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).
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?
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!"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.