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
It's not that simple...
using GPL'd software mean you have to comply with the GPL. It's not up to lindows to bend the license a bit because it's easier...
If you don't want to comply with GPL then don't use GPL'd software.
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.
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".
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.....
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
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.
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.
But what if there is never a final release?
And what if the co-founder takes a gun and starts shooting people?
Answer: we'll burn that bridge when we get to it.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
It obviously violates the spirit of the GPL, if not the letter. Have you never read a word Stallman has written? And if they're using other GPL software, it's illegal.
Companies are free to fuck people over using a non-GPL license. When you use the GPL, I think you have a moral obligation to not fuck people over. If a country claims to be a democracy, but all the elections are rigged, it is not, in fact, a democracy and they are immorally fucking people over.
Deciding not to release the source is fucking people over. Trying to justify fucking people over because they did "good" doesn't excuse it any more than a rape can be excused because someone donated money to a charity.
-Kevin
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.
You CAN'T do that without compromising GPL. If you want just that, you could use a license like the Xfree license. But Lindows can't because they use Linux.
If you allow this to pass, then ANY GPL code could turn into an XFree license where's companies are NOT required to release binary + source code versions. The only way arround this would be (in my opinion, and i happens that IANAL) to pay this beta testers for testing the product ($1 would be ok) and treat them like hired personel. The very second you give it away to a non-team, non-hired "personel", you HAVE to release the code.
What do you GPL experts think?
unfinished: (adj.)
Um, exactly when does one "get to" never? How long do you wait until you conclude they aren't releasing beta code ever? Will it be releaed only at the end of its useful life? It's the same problem with the Sony Bono Copyright Act: Infinite and unlimited extensions make a mockery of any concept of "limited times" or of "eventually".
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
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.
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
How long do you wait until you conclude they aren't releasing beta code ever?
You use common sense. It's what separates us from computer programs, you know.
It's the same problem with the Sony Bono Copyright Act: Infinite and unlimited extensions make a mockery of any concept of "limited times" or of "eventually".
Good. You just argued my point. You can't look at the letter of the law ("limited times"). You have to look at the spirit of it. In this case, if they're going to release the source code in a relatively short period of time, they've complied with the spirit of the GPL, if not the letter of it.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
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.
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.
Wow! That would be great.
Then everybody could get GPL code, do just as ICQ did (every version has been a beta, for years! Well, at least they are not lying - it is so buggy it deserves the title of beta), and never release code...
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.
They have released binaries NOW.
So by the GPL they have to release the source NOW not when they feel like it.
They did not mind using all of that cool free code to build there disto.
So they need to follow the rules that the code they are using is published
under. They used OUR code (yes I have contributed a few small patches and stuff)
So now they have to "pay for the use" and the form of payment that all GPL
programmers have required is the release of the source of any changes.
As soon as you release binaries not when you get around to it.
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
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.
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 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
All we have is the letter of the law. The "spirit of the law", such as it has any thrust, is decided by the courts. You can't let a potential offender, or for that matter, a potential victim, be the sole arbiter of what the law means. In a system of law, under the rule of law, it is quite important that we conform to the letter of the law
If Lindows feels this "law" is invalid, then they can follow their conscience and not obey it. But they sure as hell have no moral right to whine when someone calls them on it, or attempts to have the law enforced.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Maybe you are missing something. It is ILLEGAL for them not to give the source code if someone who bought the beta requests it. They are breaking the law. When I create a GPL program it insures that anyone who comes across it will also have access to the source. Lindows is violating this.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And if they had relicensed the beta this would be a non-issue. But it is under the GPL and the GPL requires the source be made available even with a beta release. And they can't even relicense the code now unless they remove all the GPL'ed parts.
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
You can't let a potential offender, or for that matter, a potential victim, be the sole arbiter of what the law means.
Well, this is contract law, so you can and do allow the "victim" to override the law when its enforcement would be ridiculous. Also, it is up to the offender to determine whether or not the benefit from breaking the letter of the contract is worth the risk.
If Lindows feels this "law" is invalid, then they can follow their conscience and not obey it. But they sure as hell have no moral right to whine when someone calls them on it, or attempts to have the law enforced.
