Slashdot Mirror
Is UnitedLinux Violating The GPL?
mmayberry writes "NewsForge has posted an article, UnitedLinux might not be very GPL-friendly. With a closed beta that includes an NDA, UL may be on the verge of angering a large part of their target market. You'd think that the likes of Suse, Turbo, SCO, and Conectiva would get the point by now..."
What is the best way to NOT gain ground and support in the open source community??
How bout violating the GPL. Duh.
...It's not that surprising.
SuSE are not exactly huge supporters of the GPL, what with a non-Free installer and configuration tools.
Wasn't Ransom Love bashing the GPL a few years ago, while at Caldera and saying that the BSD license is better?
Violating the GPL is like using antibiotics on a open wound. It helps to keep the virus at bay, but doesn't kill it.
Leave your knee-jerk reactions at home for now, people. The FSF is on the case. Don't get all up in arms unless the FSF determines there is an actual problem.
:-)
On the other hand, this Register story paints the upper brass at UL as clueless retards. But the Register always does that.
Many of these companies are obviously violating the GPL, but exactly who is going to prosecute them? And if no one can effectively prosecute them, then what strength does the GPL really have? This is something I have never really understood. Anyone care to elaborate?
www.enthea.org
The Linux community is pretty fickle. Seriously, with the number of licenses, distrobutions, holy-wars, does it surprise anyone that people are getting grumpy? There are just a lot of grumpy people, and seems a lot of them have a passion for Linux. :)
I figured at some point someone's toes would get stepped on.
- Sighuh?
That doesnt sound too good if they have violated it.. I believe Lindows made the same mistake, as did Corel..
I'm amazed that they would pull this. Their competitors have undoubtably contributed to some of the GPL software that is covered by the NDA.
What incentive does a company like say Red Hat have to not enforce the GPL death penalty, which says if you violate the GPL, your licence is revoked (GPL, section 4 sentance 2).
Well... so much for trying to set standards... Grrr...
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
I'm no GPL expert, or anything..
But from what I understand, you release the source code WITH the product, period. Maybe you can release it but make it simply available elsewhere but I dunno..
Wouldn't an NDA be a VERY clear violation?
I know the GPL question with UL has come up before, and I don't remember what the answer(s) was(were).
What's going on here?
P.S. - The "Line-ux" REALLY makes me wonder...
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
Ransom Love, the once head of Caldera, claimed he was stepping down from Caldera to head up UL.
However, he has since disappeared from the scene. UL claims he never worked for them and has hired someone from "outside" for the position he was after.
While heading Caldera, now the SCO Group, he had a great deal of input on the direction of UL.
Maybe, with his non-involvement, this can get sorted out properly.
UL also stated they will be using SuSE as a base distro and YAST2 as the installer, with contributions from the others adding on.
Also, both RedHat and Mandrake are set to release new versions any day now. And RedHat's Advanced Server is selling better than expected, with a reported 8,000 units sold so far.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
...that this very type of behaviour might drive lotsa folks to use Red Hat Linux, the very distro that UL is supposed to be countering.
Yet you took the time to reply :D
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
Don't use it.
sulli
RTFJ.
and yet you took the time to reply to one of the articles you "immediately skip over". interesting.
Not meaning too troll or anything, but...
The GPL states that you must make the Source Code freely avilible to your customers...
So if it's a closed beta only the people who recieve that beta have right to that source... and anyway, all the programmes are available on the internet (freshmeat) and as part of other distro's...!
Speellling is mi graetest good ting!
Moderation: +4. Modded 70% Funny and 30% Overrated. 100% Saturated.
If my reading of the GPL is correct. GPL and LGPL require the Source code to be free not the Binaries or the Distributions. Therefore UnitedLinux can provide the Source code for their product but they are not required to have a freely downloadable Binary.
Remember GPL is about Freedom and I think a company should be able to add to the source and share the source without having to give their software binaries away to anybody. IMHO.
this 'there should be no owner of the software' hype is stupid. how often has one tried to e.g. take the code of an active maintained project and making a derivate out of it and then the maintainer or programmer came up and pissed the person off who derivated his code. i think GPL is nothing else than a hype. people should be able to better protect their software.
my expirience from all the years is that no one really cared for GPL or ever have read it or understood it. people start to care as soon as someone is comming and ripping their stuff up. look at the REDHAT KDE conversation. regarding to the GPL redhat had the right but the KDE people came along and were really pissed off.
helping make software better and contributing to sourcecode is a good idea. but people should keep the full right of the source. they should be able to declare that others should not derivate or ripp parts of the code. (i know the sideeffects of that from code beeing duplicated) but please also think about all these companies that see all these opensource programmers as a god given present. all these FREE workers. thats sad.
Many Linux distributions first see light of day as closed betas. For example, the Xandros betas have been available to only a small number of people, all of whom have signed NDAs.
As I see it, a closed beta is not a public release, and therefore not violating the GPL in any way.
In these situations, making the full source available would not help anybody (1. slower development due to extra hassle, 2. most code is available from original sources anyway, 3. modified code will be in a state of unstable flux). At the point of full release, well, that's a different matter.
I agree with this post.
these guys are making redhat's look good.
and debian look like heaven
...I saw all the torches and hayforks. Is this the Frankenstein lynching party or is that one two villages over?
the GPL is just another EULA, its up to who ever created the software to sue. If they are lucky they could get some support from the free software community, but 99% of GPL software is written by people in their free time who don't have the money to sue, the thing about it is, is that most GPL software is free and as such there is no loss of money if someone steals your code, I think the most you can get is the software that uses the code to open the src that uses the gpl code, but IANAL
Being a public release or not is irrelevant.
If it is distributed, it MUST be distributed under the terms of the GPL.
RedHat has been handing these guys their hats for years now, and they still don't get it. It's the developers and the systems administrators that get Linux in the door, and likewise it is the developers and systems administrators that end up picking the distribution that gets deployed when the suits finally get the go-ahead. This is actually good news for distributions like SuSE, or Connectivain that if management makes the decision you can bet that they are going with RedHat, because they are perceived as the front-runner.
