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..."

10 of 373 comments (clear)

  1. Just chill, people by geekd · · Score: 5, Informative

    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. :-)

    1. Re:Just chill, people by lunenburg · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      That's right - save the knee-jerk reactions for when Red Hat changes a desktop theme.

  2. Re:Stupid Question by geekd · · Score: 5, Informative

    who is going to prosecute them?

    The FSF asks that authors of GPL software tranfer the copyright to the FSF, so that the FSF can take action against violators.

    From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html

    So what happens when the GPL is violated? With software for which the Free Software Foundation holds the copyright (either because we wrote the programs in the first place, or because free software authors have assigned us the copyright, in order to take advantage of our expertise in protecting their software's freedom), the first step is a report, usually received by email to . We ask the reporters of violations to help us establish necessary facts, and then we conduct whatever further investigation is required.

  3. Excuse me... by stubear · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...I saw all the torches and hayforks. Is this the Frankenstein lynching party or is that one two villages over?

  4. 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 bwt · · Score: 5, Informative

      You actually have to actually be a company and they have to actually be employees. You can't just pretend you are a company. That is a sham and trying to pull that in front of a judge would not be wise.

      They can't even be "contractors", because the GPL forbids you to distribute to people with additional conditions, which your contract would impose.

    2. Re:Public Release vs Distribution by MrResistor · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is you who are incorrect.

      The only way you can release GPL code under an NDA is if you are the origional author of every single line of the code. Otherwise the origional author can invoke the GPL death penalty, removing all your rights to whatever code they wrote, and thus invalidating your NDA.

      Since UL obviously isn't the origional author of all, most, or likely even a significant amount, of the code in their distro, their NDA can probably be shot down quite easily.

      Do you give the source code for GPL programs to everyone who works for you? Doubt it.

      If you have the employees install the software themselves you are legally required to provide them with source if they request it. If you are installing it and they are merely using it, then you aren't distributing it and there is no requirement for you to provide source.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  5. Amazing! by Jason+Earl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. The adventures of RMS: Defender of the GPL by sfraggle · · Score: 5, Funny
    Deep inside the Free Software Foundation's secret underground headquarters:

    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!

    ....... several minutes later, outside the UnitedLinux building ....

    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 ****

    ....... later, back at the FSF headquarters ....

    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!
  7. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion