Lindows - Where's the Source?

bbh writes: "NewsForge has an article about the Free Software Foundation asking the makers of LindowsOS a simple question, 'Where's the Source?' Lindows CEO Michael Robertson has an interesting take on what the GPL means."

Comments

So I suppose...

[wackysootroom]

That Lindows has more in common with the Redmond OS than just a similar name?

Eating Our Young

[outlander78]

These are the kinds of silly questions that give open source projects trouble. Business projects, as a rule, have a manager who is (more or less) obeyed. Linus, the closing thing to a Linux manager, obviously can't fire anyone, and the tree can be forked an infinite number of times. This is a good thing, since he can't take his toys and go home when someone finally gets under his skin.

However, when attempting to run an open-source-based business, some semblance of order is required. If the guy says he'll release the code, give him a chance. These dirty-laundry-in-public attacks damage open-source credibility, and that is not a good thing.

I agree that the guy is playing fast and loose with the rules, but I think we should give him a chance by waiting until he meets his deadline. Then, if he doesn't open up, a lawsuit may be in order, but otherwise, what's wrong with waiting a few months? Do we really want alpha- and beta-level projects released and visible to people who will immediately compare them to Microsoft Windows? Let's not forget that there is no such thing as a rough draft - when we see a prototype, we form lasting first impressions. cheers, Andrew

Re:Eating Our Young

[jwinterboy]

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

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

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

Re:Eating Our Young

[Quixote]

I agree that the guy is playing fast and loose with the rules, but I think we should give him a chance by waiting until he meets his deadline. Then, if he doesn't open up, a lawsuit may be in order, but otherwise, what's wrong with waiting a few months?

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

Re:Eating Our Young

[Fluffy the Cat]

what's wrong with waiting a few months?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Eating Our Young

[thing12]

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

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

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

Re:Eating Our Young

[BlueWonder]

what's wrong with waiting a few months?

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

More GPL theft than you'd think

[Anonymous Coward]

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... )

Re:More GPL theft than you'd think

[david_bonn]

I'd amend that. There is lots of intellectual property theft in general.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At one point I brought up the software license issues:

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

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

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

President: It isn't really stealing...

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

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

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

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

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

How do you fight this silliness?

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

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

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

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

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

Re:He's right

[leviramsey]

The thing is, Lindows is vapor, as far as I'm concerned. I'm very suspicious.

Consider:

• The Screen Shots: the only shots that I've seen are by Lindows.com. They could easily be doctored. Every review I've seen just uses these screenshots. How difficult is it to take your own? Maybe nobody has because of...
• The NDA: every (paying) beta tester had to sign an NDA. If you're interested in hyping your product, wouldn't you want people talking about it before it was released? Or is it just that Lindows cannot deliver on the [in the scheme of things, minimal] hype that they've propagated? This makes them vapor.
• The Release Date: Robertson was quoted a while back as saying that Lindows would be out in Q1 2002. Well, that's passed, and we have nothing substantive, except for a few betas.
• Robertson Himself: Michael Robertson, as far as I can tell, is a man who's sole ability is to jump on a hyped idea, sell it to a VC, get his ass sued, and burn the company's money paying himself and legal bills. I wouldn't trust this guy to run a hot dog pushcart.

Work in Progress

[gabeman-o]

What an idiot... to claim that Lindows is a work in progress and therefore they wont include the source with preview releases is BS. All open source projects and linux distros are a work in progress, yet no one else seems to have any problem distributing their source.

Re:Let Lindows do what they want

[Quixote]

When Lindows doesn't want to release the source until they ship the definite version, let them. If they don't want to release the beta version under the GPL let them! This was a beta version! What are we complaining about? What is wrong with not releasing the source right away?

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

Re:He's right

[Fluffy the Cat]

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.

GPL is GPL

[Cato]

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.

Re:GPL is GPL

[squiggleslash]

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

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

There are alternatives:

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

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

Re:GPL is GPL

[Kraft]

I agree. The GPL is clear on this matter:

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,

Hmmmm if your boss makes you lift GPL'd code

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmmm if your boss makes you lift GPL'd code you have moral and professional choices.