SuSE, SCO, Turbo, and Connectiva have to have made this connection by this point. After all, SuSE and SCO have had distributions that were as good or better than RedHat since the earliest days of RedHat's existence. Yet RedHat consistently has grown their market share and nabbed the big customers while the rest have struggled. The reason for RedHat's success is simple, they release their code under the GPL, and they actively court developers and systems administrators. Not that RedHat is neglecting CIOs. I am sure they are schmoozing the heck out of those guys too, but they realize that Freedom is an important selling point for Linux.
Think about it for a moment. As a developer or systems administrator which distribution would you rather deploy? Would you deply the distribution with FTP access to their emerging beta version or the distribution that requires you to sign an NDA before they will send you the binary-only CD? The choice for anyone that has ever banged his head against some piece of black-box software is obvious. Even CIOs are starting to get this.
Yes, releasing a closed-beta seems to be in violation of the GPL, but how else would you do it? If you created some software, and you wanted to just give it to a few select people for evaluation, you couldn't do it under the GPL. Distribution is distribution, and you must allow them to re-distribute it. This seems like a flaw to me. This assumes, of course, that you are planning to "officially" release it at a later date under full compliance of the GPL. Hmm, anyone have an answer to this?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
That said, I'm sure when they do get to tackle the large nasty infringer, they'll take 'em to the fsckin' cleaners . And I'll be cheering! :-)
Has anyone been able to find a user who has this distribution.
Perhaps the FSF can get the terms from them
BMK: RMS! The GPL software alarm! Someone somewhere is releasing GPL'ed software under a non-GPL compatible NDA!
RMS: I might have guessed.. my arch nemesis the greedy capitalist Ransom Love, now using the power of his UnitedLinux alliance. Quick, Bradley, to the GNU-mobile!
RMS: So, Ransom Love, still up to your old tricks eh? And still using names for products that dont properly reflect the GNU project's contribution as well!
RL: Theres nothing you can do this time, Stallman! I'm releasing this beta and theres nothing you can do to stop me!!
RMS: Not so fast, Love. You didnt reckon with my MAGIC BEARD!
RL: OH NO!!!!
**** ZAP ****
BK: Well, RMS, we certainly stopped that evil Ransom Love.
RMS: Yes Bradley, for the time being the world is safe again from the evil of Proprietory Software. But who knows when software hoarders will attack next?
Meanwhile, in the ruins of the UnitedLinux HQ..
RL: It's not over yet! I'll get you next time Stallman, next time!!!!
were you expecting to see a sig here? perhaps you'd rather see the inside of an ambulance!
NDAs generally prevent you from talking to people OUTSIDE a beta group about the product. Little prevents you from talking to others in the group about it.
The GPL guarantees copyleft to the "community" and availability of source to customers. As long as the beta members can get the source are free to share their changes to the source with other members of the beta group, they've maintained these rights, NDA or no. And UL doesn't have to worry about supporting a thousand different takes on a hundred different betas -- or about unfair reviews based on "stolen," partially working prereleases of their distro.
I've read the GPL a couple times, and have never gotten the perception that it prevented a company from preserving its right to sell a product and not offer Joe Q. Hacker full rights to recompile the source. As long as actual customers have rights to source, and a forum for sharing updates, I think there can be "closed" projects that maintain the GPL.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
- SCO. Formerly "Caldera," the one Linux company who released
their distribution as crippleware as they tried to compete with dozens of
other vendors who gave their distros away for Free. You can see where this
is heading. Caldera is run by a bunch of Ivy League suits who think that
the old fashioned business ideas of monopoly, per-seat licensing games, and
control over the source code can easily be used to sell a Linux
distribution. SCO has an abundance of clue, but unfortunately it all left
the company when they laid off the Unixware developers.
- TurboLinux. Are they even still alive? I have many friends who
are Linux geniuses (one of them is the president of the local LUG) and none
of them know anybody who runs TurboLinux, much less pays for it. The
simplistic reasoning behind this is that if somebody wants to run RedHat
3.0, they will just download a copy of RedHat 3.0, instead of buying
it from TurboLinux.
- Connectiva. This is another pointless Linux distribution. The
one advantage that Connectiva has is that their VCs did not wise up as
quickly as other VCs did, to the fact that they produce nothing of value.
Everything that Connectiva offers is done better by some other
distribution.
- SuSE. The distribution that prides itself on a half-baked,
closed-source installer and too many installation CDs to count is also a
distribution that has no future. Mandrake has usurped the European market
and most other potential SuSE users, simply by virtue of being a better
distribution. SuSE once earned a bright yellow star in my book for funding
so much research and Linux development projects, but nowadays the only such
project they have left is ReiserFS and that is so unstable that even Gentoo
(!) recommends against its use.
Now, now that we can see that every company that is a major part of UnitedLinux is doomed, let's take a look at the other stumbling blocks that they will face before they each go bankrupt:- UnitedLinux aims to make money off the backs of the best
developers. The UnitedLinux coalition, unable to cobble together a
decent distribution of their own, fully intends to pilfer the best features
of Debian, RedHat, Mandrake, and Gentoo Linuces, and then add a tiny bit of
closed-source software to make their distro difficult to copy legally.
This is unethical and violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the GPL.
- UnitedLinux lacks a good package manager. As a so-called
"cracker," package management is *the* most important thing I consider when
I choose a distribution. Debian has dpkg/apt (which is excellent, if you
are lazy enough to use binaries). FreeBSD and Gentoo have their superior
ports trees, which make bug fixes a cinch. And Mandrake has its own
proprietary system, which is also great. UL has none of the three, and
will rely on the outdated and frequently annoying RPM system. Shame on
them.
- UnitedLinux has no business support. Businesses prefer to get
things for free instead of paying for them, so it is no wonder why my
company tells us to head to linuxiso.org instead of UL when we need a new
Linux CD.
