Slashdot Mirror
RMS Condemns "UnitedLinux" per-seat License
dep writes "Likening the practice to Windows, Richard M. Stallman has issued a brief statement condemning the per-seat licensing that it appears will be employed in the "UnitedLinux" core distribution. He calls upon developers to refuse to allow their work to be used by such a distribution."
RMS is now actively trying to kill a derivative work that is being distributed under the GPL? The hubris is almost unbelievable. When you release your code under such an open license, you must assume that it will be used for some things that you don't approve of, and hopefully some things that you do approve of. That's just the way it goes...
If United Linux thinks they can "unseat" RedHat by using a per seat license, they are dead wrong, regardless of what RMS thinks.
Good luck at your going-out-of-business sale, United Linux.
No, Vern. They just let him in.
What am I missing? Is UnitedLinux truly as evil as Microsoft for selling a standardized binary set with source code on the side? Or is RMS just tired of capitalism?
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Okay, so this "per-seat licensing" consists of them not offering the binaries for free download. The source will still be "freely available". You will have to pay to get the binaries, and I would assume once you have the binaries, you can freely get the source. Where exactly is the problem here. this is all abiding by the GPL exactly. Nowhere does it say you cannot sell your software, nor does it say you must give your binaries away for free. It says if someone gets the binaries, the source must be available to them (which in this case it will be). Where exactly is the problem here? Oh wait, it's RMS, so the problem must be someone might make money off of software, so he has to object.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
It's amazing how many people can't be bothered to read 3 paragraph article before spouting off a complete load of shit about it.
If you had read the article you would realise that Stallman, contrary to some of the fights he picks, is actually being quite reasonable here.
What he's saying is that he doesn't approve of the licence, and that authors should beware of licences other than the GPL because they may not protect their work from being kidnapped like this.
Also, it's worth pointing out that in this case Linux and Main went to Stallman for his opinion, he didn't get on a soap box and force it down anyone's throat.
--
Andy
But they can not restrict someone, who gets the source, from re-releasing binaries of the packages, as long as they also include the source. And if they release the binaries, they can not restrict the person who receives those binaries from re-releasing them. This is what the GPL guarantees. That if you get a copy of the code, either in source or binary form, you can give it away. Which means that per-seat licensing of binary GPL'd code is a violation of the GPL since it prevents the receiver of the code from re-releasing that code.
I don't know, but it seems to me that UL are saying that you can't re-release their own code, not the GPL'd code on the system. And if that's the case they're no problem. But if they're restricting the usage of GPL'd software (in either binary or source code form) then that's a violation of the GPL which provides that once you receive code you can give it away.
But, IANAL, so take my opinion as such.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
I have to say, over the past year, I've given every distribution of linux a try. I used to be a hardcore Slackware user and I still like slack, but I also will use redhat and mandrake depending on the situation. The 4 companies involved in this...let's just say I found multiple problems with their distribution. Caldera has already had problems and angered many of it's users, Suse...I had to get rid of it on my box as well as an attempt to put it on my girlfriend's mom's computer due to speed and errors, not to mention crashes and various other things I don't get from other distros.
What I'm saying is that the companies involved in this united linux are probably doing this as a "last ditch" effort. I say this because I've used each one of them and each one of them didn't work all that well which means if I have problems being a slackware user, I'm sure the less knowledgeable people do. No users = no income and thus drastic measures must be taken.
When this fails we might be a few distros less than we are now bringing us closer to a TRUE standard. What I don't understand though is why can't we actually HAVE a standard? What's so hard about it? As a linux user I'm annoyed at the fact that all of these distributions seem to think they are right. I hate to say this but 90% of the software each of them use they didn't write, so why does it matter what the directory structure is? PICK A @#$% STANDARD!!
In case it escaped your notice, Slashdot is more a discussion site than a news site. The question is, is it interesting / important enough to the Slashdot crowd to be discussion worthy. I think the number of comments posted by the end of the day will answer that question decisively. RMS is almost always disucussion worthy. :)
You said:
"nobody likes the title GNU/Linux, nor uses it"
Wait a minute here.
Do you ever use Linux before, or are you just one of those "parrots" that utter whatever others have said ?
Ever heard of Debian ?
Do you know that the Debian distribution calls their Linux "GNU/Linux" ?
