruce Perens, who is allied with it -- have betrayed their true motives: to destroy any and all businesses.

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