Well, I disagree. If I get fined for going 56 in a 55 mph zone, I sure as hell am going to whine and complain. Yes, the cop has a legal right to pull me over for speeding, but it's an unreasonable thing to do. And telling me "but what if you were going 80 miles per hour and there was a snowstorm and children playing" doesn't help the cops case any. Lindows claims they are going to release the source code shortly. If they don't, then we can argue the morality of that, but for now I don't think it makes sense to play the "what if" game.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
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"
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.
[...] if they want to steal some cars along the way, let them!
When the definite version is released and the cars don't get returned then, only then you have a (maybe minor, because it's the company's own decision to follow the law or not) reason to complain. [...]
s/cars/source code/
Wake up! Not releasing software linked against GPLed code is illeagal just as it's illegal to steal cars.
Regards, Tobias
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!
Well, this is contract law, so you can and do allow the "victim" to override the law when its enforcement would be ridiculous. Also, it is up to the offender to determine whether or not the benefit from breaking the letter of the contract is worth the risk.
No, this is copyright law, and Lindows has no right to distribute any of the code at all unless they agree to the terms of the GPL. It doesn't matter if they are calling it 'beta' or 'snozzberry', they still have to give the code to anyone who got a binary and asks for the code.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
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<*))))><
>Well, I disagree. If I get fined for going 56 in a 55 mph zone, I sure as hell am going to whine and complain.
Go ahead. The moment you admit you did 56 in the 55 zone without a reasonable excuse to the judge (and "its just 1 mile over -- how unreasonable to pull me over" is simply not good enough, "I had to go to the washroom" holds more weight) you've broken the law and will be penalized for it. The cop wouldn't even need to show up in court if you contested the ticket like that.
Now, I don't agree with that completely, but that's something you need to deal with at the election level, not the personal level.
Same with Lindows. If they want a modified GPL that allows them to hold back the source until full-release they need to contact either the FSF or the owners of the copyright and petition them. They have no right whatsoever to take this into their own hands and are (IMHO) performing copyright violation the very moment someone requests the binaries (which was probably yesterday). In America, as we've seen in the past, copyright is not something to be trifled with.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
No, this is copyright law, and Lindows has no right to distribute any of the code at all unless they agree to the terms of the GPL.
And they have agreed to the GPL. So it's contract law.
It doesn't matter if they are calling it 'beta' or 'snozzberry', they still have to give the code to anyone who got a binary and asks for the code.
And I still have to pay a fine when I go 56 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone. Doesn't mean the cop that pulls me over for it isn't a dickhead.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Go ahead. The moment you admit you did 56 in the 55 zone without a reasonable excuse to the judge (and "its just 1 mile over -- how unreasonable to pull me over" is simply not good enough, "I had to go to the washroom" holds more weight) you've broken the law and will be penalized for it.
I'm not arguing that. The original statement (not made by me, but I agree with it) was this:
The first part of the statement was "let them". I believe it was directed at the copyright holders. It's not a big deal. The lindows people are doing a positive thing for linux. If they delay the release of source for a few months, big deal.
The last part was "What is wrong". I believe this meant morally, what is wrong, not legally. Again, I agree. There is no moral responsibility for developers to give source code when they distribute software.
Besides that, the GPL says nothing about how quickly the source must be given. So it just might be legal as well as moral.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
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
Yes, this handwringing over interpretation of the GPL reads like internal correspondence between Microsoft and their legal department.
/. is becoming more and more like a working at a Fisher-Price version of Microsoft.
The earlier comments from the gentleman lamenting, "Give him a chance...let's not eat our young" could very well be a conversation between Microsoft and its PR department.
Reports elsewhere in this thread about rampant violation of the GPL by employers seeking to lift GPL'd code for their own financial gain sounds just like Microsoft talking to the BSA.
If the GPL can be freely violated, it is useless. Now that we know people are violating the GPL, it will be interesting to see someone try to enforce it -- and to watch them get tagged for strongarming.
The enforcer should make sure they apply enforcement equally or they will be accused of being a "bully" and exposed to more lawsuits. Ah, yes, FSF, wait until the lawsuits begin against you.