It only goes to show how pathetic some of you can really be. None of you have done as much as RMS, and still you pick on that guy just because of the "GNU/Linux" thing.
Tell you something, sonny, nobody is perfect. Not RMS, nor Ghandi or George Washington.
Remember the famous quote
"Judge not, lest thou be judged"
The way you ( and others like you ) judge RMS is EXACTLY the way others are judging you. The majority of the OSS people may disagree with RMS's stand on "GNU/Linux", but we DO respect what he has done, and we WILL NOT pick on that guy just for the fun of it.
If you are really somebody, show us your stuffs, and let the rest of us judge your worth.
Please stop picking on RMS.
Thank you !
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
He doesn't want to prepend it to everything. He understands the difference between the Linux kernel and the entire system, which he wants to be called GNU/Linux. And I don't mind the name GNU/Linux nor do some other people.
He's got his cause and he's fighting for it. Not that it in itself doesn't warrant mocking. But I still find it inspiring he is sticking to his guns.
But he wants people to licence software under the GPL, which allows what Caldera et al are proposing. As long as they supply the source code ...
It really offends me when people like RMS seem to work to defeat companies like Caldera and SuSE, who have done a great deal for the Linux community, by taking away their revenue stream. By providing me with a Linux distribution, they provide me a valuable service. Yes, I can roll my own if I want to, but the time and effort that a packaged distribution saves me is worth some money to me!
As long as UnitedLinux complies with the licences of its component parts, neither I nor RMS have any right to bitch about how much the distribution costs.
The comparison to Microsoft is invalid because there are competing distributions of various prices, from Slackware and Debian on the $0 end to RedHat and Mandrake on the pay end, whereas there is no competition to Windows. If the distribution is done right and works well, market competition will take care of "fair pricing."
Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.
Insightful, huh?
RMS says:
"[...] Free software developers, please don't let them license YOUR program per seat. Use the GNU GPL!"
The point RMS is making is that this use is NOT permitted under the GPL, so by using the GPL for your own software you are refusing!
Did you read the article? His statement is only 3 sentences, after all.
So, it looks like it might not be Microsoft that fights the GPL, but some other Linux related companies doing it for them, and saving MS money.
Ironic, really.
Get your own free personal location tracker
I cannot even fathom what the UnitedLinux group is thinking (or smoking, as the case may be). They want to compete with RedHat, so they decide to band together into some sort of great coalition that will give RH a run for their money. They forget that if people are given the choice of downloading something for free and paying support if they want, or paying for something and get support that they might not care for, they're going to choose the former. There isn't really all that much money (note: there is _some_, just not that much) you can make selling stuff which is freely downloadable from the web. There _is_ a lot of money in supporting all that stuff. UL apparently doesn't realize this, even though the four of them have been losing money on that same plan of "sell the software, not just the support". My prediction: RH and/or Debian will trash them (the UL consortium) in their own markets within 5 years. All it'll take is a single serious push to internationalize their (Deb, RH) distros and people everywhere will suddenly be confronted with paying or not paying - and we all know what the choice will be. -Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Tell you something, sonny, nobody is perfect. Not RMS, nor Ghandi or George Washington.
There's just something funny about comparing RMS to Ghandi or Washington.
:wq
One ring to rule them all. The (_O_) in Goatse.cx
> If you buy Caldera Linux, powered by UnitedLinux, you are free to copy, modify and distribute any of the GPL code that comes with it.
You are also free to run it as you like, including let several people access it. That makes a per-seat restriction in GNU GPL a breach of contract.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
I guess my thinking here is that the GPL should protect the GPL'd software just fine. If you get a copy of United Linux and want the GPL'd parts of it, you can just pull out those parts. You can get the source code if you like and do what you want with it. If they want to release proprietary parts of the system, that's their business decision to make.
If it is true that open source software is a better way of doing things, that it is more compelling, then this is a perfect test case for it. What will companies think about paying per-seat licensing and having to manage all the licensing nightmares associated with it when most of what they are buying is under the GPL? Will they look to a more open alternative? Will they even care?
RMS seems to be fundamentally afraid that all his claims about open source software are wrong. If it's as good as he claims, then why is he worrying about this. United Linux should get steam rolled by higher quality and cost-efficient software from other places.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Yep, I dumped Caldera for Red Hat when they pulled this per seat bullshit.
