Slashdot Mirror
SpecOpS Labs Response to Wine Project
Kelly McNeill writes "osViews/osOpinion received the following letter from SpecOpS Labs. This letter is in response to the WINE HQ Weekly Newsletter, Issue 222 dated May 14, 2004, entitled "PROJECT DAVID USES CODEWEAVERS CROSSOVER OFFICE".
Their objective in writing this letter is to clear up some of the issues raised on the statements contained in the aforementioned Newsletter, which they believe might misrepresent their efforts to expand the availability of Windows applications on Linux."
Add Windows compatibility, and it's doomed.
Once we finalize our design and we determine exactly which open source code we will use, we will then disclose the nature and extent of the Open Source and free code that is used.
Shouldn't they be keeping track of this sort of thing as they go. This isn't going to help fight the view that open software is like the wild west with little regard to "intellectual" property. (Is that property owned by self absorbed smart people?)
Shame on all you troll trashing naysayers that automatically ASSumed that SpecOps was just a ripoff /Scam company!
I'm willing to admit that in the end it still may be a scam. BUT I'm also willing to wait and see before passing judgement! Are you?
Well, its not often that you see this kind of comeback, and I take my hat off to SpecOpS for doing it.
We are puzzled over the furor of some people concerning our use of open source code such as WINE in our David software. The success of the open source movement is based upon the ability of the open source code (such as the Linux code) to be used and modified. We have improved and we will continue to improve code from selected open source projects. Once we make David available for commercial release, we will acknowledge the specific work of other individuals, groups or companies referenced in Project David, we will also release the open source code that we improved back to the community.
I must say that this is pretty much the same view I had when I read the story here on slashdot. A lot of people were lamenting the fact that they seemed to be using WINE derived code, which struck me as strange, since wasnt this the whole point of the GPL? In my view, they have embraced OpenSource pretty much fully, tho only time will tell if they succeed.
The quote they have from Trilogy makes for interesting reading, as they also publish within that quote negative aspects of the review (namely the "we have concerns about the business aspects" quote), which is almost unheard of for a company, which makes me think that they are trying to be legit. They state that the screen shots that made the rounds was basically a pre alpha, WINE repackaged with a bit of their own code, so no wonder people could spot various things wrong with it.
Here on slashdot, we seem to have a strange "community thought" on the usage of GPL code in a commercial project, and this came out in full when this story broke. Many comments were along the lines of "Oh My God, they are using WINE code! This is a rip off, they shouldnt be doing that! Someone get the FSF on this right away" (ok, paraphrased a bit). We knew pretty much nothing about the project, except what they had released as "future goals", and therefor I think the reaction was almost fully unwarranted.
They state that they are using OSS code, and they also state that they will be contributing code back to the community, what more do you want? Until this guys actually start distributing stuff, give them a break, they may very well help WINE along nicely.
the ruckus has highlighted to SpecOS that they must respect the terms of WINE's licenses when the time comes to release their application. Call it a preemptive strike, in line with the new preferred foreign policy of various countries.
"We fucked up big time with our screenshots. Someone got fired. We really want some VC love!!"
C'mon, installing Crossover Office isn't THAT hard.
Questions whether codeweavers accidentally released that specific buggy code back into wine when it is stated otherwise.
Says they will figure out what parts of opensource code they will use and deal with crediting and releasing any code the have to 'later'. Not exactly legally smart - we will figure out what we took and what our liabilities are after. I would question whether they could keep closed any of it being linked to current wine. So if they are not dealing with this now, is there a new funding requirement in their business plan for the lawsuits?
This in even the Philippines will probably make further funding for them impossible.
No one is against commercial use of GPL code in commercial software. You can tell this by Transgamings Winex, ou Crossoffice, just to mention Wine-related projects.
The problem with the David project is that it is kinda misterious, promising a brand new thing, when it is just a Wine evolution. An the worst part: it does not gives Wine its credits.
You may say that it will give the credits further, when they release the product. Ok, but until then we can speculate two things: David project is vaporware or just wine evolution, with minor changes
From the article:
David is unique, however we do not claim, nor have we ever claimed that David is 100% our own proprietary code.
and...
Lastly, Project David is not a repackaging of Codeweavers CrossOver Office. We are experimenting with some of the open source WINE code but we are not knowingly using any of the Codeweavers source code. Perhaps, Codeweavers has unwittingly released its code back to the WINE Project.
Ok, it sounds like they're being open and straightforward about it. They are recycling code. They also are putting this little disclaimer that they're not intentionally using CodeWeaver code. All right, if there is a problem, this should put up flags with concerned parties now, instead of waiting until they are all done. It would suck to be all done and then be told they had proprietary code that had to be removed. (This is reminiscent of the SCO situation -- perhaps they're trying to avoid that kind of aggravatiuon now?)
