Slashdot Mirror
Corel Sticking to Closed Source Beta Test?
Tro^ble sent us an article over at ZD Net that talks about the recent
Corel Fiasco that was originally
covered by us yesterday. The major point is that they seem to be trying to stick to the non GPL license claiming that the release is "Beta" and therefore "Internal" so it doesn't violate anything. Insert irritated remarks here.
#include
Well, the way I see it, MS has gotten NT installed in several federal gov't institutions. Given the security holes and trojan horses that abound in NT, this could qualify as an act of war against the United States.
TREASON !!! The only crime addressed directly by the US Constitution, and still punishable by death. =)
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
So that's why people put "humor.h" in quotes instead of HTML-like brackets. And that's why there's a 'preview' button also. =/
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
No, betas certainly should *NOT* be uploaded to FTP sites anywhere.
*IF* they are violating the GPL with their license, then they CANNOT DISTRIBUTE THE CHANGES AT ALL, and NEITHER CAN YOU.
BTW.. what constitutes distribution? If I make a change to some GPL code, and compile it to a binary, am I *FORBIDDEN* from letting anyone but myself see or use it unless I am willing to give them the source?
If you look at Corel they company is fighting the good fight with M$. It supplies Office software. It supplies Draw! It supplies clipart. Now M$ supplies all of those things. (I think Corbis has better images for most applications)
Corel is hard pressed to have a product that it does not compete directly with M$ with. So here is Linux(TM) (hehe I put in the (TM)), it has to compete indirectly with M$ but more to the point it needs to get a share from the Redhats etc. Or they will yet again miss the boat, IE office suite. There was a time not to far in the past that they had a chance to grab a good share of the market while M$ was busy building that thing called NT.
Richard Braakman
> To: corel-linux-beta@internal.corel.com
> Subject: SERIOUS BUG in license!!!
>
> Hey guys, the agreement attached to this distro is all wrong.
> It goes against the GPL which covers a lot of this software. This
> is sure to infuriate a lot of the developers who wrote the stuff,
> and could result in legal action and terrible PR. Please fix ASAP.
Thanks for spotting the bug, it will be fixed in the next release.
4.You may _*NOT*_ copy, modify, _*SUBLICENCE*_, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License.
It doesn't say "not sublicence IF you distribute" it says "Not sublicence PERIOD!!".
LINUX stands for: Linux Inux Nux Ux X
FRA: STFU GTFO
You would be in violation of the GPL if you did either of:
(rather than just mentioning that you'd rather they didn't until it was tested, and relying on their good sense)
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
Hmm.. I could be mistaken, but I believe RMS has complained about RedHat stealling brand name value away from GNU.. same as with the GNU/Linux stuff. Plus, I was under the impression that he was somewhat sparing in praise for the Linux co.'s in general. I could be compleatly wrong however.. I dont really know anything specific.. just gossip. No disrespect intended to RMS by the post, but the point about the value of testing the GPL in court still stands.. RMS was just a victim of my tring to make the point that it dose say soemthing for a co. to be willing to foot the bill to create the precedent.
Jeff
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
. If they do, PCweek or some other bottom-feeding computer magazine is gonna through it on a lab box, test it, and tell the world that the product is crap.
You don't think they will give review copies early in the process to members of the press as well? I suspect journalists (probably select journalists, of course) will get their hands on the beta release as early as anyone else.
"Can this be read as "all third parties except third party contract beta-testers" ? "
I kind of doubt it, but I assume you were being sarcastic..?
"It sounds like a company could permanently lose the right to do anything with a GPL'd program if there was any slip-up in complying with the license. And presumably anyone who contributed code would be able to apply for an injunction."
"Seems a bit extreme to me."
Sounds reasonable to me. I believe Stallman was rather serious about keeping his software free, and that section is about as threatening as a license can get to a lawyer's eyes. I haven't been keeping up with this as well as I could have, but I'm sure if Corel's legal department had taken just a glance at the GPL before this fiasco, they would have strongly recommended against any silly sublicense to beta testers (or recommended against developing this software at all.. lawyer's seem to like to play it safe, unless they are coming from a position of dominance).
If I were Stallman, I'd want to put the hurt on someone who tried to rip off software protected by my license too. Thus, putting a clause into the license that's a little more than just a "slap on the wrist" would act as a deterrent. However, if Corel doesn't back off and such a thing was enforced against them, it would only create bad PR. On the other hand, other companies wouldn't be very likely to follow their "lead" and try to rip us off, but then again, they'd probably be too frightened to get anywhere near developing GPL'ed stuff (a la advice from their legal department). Well, some might just proceed with a little more intelligence, but at least a few would get turned off by it. I don't know. I'm not a fortune teller. :)
And, once and for all, IANAL!
