Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is UnitedLinux Violating The GPL?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the have-they-released-anything dept.

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..."

4 of 373 comments (clear)

  1. Stupid Question by cosmosis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  2. Public Release vs Distribution by nuggz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Being a public release or not is irrelevant.

    If it is distributed, it MUST be distributed under the terms of the GPL.

    1. Re:Public Release vs Distribution by Fastolfe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So long as a piece of code remains within a company or organization, it's not redistribution. It is a company that takes posession of GPL'd code, not individuals that happen to have a business relationship with one another. As far as contracts or licenses are concerned, a corporation is a single distinct entity, and employees of that corporation operating as employees or agents of that corporation are not "individuals" that can extend license agreements to apply to themselves individually.

      I cannot buy software on behalf of the company and interpret the terms of the agreement to mean that I can take it home and start using it for my personal purposes.

      By participating in a closed beta, you are acting as an agent of the company. The software is not being redistributed here.

      This issue has come up time and time again on Slashdot, and every time, we hash out these same arguments.

  3. Research before you speak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!"