... I will have to give Debian a try.
All Red Hat has to do to blow the doors off so-called "UnitedLinux" is not go to a per seat license.
Scratch them off the list of distros other than Red Hat and Mandrake that I will try. Someday, though
RMS has proven yet again that he doesn't understand capitalism. That's fine, we wouldn't have all the wonderful software we have today if not for his strange ideas.
I have to say "SO WHAT?!?" to UnitedLinux per-seat licensing. As long as they are still forced to release any changes they make to the source code of any GPL'd application, which they are, then any contributions they make can still be picked up by Debian, RedHat, and other distributions. What does it matter, as long as the source is available?
And if they really CAN sell per-seat licensing to more than three people, which I doubt, more power to them. But if they don't at least offer a free binary distro in addition to the for-pay distro, nobody will be willing to try their distro out anyway. I would consider it near-untested if only their per-seat-paying customers were using it.
RMS needs to relax a little, and have faith in the GPL he wrote. No need to get all up in arms. Stupid people will go out of business. Software written by smart people will dominate the world. It's the Linux way.
include $sig;
1;
However if RedHat and Mandrake and Slack, don't avoid this. We will end up with a truly "united" linux.
Everyone will run Debian.
What he's saying is that if everyone would distribute their software under the GPL, this type of (partially) non-free distribution wouldn't be possible.
Well, all they need to do is make a proprietary installer (or any other required bit of software). Everything else could be GPLed and they would still be okay with their per-seat licensing.
That doesn't mean we should make it easier for 'em and not GPL our code.
Unless they add something vital to the workings of the system that make it LSB compatible and keep that closed source requiring you to use per-seat licensing for THEIR PROGRAMS.
I'm sure after being in the Linux bis for so long they aren't going to try to stop people from re-releasing GPL'd software, however they can and probably will stop them from releasing parts of their own software that is not GPL'd that sets them apart from the pack so to speak.
I am getting the feeling the issue here goes something like this:
As the creator/author/maintainer of WidgetApp which is licensed under the GPL, I want everyone to not only use the software freely but contribute to it.
However because United Linux has this per-seat cost scheme it appears that you pay for the pre-built binaries. While the source code is freely available for you to download and compile yourself even under the United Linux, it makes WidgetApp appear as if the creator/author/mainters of are getting paid for their development. A person buys the seat of United Linux and will automatically believe that a "piece of the pie" is going to all of the contributors. This is a bad thing and not what was intended with the GPL.
So while they are honoring the letter of the GPL(the source code must be available and is available) it seems to deny the spirit of making useful programs freely available to everyone.
This whole thing shows a loophole in the GPL which may never be closed. As long as United Linux offers source code for free they can charge per seat for binaries. People who don't want the appearance of being paid are now stuck because of the GPL(ie you can't deny United Linux access to the source any more than you can to you or me or Microsoft).
Beyond that as another poster pointed, good luck making this buisness model work. This seems to offer more headache and cost more money and will be hard to compete with Red Hat's service structure or Debian's pure free-ness.
Caldera have been going with 'per-seat licensing' for a while now. I never investigated further as I don't use Caldera.
However I do use Suse.
I'd guess the per-seat licensing is more to do with Service Contracts. Downloaded ISO's generally come with no support, this has been true for RH and Mandrake. Bought distros (like the Suse 8.0 Proffessional version I just recently acquired) come with limited installation support and after that - you're on your own.
Since the United Linux consortium are aiming squarely at Enterprise and commercial custom, they're talking about that sector of the market as it is more likely to be profitable. They are not really interested in the home user.
I'd guess more Corporations might take an interest in GNU/Linux if 'per-seat licensing' were in place as they'd have a support lifeline.
Businesses need to have a support agreement (even huge corporations with inhouse knowledge) no support contract or service agreement would leave them vulnerable to problems which might jeopardise continuity.
I'd seriously doubt they'd strangle the non-enterprise user, they'd have only small change to gain by forcing non-enterprise customers to pay non-seat and too much to loose as a lot of non-enterprise customers are the people who write most of their product.
I doubt very much GNU/LInux is the core product that brings their revenue. I'd guess their principle resource is the knowledge of their staff.
But then, that's true for any company.