In summary: I will not be sad to see UnitedLinux die. It is a terrible idea whose day of reckoning has arrived.Should we care about this right now? They are working on getting a good product ready. If they ship a product and don't give access to the source then we should get upset. Maybe everyone should chill on this and just be happy that people are working on a standard Linux base.
these guys don't give a FUCK about the "community".... and guess what.... they don't need to. If they *barely* comply with the GPL and the community hates them,..... who cares? They get your software anyway. And even if they don't comply with the GPL, who is going to sue them? I find it comical the the linux "community" feels that its "support and trust" are so vital to a Linux company. To be honest, it doesnt mean shit. And they know it. You support doesnt generate revenue. Selling software does. Now, this is not to say that what they are doing is right. I don't believe it is. But until the GPL can be strongly held up in court as a legitamately enforcable license.... all the community support doesnt mean shit.
He linked to the Register's mirror of the exact same article the story links to!
Look,
Anyone commenting "Those bastards shouldn't violate the GPL!!!!" need to read the article, and if they have, they need to get their critical thinking caps on and RE-read the article. For all of you who just skim over the comments before making your own (I know you're out there), Here's a brief synopsis:
our "heroes" (the writers of this rather elitist sounding article) were concerned about the closed beta testing that went on, and asked how they "got away" with it w/o violating the GPL. UL said something non-commital, which the article attempted to paint as evil, and included a letter from the FSF asking to SEE the NDA that beta testers had to sign.
THAT'S IT!! There is NO PROOF OF ANYTHING. TO my mind, this is just a giant FUD (yep, I said it) to drum up anti-UL sentiment. The UL people didn't say anything bad during the conference call, as far as I can tell, but the tone of the article is set up to riducle and shame the UL project for anything it said out of line. (see the crack about "line-ux"...
So maybe I'm over-reacting - but on the other hand, just cause you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
just my $.02
hmmmm?
Actually, you can sue for what would be a resonable ammount for you to charge for an alternate license. That is, you can license your code under the GPL, but if soneone doesn't want to be bound by it, they can negotiate a seperate license with you (i.e., if they wanted to keep their changes proprietary). Therefore, you could sue for what you would charge for this alternate license, plus treble damages.
We don't know whether any actual violation has taken place. However ...
No Linux distribution can do anything without the C library, which is owned by the FSF; they would have grounds to shut down UnitedLinux totally if, in fact, UL has violated the LGPL. All they have to do is invoke the clause saying that a violator permanantly forfeits rights to distribute the work in question. Without the right to distribute glibc, you can't ship a Linux distribution (unless you want to write your own C library from scratch or try to port one of the BSD C libraries).
opensource is a fucking hype GPL and LGPL are too. as some of the other writers said. you can't sue these companies. if you start to sue them for every violation then at the final end FSF will loose a shitload of money for the lawyer etc. so who the fuck cares as soon as you start releasing for free others come up and rip your shit.
UtedLinux held a telephone party today t' annouss new genehal manageh Paula Hunteh 'n talk bou' its open beta release. Lots of curious dgournalists showebuhd up. De kesshun-askehs all had a cynical air bou' dem, 'n yet UtedLinux bigwigs didn't seem surprisid by de grilligg. De undehlyigg kesshun still: what will UtedLinux mean in de big picture dat is Linux bidness, duh...uh...? Our kesshun: what bou' de GPL, duh...uh...? (Also inside, uh uh uh, an open letteh t' de UtedLinux group from de FSF.)
.orgs dat habe endorsid de group, c'posid of Turbolinux, SCO, SuSE, 'n Coneckiba. Uhhh....Pundits habe suggestid dat Linux Innernashunal 'n de Free Standards Group may habe eben signid NDAs demselbes.
De UtedLinux peoble shieldid Hunteh from habigg t' answebuhr any technical kesshuns bou' Linux (or Line-Ux as the, errr, confehess call coordinator pronoussd it), when someone askid dgust duh, how much expehiess she's had wid Linux 'n Free Soffware anyway. Um uh.Some dought it obb dat Ransom Lobe is no longeh in de picture eideh at SCO or UtedLinux (Paula didn't real habe an answebuhr f' dat eideh.)
And dehe was talk from some dgournalists bou' de possibiltiby of the, ERRRR, seprit Linux c'panies dat make up UtedLinux sip mehgigg t' f'm one gigannic Linux behemod dat cudd be de unstoppaggle Goliad all corporate guys lust affeh. Duh.UL battid its eyelashes at dat suggesshun, not willigg t' play kiss 'n tell dgust yet.
But what webuh at NewsF'ge real wantid to know was duh, how UtedLinux is plannigg t' stay true t' de heart of Linux -- de GNU Genehal Public License. Nobody else seemid innerested, uh uh uh uh, so webuh askid how UL managid to release a closid beta 'n still c'p wid the, duh uhh, tehms of de GPL.
Duh. UtedLinux admittid it had its partnehs sign a non-disclosure agreemin in ordeh t' use the, errr, closid beta, which like means dat UL biolatid the, errr, copyrite of kehnel debelopehs ebehywhehe 'n odehs who habe contribootid t' GNU/Linux. If de NDA was struckurid so dat de GPL wudd take precedess on non-propriet, Free Soffware elemins of the, ERRRR, soffware, den dat NDA wudd not biolate the, duh uhh, tehms of de GPL. It is more like, duh, howebeh, dat de NDA skashid de GPLid freedoms by f'cigg recipients of the, errr, closid beta t' agree dat dey wudd not redistriboot any porshun of the, ERRRR, soffware.
Brabbley Kuhn, executibe direckor of de Free Soffware Foundashun, was also on the, errr, confehess call, 'n he askid de UtedLinux hosts if dey wudd be willigg, as a show of solidarity wid de Free Soffware 'n Open Suhce commuties, duuhhhh, t' open up deir NDA t' inspeckshun in ordeh t' show dat dey did c'p wid the, duh uhh, tehms of de GPL. Dey said dey'd take dat undeh adbisemin. Uhhh....But I wuddn't hold my bread.
Kuhn follid up his phone kesshun wid dis open letteh, sent today t' all membehs of UtedLinux:
Dear UtedLinux Board of Managehs, duuhhhh,
On the, errr, confehess call annoussmin dat occurrid on 18 Septembeh 2002, you indicatid dat you'd be willigg t' release t' de Free Soffware commuty the, duh uhh, tehms dat of your "closid beta" NDA, t' show dat your closid beta was indeid distribootid in c'pliass wid the, duh uhh, tehms of de GNU Genehal Public License 'n de GNU Lesseh Genehal Public License.
