Slashdot Mirror
Corel Linux Beta License Violates GPL
John Goerzen writes "Corel today began FAXing out beta test agreements for its Linux distribution. However, these agreements violate GPL in many points by distributing software under terms that the GPL prohibits." Since the distribution is based on Debian, this is justifiably making a lot of folks angry. I've attached the relevant excerpts if you click thru below or else you can view Page One or Page Two of the FAX in GIF format.
The agreement that must be signed states "User may not reproduce and distribute copies of the Products to any other person." This violats GPL sections 1, 3, and 6. It goes on to say, "Upon the expiration of the Term [45 days]. . . User shall promptly destroy . . . Product". This violates the same sections.
It then says "All right, title and interest to all intellectual property with respect to the Products shall remain with Corel and its licensors. No license or other right of any kind is granted by Corel's furnishing the Products to user [except for testing]. . ." This not only attempts to assert ownership over items copyrighted by others, but fails section 6 of the GPL.
Certainly in the case of "internal-only" distribution it is legitimate for the recipients to voluntarily decline to distribute the code, but Corel cannot forcibly impose this requirement without breaking the law.
Cool! Those are good ideas to bring up. RMS is what I would call a remnant of the old "New Left" movement from the early 70's. We should get him on record where it comes to labor unions and other stuff like this. Ralph Nader has been heard praising Linux as well.
With the endorsement of these folks, and a good Labor Union seal on the corner of all Linux-related materials, this stuff should go gangbusters out in the hinterland.
Can we get Ted Kennedy to endorse it also?
Corel has already said that they plan to release all their modifications to the GPL programs. It was even on slashdot, and when it was, you all bitched about how they shouldn't take credit for something they had to do.
This is an internal beta test. They simply don't want places like cheapbytes to start selling CD's to the unwashed masses who would then start complaining that the distribution was buggy and go back to windows (not to return when a stable release came out).
The difference between companies like Corel and your typical open source group is that when Corel puts its name behind a product which is released to the general public, they want it to be rock solid (or atleast stable). They're not trying to steal source code, they just want to get the bugs worked out of their modifications before they release them.
"Rain, an honest to god slashdot girl" is a liar and a poser. You claim to have the email address, rainfa1l@happypuppy.com. The person who has that address lives 4 floors above me, and it is not you. Why do you feel you have to use someone else's email address? It is very easy to get your own, or just not use one. But no, you don't do that, instead you decided to post anonymously but signing as someone.
/usr/doc/HOWTO/mini/Identity-Spoofing
Is this polite enough for you, or am I jumping down your throat? I guess you need to read more of
or try man -k loser
and see what you come up with.
--
"New worlds are not born in the vacuum of abstract ideas, but in the fight for daily bread..."
New worlds are not born in the vacuum of abstract
ideas, but in the fight for daily bread --Rudolf Rocke
going ballistic.
It was probably drawn up by someone who just
copied it from another beta product's license.
Obviously they have to fix it, but give them a
chance to straighten it out before saying things
like "Corel used to be OK, now they're satan
spawn".
Thanks
Would a trial concerning the GPL happening in the US have influence anywhere else in the world? Is there international law concerning these kind of porblems?
Would you care to support that based on the actual terms of the GPL? What does 'for purposes of the GPL it can be considered "internal only"' mean? The GPL doesn't make any reference to internal vs external. What do you mean by its not being a 'public distribution', the GPL's terms apply to any distribution, there is no distinction between public and private. The GPL doesn't actually define 'distribution', hopefully that'll be corrected for the next version, but if you mean to imply that distributing er.. I mean sending copies to selected people doesn't count as distributing it then I don't think you're following the most likely interpretation.
Of course the GPL wasn't written by Stallman himself. A bunch of Law School professors helped.
Why doesn't that sound encouraging to me (or rather, encouraging to the plight of the GPL)?
Just mark it as Corel Linux unstable build 0.1.2/9/99.a or something.
John
John_Chalisque
Who said that Corel has to give away their software under GPL? Just becasue it's going to be delivered with Debian (or anything else for that matter) why aren't they allowed to control their property rights anyway they want to?
http://www.corel.com/betaprogram/faq.htm
From the FAQ: "Once Corel LINUX is ready for general distribution, it will be distributed in accordance with the criteria for Open Source software."
So, it looks like the beta license agreement, while lame, is not how the general distribution is going to be licensed. According to the FAQ, they are also going to release source with the general distribution.
-calvin
They are correct that there is nothing wrong with them appointing a limited number of beta testers. They are wrong if they think they can restrict the right of those beta testers to redistribute copies of any gpl or gpl derived code that they give to them.
We should just wait and see how Corel responds to the whole mess. Their mail server is probably smoking right now. Maybe they will abandon Linux, based on the kind of people in the "Linux community" they find themselves surrounded by. It's certainly got to have a chilling effect in other companies pondering the risk of getting entangled with the GPL.
http://www.corel.com/betaprogram/faq.htm
Corel® LINUX® Beta Q & A
What is beta testing?
Beta testing can be considered "pre-release testing" in which a sampling of the intended audience tests
the product and provides feedback regarding their experience with the product. This feedback often
results in modifications to the product prior to its first public distribution.
How is Corel Beta testing Corel LINUX?
The beta testing of Corel LINUX is being done in the same way that we currently test all of our
software products. We will be selecting individuals from a list of those who have applied to become
testers via our Web site. Those selected will receive a beta version copy of the software on CD-ROM.
Beta testers will then be required to use the software and provide Corel with feedback regarding their
experience with the product.
What are the requirements for becoming a beta tester for Corel LINUX?
We will select users based on their experience with Linux®, the diversity of hardware at their disposal
and on their software testing experience. In addition, we are reserving spaces for some KDE and Debian
developers.
Why isn't Corel putting Corel LINUX on an FTP site for download?
The first version of Corel LINUX is still in the development and testing phase and is not ready for
general distribution. Beta testing is part of the development process that Corel is following to ensure
that Corel LINUX reaches a suitable level of completeness and stability before it becomes widely available.
How many people will be testing Corel LINUX?
In order to ensure that the beta testing process can be properly administered, we will be limiting the number of registered beta testers for this
first round of testing. The exact number of testers has not yet been determined.
Is this testing style in keeping with the spirit of Open Source software distribution?
Yes. The recruitment of outside Beta testers is part of the initial development process of Corel LINUX and will allow Corel to release the
first version of Corel LINUX to the general public at an earlier date than would be possible if Corel relied only on its internal testing
resources. Once Corel LINUX is ready for general distribution, it will be distributed in accordance with the criteria for Open Source software.
When will Corel release the source code for Corel LINUX?
The source code for Corel LINUX will be available with the first distribution of Corel LINUX.
Will Corel be releasing the source code for applications it has created such as the Corel File Manager?
Corel will be making the source code available for such applications. The exact terms of the license under which the source code will be
distributed has not yet been announced.
If I am not accepted for this round of testing, can I still be involved in the testing of subsequent beta versions of Corel LINUX?
Yes. We will be conducting another round of beta testing in the fall and you can apply then. The second round of beta testing will be much
larger than the first and may even be openly available from our FTP site. Keep an eye on the Corel Beta news page or consult Linux.Corel.com
for upcoming beta announcements.
It's all nice to have Bruce Perens explain things here, but what I'm really interested in is what the FSF and their most vocal representative Richard Stallman thinks of this.
After all, they created the license that we're talking about, they have the lawyers who waterproofed the license, so they are the ones who can most authoritatively say wether Corel did or didn't technically violate the GPL, all other considerations (like what a nice cozy corporation Corel is to embrace Linux) aside.
EjB
It might encourage some of us to buy Corel products.
I thus far have never done so, because Corel has become a boneyard for old rambling wreck packages from other companies (i.e. Wordperfect).
Micrografx has always made better vector-based drawing packages, in any case.
How can you say "Champion-free software" as you did in the above message?
Surely there must be some small piece of code that is champion-grade in all that stuff.
I believe they made a simple mistake, but they should have known about this before hand. The worst thing a company can do is upset their target audience. After this Corel will be tarnished in the community. Corel is a company and wants to make money, but they should understand the market before racing to release a product and looking foolish in the process.
-Brian
Hear, hear.
Let's teach Corel a lesson. It will also teach any other entity thinking about getting involved with the GPL a lesson.
cheapbytes.com is good enough for me. It should be good enough for you, too.
Commercial entities have no business selling Linux for huge profits.
Release early, release often, make sure you sprinkle enough cat litter over it all.
Probably because it got moderated as interesting instead.
"I want *free software*. Not free as in beer, not free as in GPL, free as in without your crappy theories on socio-political reform." But as you can get that from so many sources, what exactly is your problem?
Listen, FYI all of them are clowns. RMS, ESR, Perens. It takes that kind of determination to make it in our society.
Besides, the Law says that IF YOU DON'T COVER YOUR ASS, you lose the right to defend a license.
Don't you realize your eagerness to defend your high-and-mighty idealogies is the exact sort of hysteria that characterizes Microsoft's legal department? In your fierceness to defend against look-and-feel, you've become just as lawyer-happy when someone even questions "your" ethics
Come again? He never said defend ideologies. He said defend the GPL. Show some ability to process complex contexts. Defending a license is not the same as being letigious. (Drop the dictionary. The world makes dictionaries, not the other way around. The world therefore has precedence on meaning. Unless this is Oceania.)
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
...against any attempt to thwart them... And here's where your crusade becomes suspect. Corel, in all likelihood, is NOT attempting to do anything. For some reason, you and a lot of others in the "Free Software" community have succumbed to the same sort of hysteria over these things as Microsoft. Don't you realize your eagerness to defend your high-and-mighty idealogies is the exact sort of hysteria that characterizes Microsoft's legal department? In your fierceness to defend against look-and-feel, you've become just as lawyer-happy when someone even questions "your" ethics? You, anyway, are just another follower amongst the unwashed masses all buying into the group mentality that RMS is pushing with the FSF. I want *free software*. Not free as in beer, not free as in GPL, free as in without your crappy theories on socio-political reform.
So wait, if I wanna take GPL code and sell it, all I have to do is make the person I'm selling it to sign an "NDA" or claim they are my employee? Just as long as I don't sell it to the public at CompUSA, I can claim it's "private" and get around the GPL? I think not...
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
It's proof of nothing. If corel wanted to use a BSD style license then they should have used FreeBSD. The success of linux is in a big part based on it's license. Anyway I am glad that there are two different licenses that cover workable, stable (and somewhat interchangable) products. If the benefits of FreeBSD license outweigh Linux then let them use FreeBSD. They lose very little by switching over other than missing the bandwagon effect.
It seems that the BSD license is the communist one: "to each according to his needs (want the source? take the source), from each according to what he can provide (here's the source, take it)."
The GPL, on the other hand, says "Here's the source, here's the program. There's no marginal cost to me if you copy it, so I won't charge you for that. If you want to use it, though, you'll have to agree to my terms. Rather than demanding money in exchange for my work, you must give back any changes you make. Furthermore, you do not gain the right to exclude others from my property, to which I am only grant you license to use."
It's a contract establishing a consentual transaction between parties to establish the rights associated with intellectual property. Sounds pretty damn capitalist to me.
Personally, I think that it's about time a big company took charge of this "Linus" thing. Sure those finnish 15-year old freaks had thier fun, but who uses it anyway? I tried to run it under NT, but only got error messages. I mean come on!
If you punks can't "hack" it (heh heh!), maybe you should go back to middle school and let the professionals take over.
~~~~~~~~~ auntfloyd
Windows tacticts don't work in the linux community... the faster they learn that, the better.
Linux IS user friendly, it's just choosy of who it's friends are.
Where do you get this "internal" vs "public" distinction from? I can't find it anywhere in the GPL. The fact that they are having people sign contracts restricting what they can do with the sofware is the problem, this is prohibited by the GPL.
Sorry Corel, you lose bigtime with that little play.
If Corel insist on trying to license 'Corel' Linux under their terms, I suggest someone start up a GPL enforcement office, and we pay a Lawyer to take these things to court.
I'll give 50 quid to the organisation that impliments THAT.
*shakes head*
Come on Corel, don't lose our confidence.
Slashdot was sold for $10,000,000 worth of stock and cash yet they can't spend 5 minutes to get the other side of the story from Corel Chances are this beta test agreement was over some boilerplate text somebody put together. Instead we will have 200+ posts huffing and puffing over it and tearing the whole community apart. The way things are going, one of these days, Andover which be in for one big f'ing lawsuit on some wild rumor.
Actually, the GPL makes no distinction between internal and external distribution. You distribute it to them under the GPL, or you don't distribute at all. Or you violate the license. The recipient being under contractual obligation has no effect on this, because the GPL forbids you from distributing under terms other than the GPL. Either you release them from the contractual obligation, or you can't distribute it to them. If you install it on company computers, that's one thing, because that's not distributing to someone. But that's not what they're doing here.
For employees, there might be laws that prevent them from using the rights that the GPL grants them, but no conditions imposed by the employer can apply, or distributing the software to them would have been illegal.
This is my understanding of the GPL. IANAL.
Will the FSF take legal action against Corel? Will the GPL hold up in court... hmmm... just when I was starting to think Corel Linux was a Good Thing... first! Nate
Why are there no posts for an issue like this?
Why wouldn't the GPL stand up in court? The whole reason that shrinkwrap licensing is so fruity is that you've already paid money for the software, then after the sale is concluded, you're supposedly bound into a contract; the theory against them is that the uniform commercial code grants you certain rights as a result of the purchasing transaction, which you didn't waive during the transaction itself.
The GPL, on the other hand, specifically states (paraphrasing a bit) "Nothing requires you to agree to this license, since you haven't signed it. However, nothing else grants you the right to use this software." Copyright law gives the author the right to exclude anyone from using the work (except for fair use, which wholesale copying usually isn't.) The GPL states the terms under which the author is willing to allow Joe Public to use his intellectual property.
The only possible hitch would be if you'd purchased GPL'd software; then it might be argued that the UCC grants you certian rights because you purchased it. (although with the new UTICA, there's no reason to believe it would be any less valid than any other software license agreement.) The fact that you are able to obtain any GPL'd software gratis seems to be to be pretty clear evidence that what you are purchasing is not the software per se, but rather the service of the distribution itself.
Yes, it's ironic that the GPL depends on the existence of intellectual property rights. My personal feeling is that RMS is fully aware of this, and probably loves the paradox. I know I do.