From my Autobiography - "Lifestyles of the Sad and Desperate"...
All the GPL says is that if you distribute binaries containing GPL'd code, you must make the source code for those GPL'd binaries available under the GPL I am still free to distribute any binaries I created for a fee, as long as I give you the source under the GPL!
Additionally, a Linux distribution such as SuSE and others, may contain code that is licensed under proprietary licenses. These other applications such as installers, management software, config tools, and other value-added features may be licensed under whatever schema its creator sees fit. Such tools can be licensed on a per-seat basis if chosen.
If I buy a license for United Linux, I can take any GPL'd software distributed with United Linux and reuse the on 100,000 different machines without paying anyone for that useage.
I really don't see the problem here. I write GPL'd software. If my software were to be distributed with commercial software that was charged for under a different license I would not have a problem with this! Hell, it's part of the reason I chose to use GPL in the first place!
Free to use, free to modify, free to redistribute, and free to chage a fee for redistribution!!! RMS, what's the problem here? It is clear to me that if you don't want your work redistributed for a fee, you are using the wrong license!
It's the software which counts. People didn't
start using emacs and gcc because the license kept them from making proprietary derivatives. They use these programs because the license allows them to use the software for free. People use X11 all over the place, and (surprise!) it doesn't have a strictly GNU license.
The GNU license is ubiquitous, not because it is on high moral ground, but because it is easy boilerplate to slap on to software projects which noone expects to make money. Back in the day, the equivalent would be to just put some random disclaimer with a statement releasing the code to the public domain. Putting a GNU license on
something is equivalent to genuflecting at an altar. It's doesn't really require a lot of thought.
If linux had a BSDish license, RMS and GNU would be a footnote in free (as in beer) software history. It is not GNU which distinguishes Linux, it is Linux. Its own unique mix of features and hype marks it.
> The software economy would collapse, and
> hundreds of thousands of people in the US alone
> would be out of work.
Imagine a world where air, water, and sunlight were free. Imagine the economic nightmare. If water were free then all the bottled water producers, utility companies, canteen makers would go out of business. If air were free, all the air purification systems, air conditioners, perfume manufacturers would go out of business. If sunlight were free, all the lamp makers, light bulb makers, flashlight makers, and candle makers would go out of business.
Of course, this isn't what's happened, at least in my part of the world.
Why?
Because even free things need packaging, customization, integration, bugetting, and quality assurance and because it's free, the demand for things increase dramatically. Take water, for instance. If producing water were expensive, people would not need garden hoses because they would not be watering their lawns. They would certainly not use it in water engines and fire hydrants, water cooling jackets, water guns, fountains, and bath products because these things would be too expensive to be useful.
Personally I think that it is a much better name than mandrake, but the fact is that I use mandrake.
/. my website for me. We really do need more traffic.
The reason is not that debian's installer crashes on my laptop and mandrake's runs perfectly. It is not that debian still uses the 2.2 kernel. It is not the ease of hardware detection and software installation in mandrake.
It is the culmination of all these things. If debian would simply shape up and work on their installer, upgrade their kernel, and their hardware detection method I would switch. A completely GPL distrobution is extremely appealing, but ease of use it what it boils down to.
I use linux on all of my systems because it is the easiest form of unix, the easiest operating system on earth. VMS has funky commands, and we all know the problems with windos. Linux is the most logical system, and roadblocks like licensing fees may kill it.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that distro companies need to turn a profit, but most distros offer a more complete edition with proprietary software thrown in. I buy that software to support the company.
Proprietary licensing can and will kill gnu software.
Please
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
But, say (and this is reaching) the init program used by this OS is proprietary, not the GPL'd version. The whole OS falls apart, and/or has reduced value, if the proprietary init binary isn't run. The publisher is certainly within their rights to require per-seat licensing of said proprietary init binary.
To say otherwise, to claim that the GNU software can ONLY be run on all-GNU platforms, would require the removal of all GNU software from any 'un-pure' OS, and that's just NOT gonna happen anytime soon.
!While on the whole, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but please pardon me for pointing out that WITHOUT the GNU Project, that wouldn't be "Freedom in Software".!
Which is more important:
a) to have free software and free Operating System.
b) to give GNU-project free publicity and recognition
I believe that point a) is more important. ALOT more important. RMS should be grateful that with Linux, we have free Operating System. Instead of really caring for free software, all he seems to care about is the fame and glory of the GNU-project (which has gotten alot more publicity, thanks to Linux).
