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?
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
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.
I thought Lindows was L-GPL? And as far as the selling thing is concerned there was a recent lawsuit against a certain software company which alleged that they were selling a web browser for $0.00 in order to gain a market advantage. Even though Lindows is open source, wouldn't the same argument apply?
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?
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... )
The thing is, Lindows is vapor, as far as I'm concerned. I'm very suspicious.
Consider:
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.....
They only have to do that if a) they are selling the binaries and b) someone requests it.
Any distribution (other than internal distribution) requires the source to be available. And yes, it's only required that they distribute it to people who have the binaries and request it. However, the implication of his statements is that they wouldn't do so anyway.
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.
No, because Microsoft has a monopoly, and Lindows.com don't.
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)
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.
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.
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
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
I believe that the real requirement for releasing the source code is public distribution, including sale of distribution, of binaries. And once you're in posession of a gpl'd program you can do whatever the license permits you to do with it(redistribute, modify, use, etc..)
Once anyone is permitted to obtain access to the program it is considered public. There are no non-disclosure agreements allowed with the distribution gpl'd source or binaries. If there seem to be any restrictions they are there purely because the people holding the code or binaries choose not to redistribute them.
You are permitted to make an internal release, such as within a company, and are not forced to release any of the changes to anyone in public. The recipients of this internal release are entitled to the source code upon request and they can also release the source if they so wish thus making it public.
Once you are in posession of a binary release you're entitled to the source code upon request but there is one interesting aspect that involves the licensing of modified versions and is kind of a cornerstone of gpl. If you make modifications to an existing gpl program all the recipients of the original program automatically have a license for your version once it is released to the public(even if you don't have a copy yet you're entitled to it).
Of course if someone owns the full copyright for the source code they can also relicense it with a different license. The gpl'd versions and their modifications are still considered to be public but this does not apply to the relicensed versions.
To summarize:
If you have the binaries you can get the source. If you don't have them, stop whining.
There is one aspect that I don't fully understand.
If I have a program that is gpl'd but not released to the public and it is somehow stolen from me is it legal for other people to distribute it. Gpl does grant me the right to distribute but as I understand it doesn't allow other people to claim as their birthright..
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 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.
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
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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"
To summarize:
If you have the binaries you can get the source. If you don't have them, stop whining.
Of course you can always get the source off of someone who has gotten the binaries...
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
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.
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.
>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
Whether lindows case is more like this LinFlows case or the picture you present can only be determined by knowing and analysing license agreement between beta participants and lindows. Without this information the discussion is meaningless.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
--
Twoflower
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?
There is one aspect that I don't fully understand.
If I have a program that is gpl'd but not released to the public and it is somehow stolen from me is it legal for other people to distribute it. Gpl does grant me the right to distribute but as I understand it doesn't allow other people to claim as their birthright..
IANAL, but AFAIK, the GPL is a contract and like any contract there must be a "meeting of the minds". If someone stole code from you, then the necessary formation of a contract did not occur, and they are breaking federal copyright law whenever they give it to someone.
Unfortunately, the ability to prove it was stolen would be important should this ever go to court.
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
-- Imagine how much more advanced our technology would be if we had eight fingers per hand.
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
"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 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..."
Washington, DC: It's like Hollywood for ugly people.
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.
If people spent HALF the time coding instead of flaming, we might just have better code out there.
That applies to you, too, though. There's coding you could be doing instead of flaming too. In any case, how many people here would be doing serious coding if they weren't arguing here? Most flamers aren't coders, and vice versa. Even if they are, you can't write code all the time; slinging prose is a way to relax for some people.
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.
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.
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
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.
If you distribute it to someone under the GPL, you are granting them an irrevocable license to further distribute it.
Except that the licence can be revoked. If the person who the software is distributed to fails to comply with the terms.
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
Lindows will be far more useful dead than alive- or at least the brainless, shambling semblance of life you're likely to see. Haven't you ever seen a con man before?
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?
It's quite clearcut: the GPL is not compatible with freedom-restricting licenses. If you break the rules you lose the ability to distribute legally under the GPL.
Now, IF it was all their own code (which it ain't), this wouldn't stop them because then they'd have the ability to release under some other license- dual-licensing.
But in any situation where you're both restricting access in ways incompatible with the GPL, and licensing under the GPL, you're only causing your GPL licensing to self-destruct. It's not legal even if it's your own stuff- you're contradicting yourself by trying to GPL and also trying to restrict or put on additional EULAs and such things.
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".
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
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?
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.
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.
I have never read the GPL because I don't like it, its bad enough that it FORCES derivatives to release source (but I won't go into that now).
The interesting part of your post, if its true, is the requirement to release the source of the tools. I bet there is a fair amount (not a majority by ANY means) of software that was developed in closed source development environments and then released as GPL, this means there is a fair amount of software breaking the GPL from the get go.
I can't believe that the GPL actually does this, but if it does its another reason that its a terrible licence. I support authors that want to release thier source because its a good thing to do. I cannot however support a licence as tyranical and draconian in its requirments as the GPL. Someone please come up with an alternative licence that encourages openness yet doesn't take the rights away from developers.
I've always wanted a license (and if I ever write anything worth distributing I might try drafting it) that requires derivatives to release my source it its original form but does not require them to release thier modifications. This would keep my ideas open forever, but allow the other people to do what they want with thier ideas.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
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.
They only have to do that if they are *distributing* the binaries. If distributing without sourcecode, they must make the sourcecode available to all third parties. Since they distributed their betas, we *all* have the right to the sourcecode. You, me, B. Gates, Attilla the Hun...
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.