A love beyond compare...
If they used code from the MIT-X Licened codebase they could do with it what ever they wanted too as long as they gave credit. This means ship binaries only. Wine has only recently become GPL/LGPL (I forget which, i think it is LGPL) So in the end this discusion could be for nothing.
.
We substituted the coffee Slashdot normally drinks with "Sandoz Crystals", Lets see if they notice the difference
The only time anyone is allowed to 'use' GPL software is after they downloaded it from sourceforge, joined the mailing lists/forums, and contributed back at least 10% of their available time to 'the project'. Furthermore, any GPL code which has a public profile (generally acknowledged to be something available in ebuilds, deb packages or - shudder - RPMs via apt-get or yum, or something which ships with a major distro) is only allowed to be used after approval by the package's original founders. Any other such use (like this Project David) constitutes an affront to the entire GPL community and a sorry understanding of nettiquette.
creation science book
No one trusts anyone who does stuff in secret. Either do it in public, or keep quite about it. Cloak and dagger tactics and "teaser" shots are for cheesy movies, not software projects.
We have been working on David for more than two years now. David is an experimental prototype, and is based upon technology that has been evolving over the past 15 years.
David is unique, however we do not claim, nor have we ever claimed that David is 100% our own proprietary code. We are currently testing and updating our basic system architecture/design, which now uses a combination of open, free and proprietary code/modules from numerous sources.
Ummmm... The technology has been around since 1989 they say? And developing? But they hadn't gotten that far enough to be able to run simple Windows programs? All this would appear to be is a Wine fork with proprietary additions. That's fine, but I just wonder how much is their own code and how well it will work... We'll just have to wait and see.
That's scary.
</sarcasm>
No need to thank me. Just doing my part to prevent troll-bait.
I guess these guys must know what they're doing, their press release hit google news. But do they really? Search for "Corporate Structure teaser text here" and let me know what you think...
Secondly, we don't unwittingly release any of our code... we deliberately release it all back to WineHQ, as it is written.
SpecOS labs have done nothing illegal, however the screen shots they posted show that using Wine and some patches merged from Crossover Office's Wine package, they can do what CrossOver Office has been able to do for over two years now - install Microsoft Office. What's new?
Gotta love the google cache:
Project David Overview
Project David Architecture
Project David Technology
Umm....THIS is what the 'furor' is over. If you're going to use open source software, it has to be, like, open. This does not in any way, shape or form mention WINE, that they use open source, but only states that they've found the magic elixir that gives +10 to windows emulation.
Of course it doesn't give them pointy horns either, but it does destroy their credibility. And what's up with 50 simultaneous developers? Can anyone verify if that number's at ALL realistic?
also heard that they are not believed by some it companies here. (with grain of salt)
from the philippines here so i "hear" some things from the industry.
i don't want to pass judgment because i have not seen the product yet. but it makes me wonder what differences it has with applications such as wine.
here is a link (from a local newspaper about the issue just today.
Live your life each day as if it was your last.
I doubt that they have such a good understanding of the community and processes. The most important rule, when developing open source code, is to "release often, release early". However they say that they want to wait until "it is finished". No real commitment, just commercial attitudes.
But whatever, if they feel it helps their business plan, just let them go. After all, it's their right to do so.
No. It the other way around. It's property that makes people self absorbed, believing they are smart, and also gives them heavy litigating tendencies.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Maybe someone better versed in copyright law than my IANAL self could clear something up for me...
The GPL is based on copyright law, extending the rights of a distribution to those who receive the code, assuming they follow the conditions of the GPL. However, if I go out and buy a Tom Clancy novel, change the names of the main characters and rewrite some portions of it, I can still be sued for creating a derivative work... at what point does their use of open source code bases to 'boot strap' their own app, and rewriting those portions of code afterwards constitute a derivative work? At what point does further code written after seeing the other implimentations become something covered under a new copyright, and not a derivative work?
I've been in this situation several times as a developer. Last year I did a 99%-complete rewrite of a GPL app, and went with the idea that because the code I wrote was so heavily influenced by the original, that mine would have to be GPL'ed as well. In my case the new app was based on an LGPL library that forced the two apps to be very similar in structure, and I was working from a copy of the old apps code in order to grok the library. It seems that in the spirit of the GPL and copyright law (not to mention morally...), that keeping it GPL'ed is the right thing to do... but can companies (legally) write a cheap clone of a GPL'ed product, with full access to the source code, and then claim full copyright ?
P.S. I'm not saying that this is what SpecOpS is doing... I'm ust wondering where the line is...
If project "David" works seamlessly with linux and the versions of office big companies are starting to use i.e. XP and 2003 then linux will take off. Then they will realise that open source software is just as good.
