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?
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?
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).
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.
Don't use it.
sulli
RTFJ.
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.
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 saw all the torches and hayforks. Is this the Frankenstein lynching party or is that one two villages over?
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.
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
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.
You cannot pass along GPL'd software with conditions attached that *reduce* the terms of the GPL for that receiving party. (This would be like me distributing Vendor X software and having people sign NDAs that _force_ them to break the terms of the licence attached to the Vendor X software .. what was the point of the Vendor X licence then?)
...
.. don't you think its more efficient for everybody to run as hard as they can to the finish line, even helping each other along the way, instead of spending so much time trying to trip each other up and prevent others' progress such that *everybody* runs the race slower? It seems obvious to me that the more open you make the scientific community, the more progress it can make with less work. One company might not become a true victor in a market, but who the hell cares because the whole point of this system was to encourage technological development and collarberative work in the first place ..
If you give me GPL'd software, I can redistribute it if I adhere to the conditions set forth in the GPL. You cannot tell me that I must ignore certain rights given to me by virtue of you distributing GPL'd source/software.
This is the 'viral'ness that MS hates, but its so wonderful if you think about it; you can't go out and grab value, and redistribute that value, while improving your positioning in the marketplace by reducing the rights of the people you are distributing the software to. It creates an even playing field for all; and lets us try and restore our economy to a meritocracy where people create value through collarberative work rather than information hoarding and reinventing wheels
If anything, the GPL simply ensures that people can benifit from authors' work without those same people abusing the terms and conditions you'd like to attach to your software. If you dont like the GPL, create your own licence, but the whole point is that the GPL's "restrictive terms" ensure to the original author that his hard work will never be used so that somebody else can gain a competative advantage through information hoarding.
I don't get it
"Old man yells at systemd"
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).
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.
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.
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!
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!"
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.
Of course, it's not actually closed source. Unless your definition of closed source is "not GPL."
Hint: the yast*src.rpm files have what you seem so worried about. ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/8.0/suse/zq1/
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Corel did violate the GPL! Check this out to see the /. story that covers the resolution or this to see the original /. story on the violation. They also had another problem which was not a GPL issue (I think) regarding limiting downloads to over 18s. Anyway Corel were far from perfect, but they rectified the Beta test issue in 4 days (according to Bruce P at one of the above links) so perhaps UL will fix this as quickly.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Pray tell, why couldn't the GPL and a NDA mix together?
The GPL gives special stipulations to non-public software.
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
-- Will program for bandwidth
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.
Er, both Mandrake and SuSE use RPM for package management. I think you are talking about whatever layer they slap on top for resolving dependencies and the like. Mandrake has urpmi (which is free software); SuSE has some new thing for their upcoming distribution (which will probably be non-free, like YaST).
BTW - if you value package management so highly, why dismiss Conectiva? They're the folk behind apt-rpm.
(I realize the parent post may have been a troll but if so it was a fairly cogent troll and worth replying to.)
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
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.
> 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..
The second is correct. You can charge a reasonable amount of money for shipping and the cost of a cd, too. You don't have to put it on the net.
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
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.
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)
P-GLAND ?
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.
C'mon, most Slashdotters are completely incapable of performing basic fact-checking. It's as if they've never written a paper before.
I think I'm the only person on Slashdot to ever point out the GPL parts of SuSE's installation programs.
That's pretty sad.
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
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
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'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.
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
Try reading the article.
As stated there, any distribution, including distribution to your business partners, is distribution under the terms of copyright law.
If they've tried to restrict the other partners' redistribution rights, by imposing a GPL-incompatible NDA, then they are in violation of the GPL, and lose all rights to distribute the GPL licensed code in question.
That would put them out of business.
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
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."
Yeah, you're right. That would be a pretty stupid and pointless NDA, though.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.