~ Kish
OK, let's assume that COREL has nice reasons not to make the code public by now. And that it will go only to a very limited number of beta testers... And that this is just like the code being developed by an internal programmer (a code which you don't see)...
..
But why then do they need a beta LICENSE???
Internal programmers don't get the code with licenses, do they? Wouldn't it be better just to say to this very limited number of testers: "it is not good for Corel to open this code now. We can't stop you from doing this, but please don't. It won't be good for the image of the company...".
What is the advantage of using a license instead of simply asking? Would they be interested to sue beta testers if they don't follow this direction??? I don't think so.
Why do we always have to think in terms of licenses???
Disclaimer: I'm quite bright, so I'm not a lawyer.
Sorry, just had to.
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
>The major point is that they seem to be trying >to stick to the non GPL license claiming that >the release is "Beta" and therefore "Internal" >so it doesn't violate anything.
RMS didn't think so when it was mentioned at the talk he gave tonight.
> In order to get the program into shape, I email
> it to a friend to test and report back with a bug
> list. I admonish him not to release it until I
> finish it. Am I breaking the law?
If it is already under the GPL, and you try to add restrictions onto that previously-GPLed code, then yes, I speculate that you would be breaking the law. But 1) the code isn't necessarily GPLed yet; and 2) you're not changing the licensing restrictions, you're just asking your friend to do you a favor and not redistribute yet. Your friend is (I assume) under no legal compulsion to not redistribute the code, and (I assume) he could legally do so if he really wanted to (even though doing so would be evil).
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
This is a duplicate of something I posted above. But since you specifically asked me to "answer that my friend". Here's my answer:
Even if we use Corel's definition of distribution, this license still doesn't work. Here's why:
They put up a web site, ask for applications for testing, and send it out to people that qualify as testers, agreeing "not to distribute it". They say, relating to the GPL, that this is "not distribution."
So couldn't you put up a web site, ask for applications for testing, and send it out to whoever you deemed worthy. Under their OWN definition in getting around the GPL, this is "not distribution." So, therefore, under the same definition, anyone else doing it is "not distribution" either.
Whatever way you look at it, their license makes no sense. Either it violates the GPL, or it creates a definition of distribution which nullifies it. Based on simple logic, there is really no way this license can work.
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
Sorry to come across like RMS, but WTF has this business with the GPL got to do with the GNU/Linux argument? The OS is GNU, the kernel is Linux, end of story. It's a shame that the name Linux is more commonly used (and in my opinion misused) but thats just the way it's worked out. Nowt to do with the GPL really though. It's a whole other flame war.....
For the past three days Slashdot has been an arena of amateur legalists arguing over what the GPL means (ignoring all other licenses in their religious fervor). Since a system of laws based upon uninformed personal opinion is highly dangerous, I think it's time for the courts to step in.
Let the GPL see the inside of a courtroom for once. Let the experts hash it out. The FSF needs to challenge Corel legally. Then we can find out if the GPL means what it says or means whatever people want it to mean at the moment.
Issues to hash out:
1) What does "distribute" mean. Can two friends share GPL code amongst themselves without running afoul of the slashdotters? Can Bill Gates share his private version of emacs with Steve Ballmer?
2) What does "beta" mean? Do I have to distribute the code even if my modifications make it unusable? Must beta testers be actual employees of the developer?
3) Who exactly is issuing the license? The original developer from years prior? Or the current modifying developer? Can Corel, as a legal entity, be classified as a licensor, or must a licensor be an individual?
4) Who exactly is the license granted to? Corel? Each of its individual employees?
5) If a beta tester leaks a copy of the beta, whose rights, in reference to Corel's specific modifications, are being violated? Can a developer restrict the distribution of a modification? What if the modification is a separate entity such a a patch?
Of course, not all of these issues would be brought up in a single trial, and some of them would be easy to figure out. Still, it needs to be done. Either do it now or do it later with someone else.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Despite what some think, the GPL is actually perfectly adequate, and Corel violated it.
First off, to settle the argument about distribution, I'd like to remind people that unless otherwise stated, any words in a license refer to their definitions in the English language. That means bread means bread, and distribution means distribution. Distribution does not mean release, it means distribution.
Second, article 2b states that:
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.".