As you know, uh uh uh uh uh uh, distribushun of any type is still distribushun undeh copyrite law, uh uh uh uh uh uh, 'n dud rekires dat you propeh c'p wid tehms of GPL 'n LGPL. Of cusse, uh uh uh, it is your prehogatibe t' distriboot on to dose parties you wish t' receibe a copy, but you may not restrict dose parties' rites undeh GNU GPL 'n LGPL.
Duh, howebeh, siss near all of de bolunteehs from de Free Soffware commuty (your fellow debelopehs) did not receibe a copy of the, ERRRR, so-callid "closid beta", webuh ask dat in a show of good faid, you make abailaggle at least the, duh uhh, tehms of distribushun you usid f' dat produck. GEE danks.
Eben as you release your new produck t' de public, de past situashun must be clarified. Not on does the, errr, commuty desehbe t' know, uh uh uh uh uh uh, but I also beliebe it behoobes you t' put t' rest 'n clarify de legal ambiguities dat arise natural from doigg a "closid beta" of GPL'id soffware.
I look f'erd t' your pr'pt reponse, uh uh uh, 'n dank you f' takigg my kesshun today. I presume dat you are ackigg in full c'pliass wid GPL; dis is dgust a matteh of clarifigg dat fack f' the, errr, commuty.
Sissere, Brabbley M. Kuhn
Executibe Direckor, Free Soffware Foundashun
Odeh so-callid Linux adbocates don't seem t' be too cossernid bou' the, errr, closid tendencies showigg up in UtedLinux: Linux Innernashunal 'n de Free Standards Group are two
So what's de big deal, duh...uh...? UtedLinux is goigg t' put a public beta online in de next weebuhk or so, 'n the, ERRRR, source code will be inclubed f' free (eben dough it doesn't habe t' be free). UL will on charge f' commehcial use. But will dey inclube the, ERRRR, source on dat, duh...uh...? And will dehe be anodeh NDA t' sign, duh...uh...? Dat's de big deal: Is UtedLinux down wid de idea behind soffware libre, uh uh uh, or are dey dgust tryigg t' become a Rid Hat killeh 'n Linux oligopo in ordeh t' make some fast bucks, duh...uh...? Afteh all, Turbolinux, SCO, SuSE 'n Coneckiba habe not been known as staunch Free Soffware adhehents -- unlike two odeh commehcial distros: Mandrake 'n Rid Hat, GEEEHEEHEEE.
Alittle more openness, duuhhhh, alittle more commucashuns, duuhhhh, 'n maybe a peek at de NDA wudd go a long way in debelopigg trust in the, errr, commuty which has so genehous probidid to UL years of hard work on de Linux kehnel 'n odeh Free Soffware.
The GPL gives you the right to distribute the source and binary to anyone YOU choose, and does not allow anyone to restrict you from doing so.
If the NDA does not permit them to use the GPL redistribution clause, then they were not provided with the software under the terms of the GPL and hence UnitedLinux was distributed illegally, in violation of copyright law.
With their general history, im suprised they just didnt go for *bsd and make it 100% commercial.. they still may before its all over..
Much like lindows is doing as a side note..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
This really annoys me. You people bitch and bitch about GPL violations... "You use this library and didn't GPL your code!" Heh... I understand that it's worth it much of the time, such as when they're putting out distributions, but this kills much of the potential of people and corporations doing things for linux.
Such an example would be drivers... companies don't wanna give out drivers because it'll give away their secrets an such. Just let them violate the GPL on such things.. everyone wins. Linux people get to stop bitching about lack of drivers for the product, the company can sell more of the product since it's supported on yet another OS. Sure, it may be some what unstable since the community can't review it, but at least it'll be in existance. Heh..
Personally, if there was something I would make but didn't wanna give the source out to, I'd make it and release it binary only. If I got bitched at for not providing source, just remove it completely, hurting all the people who're using it.
-DrkShadow
Why have proof or anything like that.
If they haven't modified anything GPL, then they CAN'T violate the GPL.
If the basis of the distro is security and configuration scripts slapped around the outside of the normal kernel, then there is nothing to fear.
And since this was my understanding of what the distro was supposed to be, they can't be violating the GPL. If they give you a piece of GPL'ed software, they can't keep you from distributing it.
They can keep you, with an NDA from distributing their distribution, with all the proprietary products slapped around it. They can keep you from spilling the beans as to exactly what little tools they have produced.
This is not to say they havn't, but the simple fact of an NDA and a closed beta doesn't even begin to smell of a GPL violation when you take into account what you already know of the companies involved, and what they have already stated their goals to be.
But lets accuse 'em anyway, just cause we already hate 'em. We can always apologize later, and claim absence of malice.
Its kind of funny that the largest thread on the discussion board is the proper pronunciation of Linux.
Since this is a pre-beta, can the software be considered released?
If you can consider it released, clearly they are in the wrong, but if the company wants some extra eyes to overlook their bug-laden code, what do they do?
Can they not release it, yet distribute it to developers they can trust as to not spill the beans to their competition?
What sort of arrangement must be made to be considered an "inside" developer?
Perhaps I'm simply not ready to burn UL since I haven't heard any FSF / GNU statements demonizing this action.
The intro to the article sets the tone for big business bashing, and the allusions to removed executives and emphasis on mis-pronunciation only create a literary atmosphere of distrust.
Which brings me to my only useful question. Why are we reporting about a "May be" on NewsForge? If we can get a "They violated X" that's real news!
+5 Informative since the /bots can't see their own behavior even when it smacks them in the face
They won't let you post an ISO, that's just the same as the OpenBSD guys copyrighting it, rather then putting it out under the BSD license...
It's just like RedHat saying you can't redistribute a RedHat ISO as a RedHat CD. That's not a GPL violation, you are violating their trademark.
The only way they it can be a GPL violation is they don't let you send out the source code to anybody you want to. That's the only piece the GPL applied to. If the NDA says you can't send either the ISO's or the binaries, they are in the clear to the best of my IANAL knowledge.