So just ignore the Corel license. Let's get a copy of it up on an FTP server. Hopefully CheapBytes will put it out on a CD
the GPL doesn't say internal distribution is different. It seems to say any distribution has to follow this licence.
Wouldn't it be nice if I could buy one copy of any software and 'internally' distribute it to whomever I choose, worldwide without violating any license?
Dude. The FSF has lawyers, not just rambling old RMS =).
Also, a certain company called RedHat would tend to want to defend the GPL. Have you ever heard of SuSE, GmbH? How about Walnut Creek CDROM? Linuxcare? All of these companies woud be in a Bad Way (TM) if the GPL was non-functional.
Another thing is: If the GPL is invalid, then all software licences are invalid.
Also: What argument exactly would Corel use?
"Ahh, well, we, err, think, that, umm, because they, ahh, released the, err, source code, then, umm, it should be treated, uhh, as if it were, err, in the public domain. Yea, uhh, that's it."?
I think the GPL's on some pretty solid ground with some pretty sold backing.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Debian's goal is to be the most open source distribution (iirc). Corel is basing its distribution off of Debian and currently has the title of most closed Linux Distribution.
Hopefully they will see the error in their ways and correct this problem very soon.
you can reach them at corellinux@corel.com
write them and let them know we are upset.
Let them know that we wont support their distro on IRC, that we wont help new users using their product, that we will actively boycott their distribution and encourage others to do the same. Let them know that we will donate a few bucks each to organizations like the FSF who will persue them in court ($2 * 2 million linux users == $4,000,000 == lots of lawyers) and finally let them know that its not too late to win our trust back!
You would be surprised how much Corel needs our help on IRC and throughout the community to do their job of tech support for them. If they dont have our help they will have to spend many tens of thousands of dollars extra on tech support.
now that i have finished ranting i will go to class and turn my FORTRAN assignment in...
It looks like beta test agreements that I've seen before from IBM and Lotus. Most likely the beta agreements got slapped onto the software by someone in their legal dept. who doesn't have a CLUE what the GPL is.
I doubt that this bodes well for the Corel version of Linux, though, if their legal department can't even read the licenses that are already attached to the distribution.....
I'm not feeling that clever this morning.
I mean.. If they _try_ to copyright the distrib, what's next? Copyright initialisation scripts?
Cmon....
Before we all go berserk on Corel, maybe someone at Slashdot could get some clarification from them. Did they just use their standard beta license by mistake? Does the licentse only apply to betas, and not the finished product?
did some marketing drone just attach their standard beta contract?
I guess this puts quite a dent in Corel's reputation for the OSS people.
Corel just went down a couple of places in my 'cool companies that do stuff with linux' list.
Sounds about like what they have planned..... but then again
I may just be a pessimist at the moment.
I do have faith that Corel will do what's right...
I just hope that it's not misplaced this time... *erf!*
Friends don't let friends buy Compaq's. (Dell/Gateway... same same) You want a good computer? Build it yourself.
True, many companies charge for GPL software, or charge for it in a package. However, they place no restrictions on what you do with it after you get it. Corel is doing just that, restricting what you do after you get it. It doesn't matter if you can get it somewhere else.
---
END OF LINE
We can probably assume that that contract only holds true for the stuff Corel developed. The "product" would be the CD as a whole, but obviously they can't restrict your use of GPL'd parts of the CD.
All they need to do to comply with the GPL is offer an FTP site for the source code of all GPL'd programs and derivatives thereof.
If they don't do even that, THEN they're violating the GPL and should change their ways or action should be taken against them.
I don't see any basis for suggesting that whether you charge money or not is relevant to whether you're distributing something, could you elaborate?
The other argument seems to be that because they're trying to restrict the number of people who have access to the software that therefore they're allowed to restrict the number of people who have access to the software, i.e. that the terms of the GPL don't apply precisely because they're violating them. This seems to be an even more bizzare line of reasoning.
This is hardly a strategy Corel is likely to employ for a large scale commercial product. I don't see this as an effort to circumvent the GPL as much as an effort to keep control of the distribution until it's ready to be widely distributed.
Linux has the hypeshare, not the mindshare.
It is a very important distinction. When and if Linux is a smouldering wreck, sunk because it carried a big blatant target called the GPL, and sorta begged all the missle launchers to let go at it, the BSD projects will still be chugging along.
you're not an employee if you don't get paid, ever heard of a minimum wage?
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
Since the GPL doesn't mention "public distribution", but merely distribution, it doesn't matter what you call it. If you distribute, you do it under the GPL or not at all.
Rob,
:)
Did you pay the unisys license to display this GIF I mean utilize this Unisys technology?
Support PNG
I've had it with these GPL people whining. If you don't want a respectable linux distro, don't use it.
/. should pay unisys $100k....
BTW, isn't it a little ironic that some open everything guy gives us a file in the GIF format! I think
[1st post? probably not....]
They're big boys. If they can't be bothered to read a licence before they assimilate a bit of software they (nor anyone else in a similar position) has any standing to whine when the hell hounds come for their ton of flesh. This is true of licences in general, not just the GPL. Your crude attempts at character assassination are uncalled for and not even really supported by the given facts.
why doesn't the debian group ask a federal court to ban the importation of corel linux into the US if they don't change the license. That would be more effective than just asking nicely. Since most of their market is here in the US, if they had an exporation ban against them it would cripple them if they don't change the license.
---Got Coffee?---
_probably_ the GPL?
It doesn't matter, if you don't enforce your license you pretty much relinquish it. They need to be corrected now.
By the way, changes made to software because it is 'internal use' do not have to be destributed by the GPL - but if you have access to the software in binary or source format you have rights with the source (if you have it in binary format, you have the right to get the source it was compiled from). This goes without it being internal beta or not. You cannot place a restriction on (for instance) your employees that they cannot redistribute the modified GPL program's source, or else you are actually in violation of the GPL. So the beta users should have the right to get the source, recompile it, or distribute it, which the license does not allow. Beta or not, the license is in violation of the GPL.
Why would Corel try and pull something like this? One would assume that this tactic will alienate them from their consumer base and that they are well aware of it...especially after CmdrTaco gets a hold of the info.
Perhaps they are afraid that some of their 'competitors' such as Red Hat or Mandrake will borrow the code they released and make it their own. (Which won't happen because GPL means no one has the IP rights to it to begin with...I think)
I cannot even use the old addage "Even bad publicity is good publicity" to rationalize this. Except in maybe someway they want to give people the sense that their code is "Forbidden fruit"...thus causing a lot of people to pirate the code even though they really aren't because its under GPL.
*shrug* Its been a long day.
Why is Chewbacca on Endor? Wookies don't live on Endor! It makes no sense!
>;)
-Vel
I guess thats the place to go to discuss it with them
Read the GPL, and then read the Corel Beta Agreement. The Corel Beta Agreement has a clause which it states that it supersedes any and all other ownership rights. The GPL takes no rights away from Corel's ability to keep secret any Corel developed software ... it just makes it contrary to law to attempt to alter a copyright holder's rights. Red Hat and Caldera handle this by making a clear difference between their and other's products vs the GPL. The non-GPLed products may have any license desired. The GPL products license may NOT be altered by anyone.
And your local store doesn't distribute software, they make it available to those who wish to pay?
Wow, that is totally on crack.. so what distinguishes the collection from 'every individual element inside the collection', which he would have rights to?
I need to move to a country where law is simpler. But damnit, then we'd have to still listen to international law.. mebbe that private moon base will have a few apartments up for rent soon..
There are two ways to look at this, if we look at it in the best light possible, what probably happened was that some techie dumped a CDROM onto a PR departments hack's desk and said "Distribute this for Beta test". The PR hack did, attaching the standard legal mumbo jumbo, not knowing what
they were doing.
If we look at it in a bad light, then Corel don't have a leg to stand on. The GNU Project guys will crucify them...
The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
Just one question.... What software are they preventing you from getting, besides theirs? If everything is just the GPL stuff.. Can't you just go to it's normal distribution site to get it? Many companies distribute GPL software with their product. You have to buy their product to get the GPL software.. But it is the same stuff you could get elsewhere, it is just included with their product as a convenience. Now you may say that it's different for a distribution because it's based around the GPL software... But it is still the same software you can get elsewhere.
Is this testing style in keeping with the spirit of Open Source software distribution?
Yes. The recruitment of outside Beta testers is part of the initial development process of Corel LINUX and will allow Corel to release the first version of Corel LINUX to the general public at an earlier date than would be possible if Corel relied only on its internal testing resources. Once Corel LINUX is ready for general distribution, it will be distributed in accordance with the criteria for Open Source software.
--by which they probably mean the GPL
Corel could keep cheapbytes from doing that just as easily by putting a clause in the license that targeted corel's software instead of the existing clause which targets all GPL'ed software.
From the Beta Test FAQ on the Corel Linux home:
... from a thousand PO'ed GNU/Linux users.
> Is this testing style in keeping with the spirit
> of Open Source software distribution?
> Yes. The recruitment of outside Beta testers is
> part of the initial development process of Corel
> LINUX and will allow Corel to release the first
> version of Corel LINUX to the general public at
> an earlier date than would be possible if Corel
> relied only on its internal testing resources.
> Once Corel LINUX is ready for general
> distribution, it will be distributed in
> accordance with the criteria for Open Source
> software.
Note that the question concerns the beta test style, but the answer never addresses that, but rather ends up stating that the _final_ release will be "distributed in accordance with the criteria for Open Source software," thus effectively skirting the issue entirely. It's obviously something they'd prefer to avoid discussing. If they don't understand free software and the GPL, I have a feeling they're about to learn
for someone to post the iso file on a popular ftp site and see what happens, eh?
They can't legally distribute such a distribution on those terms.
This can either go two ways. One, they submit, and release the materials, or two, they resist, and we have a case to test the validity of the GPL. A court case would have some small chance of failure, but I think it would be worth to have a tested license that would deter others from breaking the license.
We need to show Corel that if they want to gain some of the benefits of being a Linux ditributor, they must follow the rules. If they don't they risk a public relations and a legal problem.
Saw it written and I saw it say, pink moon is on its way. None of you will stand so tall, pink moon is gonna get ye al
Did slashdot just burp and lose all comments for some articles? ...wierdness.
I really hope this is an honest mistake. I feel very strongly that the distro companies must be watched very carefully. I'm sure it is very tempting for some of them to try and take advantage of the OpenSource movement to make huge profit plays, but this is not the way.
Corel has done a lot for the OpenSource movement lately. In addition to starting a new distro, their contribution of time and energy to the WINE project in invaluable. It would be a shame to wreck that working relationship because we have to boycott them for not respecting the GPL.
If Corel sticks to this I for one will boycott all their products and I hope those in the know are able to take legal action. But, more than that, I hope this is an honest mistake which Corel will remedy quickly.
While you do bring up an interesting point, I have to address the fundamental flaw in your argument.
There is nothing stoping Corel Linux from being commercial. The GPL is not anticommercialistic. It is just a way of trying to make companies who wish to benefit from GPL'ed source play "fair".
That aside, it comes down to this: while you might not want to see Corel Linux go to "waste", it doen't really matter what you want. What matters is the wishes of the authors of the source in question. They decided on the GPL in order to stop this kind of thing. That was their decision.
If you have authored packages included in Debian (on which Corel Linux is based), I urge you: write to Corel and let them know that they have your permission to re-license your work. That is really the only thing you can do directly.
This sig is false.
If you were a paid contractor would your opinion on any of this change?
The beta testing agreement is an agreement to help in testing the software not a software license.
It is not a public beta test. I think that's really the whole point here. I won't argue that beta testers are the same is QA people, but there's clearly a difference specially selected beta testers and a wide open software distribution.
So if you want to redistribute the parts of the Debian distribution that are included with Corel Linux, get them from Debian and send them out. It's the same code.
what about the non-Corel developers that wrote all that software and now Corel says that nobody can redistribute any of the software on the cd including all the GPL'ed software. This is the problem, Corel could fix all of this by altering their license to not restrict the GPL'ed software. They do not have to distribute the source to their proprietary software but they better damn well stick to the GPL on GPL'ed software or people are gunna get angry.
"Sublicense" means to provide someone else with a license to use the software. Under the GPL (and this point is at the heart of the GPL), anyone has the right to sublicence GPL'ed software. It restricts the license they may grant, and the terms under which they can grant it (namely, that they provide it under the GPL, provide the source, etc.), but it explicitly allows sublicensing by anyone, without permission. If it didn't, I'd have to ask Linus for permission every time I gave someone a copy of Linux, which would defeat the whole purpose of the GPL.
I'm assuming you interpreted "sublicense" to mean "re-license under different terms," which is not correct. "Sublicense" just means to give someone a license when you are not the original owner of the IP in question.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
I like to download software from warez sites to try it out before I buy it. If I like it, then I usually buy it. Sure, this may violate the letter of copyright law, but as long as I do eventually buy it, what difference does it make?
Try telling THAT to a corporate lawyer. Now, if I were to snag a copy of a Corell product, and let my friends "Beta Test" it after signing a form which, in part, states that I own all the intellectual property contained therein, they'd have my ass in court the second they found out about it. Why should they get a break when it's the other way around?
I have to agree that I must be missing the point. The offence here is that Corel's distribution has left their building. If that didn't occur then no one here would have any complaint. No one would see the product outside of Corel employees, no outside testing would get done on it and the product wouldn't be as good. So trying to apply the GPL to their situation of beta testing could actually result in the production of software in a more closed manner and create a lower quality product carrying the name Linux. That doesn't seem like a good thing to me.
I see two possibilities: 1. Corel goofed and "slaped" the wrong "label". response--laugh at them!!! 2. Corel just have cut its throat regarding OSS. response--sue them, and boycott them FOREVER.
And thats *exactly* what that is. They did a global search and replace on "CorelDRAW" and replaced it with "Linux" essentially.
The person who probably crufted together the Beta test agreement is probably a clueless droid and no one caught the error.
My journal has hot
It's obvious slash has been down, based on the huge lack of "Corel is trying to take over the world" posts.
/used/ to work there, and this is actually why I feel that I can say this.
Corel isn't being malicious, it's being accidentally stupid. Somebody somewhere didn't think enough before signing off on those agreements.
Full disclosure: I
Hopefully we'll see a response from Corel _soon_. A response that says "oh crap, that's totally not what we meant, here's the new version, our lawyers and our marketers and our sales people are all still getting used to the whole OSS deal." (That's a hint, if anybody at 1600 Carling Avenue is reading!)
'course, if they don't say something soon, I'll start thinking things are not as I thought. Hope that doesn't happen.