If you have nothing useful to say post as AC.
That is not released early and often. Neither is SuSE Enterprise, etc., and the list goes on.
Early and often might be ok for your SourceForge PERL project, but this is the real world, kid. Software needs to be tested if business is going to trust it. Doing 20 redeployments 3 times a week is not the way to win a business over.
It ain't perfect, but I am a big fan of CrossOver Office. I have Word open now--damn it, I should be working.
Wine use an LGPL license http://winehq.com/site/license
This means that they may use WINE source code as they wish and add improvement to it by using it like a library,
mostly like Transgaming does.
They do NOT have to release their improvement unless it affects the library source code itself.
In most case, they will have to modify it, but not necessarily, if they choose to build on top of it or around it instead.
Think of it like a 3rd party library or component.
Slashdot blindly associate LGPL with GPL, they are different license folks!
It's the LGPL you want.
So the scope of SpecOps is to make money on other people's work (WINE) ?
That's what I am reading in this letter...
Hardly fair, is it.
WINE is released under the LGPL, so you can't go and copy it as part of 'David'.
Also, if 'David' gets sold, whoever buys it can give away copies for free (of the WINE part no doubt).
SpecOps is NOT allowed to modify the license conditions of WINE!!!
Here on slashdot, we seem to have a strange "community thought" on the usage of GPL code in a commercial project, and this came out in full when this story broke. Many comments were along the lines of "Oh My God, they are using WINE code! This is a rip off, they shouldnt be doing that! Someone get the FSF on this right away"
Uh, I can't believe we read the same articles. The response I perceived was "heh, those scammers pretended to have something new when they are just repackaging WINE/Codeweavers code." In fact SpecOs claimed they had some revolutionary improvement over existing solutions, and clever slashbots noted that their claims are quite likely false, given that their own screenshots showed they were using an _outdated_ version of the codeweavers/wine codebase.
501 Not Implemented
This just sounds too much like SCO's pump and dump scheme: "All stolen code will be shown in due course. In the mean time please buy our stock." And then their "evidence" leaks out and everybody gets a good laugh.
Here you have "David" trolling for Venture Capital money. Showing it only to clueless execs, maybe even under an NDA. All the while using Wine and Crossover Office under the hood. And when they get caught they come out with a bullshit damage control PR piece. The clueless execs are going Oooh Aaaah. Reminds me of Brian Skiba, the former financial analyst at Deutsche Bank who after seeing SCO's evidence gave SCO stock a buy rating with a price target of $45 to be reached within 12 months. SCO stock has since nose dived and is hovering around $5 now with an impending dive to $0.
SpecOps/David people sound like a scam to me. But hey I am very open to changing my mind on this, if they do eventually come out with something worthwhile. I am however not holding my breath. I have seen many scam artists in my lifetime and all the telltale signs are there with SpecOps Labs. There are too many suckers in this world for all these scammers and spammers to simply pass up on.
The abuse of opensource software by scammers is on the rise. It wasn't too long ago that the management at my company signed a licesning deal for a Linux video player we needed for our embedded product. This company's secret sauce was their super-duper video codec. What gave it away to me was their insistence on super secrecy. Nobody in engineering was allowed to see or use the product. Only management had that privilege. After much bitching and moaning a couple of us were allowed to use it for a short period of time. My first reaction was that it felt like mplayer. So I tried some of the mplayer keyboard shortcuts and sure enough they worked. So I grepped the binaries for "mplayer" and sure enough it was all over. When asked they responded with the hilarious: "Our license forbids reverse engineering and we had intentionally left a trap for you to see if you would do this and now we know you did". Some considered it not even funny.
Anything that damages the community, damages the very principle of open source.
This is why I love slashdot. There is an entire section called 'Your Rights Online' to highlight the encroachment on individual liberties, OSS topics discuss freedom (as in speech) daily, but despite that, we have contempt for not contributing to the Collective. I think I think some folks need to do an Ayn Rand book report.
So long as you are not breaking the license agreement, there is nothing wrong with keeping your value-added code proprietary. Or if you thought there was value in it, you could even get a patent for it. OSS license agreements are to ensure that those who have experienced a benefit from common work contribute to common good, so as not to "damage the community". You must give credit where credit is due, but if your work exists wholely separate from the common work, you have the RIGHT to try to profit from it. Why should your company spend the resources to move significantly beyond the status quo if you can't reap some reward for it.
I apologize if this seems trollish, but I think this socialist association some unnecessarily tie to open source is an obstacle for OSS. It plays right into the hands of FUD writers, and more importantly, distorts the meaning of 'rights'. There are rights besides privacy, and not all of them need to be sacrificed to the Collective to contibute to some common good, so don't demonize people for using them.