Not "under the terms of a license of your choosing", but "under the terms of this License". It further states:
"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."
Hmmm... It seems anything that is distributed as a whole, and depends on GPLled software, is covered by the GPL. That means Corel Linux, because it depends on a lot of GPLled software for it to function as a unit, is also covered, as a whole, under the GPL (although this may not mean you can separately copy WordPerfect to your delight). This causes a major conflict with other licenses; the GPL needs some revision.
Now, I may have pushed it a little too far there, but (although I'm not a lawyer), it seems that almost everything in the distribution is covered by the GPL. (This may not be true, depending on contract/copyright law.)
On to more reasonable claims, the license also states:
"3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)"
This means that if they make changes to, say, the Debian package manager, they are not allowed to distribute binaries unless they make the source available. (Restriction of binary modifications has already been done with Pine.)
My final point, Corel seems to be forgetting a few major points in the GPL:
" 5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
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."
Again, if you're still thinking about distribution, look in the dictionary. You'll find that there is no distinction between anyforms of distributing. Period.
Also, for those who still don't believe me, the GPL covers copying and modification as well, not just distribution. Surely, Corel has done that.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
You're assuming that source code is distributed to your friends. Chances are its binary or a driver or whatever. "Here, does this work?" as opposed to "Compile this and tell me how it works." I understand the issue, I agree that something was probably violated, but I say that this is selective enforcement. In general nobody enforces this clause because a) nobody knows when its violated b) nobody cares c) if every time a beta was released full source had to be made available certain forms of development would grind to a screeching halt (such as reverse engineered drivers for obscure closed source hardware). It happens that this publicized event involves a commercial company and so everybody is screaming about something that already happens frequently.
One thing you should keep in mind when talking about Corel: In the Open Source Development model, there is no such thing as a Beta version.
Release early, release often, integrate feedback. You may mark version as stable, but to take full advantage of the Open Source development model, you must keep your code available at all stages of the development process. Only this will ensure that many eyes go over the code and kill all that nasty, numerous and shallow bugs.
Corels fails to understand this, and that is why they are failing not only PR wise. They do not get the model. I'd say, toast them, even if it is just as a deterrent for others.
I believe we certainly do have a right to complain about Corel's actions.
It's quite feasible that Corel fully intend to comply with the GFL on the final release of the product, but just don't want to get a bad rep. from people reporting on the beta. But...
The GPL is just that, and they can't just ignore it because its an 'Internal' release. If we say that this is okay, then other companies may decide to take advantage of it by saying that all of their distributions are 'Internal' releases.
If Corel doesn't want us reporting on their beta product, then they shouldn't release it at all, and that's that. They can't have the quality of the GPL products both ways.
IANAL..
I'd say that this does not count as distribution, because I cannot get the software from Corel right now. If fact, no-one apart from the already selected beta-testers and employees can get it, so I don't see how it is distribution.
However, Corel has made the mistake of considering this as 'distribution', while not passing on rights associated with distribution of GPLed software. This is in fact a closed beta-test, so the beta-testers are working directly 'for' Corel. They have acquired the software as part of their specified 'job' for the company, and are now testing it for the company.
This should be protected by a contract between Corel and the beta-testers, or a Non Disclosure Agreement. It is, very unfortunate that they have presented this contract as a licensing agreement. That is wrong.
I ask Corel to void all such licensing, and create the same effect by passing out NDAs or Contracts to be signed, specifying what they may do with the software in their capacity of beta testers. Any breaches of it would then fall under contract law etc, which is stronger than licensing anyway.
When Corel releases it in any way for the public (as opposed the the strictly closed beta test happening) I have do doubt they will release everything under the proper licences, which do apply to distribution.
1) Many seem to think that this is ok because the beta testers can be thought of as internal (hence Ok w/ GPL). However, beta testers do not qualify as employees of Corel (otherwise Corel would be required to offer health care, 401K, stock options, etc). Notice that no one had to sign an NDA. Therefore, beta testers should not qualify as internal to Corel.
2) According to the GPL no one may restrict your rights in distributing GPL software (section 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.)
3) Corel can restrict the distribution of its own software (even if it is running on Linux), but it cannot restrict GPL code in anyway once it is released to non-Corel persons (beta release or otherwise)
4) If Corel has made any modifications to GPL'd software, it is required to make these modifications avaliable to those that recieve the modified GPL software (sections 2.a and 2.b). This means that even if, by some strange techicality, beta testers did qualify as internal, Corel is still obligated to publish any changes to GPL code.