Cam
- Cam MacLeod
A suggestion for this GPL fervor.
/.'ers all over you.
Given the PR problem the GPL has just caused, I will make a suggestion.
If your goal is to support and provide income for your company with an OpenSource OS that can run Linux binaries, Consider that BSD can provide you with ALL of that *AND* the licensing terms that won't get a pack of rabid
IBM uses BSD in its Thin clients/InterJet, and Apple in Mac OS X, IP Routers use BSD. And on and on.
So, if you make binaries that work with the BSD linux compatibility mode, you STILL can partake of the "linux revolution" and yet not have the GPL revolutionaries causing you problems.
I would think that this story would piss enough people off that there would be some comments here. Corel obviously thinks that they own linux since they made their own distribution. They need to realize that while it is their distribution, the software in the distribution is NOT theirs, and they can't just make a blanket license agreement and make it apply to their entire distribution. I hope debian and corel can straighten this out.
The GPL doesn't say "public distribution", it says "distribution" (2b). Later on (4) it says: "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. "
If corel is providing any software they licenced via the GPL as part of this beta test, then they are both copying and sublicensing under terms inconsistent with the GPL. According to the GPL, this terminates their own license, and continued use of that GPL'd software would be a violation of copyright law.
Now they may not have a leg to stand on. But then again they may. And they HAVE announced an intention to release the source according to the appropriate open-source license terms with the general release, and to sell a separate distribution with their closed-source intellectual property added.
So the courts might agree with them. And other prospective open-source providers might be turned off if someone "bites the hand that feeds them" by publishing Corel's IP along with the beta.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Forgive me if this is redundant. I don't have time this evening to read the huge number of comments this story generated.
I do seem to recall, however, that in order to maintain copyright, one must enforce that copyright across the board. You can not enforce it selectively. If that is, in fact, correct, then this matter needs to be pursued aggresively regardless of Corel's lack of malicious intent. (After allowing a reasonable period of time for them to correct the error voluntarily, of course.)
Everyone should send them a copy of the GPL and a list of their transgressions.
Then they might get the hint.....
From my experience, Corel is not your typical Microsoft; they are a pretty resonable company.
Let's not forget this is all because some lawyer forgot to add a clause that states that "any non-Corel programs are governed by their respective licenses".
Big whoop-dee-doo!
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Not a violation of GPL?
:-)
by Eric Lee Green on Monday September 20, @01:12PM
Note that collections are copyrightable separately from their components. Thus Compuserve won a lawsuit against somebody who
duplicated their software archive, even though Compuserve did not possess the copyright of any program in their archive.
I agree that this is very poor publicity for Corel and that they should fix it. But I don't see that copyrighting the entire collection makes the individual licenses any less valid, you're still free to exchange and trade the GPL'ed components, just not the entire collection.
-E
I would laugh so hard if my karma went up because I copied someone else's post.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
I belive the GPL does allow for "in-house" use
of software without requiring certain stipulations
of the GPL be followed - for example if your
company were to modify gcc to compile INTERCAL
and ONLY used it in-house and did not distribute
it AT ALL they are not required to release their
changes to the source. The question here is then
if a beta test could be considered in-house use.
If so, then it is merely fuzzy whether they are breaking the GPL, if the beta test
really is public distribution, then it is a clear
violation of the GPL. I think Corel has some
explaining to do.
I think its quite possible that Corel simply modified their original beta testing form letter to read "Corel Linux" instead of "Product X", and forgot about the GPL.
Forgetting about the GPL is not a good thing.
I am willing to give them some grace on this, provided that they get their layers to re-draft the beta testing appliction to accomodate the GPL, and re-release the agreement.
If Corel is smart, they will do this FAST.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
I think this is the correct interpretation(sp?) of the GPL. If it is used by the company it is one liscense. If they have modified it for their own use but aren't distributing them they should be allowed to keep it internal. Thus Corel could keep thier Linux distro proprietary and not release code if it were only used at Corel and not given to employee's to take home, or sold. This is not, however, the case with Corel. They distributed the Beta's with a liscense that violates the GPL. That is they sublicensed it, i.e. they shipped it with thier license. This revokes thier license to use the GPLed code. as per section 4 of the GPL:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
I hope this was a snafu and they fix it. It could get ugly for them otherwise.
Ananymous Coward
The violation of the GPL is actually the less dangerous part of this interesting document.
The more interesting part is the fraudulent use of federal fundning. The first thing coming to mind when reading the so called "classification of the software" is the licence/copyright on most Linux ethernet drivers (and actually quite a lot of other stuff).
Quote (from the classic lance.c):
Copyright 1993 United States Government as represented by the Director, National Security Agency.
So this licence as presented by Corel comprises a fraudlent use of federal funding. Being not familiar with the exact formulae for calcualating jail terms and fines I will leave them as an exercise to the more educated readers.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Wow, did all the comments in this thread just get deleted? I was reading through them, went on to page (2), got a blank page, backed up, and now I get another blank page. Wtf is going on?
I've tried reloading, too... weird.
did you get a reply?
We can probably assume that that contract only holds true for the stuff Corel developed. The "product" would be the CD as a whole, but obviously they can't restrict your use of GPL'd parts of the CD.
All they need to do to comply with the GPL is offer an FTP site for the source code of all GPL'd programs and derivatives thereof.
If they don't do even that, THEN they're violating the GPL and should change their ways or action should be taken against them.
Dr. Michael Cowpland, Prime Minister of Canada and inventor of the popular "Liunx" computer operating system...
Can a company say we are going to have a massive beta program, issuing 200 million beta licenses? What is to keep company X from making their inhouse distribution and keeping it in perpetual beta outside the legal constraints of the GPL?
The follow-up question is, of course, "why would anyone do something so stupid like that?" Let's not find out.
Hypothetically, anything hypothetical is possible.
I believe you are being intentionally misleading. The complete quote which you began is "all right, title, and interest to all intellectual property with respect to the Products shall remain with Corel and it's licensors" This clearly indicates that the original owners of non-Corel code, still retain all their rights. The GPL code is therefore not owned by Corel.
I think it's important to realize that this agreement only covers the beta version of the distribution and not the final product. Once the final product is released, it is clear that none of these restrictions will apply any more.
Uh yeah. That's the way the law works.
Didn't Corel already "Break the Law"? Is not thier "product" in public circulation, all the while asserting ownership where none exists? Were the tables turned around, Corel's lawyers would have already began sending registered mail. You betcha!
I think GPL needs prompt legal action!
oh....my!
It hasn't been distributed yet, AFAIK... Only the Beta License, and what's more, it hasn't even been 24 hours since they distributed it.
As soon as they realize what they did (i.e: tomorrow) they'll promptly apologize and replace the license with something in accordance with the GPL.
IMNSHO, this is the biggest story of the day. linux.com, linuxtoday.com and redhat.com are conspicuous in their neglect of mentioning it. If you want the *real news* come back to /.
In any event, it should be interesting to see the GPL put to the test. If nothing else, this seems as a good predictor of future twists brought about by the commercialization of Linux.
Personally, the only violation would be not distribting the source code. In that faq, it says they will suply the source code with the product. The GPL says they must supply it, one way or another. They don't have to have it on an FTP.
One can merely email them and say, I want the source code to your beta! If they so 'NO!' then that is a violation. If they say, sure, but we will charge you for the cost of sending a cd specially made for you. That's fine, the GPL says that's ok, as long as its to cover costs. Actually, I believe RMS tries to charge as much as possible if you get the code from them, directly (offline).. something about old tapes. Its on GNU's site somewhere..
The point is, I don't see any violation by Corel unless they refuse to release the source that was gobbled up by the GPL.
12. Intellectual Property Rights
All right title and interest to all intellectual property with respect to the Product shall remain with Corel and its licensors. No license or other right of any kind is granted by Corel's furnishing the Products to User, except for the limitted right to use and test the Product as expressly provided in this Agreement.
{bold done by me}
So, Corel says that the user cannot break the licenses in the distribution, Corel's, GNU's, and others. Wow, I'm so shocked! That does not violate the GPL.
They also say elsewhere that he user cannot disclose confidential information. That's fine, Corel can say 'this part is confidential.' That's in their right.
Corel says they must destroy the copy. That's ok. Corel is the one who must distribcute the code, not the user. As their copy contains Corel non-GPL'ed code, they can say that. Corel must provide the source code on any Open Source software, which would be a seperate cd or however they choose.
Finally, Corel says the user cannot distribute the CD. The above makes this obviouse why, it contains Corel code. Again, the user is not the one bound by the GPL to send out source code, Corel and others are. I can't demand - "You run RedHat! Go find and give me all the free source code!" Thus, this is legal. It would be illegal for the user to distribute Corel's Linux, as it contain's Corel's code. Without that code (I assume some is GPL'ed and some is not), it would be fine.
Actually, Corel never denied distribution of the free code, just not the distribution. The free code makes up some of the distribution, but not all of it.
Does anyone else see this as a mistake by Slashdot readers? How many posters read the license? Even the sections pointed out by Mr. Taco , are not illegal. I believe I've proven why. If not, ask me to clearify some more. I think this is just as dumb as when a a senator (?) was running for office and said niggardly (sp?), and had to drop out because to few people looked up the word and considered it a slander even after they knew what it really meant.
Come on people, this is not a violation. Your just making Corel look evil, and thus hurting a good company, hurting an ally, and may even make people afraid of you. Maybe that's where BSD really does have a plus, companies don't have to be scared of their users.
(I only realized this when a Linux guy stated this, "Post Slamming the GPL." Didn't see these posts in the mess I read.. but I'm sure he posted that for a good reason.)
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
Hmmm.. Ever heard about CorelXARA (it's made by Xara Ltd.(xara.com))?. Corel decided to get some (most interesting) features from XARA - very streamlined, non-bloated program and put them into very very bloated CorelDRAW ( I worked with it since V4)
Or did I dream it ?
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
If they want to control the process, they can damned well write their own operating system and see how far that gets them! They do not have permission to control distribution in this manner. Who cares if they'd be getting tons of bug reports? That's beside the point: to the extent that they follow through on this daft licensing notion they are breaking the contract (the GPL), which says NOTHING about number of bug reports or whether you're calling the software or distribution a release, a beta, an alpha or a _Studebaker_. :P
I'm glad Bruce Perens has taken it upon himself to try and correct them. It's good to negotiate, but we (GPL using authors of which I am one, though my stuff isn't in their dist) have no ground to give. GPL means GPL. Don't like it, go somewhere else or make up a different license or use BSD instead of Linux. There is no flexibility in what you might call the 'freedom of information' aspects of the GPL. Everything else comes in second to this, it's the whole point of the license in the first place. It is _not_ _encouraging_ to see Corel, even temporarily, thinking "Let's use the GPL, except that we will need to control the information and regulate it for our convenience!". Even though this is evidently a mistake it has to be stopped cold- and it's not delightful to see people arguing that they should be allowed to do it for 'practical' reasons. Again: if you want practical go use BSD licensing- the GPL has an agenda, one that I personally agree with and support and contribute to. The convenience of Corel is beside the point! They need to fix this mistake immediately, either by not having beta testing from the outside at all, or by fixing the licensing. Their choice
Corel seems to be going on the right track for awhile and then they go and do this. I'll still support them, but I wish they would stop pulling such bonehead moves!!! .
An exploration of mixology, spirits and bartending.
Small struggling company?
;->
What rock, sir?
mindslip
Caldera does a very nice job of accomplishing this. Their licencing appendix in the user's guide is a bit bloated, but it does make the distinction between GPL software, Caldera Systems software, and third-party commercial software. It even goes so far as to outline in the EULA which software falls under which category, and attaches the full text of the GPL. Very nice.
- Adam Schumacher
cybershoe@mindless.com
Didn't know it went that low
I'm not really surprised by that Agreement. The obviously took their regular beta test agreement which they use for their proprietary products, and didn't change it at all. I noticed the same incompetence when filling out the beta tester application form -- the form was obviously intended for testers of their desktop publishing/imaging software and thus had questions that made no sense.
So, absent evidence to the contrary, I assume this is just a case of incompetence rather than intent to violate the GPL -- though the Agreement most clearly does do that! (And a host of other licenses that would be part of their distribution, like LGPL, QPL, Artistic, XFree, BSD, . .
Let's hope the Corel Prez Dr. Cowpland fixes this blunder quickly!
But aren't Beta Testers for this purpose considered part of Corel? Basically they're are employees that aren't getting paid.
What most people are missing is something quite simple. They're preventing you from distributing their compilation. This is in fact quite legal as long as no GPL software was modified. If the GPL software was compiled and included but not changed they do not need to release the source since the source is already freely available.
Look at other Linux distributions from TurboLinux, Caldera, etc. which are not totally freely available. If however there is GPL software included which was modified by Corel then they do need to make that available. Saying that you cannot copy their packaging however is quite legal since the packaging of the software cannot be construed legally as a changed piece of software if the source for the software was not changed before it was compiled.
Oh yeah btw IANAL
Looked at in the best light, the license is probably intended cover any Corel proprietary content that may be in the distribution. Obviously, the beta test license cannot conceivably apply to any material that is under the GPL, so you can ignore the license with respect to those components that fall under the GPL (or other licenses incompatible with Corel's).
The only gripe I have is that their license doesn't make it clear what is and what is not covered. Newbies might think that it covers every included item.
So this could be just a case of innocent misrepresentation. My guess is that someone in the company who is vaguely clueless about free software just applied some ``standard'' beta test licensing boiler-plate.
Frankly, I find this a perfect example of how friendly the Linux community is to newbies, whether they be users who ask (unknowingly) stupid questions, or companies inexperienced in the OSS world trying to bring world-class software to the platform.
As much as I am looking forward to the Corel distro, I hope they take their marbles and go port their apps to some other OS that has a less rabid band of Zealots as a user base, instead.
I know of at least one OS that I'll be suggesting to them as a platform that would welcome their software with open arms, not rabid hatred at the first slip.
Corel has information on their website about their beta program, including a Corel LINUX Beta FAQ. They claim, in this FAQ, that the testing is "in keeping with the spirit of Open Source software distribution".
The have also created an entire web site specifically for their distro beta. They provide an email address to contact them at on that webpage as well, corellinux@corel.com.
Also included are such items as the press release announcing the launch of the beta, with many other press releases. They do not appear to have responded to this story yet.
---
END OF LINE
I've given the Ottawa office of Corel a call, and was transferred to their legal department. I got no answer whatsoever, so I left a short message. If I get a callback, I'll let everyone know what's going on. Until then, here's prayin' that their voicemail system's in good shape..