Kirby
JEWNITED JEWNUX
did n't random comment on slashdot at one point that the GPL was restrictive that he was hoping to move the verison to mpl? or something along those lines.
OK, the usual crowd of ininformed slashdotters has spoken. Let's get some facts in here, and raise the clue level:
1) I an a UnixWare developer. Obviously, we're not all laid off, but some of our good friends and coworkers were tossed out
2) Please indicate, concretely, where UL violates the GPL
3) Newsforge is the only FUD-distributor that uses extortion to get details: "tell, or we'll print misinformation". Really, people. With the same intensitity that you mistrust anything but the One Pure (RedHat|Debian), verify your other sources
4) Ransom never put down hte GPL; he said it was great for development but had no business case
5) SCO-formerly-Caldera was formerly SCO, and is well-known in the retail industry. Again, check your facts, and check under the hood of the places you're buying your junk food and brand-label-knockoffs. We just don't advertise. With the hatred of popups, you'd think this was a good thing in this community
6) for the record, I call it "Linux", not "FNU/Linux" nor "GNU/Apache/X/Linux", since, although all these tools and more are part of Linux, Linux is Linux is Linux. Thanks for the work thus far in what you have contributed to LINUX.
Of course you're going to frag my comments, go ahead. You might want to include some factual arguments.
The non-factual FUD shouting here is only one step above "woo hoo! first post!"
The signs are everywhere: linux is dying. All the linux distros are going out of business. The kernel still doesn't have a stable VM and robust filesystem, even after years of lying about how stable it is and how ext2fs is safe. All the developers and users are wising up and switching to FreeBSD. Now not even GPL is sacred.
So it's under an NDA and includes GPL'ed stuff. And stuff that's unique to United Linux. The GPL'ed stuff is still as GPL'ed as ever, and the beta-testers can take that and it's as free as before. It's just the bits that are United Linux specific that are currently NDA'd. Whether this is software or just the arrangement of GPL'd stuff, well I dunno. (Can you copyright an arrangement of purely GPL'd code???????)
Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
IANAL, not even american so take my understanding of US law with a ton of salt, but it sounds like there'd be grounds for a class action suit, the class being all the copyright contributors to the infringed code. If you don't care about the personal benefit you might recieve, I suppose you could give the copyright to FSF or something similar to let them do the job, but they might be willing to take your case on your behalf (as long as you're defending free software) anyway...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I've read the GPL a couple times, and have never gotten the perception that it prevented a company from preserving its right to sell a product and not offer Joe Q. Hacker full rights to recompile the source.
If a company reuses GPLed software written by others, there is no such right in the first place, so it cannot be preserved. The GPL is very clear on this:
"To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."
"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush
YAST the knights that say YAST. If there is one word that seems to piss off debian users more than anything its YAST. Source code for YAST is on the cds.
The real sad thing is that UL will use Yast (a closed software) as the instalation tool. In the long term, it might hurt their costumers that would think they have a free software OS. The same problem of SuSE, and the reason why RMS loathes them.
As near as I've been told, if I make GPL software, and I sell it to someone, only the people who buy the software from me are entitled to the source code, right? Just because I work hard to make something to sell doesn't mean I'm forced to give it away to clueless retards who whine "GPL GPL GPL!!!!" and stamp their foot.
How is this really any different from joe schmoe creating his own distro and passing it off to a few friends to test out before he announces it to the public. Answer: It's on a larger scale, and it isn't. Seriously... it's a freakin beta folks. They want to test it, and I'm sure they have a ton of beta testers with specific hardware and setups that they need. Sure, releasing it to the general computing public may be better, but they're probably not ready for that yet. So I'd back off and wait. And second... stop bashing SUSE folks. The source for their installer is available. You can use it. People like it. People use it. It isn't the largest distro in europe without reason. So uh, there.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I am not a lawyer, so what follows is 100% fictional, and bears no resemblence to anything:
A lot of people seem to think that if you edit a GPLed program, you have to give away the source code. WRONG!
You do not have to give it away at all, but if you distribute a binary you must make the source code available to everybody that you make the binary available to.
So, say I edit a GPLed program, and give a copy of the source code to my friend. Now, say you ask me for a copy, the GPL says I have to give you a copy, right?
WRONG! It says no such thing.
So, you ask my friend for a copy, he has to give you a copy, right?
WRONG! If we both want to, we don't have to give a copy to anybody else.
However, what I am not permitted to do under the GPL, is to prevent my friend from giving a copy to you, or to then prevent you from further distributing it.
You'd think that the likes of Suse, Turbo, SCO, and Conectiva would get the point by now...
The others, maybe, but SCO is probably hopeless. They're also the ones who introduced per-seat licensing. Also, the fact that, given a chance to choose the Caldera name or the SCO name, they went with SCO, was a very bad sign.
I thought that UnitedLinux was an interesting concept until I saw SCO was involved - my interest level went way down at that point.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
...but nowadays the only such project they have left is ReiserFS and that is so unstable that even Gentoo (!) recommends against its use.
Is it generally accepted that there are problems with ReiserFS? I don't *think* I've had any problems with it...
So...what actually could fall under the NDA that is not GPLed?
File locations? Config files? Any code that UL has added on.
So what if the beta people get gcc, the kernel and bash and redistribute that or get the source code - probably the same from the gnu site.
Nothing lost to UL. But one should not assume that EVERYTHING on the system is GPL'ed. Perhaps UL has written some uber-cool init scripts that aren't GPL'ed.
It doesn't sound like UL is even giving them that much leeway though, but it does make for an easy out for UL.
If the NDA is only related to some proprietary add-on software (like SuSE Yast2), or more generally to the way in which the distribution is assembled, it is not (IMO) a violation. It may be a stupid move, but not illegal.
This is, I think, why FSF asked UL to disclose the terms of the NDA.
Ciao
----
FB
Can anybody here tell me what the difference is between the GPL and a EULA? It seems to me that both are very similar. In fact I find it somewhat amusing how people on /. claim EULAs are null and void yet do not realize that if EULAs are null and void that most likely means that the GPL license distributed with an OpenSource app is likely null and void.
