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.
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.
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?
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...
--
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
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
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
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
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.
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.)
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
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.
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.
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.