James
Give the boys a break, please. Why can't you let them be as successful as Necrosoft through robbery?
Looks like excerpts from a regular beta agreement to me, and it doesn't really surprise me.
;)
Corel is a big faceless corperation, and as such, they're likely to fudge up a few times when playing around in unfamiliar territory like open-source software.
I interviewed for a linux programming job at Corel not too long ago, and I should say that they're a bungh of nice, decent people, and their hearts are in the right place.
To put this in perspective, this is my take on corel's interests:
#1: Get people to stop using windows. Windows sucks.
#2: Get people to use Linux, because Microsoft doesn't control it.
#3: Make some cash selling Corel Draw and Wordperfect and the like on Linux, where the competition is currently nearly non-existant.
So if they mess up a liscence along the way, it's certainly not because they don't like you.
I'm sure the matter will be cleared up before long, and if not, screw them, they didn't hire me anyways.
Software that represents part of the Debian body of code will fall under item (iii) above, and thus represent stuff that is Not Confidential Information.
It is pretty evident that the lawyers "went a little ape" on this; as likely as not someone needs to wander over to Gowling and Henderson (the big Ottawa law firm) and have words with them.
It is not, however, evident that this represents a clear violation of the GPL.
The only stuff it seems would legally be able to be treated as "Confidential" would be code that Corel themselves produce and provide.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
But how did they get it from Intel, the same way I am certain that Corel gets beta's to their testers.....by distributing it.
While I am quite certain anyone involved in Linux on Merced development has more coding skill than I could hope to have in this life, I can also be certain that NO developer on that project works alone. Per this way of thinking Sending code/binaries/etc to another person is distribution.
I am not a lawyer, but Corel's most sensible argument is that they have an agent relationship with their testers....by acting on behalf of the entity Corel, Corel the entity did not distribute any thing to anyone...It's all one entity.
Without assigning any validity to this argument it, to me the question is:
Is it worth alienating a potential ally by scaring them away with a lawsuit? Particularily if we have confidence and assurance from them that they will do the right thing.
Corel should:
1. Publicly apologize for not consulting the primary authors of GPL code in their product.
2. Publicly apologize for not making the terms of their beta agreement public and quite clear in advance of the beta.
3. Publish the indended license for the release of the CorelLINUX distro for public review.
4. Respond to the multiple requests from Debian project leaders in a way that can publicly report those peoples satisfaction with Corel's corrective actions.
These are fair requests that can bring an amiable resolution to this problem. It will also permit Corel to save some face and not continue down the path of public cluelessness.
First off, my name is John. I'm not a coward. I just found this site, and will register.... How idiotic can Corel be to think they can restrict something that's already free to the public? I have confidence GNU consortium will publish Corel as non-compliant, and the appropriate legal ramifications will ensue, along with lost market-share. Although Microsoft could get away with lying to the public in the IGNORANT 80's about inventing windows, this is the 90's. If the public is that dumb, I'd like to change that. If anyone has a public-information campaign already started, please contact me at kelp@yahoo.com I'd like to make sure the liars are buried in the truth....
Hrrrrmmmm . . . I had the unpleasant experience of having to fix up someones job done in Micrographix, and while I will agree that their GUI improvents to CorelDRAW and generally good (and yeah, it is a blatant ripoff of corel), the software is so buggy as to be non-useful.
Really, really, really buggy. I wrote em a nasty nasty letter just because I was sooooo pissed with them.
-- Reverend Vryl
all the BSD's contain lots of GPL'ed software.
What's your definition of, "lots"? GPL code is not a huge amount. It exists, but why would they not include bash, gcc, etc? Its good code, but not the majority. RMS wanted GNU/Linux (pronounced GNU&Linux) because Linux distributions were almost entirely made out of GNU code. The OS, not the distribution. The basic OS has GNU libraries, shells, etc. Linux does not function without GNU's contributions, or no one has tried as of yet.
BSDs have there own shells from when the BSD developers (was it Kirk or Bill? I forget who made the request and last distribution) released an entirely free varient of BSD. BSD does not rely on GNU code, and BSDs include GNU code because it is good code! For the entire OS, or entire distribution, the GPL does not make the majority, it makes the minority.
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
Humm, the Corel FAQ does sound a bit strange -I wonder what they mean by "advanced features and enhancements will not be available in the [free] download version". I don't think Corel just messed up the beta agreement - something more is afloat....
Jan
From the Corel Linux FAQ from Corel's website (http://www.corel.com), 20th Sept. :
Will Corel LINUX be available as a not-for-charge download or sold as a standalone
product?
Most of the Corel LINUX operating system falls under the guidelines of the GNU Public
Licence, and will be available as a not-for-charge download. A standalone version,
which may contain additional enhanced features, will be available on CD-ROM and
will be sold with an accompanying manual and technical support. Final price has not
yet been determined but Corel LINUX will be competitively priced to other Linux
operating systems. Corel LINUX will also be included with the soon-to-be-released
WordPerfect® Office for LINUX.
What kind of technical support will Corel offer?
We will build upon our existing support services and form partnerships with third parties
if required to enable us to maintain high quality technical support.
Is there an advantage to Corel to give away the source code to Corel LINUX and
make it available as a not-for-charge download?
By returning the source code to Corel LINUX to the Open Source community and
making Corel LINUX available as a not-for-charge download, we are acting within the
spirit of the Open Source community, and helping to grow the Linux market by
creating new demand for applications in addition to the operating system.
If Corel LINUX is available as a not-for-charge download, will customers purchase
the standalone version?
The standalone version will include the entire operating system on one CD, plus
advanced features and enhancements not available in the download version. It will
also include a manual and technical support. These are compelling reasons to
purchase Corel LINUX and we expect that many people will do so.
Before everyone start jumping up and down, screaming four letter words at corel,.. lets hear from them and see if they can fix this. Remember humans arnt perfect. Netscape, IBM and the rest that became opensource had these very problems. Give them time before you scream. And remeber Corel Linux is for the windows hoards.. not for powerusers.. :)
Enjoy
--
They are behaving as if 'beta' testing 'doesn't count' somehow. The contract does not support them in this mistaken assumption, so they either need to not beta test with outside people, or to follow the GPL, _or_ simply this: they can beta test with only selected people, and simply place NO RESTRICTION on those people. Then those people can redistribute all they want, but nobody is forcing Corel to _listen_ to anyone but their selected beta testers. They can select only the people they wish to have feedback from, and ignore anyone else for the beta stages. This fully complies with the GPL, because all the GPL cares about is getting the information out unrestrictedly (except by the GPL itself). The GPL contract nowhere states that the dist compiler _must_ listen to bug reports or work with whoever comes along- it only says that you _must_ give the work to anybody who wants it.
We've seen things like this in the past. For some reason, it seems Corel thinks that the GPL is for all of the 15 year old kids putting software out from their basement. GPL? It obviouly doesn't apply to Corel because they're a *company* and everyone else is just a geek with a computer.
This is something we can't stand for.
aÍÍ©ÍÌÍ£Ì'̽ͩÌÍzÍYÌÍÌY
Now, if putting software on a CD, and mailing it to hundreds or thousands of users who has requested the software isn't distribution, then what is ?.
Also, they must've missed the point. A beta program is to iron out bugs, surely it's much easier for a beta-tester to assist in finding and fixing bug if he's given the sourcecode to the program he's testing ?
What they're doing is stupid. And it's illegal. I find it quite likely that their legal dept. simply did a foul-up and that it'll be fixed quickly, but I still think it's sad that Corel hasn't really understood anything at all.
It's good that Bruce is educating Corel about GPL'ed software. They apparently thought all the talk about the stuff being non-proprietary meant that people like Bruce wouldn't try to protect their proprietary interests in the software. I'm sure Bruce will help them understand Gspeak.
... Or what I hope happened is that someone fudged up and just filled out a 'Standard Beta Test' form that they use there and just put 'Coral Linux' where is said . Totaly forgetting the fact that most software in Debain is under the GPL.
Is this truly a violation? Corel is *not* selling or otherwise distributing a product based on GPL yet. They are TESTING it.
Yes, the use of the standard beta-test agreement is probably bad, as it talks about IP and other things that go against the GPL... but they are not distributing anything yet. They are recruiting testers.
Though whatever changes they choose to release to the world must be GPL'd, nothing forces them to release every change they consider making. IN other words, they aren't in violation of the GPL until they start distributing a product.
If I take the linux kernel, make huge modifications, and then distribute it, yes, I have to put it under GPL. If I want to use it solely for my own private work in my private business, I don't have to show anyone ANYTHING AT ALL.
Corel possibly should have used some sort of NDA rather than this agreement. Stating that 'The details as to corel's proposed changes are secret until we release the product' so as not to give away their surprises.
IN other words, if I hire you to help me write an addition to samba, because I want my company to be famous, can I not ask you to 'SHUT YOUR MOUTH' about our changes until we decide to release them, even though they will be GPL when released?'
If Corel decides to violate the GPL it violating the thing that linux is about. Linux doesn't need Corel if Corel will violate the spirit of Linux.
Mike
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
Nobody here can do anything about this violation. That's right - you can't stop Corel from doing this. But the authors of these packages can. If Corel won't back off, the community will need to undertake an effort to bring a class-action lawsuit against Corel for violation of the GPL. This should amount to some 200 or so violations if all the authors of the individual packages cooperate. Debian might also be able to sue (IANAL).
Bruce, are you out there? How do you feel about getting a group going to spearhead this? We need somebody to herd cats. :)
For now, everybody just sit tight - I'm fairly certain it won't come to this - Corel isn't this stupid. The legal department probably erred and didn't contact the engineers before slapping these restrictions on. We'll see...
--
It's that simple.
bad bad bad!
Now prepare to get slapped by thousands of OSS advocates.
Bzzzt. Nice try. Next contestant...
Maybe it was a trial balloon.
Seriously, someone at Corel really did NOT think
this one through. Those that did think it through and were over-ruled or ignored will certainly be able to say "I told you so".
Anyway, let's try not to over-react.
Dave D
I believe what those posters were referring to was the ability to change the license for your purposes when using the BSD license. However, in 99% of the cases companies continue to contribute back to the public domain under the BSD license for a subteller reason than that of the GPL.
Cost is too high to maintain a BSD product completely seperate from the mainstream releases. Apple, Yahoo, Integrated Circuit companies, etc. all contribute parts, drivers and other things regularly. It makes it easier for them to borrow other sections in the future if they can help insure it'll be compatible (which they do by being active).
It has yet to be shown that the GPL is better at this, only that it is more direct at enforcing it. Though, without there having been a major court case, the GPL's effectiveness has yet to be actually seen.
Rod Taylor
Maybe the individual packages can't be controlled by Corel, but the compilation may be an independently-copyrightable work. Hence, the distribution itself might be property of Corel, while the individual components are property of others.
Of course, with Corel's distribution based on Debian, the compilation is probably a derivative work of Debian, so Corel can't control a compilation copyright. However, in principle, I think a Linux distribution might be able to be restrictively copyrighted.
Any lawyers wish to comment?
I guess it was only a matter of time before someone put the GPL to a real-life test. I'm very surprised that it was Corel and that the violations are this blatant. If this is a mistake I think they should fire their lawyers *very quickly*. If it's not then maybe they deserve to be boycotted.
Does anyone realise that Corel has probably not modified any of the GPL source in its distro?
In that case, most of the GPL'ed programs are already available in the public FTP servers.
Corel's own installation, utilities...etc. are not under GPL/any other license yet.
I would tend to think that what they're doing does not constitute distribution in the way the GPL seems to use it --
EXCEPT
1. They're sending it to people outside the company
2. These people aren't being paid as contractors
3. Their license agreement specifically refers to them as USERS. Not 'Internal Testers' or 'Developers'
How can they claim they're not distributing the software?
It's sad to think that Corel thought they could get away with this, and hopefully they will rectify the problem promptly. I wonder if we might start seeing dodgy licence terms more often as large corporates try to get in on the Linux bandwagon.
One would think that, in assembling their own distro, Corel would have had at least a few staff members with Linux experience and a familiarity with the GPL. As such, it seems unlikely that this Licence was an honest mistake, although here's hoping i'm wrong.
Until the Licence is changed to a GPL, I think this is one distro that doesn't deserve our support. There are plenty of other distros out there that are willing to play by the rules that need a hand. (Yay Stampede!).
Looks like we might see how well the GPL holds up in court sooner rather than later.
Apologies for my grammar,
hummer
If linux had a BSD style license.. then companies could get involved easier. 1st? -bugg (fearing karma hurt)
Corel has slipped up on something that makes passionate software users everywhere an anomaly: There needs to be a connection between the legal department and the PR department.
Coming from a Windows world where messing with copyright terms will not anger most end users, they have made a horrible blunder that needs to be fixed right away if they wish to retain the respect of a large part of the community. If they do not, it is a sign that the support of the hardcore Linux users do not matter to Corel in the slightest.
I don't know about most of you, but as a home computer user, I don't really read the licenses of Windows products that I've installed, but I go through the trouble for a lot of Linux packages, because the implications of a limiting license under Linux could mean a lot more, since distros like Debian Linux can be rolled out in most situations without a second thought as to whether the software that I just installed software that needed to be registered with the company in 20 days, or it becomes disabled.
Corel Linux's blunder has only slightly to do with inconveniencing us from using their modified betas. Rather, it has everything to do with someone stealing the intellectual property that was released to the public. It is a challenge against the GPL.
Don't we have to protect the GPL, or the software that had it's copyright licenses gets violated? The applying laws to this may or may not be the same in my country. Also, does anyone have a list or could pass some names along as to what software was stolen?
This could also bring up a bit of a holy war: People who say that anyone who cries out against Corel for this are overreacting: They will release the source with the distro eventually. However, I believe it's the principal of the thing.
Let's hope this is a stupid mistake and not a stupid company. It is a sign that when Linux grows up enough to have a big enough user base, that the communities of old and wise(sometimes) coders can be ignored by companies and profit can still be made using our software. When this happens, and I'm not saying it did, people will hesitate to contribute to a movement that helps so many companies who do not care about us. Free software has this hurdle to get past, if Linux ever eventually has enough of a userbase of average users. It will probably happen within the next few years.
I wonder if anybody will sue them. Maybe they just
"forgot" that Debian is GPLed, or something. Anyway,
it leaves a bad taste of "we're a big company"
on my mouth.
I'm pretty sure this is not the first time the GPL
has been violated by a Big Company, but has one
of them been pulled to the court yet? Would be
interesting to read.