1) You download app and uncompress
2) The app has an agreement which nobody ever reads (at least the EULA makes you click through it)
Really what is the difference between the two? It seems to me that they are one and the same. This of course means that neither will stand up in a court of law. AFAIK the GPL has never actually been tested in court, since I believe all cases involving GPL violations have been settled out of court. Can anybody provide any examples of the GPL and/or EULAs being tested and determined to be legally binding in a court of law?
J
I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Seeing that companies such as Turbo, SUSE, SCO, and Connectiva, have decided to focus on Enterprise only, their target market would be more than happy to purchase United Linux vs Mandrake since it has support, its closed, and non gpled which means the software maker will get its fair share of revenue....
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As the first person who ever took legal action against somebody who wanted to violate a GPL (back in 1989) I can definitively say: The GPL Copyright holder is the one who has standing to seek legal action against the party they suspect is violating the GPL.
I.e., somewhere in your GPL / LGPL there is a:
The name, or somebody to who they have signed over the copyright to, is the one who has standing to bring suit against a potential violator.
chongo (was here)
Corporations are legal entities, so distributing within a corporation is "private use", which the GPL explicitly exempts, since all the various copies of the code within the company are all licensed to the company, not the individual employees. I don't believe the FSF disagrees with this interpretation.
What's at issue here is whether distributing a beta to non-employees under NDA can count as private use, which it probably can't.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
If you take the FSF's definition of freedom as applied to software -- the ability to relatively easily modify a program through access to the original source code (and a license that permits you to make such modifications and distribute them), then your analysis is correct. If you take a more libertarian view of softare freedom -- the ability to do whatever the hell you want to the software -- then requiring one to distribute source code when one prefers not to is actually restricting freedom.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Upon some further thought, I'd consider the FSF's position on software freedom a kind of utilitarian compromise position. For the individual, being able to do whatever one wants with software -- modifying it, distributing it with source code, distributing it without source code, etc. -- is the highest level of freedom. However, permitting this can potentially restrict the freedom of others, as if this individual exercises his freedom to distribute modified binaries without source code, he makes it much more difficult for others to exercise their freedom to modify the code (in the absence of legal restraints they can still do so, by disassembling the binary for example, but it makes it significantly more difficult). Thus the individual's freedom is limited by requiring that he distribute source code whenever he distributes a modified binary in order to make it significantly easier for the everyone else to exercise their freedoms. All things considered, I see this as a relatively good trade-off.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm a little confused about why they'd need an NDA at all. I can see a closed beta (it's probably a hassle dealing with the user community that pop's up around open betas), but given how simular most linux distros turn out after the install, what's it matter if their testers talk about it? What's could possibly be in there that they don't want disclosed untill after the beta?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
So, they are probably not violating the GPL by having a non-disclosure agreement or not permitting redistribution of the entire distribution. And their installers can check for the presence of non-GPL'ed software and refuse to install. The GPL does not guarantee that entire distributions are redistributable in binary format. All they need to do is provide sources to GPL'ed programs on request, and only to people they distributed the binaries to, who then have the right (but not necessarily inclination) to redistribute those sources further.
Whether that's a good thing or not I can't say. I think a user would not be very smart to start relying on such a company for their Linux distribution, since there are so many better alternatives out there.
Without seeing UL, without seeing the NDA, without having any evidence whatsoever other than the dent in your chin from your knee jerking upward unexpectedly, most of you already seem to have tried and convicted the UL folks for GPL violations.
Tell me, what are you going to do if the UL closed beta NDA stated that only the proprietary components of UL are not distributable but the open sourced and GPL'd components are? Pull the usual trick: sit back and pretend you never said anything, then wait a month and start bashing UL as Satan's distro again?
That's just plain creepy... You let your senseless rage get in the way of reason. You probably don't even know why you hate UL so much other than the fact that you simply WANT to hate it.
If the UL team violated the GPL, fry 'em. Until I see damning evidence, though, they're innocent until proven guilty.
The GPL just says that if you do give it away, then you must give the source too. I don't see anything in the GPL saying that you can't forbid redistribution - it just governs what you must do if you distribute.
If UL gives you the software with source and binaries, then they have obeyed the GPL. If you sign the NDA, you waive your redistribution rights.
If you gave out the source after signing the NDA, you're breaking the NDA. If you give out the binaries alone after signing the NDA, you're breaking the NDA and the GPL at the same time.
Unless I'm reading the GPL wrong, you could GPL photoshop and sell customers both the source and the binaries, then require that they not redistribute the source. If you waive your distribution rights, then it doesn't matter if it's GPLed or not - you're forbidden to redistribute it.
It'd be interesting to see a license that combined aspects of the GPL - in that you must distribute the source - and some kind of micropayment screme, where your software or any software based on it requires n cents per day to run. Like, you can give it away all you want, but you can't use it without paying all of the authors of the software.
I write, say, a graphics library, and license it under this model. I give out the code of my graphics library, and in addition my graphic library requires a payment of one cent per day, which is managed by a central micropayment program running on each machine.
You can base code off of my library. You can charge a cent per day for your new version of the library. However, you can't take away my cent. Alternatively, you can write code and not charge anything - but I'll still get my cent, as you accept my license when using the code which says I get a cent.
That variant would be interesting. The source is open and free, but running the source costs money. Developers would be paid, but you'd get the advantages of seeing the inside and even the ability to redistribute different versions.
I'm sure the open-source commies are ready to cruicify me, but you could have a lot of pull to get people who sell software to open thier source under this model. They'd be releasing open code and making money at the same time. It's no more or less circumventable than normal software distribution, but it has open code.
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
United Linux, except for Suse, is composed of a bunch of companies that have been producing those Linux distributions - you know, the distributions that no one ever uses and attempts direly to steer potential Linux users away from. There is a post by Walter Bell somewhere up above (labeled a "troll" simply because he has an opinion - funny how you hopeless computer nerds can never take an ounce of criticism) that I agree largely with. Each of these distributions have been largely neglected for being bad, and some of the companies that produce them have obviously not had the best interests of the community in mind.
