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?
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
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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!"
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
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
They would have to be rewriting from the ground up. And they'd have to rewrite everything.
*******
GPL FAQ
Q: Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement?
A: No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy of your version from you has the right to redistribute copies (modified or not) of that version. It does not give you permission to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.
********
Or, they're distributing their version of Linux without any GPL'ed code in it. That would be kinda like giving someone a goldfish in a tank with a shiny plastic castle in it, except that there is no tank, no water, no goldfish, and no shiny castle inside of it.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
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
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.
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)
I understand what you're saying, but I think the GPL has a gray area:
The GPL allows you to distribute a closed-source modification of a GPL, as long as the distribution is within the organization making the modification. One could argue that by placing beta testers under an NDA, they're making those testers part of their organization. Who knows? Maybe they're giving them membership cards.
Of course, UL can't make the entire world a member of its organization, so they'll have to release the source when the product goes public.
This gray area hasn't been a secret. In fact, the Affero GPL was created for the purpose of closing this loophole. Problem is, nobody's using it because it limits the people who will use the software to corporations with no need to adapt it to their needs(a rare case where a custom-built system would normally be used), and people of the general OSS community.
What's this Submit thingy do?
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.
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.
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.