Yes, GNU-software is important part of a Linux-distro. So what? The fact still is that we now have a free OS. Why does it matter to RMS if it's not called GNU/Linux, if it fulfills the goal of FSF and RMS? Because RMS is so fanatic when it comes to the naming-thingy, it seems that it never was about free software, it was about glory and fame for the GNU-project, and he just used free software as a tool to get that fame. We have now free software and OS, RMS should be happy. He's not. He's annoyed because his project didn't get all the fame and glory.
If it really were about free software, RMS should be extatic that we now have a complete free OS. He's not.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Because the BSDs use the BSD user-land. Most have a few tools from the GNU project, but essentially the userland is the BSD core and BSD will work without any of the GNU tools being installed at all.
It's that simple. Take the GNU operating system. Add the Linux kernel (because the GNU kernel, HURD, wasn't ready when Linux was written). What do you have?
If you're a Slashdot AC troll, GNU + Linux = Linux. If you're RMS, Deborah or Ian, me, or half a dozen other people who feel that credit should be given where credit is due, it's GNU/Linux. BSD is BSD, it isn't GNU + anything, therefore it doesn't have GNU in the title.
It would be perfectly possible, incidentally, to create a BSD/Linux, which uses the BSD Init (no, Slackware's is not the same thing), uses the BSD Login and getty routines, logins boot into ASH or KSH, etc. I wish someone would, the Linux kernel has so much support, and the BSD userland is just so logical and pleasant to use.
(Incidentally, how long before this gets modded down? Every time I post anything remotely of the "RMS is not an eye-swivelling loony" variety I get modded down. It's very disheartening, and a somewhat ludicrious position when agreeing with the person who has done more for the free software community than any other living person (not to mention, though he'd hate it being said, the open source community too), is opening yourself up to accusations of trolling and flamebaiting.)
KMSMA (WWBD?)
Yes, insightful. Regardless of the perpetuation of the RMS misquote from the article summary, the actual content of the message is still somewhat relevant. There seem to be a number of people who understand the situation (RMS is pushing the GPL, as typical; UL is presumably only doing the per-seat license on the parts of the distribution they develop from scratch) who are still upset because they feel it's exploiting a loophole in the GPL to build a semi-proprietary gestalt off of free components.
The comment you responded to essentially points out that this is one of the few cases where the GPL could be seen as having a similar degree of commercial exploitability as the BSD license. The BSD camp is used to accepting this issue in their quest for freedom of the end user, but it's just odd seeing it with the GPL camp and their quest for freedom of the code.
he seems to suffer from the Slashbot notion that developers who use a BSD license, for instance, are too stupid to realize they're allowing their code to be relicensed
As a user of the BSD license, I wondered if Ransom could relicense my code under a per-seat license. The obvious answer is "yes". The not so obvious answer is "yes, but so what?"
No matter what Ransom does to my code, my copy and my users' copies will still be free. Nothing he can do can alter my cvs repository. Furthermore, the users of Ransom's per-seat version are still going to know that there's a free version out there. That's because Ransom can't remove my copyright or permission notices.
But what if Ransom makes a derivative of my code and licenses that per-seat? The answer is where RMS and the BSD advocates part ways: code that I didn't write does not belong to me. His derivative bits are not mine and I have no ethical claim over them. His version is not my version. If RMS is correct in saying that "software should not be owned", then derivative software should be owned even less.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Not true. Section 6 of the GPL states:
My ability to redistribute GPL'd code is granted by the original licensor, not the guy who I happened to get it from. They guy who I happened to get it from doesn't have the right to impose any additional restrictions, like per-seat licensing.
Also, section 3 says:
So this means that I have these rights whether I decide to re-release the binary or the source code form of the program. I just have to make sure that if I re-release the binary form, I also make available the source code. But I'm not restricted from re-releasing a binary. Which means, per-seat licensing restrictions are a violation of the GPL.
But, IANAL, so I may have an overly simplistic interpretation. It seems pretty clear to me, though.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Remember, you can sell GPL software, but you must make the source code available. You can sell it under any terms you like; YOU produced the binaries. However, you can do as you like with the source.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"