That's why. Some astroturfer has moderator points today.
my thoughts excatly
The basic sleazeware produced in a drunken fury by a bunch of UCBerkeley grad students was still the core of BIND. --PV
Hmm...seems that Corel should have first defined a point of separation between the GPL'd stuff and their own proprietary Products (why did they use an uppercase P?). In other words, they should have worded it something like "This distro contains both GPL and Corel owned product. All GPL'd product can be distributed freely under the terms of the GPL and any changes Corel has made to GPL products is also freely avaliable. However, all Corel owned products are copyrighted by Corel and my not be copied or redistributed."
\forall code \in C, \frac{\Delta readability(code)}{\Delta t} < 0
If you are telling the truth though, I don't think your so-called legal department would appreciate it if you divulged the information :)
The part that says "All right, title and interest to all intellectual property with respect to the Products shall remain with Corel and its licensors. No license or other right of any kind is granted by Corel's furnishing the Products to user [except for testing]. . ." does not "attempt to assert ownership over items copyrighted by others". "Corel and its licensors" means exactly that--Corel _AND_ its licensors, i.e. the people who granted licenses to Corel. So agreeing to that specific text just means that you acknowledge that Corel may own parts of the beta CD image and that other people may own other parts of the beta CD image. This is of course true--other people do in fact own most of the beta CD image. The text "No license or other right of any kind is granted by Corel's furnishing the Products to user" is also perfectly acceptable according to the GPL. If you want to redistribute parts of the Corel beta CD image, or exercise any other rights the GPL would give you, you have to get those rights from Corel's licensors directly. You can't get these rights from Corel via the beta program per se, but that's OK, because you _can_ get these rights from Corel's licensors. This is where the BSD-vs-GNU licensing debate becomes interesting.
Being that it's not a public release (limited release beta not for redistribution) you could consider it to be their software. It's not a violation to change GPL'd software without giving back the changes, just to distribute the changes without source. It's a really interesting thing to try to deal with, but it'd be really hard to beta test software that you aren't ready to release yet and still conform to the GPL without considering the beta testers as being people who're part of your organization in a weird sense. Anyway, I'm not a lawyer and if I was I think I'd be standing on a ledge right about now if I had to deal with this one, but ohh well. That's just my 2 cents.
-Mike
That's not right. A compilation is obviously a derivative work, and so it is governed by the GPL as well.
Besides, they don't restrict redistribution to the entire compilation.
Well certainly, it's mandatory on SlashDot to always impute the most evil possible motives to any commercial entity.
Fuck 'em!
Perhapse they simply want to make sure everyone gets rid of the beta version once they release their full version. Or maybe I am just giving Corel too much credit here.
Vidi, vici, veni. (I saw, I conquered, I came)
>Corel is a small, struggling company...
Clearly the largest software company in Canada isn't big enough for you.
But then again, up north here in Canada companies are, by necessity, pretty small...at least until we perfect the multi-storey igloo.
Drinking will help us plan!
If they are distributing this software, THEY ARE DISTRIBUTING IT. The GPL does not say _ANYTHING_ about internal, external, public or private distributions of GPL software. Nor does it talk about alpha, beta or point releases.
--fatboy
They are very small, and very much struggling.
Imagine trying to compete with microsoft with a $250M market capitalization.
Here is their stock price over the past five years. Struggling? Hell Yes!
This agreement again looks like a generic document that Corel uses for beta testing, , I think someone at Corel should think a little bit more before they send out items.
In the jurisdiction in which Corel is incorporated, it would be a Crown Attorney that could be relevant, and that only if this were a criminal matter. (With court session probably to be held a couple blocks from my old high school, but I digress...)
The firestorm that would arise from taking such action would have Unintended Consequences that would likely be widely injurious to the free software community.
It makes a lot more sense for one or three of the people that are developers of software known to be included with "Corel Linux" to calmly request that the language in the "Beta License" be toned down a little to correctly reflect the licensing of the free software being distributed.
It is highly probable that the high-handed wording resulted from some lawyers that having arbitrarily applied the sorts of licensing terms they have always applied to beta editions of things like WordPerfect or CorelDraw! without having properly read the free software licenses.
Does it make more sense to:
- Try to burn them in oil, and certainly discourage them from ever considering free software ever again? or
- Respectfully requesting some form of "cease and desist" that provides an avenue for them to back down gracefully, provide a more satisfactory license, and learn something from the process?
I know which option I'd rather go with...If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
No language about "internal use." In fact, "internal" does not appear anywhere in the GPL. Corel is violating the terms of the GPL. Perhaps this was unintentional. Regardless, it must be corrected promptly, if only to specify that the license language only applies to those parts of the distribution wholly developed by Corel.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page
so corel can't distribute such distro?
hany
If Corel are allowed to distribute previously GPL'ed software such as this that have already individually been out of beta stage for quite some time, what is to stop a company from circumventing the GPL by distributing a closed source version of their software as 'Beta' indefinately?
Corel shouldn't be allowed to make a move such as this and I don't believe it follows in the spirit of the Free Software movement at all. If practices such as this continue I can see us loosing all the positive ground that Open Source and Free Software movements have made in the past few years.
Oh, by all means, let's expose this guy to his company so they can find a reason to fire him for blowing the whistle on them. Do you people ever think before you flame people??? It's all well and good to say to someone else that they should speak up publicly, but how many happily-ever-afters do you personally know of when this has happened?
I think we all realized that this was possible. Corel is used to making and distributing commercial software and despite its good intentions has failed to observe a few rules by which we free software devotees live by. Although this really disappoints me, I'm hoping that they can remove these stupid restrictions and continue to be a commercial supporter to the movement.
The employee case is actually somewhat interesting: suppose you are an employer, you have modified the Linux kernel and now you are hiring somebody to extend your changes. You hand him a copy to work on (you "distribute"), but as part of his contract, he is not allowed to distribute further. Of course, he promptly puts the copy out for FTP and you promptly fire him. He cannot contend the firing since he violated a contract. Fine so far. But now the copyright holders of the Linux kernel will sue you, since you distributed a GPL covered work with additional restrictions (the work contract), and this is explicitly forbidden by paragraph 6 of the GPL. You have just broken copyright law (distributed a copy without permission of the copyright holders), which can result in civil as well as criminal penalties.
Also note that the people who downloaded the modified kernel via FTP now have complete GPL rights to it and may redistribute as they see fit (paragraph 4). You cannot stop them in any way.
--
I think he could send them a package that would straighten all of this out.
And so begins the conflict between big business and the communist model of the Linux world.
Good luck Corel...you'll need it...
I don't think that this is intentional. I think that they probably took a regular Beta license that they give out for all products and used it for their linux distro. I also do not believe that they would intentionally try to retain rights over things they obviously don't own, or that they would try to keep withhold the source code for their distribution. I think they just don't want every gimp in the world to have a copy of their beta versions, and sending in irrelevent mailings about certain "features".
Erhm...*COUGH* wistle-blower laws. Thank you.
Lets all email their webmaster and tell them what we think! A few thousand emails should get their attention.
webmaster@corel.com
I hope that the "beta" status applies to their licence too.
Seriously, this will happen more and more often as more and more old-school-commerce businesses are getting a taste of linux. For now, I'm just happy that to think that Corel dev people have had a good working relationship with debian and I hope that they will try to correct the misunderstanding ASAP.
I hope it's just a case of a runaway legal department. I had a good smile too at the 3com site, where you had to "submit" to the terms of the gpl before being allowed to access their drivers. It seems that it's not just the marketing departments that have a hard time getting used to the linux way.
You forgot the Brazilian distro Conectiva.
Oh...I see...just astroturfing, eh?
It took about 1/2 a minute to find this info in the Corel Linux Beta Test FAQ:
Why isn't Corel putting Corel LINUX on an FTP site for download? The first version of Corel LINUX is still in the development and testing phase and is not ready for general distribution. Beta testing is part of the development process that Corel is following to ensure that Corel LINUX reaches a suitable level of completeness and stability before it becomes widely available.
Is this testing style in keeping with the spirit of Open Source software distribution?
Yes. The recruitment of outside Beta testers is part of the initial development process of Corel LINUX and will allow Corel to release the first version of Corel LINUX to the general public at an earlier date than would be possible if Corel relied only on its internal testing resources. Once Corel LINUX is ready for general distribution, it will be distributed in accordance with the criteria for Open Source software.
When will Corel release the source code for Corel LINUX?
The source code for Corel LINUX will be available with the first distribution of Corel LINUX.
Will Corel be releasing the source code for applications it has created such as the Corel File Manager?
Corel will be making the source code available for such applications. The exact terms of the license under which the source code will be distributed has not yet been announced.
Looks like they have "closed" the beta so as to limit "bad" copies of Corel Linux in circulation. This may, indeed, violate the GPL, but doesn't look like they are "commercialising"/"closing" their/debian's distro- not they even indicate that the Corel developed software will be OSS (though not necessarily GPL).
Now, who owns GPL? Obviously nobody. Then who can go to court and sue corel (and others) for violating GPL? ;-) then some damages (or whatever) must be seeked etc...
If I somewhat understand jurisprudence
Now, can I (or you) sue 'em? No? Then who can?
Are they so arrogant to think they are above the GPL? Are they testing to see how strong the GPL is? Maybe because its a "beta" product they want tight control over it and think this is an acceptable way to do it. Or maybe it's a big oversight on Corel's part, although I doubt it. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
I personally detest outfits like cheapbytes and Linux mall who make $1.89 CDs and undercut the original distribution vendor to such a level that the original source, which often contributes back to the Linux community, does not have a chance to make a buck. Corel is contributing to Open Source, re: WINE, KDE enhancements, and installation/update apps. That is partly where your $50 for the distro goes. How much of your CheapBytes $1.89 goes back to the community?? Hmmm... that's a tough one. Also, last I knew, Corel was talking about including their Office products (WP and more) which won't be GPL'd, on the distro. So, legally, that should keep the CheapBastards... err.. CheapBytes of the world off their backs... but I wouldn't put it past them to try and weasle a way around it. Linux is NOT BEER. Either contribute to Linux by providing applications, documentation, or beta testing, or get off your lazy, cheap asses and PURCHASE a copy from those organisations who do help with, and contribute back to Linux development. I'm tired of hearing crap from people who contribute nothing and expect everything to be free.
I was willing to forgive the beta test web site gaffes because, well, they were kind of cute, and nobody got hurt.
But you would think _one_ of their software guys would have sent a memo to legal saying, "Have you guys looked into the fact that we are going to release software that we don't actually own, yet?"
I don't think the, "Oops, we didn't realise our standard beta agreement wouldn't work," excuse works for this one.
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
Linux users constantly cry out for more commercial attention and more applications, yet at the same time they seem to want Free (of charge) everything.
Well, guess what.
1. Corel HAS contributed to open source (WINE, KDE, Installation, etc. etc.)
2. Companys DO need a way to make money.
3. We have families to feed too.
Employees? Hmmm. In my state we have a minimum wage law.
So now we have a company that has taken a GPL product, and is going to try and claim ownership of it. Are we going to begin see lawsuits over GPL violations now? At what point does one say, "They've taken code that we've worked very hard for, made a few little changes, then said it was all their's, and we couldn't use anything they made." GPL compliance among vendors indeed...
It's not the support of Corel that will make a difference in itself, so I wouldn't worry about them dropping free software. If they're in free software now, it's because that's a business opportunity for them. They don't need any encouragement.
By the way, any legal procedure requires you to ask "cease and desist" a few times first, before you go to court. You must have tried and insisted first, within reason, to solve the problem by yourself, before you bring it before the judge.
I'm all for the idea to start the procedure, and to push through whatever is possible, to the maximum extent possible un...
I think that this is a blessing in disguise.
The GPL hasn't really received a trial by fire yet. While I agree with some earlier posters that this was possibly a MarketDroid typo, I think that we have to be prepared for it not to be.
In other words, legal precedent for the GPL.
IMHO, that, along with a nice point-and-drool install, will advance Linux more than anything.
censorship is a form of noise, which actively seeks to drown out content with silence - Crash Culligan
Bruce Perens said:
>They are concerned that too many support-hungry Windows users and the
>press not get ahold of this software in an early state.
This is amusing. Corel issued this bogus license in order to prevent
Windows users from using the distribution even though Windows users are
the target market for it?
You'd think that clearly labelling something as "Unstable, Beta,
Pre-Release" would have the desired effect. What is Corel saying about
their customers?
From what it sounds like, they would call in for support for an unreleased
product and Corel's solution was this ridiculous license so that they
wouldn't have to field tech support calls!
But now they're having a PR fiasco anyway, which is probably causing them
a lot more headache.
There are two possibilities:
- They were ignorant of the GPL and "accidentally" violated it. Oops.
- They knew about the GPL but violated it anyway for "convenience", as
noted above.
I find it hard to believe that with all the press Linux / GNU / Open
Source, etc. have been getting that Caldera wouldn't know about the GPL.
They're up to version 2.3 now, and it's actually called OPENLinux!
Ransom Love was just interviewed in LJ for cryin' out loud! I don't think
the ignorance plea works here.
So, most likely, they just said "screw it".
Either way, do you want to buy a product from them? In one case the
legal/executive team is a bunch of monkeys (don't support their banana
habit -- buy somewhere else); in the other case, it's people who want to
violate the GPL, use you as guinea pigs (beta testers) before selling to
Windows users, and charge you for it.
Sounds good, except it's wrong, since all the BSD's contain lots of GPL'ed software. If you want to stick to pure BSD licenses, you are essentially restricted to the kernel and a couple of tools. Many things you need are protected under GPL. You can run but you cannot hide from rabid /.'ers.
--
I believe you are being intentionally misleading. The complete quote which you began is "all right, title, and interest to all intellectual property with respect to the Products shall remain with Corel and it's licensors" This clearly indicates that the original owners of non-Corel code, still retain all their rights. The GPL code is therefore not owned by Corel.
Oh, damn. I wasn't being misleading, I was being flat out wrong. It wasn't intentionally, I swear. I don't know how I missed that.
Well, never mind then. The only concern in the license is the restricted redistribution after all.
It's clear from this beta agreement that some companies trying to get very close to Linux still don't get it. Here is a company that is hoping to jump on the OSS bandwagon to make some serious money, but they obviously don't understand what that entails. I could almost sympathize if this was another company that was just entering this domain, but here is a company that is marketing a distribution, and if you control a distribution with enough users, you hold considerable influence over the community. Do you want to entrust someone so braindead with the task?