Reading
-- Imagine how much more advanced our technology would be if we had eight fingers per hand.
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 don't understand your point.
If someone got hold of Microsoft's source code, and used it in their product without Microsoft's permission, I'm sure Microsoft would 'whine' (as you put it) -- beta or no beta. Why should the open source community not be able to expect the same protection for their intellectual property rights?
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..."
-
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.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.
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.
>Besides that, the GPL says nothing about how quickly the source must be given.
Oh, but it does!
Here's the section called into question:
"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,
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,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) "
Since they have given no written offer (or at least that interview mentions none, and with the attitude of Lindows, I expect there wasn't one), and they are a commercial distributor, section A applies directly to them.
Section A says that the code should have accompanied the binary. This implies immediate receipt of the code upon receipt of the binary. It seems the beta testers did not immediately receive it, and Lindows are delaying their release of the code. They have violated the license, clear and simple.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
From the text of the GPL:
From Merriam-Webster:
So, no, they actually must make it available immediately. And note we are not talking about, "We're really busy so we can't put it online this weekend." They're taking a "principled" stand that the GPL can be ignored for beta.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Since they have given no written offer (or at least that interview mentions none, and with the attitude of Lindows, I expect there wasn't one), and they are a commercial distributor, section A applies directly to them.
Commercial distributors may use section B, but you're correct, they have to have given a written offer at the time of distribution, which apparently - apparently - they haven't. So, my fault on that one, you are correct that they apparently violated the license. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the FSF is being excessively anal and stupid.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
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.
They own the copyright. They are under no obligation to keep betas, etc. under the GPL.
Except they don't own copyright on anything they didn't write from scratch themselves. The vast bulk of their product is either unmodified GPL code or obvious derivatives of GPL code.
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?
The GPL is copyright right. There is no question about this whatsoever; it's indisputable in court.
EULAs are not copyright. They are not contracts, nor are the terms and conditions of EULAs applicable under *any* interpretation of contract law. The only attempt to enforce a EULA in the U.S. ended with a court striking it down as failing to meet the provisions of contract law.
So yes, the GPL is part of established law. EULAs most definitely are not. There's a difference here, for anyone with the brain cells to make the distinction.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
The first part of the statement was "let them". I believe it was directed at the copyright holders. It's not a big deal.
IIRC copyright law grants copyright holders the right to decide if this is a "big deal" or not.
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.
The only way arround this would be (in my opinion, and i happens that IANAL) to pay this beta testers for testing the product ($1 would be ok) and treat them like hired personel.
The only other way would be to have this $99 be to buy stock/shares in the company. Which again could be argued to change the action from distribution to a third party to an internal transfer between different parts of the same "corporate person".
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!
Morons maybe, sleazeballs, perhaps, but selling? No. Lindows.com has, as of yet, not sold a single piece of software to anyone. The Insider program is a subscription type thing, where one of the services is access to internal software releases. The GPL allows internal releases. But hey, this is what happens when you hire a whole team of former MFC developers who've never read the GPL, and nobody with actual Linux experience.
I strongly dislike the renaming stuff; but, if you look in the "Specs" page, you'll see "Derivative of: kinkatta" or whatever, as well as a link to source code.
Finally, http://www.net2.com/lindows/source/. Source is already there.
A solution to the problem with music today
IIRC copyright law grants copyright holders the right to decide if this is a "big deal" or not.
So? I'm not arguing legality, I'm arguing principle. Yes, legally, RMS can be a dick. But that doesn't mean he should, or even that it's in his best interests to.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
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
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.
An EULA is a different kind of entity from the GPL.
The GPL is a copyright licence, no different conceptually from an agreement between an author and a publisher to publish a book.
An EULA attempts to cover how you can use a program. Whereas the GPL applies to distributing a program. IIRC it explicitally states that using programs is outside its scope.
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
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
You don't have to force the source on anyone---you just can't force absense of the source anyone, either. It's the receivers choice.
There are reasons why democracy does not work nearly as well as capitalism.
-- David D. Friedman
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.)