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..."
...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?
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).
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.
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.
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?
The GPL only protects distribution rights for the people you distribute to, it doesn't require that you personally release it publically, only that you can't stop the people you do give it to from doing so.
Rich
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.
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
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
That is precisely what the NDA says. When they give you a software with the associated NDA, they are telling you to NOT give out the source code. If the software is GPL, you cannot force someone to not distribute it if he wishes to.
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.
A "recipient" is not explicitly defined to be a human being. Corporations enjoy status as individuals just as people do. You can license software to corporations, and the corporation is what ends up taking possession of the software. People acting as agents or employees of a company do not receive individual rights to software licensed to the company (which is what's happened here).
You are *perfectly* free, however, to go download the same GPL'd software on your own time and do whatever the hell you want with it. But don't expect to be able to include your company's copyrighted code in your derivative until your company has released that code.
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)
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.
As for this being a loophole, I think closing it would be a bad thing. Getting Free software on the inside of a company is a Good Thing.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.