The agreement is worthless, but I'm curious to see how it will be handled. Obviously Corel will have to back down or legal action will be taken. I just hope it doesn't have to go that far.
Big for profit companies just don't understand what open source. It's open, it's free - Anyone can do anything they want.
I would expect more things like this to start showing up as more commercial companies start going 'open source'. They want all the benefits, but don't want to actually have the source be free.
Anyways, I think corel will just change its agreement. Although this could be a real test of the GPL in court (Have there been any yet?)
-RossB
We knew that as soon as Big Business(TM) got involed, they would try to change the rules to suit their own purposes (money).
It was probably drawn up by someone who just
copied it from another beta product's license.
The same appears true of the form they used for people
to submit themselves as "beta testers".
Is it too much to expect Corel to read Linuxtoday and
Slashdot? If they'd read the Linuxtoday feedback they'd
already know people were unhappy.
Now that we are aware of the problem, lets be civil about the issue and politely request complience with the GPL. People make mistakes all the time. Since this is their very first attempt at making an Open Source distribution, it is not unreasonable to give Corel the benefit of the doubt and some grace.
They say the are providing this software as a beta, they don't want to spread beta quality software, nobody wants that. They will release the corel linux distribution under the GLP license when it's ready. So, give them a break and go flame microsoft.
I think that Corel likes to do things their way. They want to privately develop a version of Linux (Cathedral style) and then release it and wow everyone with what they did and make a big splash. This is very important, because it is hard to wow people when they see you coming. If they think they have made enough updates to Linux to really capture everyone's interest and attention, then they might become the primary distribution of Linux, replacing Red Hat before Red Hat becomes too entrenched. That would mean HUGE money for them - their stock value would increase by orders of magnitude. I think the rocketing stock values of Red Hat inspired them to try this.
As to the legal issues, I think they figure that by using the Beta Release ruse - (is it a distrubion or internal development) puts them in a grey area of the GPL. I think they figure this will give them enough maneuvering room to try it. Worst case scenario they just say it was a mistake, apologize, back down and make up with the OSS community and they're no worse off than when they started. Pull it off and they enhance their chances of winning the number one slot in the distribution wars.
Its a political move to "support linux"
-bugg (no longer fearing karma damage)
-bugg
Not neccessarily. A collection is a derived work, and as such, specifically covered in the GPL. Whether or not the copyrights of the individual authors of the software in the referenced case was consulted or not would make a difference.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
>IBM uses BSD in its Thin clients/InterJet, and Apple in Mac OS X, IP Routers use BSD. And on and on.
... and GPL with Apache ...
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Looking at the agreement itself, it's pretty obvious that some legal department lackey did a search-and-replace using the last beta product license for who-knows-what. There are provisions that are obviously in violation with previous and superceding GPL licensing, but I suspect that it's an error, rather than a ploy to try and steal GPL code back into the proprietary world.
Corel will, in all likelyhood, quietly revise the license and try to remove the egg from their collective faces.
I think not...(*poof*)
Pity. I was going to get Corel Linux when it came out but I already am put off it. Corel, fix this thing before the whole world won't touch it.
Perhaps we should write (polite) letters to Corel pointing out the blatant violations of the GPL. (Read the advocacy HOWTO for guidelines, don't just start flaming)
Corel has in the past been pretty good to the community, so don't jump down their throats just yet. That time will come later.
-Rain, an honest to god slashdot girl.
rainfa1l@happypuppy.com
Let them work. Maybe we all will cause corel to quit in their efforts to support Linux. And there will be no Corel Draw for linux, No Paradox, no more Corel wordperfect, they are fine people, leave them alone. Go bash microsucks
What else do you call stamping it cds and mailing it to people, if not distibution? Remember that distribution is a verb as well, and that is what the GPL refers to, not a distribution. And, unless the source was on the cds they shipped, they did distribute without source.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Calm down, people. This is obviously just a mistake. If you think Corel is deliberately setting out to violate the law and torpedo their own product then you're an idiot.
Someone needs to calmly and politely point out their error and try to help them do damage control so that this incident doesn't make their target market nervous about trying Linux.
Corel is a small, struggling company and they are probably working way too hard trying to break new ground for Linux in the mainstream marketplace. Their lawyers are probably wrestling with a thousand complicated issues about how to embrace Linux and still protect Corel from the usual suite of legal threats by opportunistic consumers and predatory competitors. They are bound to make a few mistakes, but they're not trying to rip anybody off.
Help them, don't hurt them.
Zooko
Then Corel Linux, a product that might have been useful to a specific market, goes to _waste_
I'd much rather see Corel Linux exist and be commerical...
than not exist at all.
-bugg
that it will take corporate lawyers a little bit of time to learn how to deal with new licensing terms, such as GPL. In the past, they've had complete control (theoretically speaking, of course), of how their software was licensed and used. It takes a while to teach an old dog new tricks. For Corel's sake, I hope they learn fast or this could be a serious black eye. If anything, this might serve as a lesson and reminder to other corporations moving towards the OSS movement. Perhaps this will remind them that they don't necessarily make the rules anymore.
I think we should stop complaining and take some action. Lets send Corel some flaming email and tell them what we really think of their licensing agreement. e-mail address for customer service is custserv2@corel.ca Also, e-mail investor relations at ir@corel.ca
This could be the first real test of the GPL's legal viability.
What concerns me is this:
Who will be more convincing in court? RMS rambling about "taking away freedom"? Or Corel's army of knowledgable copyright lawyers, who have probably already found every legal loophole there is in the GPL?
The future of the open-source community hangs in the balance. If the GPL doesn't hold up in court, it's open season for profiteers and freeloaders -- and I think it will be a long time before anyone gives away their hard work for free again.
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
Seems like this one could be headed for the courts. I wonder who backs ($$$) the GPL in such a case.
Isn't the benefit of free and opensource software to have the code WITH the beta so that the people using it can fix bugs. By not using the GPL for the beta, Corel are losing a major benefit of open and free software. $0.02
OK, the GPL is the GPL. You cannot simply assert control over a body of work that was built by any other person or group of people. Granted. Any attempt to steal licensed code, GPL or otherwise, is a violation of law.
However, let us compare Corel's actions to that of another large company the Linux/OSS group has been watching for some time now: Intel. Does this bring to mind the Merced processor that so many are lookng forward to? I have not seen Linux Kernel source on any FTP servers for this code, I would think that it would make use of large amounts of kernel source.....in fact much of the Linux on Merced work is being done under NDA in direct conflict with the provisions of the GPL.
In the long run, if monitored and handled properly, this trespass will actually benefit OSS. I would like to think that Corel has no intention of appropriating GPL'd code. I would like to think that Corel is not prepared to release an incomplete package to the user base they have indicated they are marketing, entry level users who don't know computing much less *nix are not capable of handling early beta systems.
This could be the first real test of whether the GPL and other software licences are really enforceable. I see three possible outcomes:
1) Non-enforceable. The whole software industry (including free software) goes into disarray. The terms of the GPL would probably be observed by most companies anyway to keep the community goodwill going. Flamewars about the BSD/GPL flame wars will be meaningless, and everyone will go back to coding.
2) Enforceable. Nothing much changes, except that everyone gets a warm fuzzy feeling about the power of their favourite software licence.
3) Corel backs down. This is the only really likely scenario. This all blows over and the only people who still care would use plain Debian instead of Corel's effort anyway.
(I think I've finally got un-confused about Corel and Caldera both being companies starting with 'C' with Linux distributions - Yay!)
Well since the validity of the GPL is being questioned. What about the legal viability of the BSD license? How well will it hold up, and what are the consequences if it doesn't?
I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but the "Linux for Dummies" book comes with a CD full of Linux software (presumibly Red Hat) and it's sealed with a sticker saying that you agree to the licence agreement on the previous page.
The licence agreeement states that all of the material on the CD is property of IDT Books, and that you are not allowed to install it on more than one machine at a time, etc.
I was going to send a message into Slashdot about it a few months ago, but never did (so here it is now)
Also I never bought the book, I'm going on what I can remember from looking at "Linux for Dummies" in the bookstore.
My company violates the GPL every day. It has not been proven valid in court so the legal department gives us the go-ahead to breach it. Corel should have gone with BSD.
When companies do *internal* testing, the QA people get a copy of the pre-release product without agreeing to a license.
Entirely untrue. When you become an employee of a company, that company makes you sign a contract. That contract will generally have an NDA as part of it. So you do have to agree to a "licence".
---
END OF LINE
Take a look at the license for the first (full, not beta) release of redhat for alpha - I don't have it in front of me right now, but I know it wasn't GPL. As I recall, RedHat did a better job of explaining the difference between the license for the compilation and the license for the component parts thereof - other than that Corel have done exactly the same.
Whichever idiot moderator downgraded this post (a) has no sense of humour, and (b) obviously never played the rather excellent RPG "Paranoia".
How the sentence "It's a Beta after all, Betas are put out to find mistakes. You found a mistake, report it through the Beta contacts." constitutes a troll, I will never understand. (The rest was guff, offtopic maybe, not a troll unless you're not only oversensitive but also think there's too much sex and violence on television before the watershed, children should be seen and not heard, or the Wonderbra poster campaign was a piece of wanton pornography; or you start going purple at the mere mention of the words "Microsoft" and "Intel". [Apologies to those who passed out because both appeared in the same sentence.])
Can our moderators grow thicker skins please?
-- Different AC from the one above. Yeah, slap a (-1, Offtopic) on here. You know you want to.
Corel has opened up a big can of hurt with this one, if they try to push their terms over the GPL. Fortunatly, I think this is just a case of the legal department getting jumpy over what it views as a potential loss. There is probably a small chunk of Corel-owned code in the distro, and the overzealous legal dept doesn't want anyone crying 'liable' when it breaks.
But even if this is just some lawyer's itchy faxing finger, Corel needs at least some verbal abuse over it. (I wouldn't mind paddling the moron directly responsible). However, I'd hold off on the 'NO ONE SCREWS WITH THE GPL AND GETS AWAY WITH IT!' attitude until I hear from Corel.
.sig: Now legally binding!
This obviously wasn't run past Corel's lawyers. Because of their use of GPL'd software, kernel etc., their own license agreement is legally invalid, and should it be violated they would have no case in any court.
However, I believe it IS possible for an individual to sign away their own statutory rights under copyright law and this may be what Corel are relying on. To clarify, if you were to receive a copy of the software complete with license and were NOT required to SIGN a license agreement then you are entitled to use the software under the terms of the GPL. BUT if you sign the license agreement, then you are bound by Corel's terms & conditions of use. If this is what Corel are doing, I wouldn't be inclined to purchase ANY of their products again.
Bzzzzzt..."AAAAaaaaarrrgh!!!" Thud.
What the fuck is the point in distributing an Open Source operating system and having a closed beta test?
If they want to closed test some specific items why not test all those seperate of the distribution?
Sheesh
-- Rambar
A few idiots were squawking about this when the beta program was first announced, and they were just as wrong then.
It's a beta test, and although Microsoft has warped that term to mean "early public access for suckers who'll pay us money", it has long been traditional that beta testers are, in effect, working for the company developing the software and that beta copies remain the property of the developer just as they would if all the testers were working inside as full time employees (hence the legal paperwork in the first place).
Since this is a beta, and not a public release, for the purposes of the GPL it can be considered "internal only" and not a public distribution, and thus the GPL does not apply. The licenses explicitly calls this a pre-release, so the product has not been released yet.
(For a similar case, consider the NDA'd development of the 64-bit Merced Linux port.)
Now, if Corel doesn't change the licensing when it distributes an actual product, then folks have a legitimate complaint. Meanwhile, anyone who signs that contract and violates it by posting the pre-release distro is as guilty of piracy as any warez kiddie.
(And no, I'm not and never have been a Corel employee or stockholder.)
-- Alastair
I don't know if a collection is a derived work of all the components. But Corels collection is derived from Debians distribution and that is GPLed.
Yet Another Debian User
I bet this is their standard beta copy agreement that they make people sign for their more traditional products. I seriously doubt there was any malicious intent, more likely laziness/ignorance/sloppiness, etc.
Not at all - certainly the code for the Kernel isn't exactly beta, but it's inclusion into their distribution *definitely* is.
How does distributing a combination of non-beta software make the "whole" a beta test of the distribution? You could just as easily say that almost every system is a beta test of the particular combination of applications which are installed.
As far as I am concerned, the Linux "distribution" is just a convenient starting point for building the particular system which I want. It is just more convenient that having to bootstrap a system by finding and building the kernel and the minimal utilities using a cross compiler, then building the rest on the target Linux system.
I have not seen the distro, but maybe Corel intends this non-disclosure to cover only their propietary portions of the distro. I assume it includes products like WordPerfect etc. I suppose it also includes customized installer routines etc.
Does/Should the GPL cover those products too ?
Even if Corel does intend to cover the whole distro, they might have plans in place to remove restrictions before the final product ships out the door. Strictly this wouldn't be permitted, but I don't think anyone should file lawsuits just yet. If they attempt to release the "non-beta" distro like this, then I'll pitch in on the GPL defense fund. Until then there is the risk of scaring off not just Corel, but other large corporate developers...many of whom have products that would bring value to Linux but are tepid about entering a strange new market.
In any case, I think this question should be answered before OSS people fly off the handle.
Don't post innacurate information
If you do, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet I will end you.
I didn't say anything about NDAs.
The "C" name comment was an irrelevant aside about my own personal confusion. You see when Corel announced their intention to build a Linux distribution, I thought "Wait, what will they do with OpenLinux?" as I got the name confused. It was probably Monday morning at the time, you see.
Here's where lots of companies stick their head out to help the Linux community only to get it chopped off by silly analizms. Oof. Oh well. This will most likely make other companies think twice about doing anything for Linux.
O.K. I get the "Beta Corel distro" i redistrubute it to others in my "Development group" under my very own third licence. Now i havent distributed the beta since i only gave it to people in the same development group AND lets say that my licence says _GPL'd_! Then immidietly _all_ corels work becomes GPL'd software. Now who broke the law? Not me I just used the same licence as always when i distribute software _internally_ in my group, and they didin't brake the licence they got. Right?
LINUX stands for: Linux Inux Nux Ux X
FRA: STFU GTFO
Just to get something straight, they define "the Products" to be "Beta builds for Corel LINUX" - not just their own software, but the whole wad.
They then claim that they have "all right, title, and interest to all intellectual property with respect to the products", and that "User may not, however, reproduce or distribute copies of the Products"... granted, that last part is GPL-specific, and the GPL has never been tested in court... but the first claim is just a gross violation of copyright law.