There are rather simple and obvious reasons why UL will likely fail (though it is in no way certain). If you analyze the new organization as a whole, that is consider the quality of all of the distributions and companies involved, then you could imagine that the finished product of their labor will not be very tempting - certaingly not tempting enough to persuade people to pay for it, not when they can obtain the same level (if not far better) of craftsmanship from Redhat or Mandrake. Also stepping into the game are large market players like IBM and Sun. IBM and Sun have a different motive then UL, true, but they intend to use their muscle to push either their own solutions or Redhat (in IBM's case). The ability to get Redhat with an underlying cussion of support by IBM is far more tempting then the possibility of having a video card driver standard with UL.
Again, I don't mean to troll, just wanna point out the obivous.
- Tai
Paula does many things well, but she is not "technical" (whatever that means). It's a little surprising to me that she would be considered / would take a position of this type where the community culture is based on technical meritocracy. As far as I know, she has not had any direct professional affiliation with Free / Open Source software in the last 4-5 years.
This is the problem with linux today and for a long time now --- everyone's trying to make a buck off it. It's way too commercialized. For pure hacking fun, more and more programmers are switching to FreeBSD.
Whats the worse that could happen? All of us free software developers will unite and hire lawyers to sue the pants off of this company? With what? all that money we make off the GPL.
Ok, let's see. "United" Linux wants to make a single unified base for linux distributions, what once upon a time was called a "standard". Good for them!
Since too many people have different ideas about what the "right" way is, and many of them have the technical ability to say "Fine! I'll go build my own linux distro, with blackjack, and hookers!"... they decided to make a corporate entity and just say "I am the law!" instead of continuing to argue with everyone else. Ummm, ok.
Now, they decide that all that GPL stuff, which each of the members has -- at one time or another -- spoken lots of pretty poetic phrases of support, and did much clapping of hands for... is not really as important as making their new business model/standards base work. Sooo, they ignore the SPIRIT of the GPL, even if they might or might not be violating the letter of the law. Ewwwww.
Let me ask this question of the United Linux folks... what are you afraid of? The traditional reason people DON'T embrace the GPL is fear that if their code (and thus algorithms) became public knowledge, others might do it better than they have, and thus steal away their market share. The assumption there is that service means nothing, and that the original developers would rather sit back and drink beer than continue to advance and evolve their product.
Why should I buy into the "United Linux" front? What do they do for me? It sounds to me like they want to be RedHat, but NONE of them individually have the talent, ability, or balls to make a better Redhat than RedHat. Don't get me wrong, I don't like RedHat... I actually like SuSE -- but that's why I don't want UL. I don't want SuSE, SCO, and all the others to become the next RedHat. We don't need it. We need cooperation, not more "our way or the highway" attitude.
Grow up people. If you don't like the GPL, then go rewrite things for yourself and call it something other than linux... call it ulix, call it moneyix, but play nice or go away.
I'll probably get modded as a troll for this, but:
Despite this being currently of questionable factual quality - IF the make a slight infringement of the GPL, but their product takes off and starts to help linux in general against the Microsoft monopoly, perhaps that is a greater goal.
If someone said to me that if United Linux would have to break the GPL in some way, but their actions would result in say a 20% desktop share by the end of next year, I would say thats a worthwhile sacrifice.
There's a greater issue here folks, and it affects computing as a whole, not just open source software. Microsoft need to have a competitor or we're all fucked.
--
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
I'm not trying to say that Red Hat is better than any other Linux-company, I'm just trying to put down the baseless whining about Red Hat being evil.
AFAIK, Red Hat has never distributed software outside the company without releasing source at the same time.
Red Hat is still among the most dedicated followers of the GPL-license. All their tools are free software.
Why are Red Hat still up there then, if all their software can be easily poached by others?
1. Brand
2. Good quality and good professionalism. Not necessarily better than anyone else, but certainly much more professional than most others.
3. Playing nice. Lots of people call fowl about anything Red Hat does, but hardly anything is much more than childish outcries.
You can bash Red Hat for some of the technical decisions they have made, but they have done nothing at all to deserve a reputation as "evil".
In fact.. UnitedLinux are trying to compete with the market leader by being more closed. At least Mandrake got that right and was sensible enough not to join this initiative.
There's these little legal loopholes, you see, called evidence, burden of proof and innocent until proven guilty. You may of heard them on Matlock.
Your statement is akin to "they lock their door, they are obviously up to no good".
[ianal]
The copyright holder would have to bring the case before the court personally [or though counsel].
If it was a criminal case the crown would have to be sure that conviction was likely and that such a prosection was in the public interest before bringing the matter before the courts.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Whats the best way to get companies, groups or individuals out of open source development/support? By spreading unfactual FUD and accusations right and left when there is the slightest hint of GPL violation. Instead of somebody confronting the accused party the accusation is posted as fact on a major news site (slashdot) and they are tried and convicted by the trolls in the comments forum without a shred of proof or further investigation. Their reputation is damaged in the community and they are embarrassed because of something they are possibly innocent of or something that they would have voluntarily fixed if they had just been asked. This is not the way to "fix a problem" - by posting it on slashdot. This only creates hard feelings and anti-opensource/gpl sentiment with the accused and their supporters and this mob-mentality is one of the things that will eventually drive this community into the ground.
Why the focus on on United Linux? Is it because of it's tenuous association with Ransom Love? Why are other betas under NDAs not targeted by the FSF?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
NDA would not necessary be ioncompatible with GPL. One can have an NDA that allows redustributing the GPLed packages and source, but would prohibit mentioning that the particular code is a part of some bigger distribution, that it was produced by the company X, etc.
In other words, NDA may allow redistributing the code, but not the meta-information (e.g any information on *where* the code came from).
Not only that - we are in fact sensible enough to understand that RH isn't a big red devil either. .-)
,-)
These games with closed beta testing, NDAs, and such are really bad, because they hamper the development. I'll leave SuSE in peace this time, but let's recal the Correls mistake:
1) Take a KDE as it is, then quietly change it in-house, never releasing anything back, and withouth consulting the KDE team.This pisses up the KDE team.