The noble, upstanding thing to do would be to report your company to the FSF. In essence, using GPL code without providing the source is stealing. They wouldn't expect to get away from an audit by the BSA if they were running cracked software, so why should they get away with GPL violations?

However, the noble, upstanding thing to do is often the one that leaves the 'hero' jobless and labelled a security risk.

So, if you feel up to it, take a leaf out of Dogbert's book, and use this opportunity to further your advancement in the company. Hideously cynical, I admit.

Of course, this could just be an adminstrative error. A previous employee could just have used GPLed code as a stopgap way of developing their own solution, and not notified management and / or sourcecode maintenance about the original code.

Point it out to management, and let them know the scope of the legal issues involved. If they've got any sense, they'll release the source.

This is all assuming that the GPLed code exists in 'chunks' within the main codebase. If your company is selling a full GPLed application, start sending your Resume out!

(I wonder why the originally was modded down to -1 30 seconds after posting)

What is Robertson complaining about?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

If that doesn't fit into his business plan, he shouldn't have used GPL'ed code; it's not like anybody was tricking him into accepting a license he didn't understand. He shouldn't complain about it, and if he persists in not complying with the GPL, he will lose all rights to using the code in perpetuity. The GPL needs to be enforced in order to be meaningful. If companies can get away with flaunting it, abuse of GPL'ed code will become widespread.

I also wonder what kind of strange plans that company is hatching that they aren't developing out in the open. Why isn't their code on a public CVS repository already?

I don't understand the evasion

[brink]

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

That's what makes me suspicious, and that's what the FSF is probably responding to -- companies historically have a tendency to support any given "community" only when it serves the company's best interests (which I can't fault); however, they also historically tend to retain the willingness to arbitrarily pull that support, no matter the cost to that community, if it will better their standing.

So, when some business says it's helping the Open Source community, doesn't follow through on part of the obligation, then doesn't give a straight answer when asked "why not", it sort of seems duplicitous in a way. Note that most of the article is Robertson pleading that he's done so much for Open Source, as if to say, "But look at everything else we've done!" Yes, those things are commendable. It doesn't free you from your other obligations, though.

I hope it was just bad reporting on the part of Newsforge. If not, the FSF seems pretty justified in asking what the deal is.

Re:Doesn't really surprise me

[GauteL]

You are very wrong in your emphasis on selling binaries.

It does not matter if you sell it, rent it, give it away, lend it or anything like that. As long as you distribute it, you have to abide by the GPL.

You are however right in that they don't have to provide source unless someone requests it. Now someone HAVE requested it however, and they have to comply with that request.

Re:He's right

[inburito]

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..

Damn I hope I'm wrong...

[MadFarmAnimalz]

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.

Re:Nice troll, but IAAL

[dinotrac]

Gosh, I hope that you are a better physicist than you were a lawyer. I used to be a lawyer, too, and it sounds like I was a better lawyer than you.

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.

Oh, come on!

[Anonymous Coward]

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?)

That's the catch, though...

[Chasing Amy]

Lindows isn't selling their distribution yet, reall--they're letting people pay for the privilege of being beta-testers; the final product isn't even done yet. Beta testers are commonly defined by their contracts/livenses as employees and forbidden from distributing copies of the beta software. So, Lindows has a real point here. They're not publicly distributing their OS or selling it to the public yet, so they don't need to release source yet. It's only available for beta testing and in most of the software world, that's considered internal.

So, I see no problem here--as long as the code is released once the product leaves beta. Though, it does open the possibility for an interesting loophole--perpetual beta! Of course, if they kept the product in beta indefinitely while selling their product through beta-tester registration fees, I'm sure a Court would easily determine they're acting in bad faith and violating the GPL. I just thought I'd point out that scenario before someone else did. :-)

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

[Chris Johnson]

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

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

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

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

Hmmm

[jgerman]

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.