And even if they could find a loophole to get away with the second claim, do they really want to be remembered as the company who broke the GPL?
(copied to corellinux@corel.com)
I once got a Redhat CD with a book I bought. There was one of those legal aggrements with the CD. It basicly said that parts of the software on the CD could not be installed on more than one computer etc etc. Failed to say what software couldn't be installed on more than one computer so it's basicly the same thing.
Well I'm guessing that the non distributable part applies due to the commercial corel software that they include with the distribution. It would make sense for them to protect a commercial product they bundle with their free software. I would assume this is fairly legal as both Caldera's 2.x offering with partition magic and Redhat's Secure Server edition are non redistributable. (correct me if I'm wrong) Maybe they will have a commercial distribution with this license, and a free distributable one without the commercial software a-la Caldera. Also to the poster above who mentioned "Let's screw Corel and put their cds up on ftp" It's _exactly_ this type of behavior that made me switch from Linux to BeOS. When someone creates a product that you use you should thank them, not screw them in the back. Corel has made some good donations (Wordperfect comes to mind) And stabbing them in the back with a kitchen knife is really not a good way of repayment.
As I see it, Corel is distributing a PRIVATE software package, to a limited number of people, hand chosen by them. Under the GPL, this is not public distribution, and not subject to all of the GPL _YET_. This is an inhouse only beta test, even if they are picking people from 'outside'.
I might be wrong here. I checked the GPL and I don't see a definition of 'distribution' but it was my understand that inhouse use did NOT mean that you were forced to distribute source to others (or other GPL-ish activities). If I'm wrong, then section 4 means that anyone can distribute the beta:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
Help achieve Liberty in your lifetime - join the Free State Project - http://www.freestateproject.org
A perfect example would be the 'Chinese/Russian warez CD-ROMs' (nothing against the Chinese or Russians. It is just most of these seem to come from those countries)
The fact it is OSS lends some credence to the argument though. You do have the right to redistribute the software. Basically it comes down to how infectious the GPL is.
My grandpa, Noel, used to remind me that when faced with attributing someone's actions to malice or stupidity, the smart money bets on stupidity every time.
In Corel's case, let's make it "inattention" or "naivete."
--
Many of you are wrong.
Kinda funny. This story has brought out yet more posts that basically say "This wouldn't have happened if you use a BSD style license."
Well, they are right. If Linux (and Debian specifically) were licensed under a BSD style license, this wouldn't have happened.
But... That is like saying, if you have no rights, no one can infringe upon you. How much sense does that make?
The reason we use the GPL so we have (hopefully) some legal ground to stop companies doing exactly what Corel (might) be doing. I say might, because it looks to me like a Legal Dept. error.
Yes, we could have used a BSD license and Corel wouldn't have a problem playing unfair. But we want companies to play fair--this one of the reasons the GPL exists. Now, whether or not it is enforceable is a whole other issue. But at least we try.
This sig is false.
I hope Corel gets this fixed. I suspect it was a generic beta agreement they've always sent out with their software, which no one thought to review in light of the GPL. If so, it's an honest mistake they can easily fix.
I expect these kinds of hiccups will be all to common as corporations not used to thinking in terms of Open Source and the GPL will have to rethink allot of their "standard practices." It behooves us to yell loudly when something like this happens, but let's not go too far off the deep end while crying foul and letting them know they've slipped up. There are constructive ways to get this point across, and none of them involve personal insults or excessive profanity.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
"Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity." :)
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Personally, I think that it's about time a big company took charge of this "Linus" thing. Sure those finnish 15-year old freaks had thier fun, but who uses it anyway? I tried to run it under NT, but only got error messages. I mean come on!
If you punks can't "hack" it (heh heh!), maybe you should go back to middle school and let the professionals take over.
~~~~~~~~~
It sure seems to me like this doesn't amount to anything unless they actually try and enforce this license. I agree with everyone else who is saying it is probably a rubber stamp licensing form. The easy thing to do is ignore it. The time to get upset is if they do actually try and enforce this agreement. Of course, someone may have mentioned this in the 50-100 posts that have probably been added since I first hit the reply button.....
That is why I said that if the GPL has no provision for the limited distribution of beta software then it should. Why is it necessary for untested software to be unleashed on every member of the community? Doesn't it make sense that the developers should have the ability to make limited distributions of their software to catch the big bugs before they release it to the unwashed masses, to prevent mass chaos?
I guess what I'm saying is that if a limited distribution of beta-level software is against the GPL then the GPL needs fixing not Corel's license.
Ben
Ben
First, GPL makes not point about "public" distribution or internal-only distribution. Secondly, a company can not wave its hands and remove the right of its employees to distribute software that has been licensed to them (the employees) under a license that explicitly guarantees that right, since the company does not own that software. So even if we accept your analogy that beta testers are essently acting as Corel employees, the argument is still flawed.
The reason Intel is in the clear regarding their Merced port is that they are not distributing their code at all. In fact, the Intel NDA prohibits the Merced people from distributing their code at all. The GPL does not require distribution; it only says that if distribution occurs, it must be under the GPL.
The Intel NDA also does not cover any code other than code written by the authors under that NDA. The authors own the copyrights on that code, and that code is not required to be GPL licensed unless it is distributed to someone else.
Corel, on the other hand, is distributing derived works of GPL programs to parties other than the original author, and the GPL mandates that the distribution of those programs be under the GPL.
- They put there work on the setup-api in our CVS archives and update it regurlarly (see the amyf post on debian-boot archives).
- They will put everything under the GPL licence from the ground up.
Corel Linux have a good past story of collabration with the Linux Community. They even promise bus transport for the Montreal InstallFest for the OCLUG people (a 200km run). Just my 2 pennies.Fabien Ninoles -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
I've read nothing but posts saying either 'Corel is violating the GPL (period)' or 'Corel probably made a mistake'. I've decided to check it out for myself. Here's the scoop from:
http://www.corel.com/betaprogram/faq.htm
(Select Portions Follow:)
Corel® LINUX® Beta Q & A
What are the requirements for becoming a beta tester for Corel LINUX?
We will select users based on their experience with Linux®, the diversity of hardware at their disposal and on their software testing experience. In addition, we are reserving spaces for some KDE and Debian developers.
Why isn't Corel putting Corel LINUX on an FTP site for download?
The first version of Corel LINUX is still in the development and testing phase and is not ready for general distribution. Beta testing is part of the development process that Corel is following to ensure that Corel LINUX reaches a suitable level of completeness and stability before it becomes widely available.
How many people will be testing Corel LINUX?
In order to ensure that the beta testing process can be properly administered, we will be limiting the number of registered beta testers for this first round of testing. The exact number of testers has not yet been determined.
Is this testing style in keeping with the spirit of Open Source software distribution?
Yes. The recruitment of outside Beta testers is part of the initial development process of Corel LINUX and will allow Corel to release the first version of Corel LINUX to the general public at an earlier date than would be possible if Corel relied only on its internal testing resources. Once Corel LINUX is ready for general distribution, it will be distributed in accordance with the criteria for Open Source software.
When will Corel release the source code for Corel LINUX?
The source code for Corel LINUX will be available with the first distribution of Corel LINUX.
Will Corel be releasing the source code for applications it has created such as the Corel File Manager?
Corel will be making the source code available for such applications. The exact terms of the license under which the source code will be distributed has not yet been announced.
(end of Corel quote)
Now what do you think?
Certified Microsoft Notworking Specialist
Check out Bruce Perens' http://technocrat.net/ which addresses the issue somewhat. He says there that he will post here....
....ok. Corel has promissed to honor the gpl and these postings by the previous commenter confirms it. The reason corel has such a harsh license is that it has lots of proprietary code in user mode. Corel has lots of cool and innovative ideas that are not found anywhere. I can't rememer all of them offhand but Corel plans to offer a free version of gpl software as well from there website. Remember the kernel is the only thing under gpl. There may be included software that is also gpl but this doesnt mean that companies can add proprietary code to it.
Corel is hurting for money after competing directly with Microsoft. Corel can not afford to have someone rip off all the features that they paid millions in programming costs. I trust Corel. Its just that corel has innvested millions in the linux project and its not fair if someone like mandrake stole all there features. Dont they deserve to make money from it?
Consider corel linux as linux pro. Its standard linux with a whole bunch of goodies. People like the inventor of the ethernet all call us communists but with postings like the ones I read its a no-brainer on why people do this.
I got through to the responsible people at Corel, we just had a conference call, and we discussed strategies for dealing with beta-tests including software that's owned by people outside of Corel. They will fix the problem.
Although I'm not always around to help, feel free to mail bruce@perens.com when this stuff comes up, and my home-office phone number is in my domain record. The SPI board has my cell-phone number.
I did also tell them they're going to have to keep their eyes on the traditional Windows crowd at their office where things like this are concerned, or they'll appear clue-less and get the authors of the software really annoyed.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens.
Sorry: unless you can say that the beta testers are paid employees, they _are_ the public. They happen to be a picked subgroup of the public but they are certainly not employees, not insiders. :P
Eventually this breaks down- are temps insiders? What about people who've only worked for the company for a short while? Eventually you get to people who are definitely insiders. (You could make an argument that, even so, those people have a right to the GPLed source!) However, making a public announcement fishing for members of the public to do beta testing is, well, public- there's no way that's an inside release. It's not intended to stay an inside release, it's not being tested on the inside anymore- it's distribution to the public, just on a smaller scale.
Again, they ought to select beta testers and then decide to only pay _attention_ to their own choices for beta testers, while allowing the testers to redistribute. Do you realise that such a tester would, under Corel's original idea, be confronted with a whole _Linux_ distribution that hopefully is a good synthesis of lots of opensource software from all over- and yet the tester would be forbidden to distribute any of it through that channel? That's just not right- there's no reason such conditions have to cover the whole distribution. They can cover the proprietary bits, hopefully not for too long.
I got through to the responsible people at Corel, we just had a conference call, and we discussed strategies for dealing with beta-tests including software that's owned by people outside of Corel. They will fix the problem.
Although I'm not always around to help, feel free to mail bruce@perens.com when this stuff comes up, and my home-office phone number is in my domain record. The SPI board has my cell-phone number.
I did also tell them they're going to have to keep their eyes on the traditional Windows crowd at their office where things like this are concerned, or they'll appear clue-less and get the authors of the software really annoyed.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens.
If a violent lawsuit is immediately brought upon Corel without any other (documented) attempts to get them to change their agreement, it could scare off many other businesses thinking about using linux. That would not bode well for linux.
penguinicide... when jumping out a window just won't do.
I urge you all to report this case of piracy (in a businesslike and cool tone) to nopiracy@corel.com. According to their Anti-Piracy Initiative, Corel is staunchly opposed to such activities. As their own page states, "Software piracy is a crime."
Bruce Perens just posted a message to debian-user stating that he talked with Corel and they will be fixing the problem.
Corel is the most supportive commerical software vendor going when it comes to Linux. They have stated that they plan to give most (all?) of their work back to the Debian community.
I'd quote the message but I don't think it's my place to do so ...
From what I have read, this is exactly the process Red Hat takes. This is not a publicly distributed beta. At this point we have only in effect, signed an agreement some few third parties to test the product. We chose this route because we are a commercial company that has a brand and reputation to protect. We need to ensure the code we write works properly before we move to a wider distribution. The beta testing agreement does not contravene the GPL. We are not prohibiting anyone from copying or distributing anything that is available under GPL (such as the Debian distribution). What the agreement does state is that testers cannot copy or distribute any portions of Corel LINUX that have not yet been publicly released (i.e. the Corel File Manager or Package Manager). Everything that we have modified under existing GPL, LPGL etc. licenses will be returned to the Open Source Community under the terms of those licensing agreements. New features that have been developed by Corel will be also distributed under the terms of an Open Source license, the terms of the license will be announced later. This is a new process both for Corel and the Open Source Community. We need to balance our commitment to our customers to provide a product that works and our responsibility to shareholders to add value and our respect for the goals and ideals of the Open Source Community.
Is this testing style in keeping with the spirit of Open Source software distribution? Yes. The recruitment of outside Beta testers is part of the initial development process of Corel LINUX and will allow Corel to release the first version of Corel LINUX to the general public at an earlier date than would be possible if Corel relied only on its internal testing resources. Once Corel LINUX is ready for general distribution, it will be distributed in accordance with the criteria for Open Source software.
whoa. they do go on to say that all of thier additions, including thier new file manager et al. will be released open source. at least that. but i dont think that the beta license we saw was a boilerplate/mistake. ick.
So Corel doesn't want every single newbie out there banging on their beta. So what? Sure, this may violate the letter of the GPL, but as long as they do eventually release it with the GPL, what difference does it make? It just means that they will get a managable number of bug reports rather than a bloody flood. Isn't that *good* for the community, not bad?
I haven't read the GPL all the way through in a while, but if it doesn't have a provision for limited scope betas, it should!
Ben
Simply post it all over the web, scatter it across a large number of web sites with the proper GPL license, delete all traces of their license and wait for their response. Let them initiate the court battle, not the Linux developers. Sure that puts developers and ftp owners on the defensive, but the burden of proof would be for Corel to produce which would be harder than Corel defending itself against a suit from a developer or the FSF.
Exactly what's that "C" name comment supposed to mean? Caldera does not use NDAs for beta testers. Check your facts next time.
Then I hope you don't mind when your work is violated either.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Then I hope you don't mind when your work is violated either.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Have you seen the RedHat NDAs for their pre-release stuff?
All Corel wants is to avoid getting non-working software to the public.
Even FSF does release code when they are good
and ready. You will never see the devel code
between releases in some cases.
Since Corel is ignoring the original license we have no reason to obey their license. The original license supercedes their license. If they choose to ignore the original license I see no reason to obey theirs. For example, if a GPL'd piece of software took code from a commercial version of a piece of software and then ignored the fact that the source to the software they were using was only for educational and research use then you could ignore the GPL on it as well. Though you'd still have to obey the original license that work was derived from.
I don't buy that argument, not for one second.
That is perfectly fine for them to say with their code. But the Linux Kernel is definitely out of "beta-test", and has been for quite some time. And the only people who can say that it's in a beta test are those who develop it (and I mean _all_ of those). BTW, so is X-windows, so is the GIMP, so is KDE, and the list goes on and on.
Corel has no right to take developers code published under the GPL, say, "Oh it's in beta test!" and restrict the users. If I want to take the Linux kernel off of a Corel distribution beta, they have no right to stop me.