2) Release the product with "enchanced" version of KDE six months later, and wonder why nobody wants to see your patches anymore, and why the KDE team went on next version of KDE without you.
3) Look at the cost involved to port all of your changes to next KDE version, and shoot yourself.
In short, everyone lost. Now:
* if SuSE and co. want to hide new capabilities of the Yast, more power to them.
* If they start holding back changes/fixes they implemented on 3-rd party GPLed code in-house, in order to be able to ship better versions of free aplications that anyone else could, then we have a real problem.
Think I'll let RMS clear this up, in the meantime I believe they are just hiding the new version of Yast, because they feel too embarassed by it.
That's what I think of when someone says the "GDP". Now, next to the word "invoked", it may take on a different connotation.
No UnitedLinux, don't release under the NDA, or you will incur the wrath equaling the total market value of all goods and services originating in the United States this year!!!!
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
Except that Lindows actually charges for their 'beta' which is version 2.0 btw...oh, and you have to purchase the 'beta' in order to get the sourcecode.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
You know, I find it ridiculously hard to even read the newspapers anymore, and sometimes hard to read the magazines.
The basic reason is that people don't report news facts, but rather they report news opinions.
I'm just so sick of seeing these headlines that scream The Sky is Falling! and their proof is based on screenshots of a product they haven't used, or even worse, rumors of such-and-such without having validated it true or false.
The worst part is that we (geekville) are doing the exact same thing!
If we could stop this garbage race to see who can post the latest blah blah blah before we back it up ourselves with true proof that we've seen with our own eyes... we would probably see more progress in development instead of time wasted on pointing fingers and lawyer fees....
The only thing I don't see them rewriting "overnight" is the X server. Even if they build it for a framebuffer target, it's still a massive, complex piece of software. I don't know how much the X Consortium's code would help.
XFree86 (the defacto Linux X Window System) isn't infected with the GNU General Public Virus. It is irelevant in this discussion.
You people are always down on united linux's case, but I don't hear anyone complaining about people like lindows.com. What about their 'closed betas', and the fact they include nvidia binary drivers with their iso images/base install? Nobody else is doing that "because of nvidia's license" which is supposed to prohibit any 3rd party distribution.
Blah blah blah you people make me sick. Just like the 'oh redhat is the next m$ - they are becoming just as evil and destroying our beloved kde/gnome'. TIME TO GET A BRAIN PEOPLE.
The GPL is not another EULA. An EULA restricts your usage (End *User* License Agreement). The GPL only dictates how the program is redistributed. You can use your GPL'd software however you wish, without ever looking at the GPL. When you wish to redistribute the software, though, you are obligated to comply with the terms.
Don't worry about it until RMS starts whining about how Linux... oh wait I mean to say GNU/Linux is GPL'd and how United Linux is the devil for having a closed beta.
/. news is the purist fuck rods complaining about not being able to see beta code... I think UL should just tar everything they do everyday and put it up on the web for RMS and all of the rest of the elite gods of programming can read all the source code and figure out what they have or haven't changed.
It is a sad statement when the only
Truly the open source community is led by a hyrda of morons. No wonder people think we are freaks.
Are you kidding? Ransom Love has been bashing the
GPL for years; and since this is common knowledge
I don't have to post links as proof, for the same
reason I don't have to post links when I claim
that World War II actually happend.
Mr. Love's dislike for anything GPL has been well known for ages
and very predictable. (If he is your boss, asks him!)
Ransom Love doesn't even give credit to his last name :P
You'd think that the likes of Suse, Turbo, SCO, and Conectiva would get the point by now..
Well, these are folks who actually believed there was money in Linux distros in the first place.. so go figure. GPL violation or not, UL is an unnecessary muddying of the waters. Why don't they do something intelligent with their resources instead of re-inventing the same old wheel yet again. You know, like.. providing consulting services, developing custom software, improving existing OSS projects.. things that would actually do something for the cause of Linux and Free Software and maybe help our struggling economy! Instead, they're still daydreaming of dot-bomb companies that sell (branded) free software. Give it up guys. Learn from your mistakes and move on.
So what happens when the GPL is violated?
,used parts of it in his own program and then released a binary only version?
How would one know that GPLed code had been used in this non-free program since the source is not available anyway?
I believe there was some issue like this regarding
some drivers for X but I don't really recollect the details.
What if someone actually took a GPL covered program
So is it ok to make people sign NDA and not to release the source code in public without breaking the GPL? What if I start to sell MyGroovyLinux(tm) only for customers who sign the NDA? Or just accept my EULA...
This is a beta, in which case I wouldn't say it is being distributed. I also have every expectation that the source will be open when the product is actually distributed.
Justin.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Linux is ever growing. This UnitedLinux move is almost certainly initiated by some MBA (call me prejudiced..). What we need to do, is to determine whether this in fact is breaching the GPL, and then determine the best remedy.
It is vital that we don't scare business away, but it is also vital that they get the point of the GPL. Whenever there is a problem, it is almost always best to deal with it while it is small. If a large industry is allowed to grow while being in violation of the GPL - well, history will not take kindly on the outfall of that.
What do the stragetists among us think?
Stop the brainwash
As I understand it, copyright law prevents you from making ANY copies of a copyrighted work without special authorization (which the GPL provides). Thus, a firm CANNOT internally distribute GPL'ed software without observing the GPL terms. If you're not following the GPL, you lose all rights except those under copyright's "fair use" provision.
Think of it using Borland's "like a book" analogy: Under copyright law, a company can't buy one copy of a book and duplicate it for internal use, so the same applies to the software.
Of course, if EVERY employee separately downloaded it from a GPL-observant source, they'd be OK, but only for internal use, and they'd best be ready to prove that they did exactly that...
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
Lets say a company is working with software obtained from somewhere else that is under the GPL. The company modifies the GPL'ed software for its own needs. The company does not want to give the modified software to anyone outside the company--just people in the company can use the modified GPL software (or for that matter even know it exists). Is this legal?
Mandrake, RedHat, Suse - all the 'commercial' ones skirt the GPL, why shouldn't United Linux?
Worse than RedHat, Mandrake, Suse is Lindows!