Don't bite the hand that feeds you

[acoustix]

Subject says it all.

There is a lot of excitement around Lindows. Especially for people who use Windows, but are too afraid to start into Linux. Lindows has a very good chance of becoming popular and gaining some market share if it does everything it says it will.

So I propose that we let them tweak their software with these beta releases. Then when they release a final version we will see the source code. Why do we need to see it now? It almost sounds like a bunch of three-year-olds that can't wait to open presents.

I don't need to see the source code to make any fixes. That what the Lindows programers get paid for. So let them do their jobs and when Lindows is released THEN we can poke at the code.

Re:Don't bite the hand that feeds you

[gilroy]

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

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

Re:Don't bite the hand that feeds you

[carm$y$]

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

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

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

Robertson is a petulant child.

[Anonymous Coward]

Like having an argument with a five year old.

Parent:
Time for bed, Johnny

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

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

Johnny:
"The clock doesn't matter!"

Parent:
To bed this instant!

Johnny:
Why?!!!?

When arguing with children, there is no logical foundation to the argument. They will whine and wheedle in any way they can to get what they want. No need to let little things like reality get in the way of an angry child.

And Robertsons arguments seem to go like this:

GPL:
"Robertson, you are a sentient being who was fully aware
of the GPL before starting your business. Fullfill your part of the agreement"

Robertson:
The agrement doesn't matter! Look at all the nice things I've done. Therefore the agreement doesn't matter!

GPL:
Robertson, you are abusing the goodwill of thousands of people who realeased their software under the condition that that goodwill be perpetuated.

Robertson:
That doesn't matter! Look at all the nice things I've done!

What Lindows States They Have Made Available

[A_Mythago]

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.

In a related story...

[bokmann]

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."

OBEY THE GPL!!

[dh003i]

Anyone who uses GPL code knows what they're getting into in advance.

I'm sorry if it doesn't fit into his business model or plans...perhaps he should have planned better. Its not our problem.

Our problem is that HE is violating the GPL, and that SOME in the OSS (Open Sourced Software) / FSS (Free Sourced Software) are ACCEPTING that.

The reasons for accepting this guys violationg of the GPL range from, "It's not even a beta release," to "Give him some time," to "All this bashing of Linux companies is what harms Linux". Sorry, none of those reasons cut it.

The GPL is a license, and he agreed to that license before using it. He agreed that in exchange for FREELY taking advantage of the HARD WORK of THOUSANDS of benevolent programmers, he would in return contribute his source modifications back to the community. By not doing that, he is taking advantage of thousands of programmers who generously GPL'ed their code.

Until he does release that code, he will and should be criticized. The FSF should contact him and try to get him to release the code; if that fails, a lawsuit is in order. In order for your contributions to the GPL to have any affect, the GPL must be obeyed.

When he does release the source, then we'll drop it. No hard feelings. We're not in it to ruin his company, his image, or his product. We simply want our license -- the GPL -- to be treated with respect.

Its not an unreasonable license. It has very simple requirements, which are more than fair when you consider that you're getting all this stuff free as in freedom, and usually free as in beer too. Its not like the EULA, where you have no rights and violations will result in multi-million dollar lawsuits. Violations of the GPL don't cost companies any money -- not like the EULA does. Lawsuit's brought are only to force the company to release the source, not to punish the company, bankrupt them, or make an example out of them, as the BSA does. There is no GPL-BSA which goes around raiding companies to see if they're violationg the GPL.

Parallels with MP3.COM

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.

Re:calling the Lindows bluff

[Stormie]

But it seems like the FSF is shooting themselves in the foot. The world is watching this event, and it's proving to them right now that going Open Source is a bad idea for business. If you look at some of the failures of Open Source (Eazel, Netscape) and consider what troubles Lindows has to overcome, most businesspeople have enough reason to never think again about contributing to or joining the Open Source community. This is not the public image that we need

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

Re:Doesn't matter

[Eric Smith]

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

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

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