Anyone who signs that contract and violates it by posting software already released under the GPL is no warez kiddie, but simply a Linux software distributor, just like we can all be.
"UNIX" is never having to say you're sorry.
I find it extremely interesting that when news broke about the Red Hat trademark issue everyone was ready to set fire to the North Carolina mountains even though RH has legitimate rights to their trademark. Yet, now when Corel pulls a stunt like this on software they don't own everyone says, "Let's wait and see what Corel has to say, I'm sure it is just a mistake." Have the Slashdotters lost their "passion" or have they grown up?
I hope this discussion generates at least one fourth the histeria and hyperventalation that rained down on the ASPL. And Apple wasn't even basing Darwin on a Linux distro or claiming to use the GPL.......
/.)
I do hope the whole beta license thing is just a fluke and BP and the FSF get stuff sorted out with Corel; I think it would help Linux if commercial companies made custom distros.
(sorry if this gets posted more than once, I'm getting a wiggy connection to
Doesn't anyone do research? Even a little? Oh well, here is what I found.
Directly from the Corel Q&A on linux.corel.com...
Will Corel LINUX be available as a not-for-charge download or sold as a standalone product?
Most of the Corel LINUX operating system falls under the guidelines of the GNU Public Licence, and will be available as a not-for-charge download. A standalone version, which may contain additional enhanced features, will be available on CD-ROM and will be sold with an accompanying manual and technical support. Final price has not yet been determined but Corel LINUX will be competitively priced to other Linux operating systems. Corel LINUX will also be included with the soon-to-be-released WordPerfect® Office for LINUX.
Is there an advantage to Corel to give away the source code to Corel LINUX and make it available as a not-for-charge download?
By returning the source code to Corel LINUX to the Open Source community and making Corel LINUX available as a not-for-charge download, we are acting within the spirit of the Open Source community, and helping to grow the Linux market by creating new demand for applications in addition to the operating system.
According to this, they appear to want to release under the correct license. But, all other distrobutions have open betas, so I don't understand what they really are concerned with.
But on a strange side note, why do they say they will release Corel Linux with enchanced features that are not part of of the GPL? I assume that it won't have their installer and a free copy of WordPerfect. But that isn't a big deal for me.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - F. Voltaire.
Corel Corporation Ceo to Interview On Radio WallStreet Internet Broadcast
l
Announcement at Yahoo Finance -
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/990920/pa_investo_6.htm
Get your questions in while you can. I know I did ^_^
Corel can copyright their collection (the whole list of programs that make up Corel Linux) without affecting the copyrights of the individual programs involved. You are still free to copy any individual programs and distribute them as the individual licenses see fit.
Now, it would be a VERY bad idea for Corel to do this for their release version... but we'll see. Maybe they'll learn from this response.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
If the GPL has not had a trial by fire in a court of law, perhaps a company that is friendly to the Free Software community would be willing to try to break the terms of the GPL and be taken to court.
Once the GPL has proven itself in court, we wouldn't have any worries, because precedent would be set.
There are more Free Software licenses potentially being violated than just the GPL. There's also the QPL, MPL and Artistic. BSD and X don't care so they don't count. However, any harm to the above is also an indirect harm to the GPL. No matter how isolationist you are, your neighbor's injustices affect you as well. Champion Free Software, not just an individual license.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Bzzt...wrong answer.
If companies WANTED a BSD style license...there's always FreeBSD to play with. (Then they don't have to use Linux.)
(Hint: There's a reason why Linux has the mindshare...and it has nothing to do with companies wanting to get involved.)
Corel is basically asking Beta testers to stay quiet about the software here. Remember, like Caldera, Corel is not doing PUBLIC betas. Corel has NOT released the product to the general public.. since the GPL seems not clear about exactly when a 'release' is, AND Corel will eventually open source all of it very soon why does anyone care!!!! This is basically a temporary NDA... Who cares.. it is temporary!! Welcome Corel instad of getting tight schvincteres about it.
This looks like a standard beta form that Corel probably uses to test all of their products...
My guess is they'll want to modify this to adhear to the GPL if they hope to keep the support of the community.
First, will they realize their mistake and change the license ASAP?
Or will they just continue as is?
The big question (Or maybe their point of view) is who is actually going to be able to do anything about this if they ignore the GPL?
There may be no conflict here at all. The "products" specified are something called "Beta builds for Corel Linux" -- maybe that's just their own code?
Isn't it possible that there's a standard form like that sent out to normal beta testers,and that the admin people who turn out paperwork weren't warned about a product being subject to the GPL, or indeed what it is?
I am sure a few folk are going to jump up and down, and cry "foul", but IMHO, I just think it was a simple snafu due to lousy organisational communications... Forgiveable, for a traditional software company dipping a toe into the wild and wacky world of Open software, maybe?
Your mileage may vary...
>
This is the first attempt (that I am aware of at least) of a traditional software company releasing a distribution of Linux.
I'm actually not surprised that Corel attempted to apply it's cookie-cutter licensing agreement to Linux. Afterall, I don't think they're doing a Linux distro for the good of the community, so much as they're doing it for the good of their pocketbooks.
This won't be the last time something like this happens. As more and more old garde software companies come on board with Linux distros, we can expect to see them attempt to apply their own licensing to their distro (i'm waiting to see what SGI does with it myself).
What this all amounts to is a test of the GPL. Great care needs to be taken at this point to exersize all of the legal options that the GPL affords us. Although the temptation to exersize all of the legal avenues the GPL affords us may be very great, we also need to realize that by doing so, we may be sending a message to other traditional software companies that if you want to have a Linux distro, you better have good lawyers too. I think that this would be a detrament to the community and could negatively effect the growth of open source projects such as linux.
Phew...
Isn't it possible that there's a standard form like that sent out to normal beta testers,and that the admin people who turn out paperwork weren't warned about a product being subject to the GPL, or indeed what it is?
I am sure a few folk are going to jump up and down, and cry "foul", but IMHO, I just think it was a simple snafu due to lousy organisational communications... Forgiveable, for a traditional software company dipping a toe into the wild and wacky world of Open software, maybe?
Your mileage may vary...
>
It's also in clear violation of the GPL, and one of the reasons that I'm not too excited about the Corel distribution.
Red Hat is beta testing, too - sign up for the mailing list, grab the beta from one of the mirrors, and offer some feedback to a company that gets it.
I expect that there will be a quick retraction and apology from Corel, but this sort of thing does not breed confidence.
Be glad the company is even releasing the source code to you guys at all! You guys aren't seeing the light - the company at least has the BALLS to release the source code to everyone, and all you guys can do is fricking complain. Give me a break. If you don't like the fact that they are releasing agreements that people need to sign, then go code the damn program yourself. Give me a break. This kind of senseless bickering is what turns free software coders into commercial software coders. You guys don't appreciate the fact that we're giving out our source code for free: You want it to be totally free so you can steal our ideas. We're showing YOU what WE do. DEAL WITH IT!
-- Kenshin
It would not be a problem to Corel, you mean. There would still be a problem for the users if they had gone with BSD, it's just that the users wouldn't try to complain about it because there would be nothing they could do.
Indeed, that sounds to be the case.
Go for it, zealots.
more then likly corel is using a "default copyright form" from thier other products. they have not taken the time to write a linux form or policy, but it goes to show that we (the linux community as a whole) need to watch out for and respond accordingly to companies who enter this market. they will tend to bring all their old bagage along.
Look at Sun with the SCSL, they want to get all the benefits of free software without releasing anything to the public. Without giving anything to the "community".
Look at Corel now: They will release free-software, they already said that. But they don't realise that they could take the benefits Sun has saw. The bazaar and all that.
So they think, like any other company, that an open beta can hurt them. And they want to keep the product secret until they think it's ready. I don't think that that violates the spirit of GPL... the GPL could have a clause telling about "time limited restrictions of derived works". And I wouldn't say that that restriction will give less freedom to people, in the medium-long term.
So I don't feel this as a danger, Corel is still an ally. It's just a confused ally.
Everybody's equal before the law, and there will be no exception to the rule. And now that we were going the prosecute copyright violations severely, and even throw relations with China in the balance for them, the D.A. must prosecute;if there is violation of the law, none of us should settle for less than the maximum penalty.
The following is taken from the Corel Linux Beta FAQ...The third one is my favorite
Why isn't Corel putting Corel LINUX on an FTP site for download?
The first version of Corel LINUX is still in the development and testing phase and is not ready for general distribution. Beta testing is part of the development process that Corel is following to ensure that Corel LINUX reaches a suitable level of completeness and stability before it becomes widely available.
How many people will be testing Corel LINUX?
In order to ensure that the beta testing process can be properly administered, we will be limiting the number of registered beta testers for this first round of testing. The exact number of testers has not yet been determined.
Is this testing style in keeping with the spirit of Open Source software distribution?
Yes. The recruitment of outside Beta testers is part of the initial development process of Corel LINUX and will allow Corel to release the first version of Corel LINUX to the general public at an earlier date than would be possible if Corel relied only on its internal testing resources. Once Corel LINUX is ready for general distribution, it will be distributed in accordance with the criteria for Open Source software.
From www.technocrat.net: Corel Beta-Test Agreement - Officials Urge Calm! Free Software:Posted by: Bruce Perens on Monday September 20, @10:07AM Corel has put out a beta-test agreement that infringes on the copyright of various pieces of free software by overlaying different license terms on that software. It's an honest mistake, some of them don't know a thing about free software, but they're going to have to learn now or they will really annoy a lot of the people who wrote the software in their system. I am talking with them about it and will help them fix the problem. Don't panic - just write bruce@perens.com to "vent" if you can't stand the pressure :-) Again, this will be fixed. Don't panic. Bruce Comments: (7)
All legal arguments aside, it is obvious to me that Corel has missed to whole point of Open Source. Maybe ESR should email them another copy of the Cathedral and the Bazaar. (Release early, release often, given sufficient eyes all bugs are shallow, etc...)
I find it absolutely mind boggling that they are alienating a great deal of their user base (not to mention their developer base) for something that simply makes no sense anyway.
I am a big fan of Corel and I'll allow to make a few mistakes now and then. (Who wouldn't? OpenSource development is new territory.) But I'll be watching closely to see how this is handled.
-Derek
The whole point of OSS is that any programmer can download it, use it, test it, fix bugs etc.
Now Corel is inventing the Cathedral Model of software development again. They're not getting it: they're just using Linux because it's popular, not of the philosophy behind it.
I'm sorry to say, but I don't believe after seeing this that Corel is going to be a benefit to the OSS community, people will probably be needing to correct them all the time.
However, their distribution can be a copyrightable work in it's own right. That is, their particular way of organizing the distribution can be regarded as copyrightable. This would not impact the license to the individual parts, and would not let Corel stop anyone from excersizing their rights under the GPL to the individual parts. But it would let Corel attach specific terms to their particular organization of the programs.
Since, as far as I remember, the GPL specifically allow GPL'd programs to be grouped together with non-GPL'd programs on the same media, it is quite possible that a court would find that a GPL'd program could be part of a non-GPL'd distribution as well.
To make an analogy:
If I paint a painting, it would be a copyright infringement to take a photo of my painting and distribute it without a license from me. However, if my painting was only one part of the photo, and the value of the photo could be considered as the arrangement of items and lighting etc., then it would likely not be an infringement. In the case of a GPL'd painting, however, the aggregate work could be compared to a program consisting of separate image elements, and would be covered.
But what if someone make a photo album, and redistribute it?
If my painting had been included, it would be a copright infringement, however if the pictures aren't arranged randomly, the placement of the pictures could be said to be copyrightable in itself. Which would mean that even if all the pictures were mine, or were under the GPL or in the public domain, I would not neccesarily be free to copy the way they were arranged in the album.
This analogy is close to the Corel distribution. And the GPL doesn't specifically mention it. Which may or may not be how it should be. On one hand, being able to copyright a distribution does not limit peoples right to use the software, but it does limit peoples right to organize collections of the software in a particular way and distribute the result...
even if it was jsut a beta license, if it violates the GPL then its wrong.
They cant expect people to respect their intellectual property if they dont respect others.
btw. I had to agree to there legal conditions to even send them (an abusive) email, (standard stuff - they own my email).
The Intel Merced NDAs only cover changes to the Linux kernel that are specific to the Merced port. That code is owned by the developers working on the port, and Intel is free to make the developers sign NDAs on that code.
The Intel NDAs do not in any way restrict the signatories from distributing outside GPL'd code that they did not themselves author. The Corel license, on the other hand, restricts the beta testers from distributing code within their distribution that is owned by other parties like the Free Software Foundation. That practice violates the terms under which the FSF licensed their software to Corel.
Section 6 of the GPL states very clearly that you may not under any circumstance distribute the code to anyone else except under the terms and conditiosn of the GPL. There is no distinction between "internal-only" and public distribution.
Certainly in the case of "internal-only" distribution it is legitimate for the recipients to voluntarily decline to distribute the code, but Corel cannot forcibly impose this requirement without breaking the law.
Corel is a "small struggling company"? Huh? They may not be as big as M$ or Adobe, but I think they are pretty darn big.
Last time I checked, they had sold more than a few copies of Corel Draw....
What if the software has been licensed to a legal entity such as a corporation? All employees are considered under a single license instance. This is why proprietary software often has "site" licenses. If an employee goes online and downloads the Linux kernel, they can do with it what they want since they hold the license, but they can't redistribute their companies tweaked version since the license still belongs to the company. To take it to an absurd extreme, if you come over to my house to borrow my computer you have no legal rights to upload any software from my box.
In a more realistic sense, there are thousands of companies that have modified GPL programs for their own use but aren't distributing them, so should we pursue legal action against them too?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
The Intel Merced NDAs only cover changes to the Linux kernel that are specific to the Merced port. That code is owned by the developers working on the port, and Intel is free to make the developers sign NDAs on that code.
The Intel NDAs do not in any way restrict the signatories from distributing outside GPL'd code that they did not themselves author. The Corel license, on the other hand, restricts the beta testers from distributing code within their distribution that is owned by other parties like the Free Software Foundation. That practice violates the terms under which the FSF licensed their software to Corel.
Section 6 of the GPL states very clearly that you may not under any circumstance distribute the code to anyone else except under the terms and conditions of the GPL. There is no distinction between "internal-only" and public distribution.
Certainly in the case of "internal-only" distribution it is legitimate for the recipients to voluntarily decline to distribute the code, but Corel cannot forcibly impose this requirement without breaking the law.