\forall code \in C, \frac{\Delta readability(code)}{\Delta t} < 0
I doubt that Corel has any plans for releasing the full version sans GPL nor could they feasibly get away with it. This is a little different: they are the first large software developer to add a linux distribution to their line up. Obviously, they still have some of their old procedures in place, and those will be tough to convince the suits to change, but I would bet you dollars to donuts that their next beta test they do will probably come with GPL compliance. I also doubt many programmers are all that concerned about their code being used like this. It seems as it is only the religious followers of the GPL who just want stuff for free, not the ones that see the value of "free", as in liberty, software.
Sorry buddy, the licence as stated is a federal offence. Namely a quote from the kernel source:
"Copyright 1993 United States Government as represented by the Director, National Security Agency."
Corel presents its product as having no federal funding whatsoever. So besides the GPL it has also performed a fairly nice fed funding fraud which is punishable by a fairly long jail term.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
What can I say? I agree with Corel. Let them develop in private if they choose, as long as the final product is Open Source. Just my $0.02.
As far as I can tell, Corel's mistake was mainly to refer to this as a 'beta test'. If it is, as they claim, an in-house test then it should have been referred to as an 'alpha test'. The wider release that they are planning later would then be the beta test.
Ciao
Simon
/-\-/
I would encourage some noble beta tester to openly give out copies to everyone who will accept them. Then when Corel confronts the person, pulls out the Beta Tester Contract that the person signed, and says "But there's a contract!", I would encourage him to promptly produce a copy of the GPL, smile, and say "That never seemed to bother you before."
We'll see what happens when they look like a bunch of hypocrits. It's one thing to practice, one thing to preach, but when someone refuses to practice what they preach, they're asking for trouble.
Officials Urge Calm? Officials of what? Did we have an election that I'm not aware of?
Have you checked out Zoid.com yet? Zoid.com
Do you people ever read?
There is a statement in this licence that no parts of the work has received federal funding. On the contrary there is quite a lot of fed funded intellectual property in linux. For example half of the linux ethernet work has been funded by NASA and is copyrighted:
Copyright 1993 United States Government as represented by the Director, National Security Agency.
So this corel thing is actually a fraud punishable by federal law. And that is besides the GPL
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
No, they can't use an NDA, either. When they give GPL'd software to the NDA'd party, they do so under the GPL, which explicitly states that the NDA'd party can freely redistribute the software. If they don't permit this redistribution, they are violating the GPL (by restricting the rights granted by the GPL, they violate section 6 of the GPL), and thus they lose their rights with regard to the software. So no, an NDA doesn't help, either.
It is more than likely that ZD is trying to jump on the publicity bandwagon discovered by Slashdot readers, and is merely pouring gasoline on the fire.
It would be useful for developers to complain about abuses of their code; for advokiddies too gripe about this is a waste of bits...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
While many people consider the GPL to be a "code to live by", we must remember that it's just a legal document and we must think in legal terms. Legally, a corporation is a single entity, and as such internal dissemination cannot be considered distribution. According to U.S.and Canadian law, transfers can only be considered distribution when it passes between entities, the number of actual people handling it is irrelevant. If a manager hands a modified Linux distro to 10 employees within the company for review, that doesn't qualify as distribution. As employees, those 10 people are legally considered to be part of the corporation, hence no new entities have received it. If Corel considers it's beta testers to be sub-contractors, then the distro is still legally internal to the corporation and no GPL violation has taken place.
Now IANAL, but I got a little bit of experience here a few years back. The software company I was employed at licensed a bunch of beta testers for a new product. One of these beta testers was an IT Manager in a large company, who ended up distributing it to several of their other offices nationwide as well as a few subcontractors. My former employer sued him and his employer (they had signed off on his application), but the judge threw it out. Since the software had never passed to any third party, the judge said the distribution charge was bunk. The lawyer who wrote our license was an idiot who forgot to write in anti-duplication provisions (he got fired), and we ended up getting boned.
Oh, and I read the Corel application and didn't see the word "license" anywhere...I just saw a "Beta Testing Agreement". While this may seem like semantics to some, there's a huge legal difference between the terms. They're not claiming ownership of the distro, they're just forbidding the redistribution of their own (not-yet-GPL'd) code. If you were to sign that agreement, strip out the Corel proprietary stuff, and post it on the Internet, they couldn't do anything to you (it'd just be Debian!). I just can't figure out what the flap is all about...
There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
As a curious sidenote... somebody should e-mail zdnet and let them know to check slashdot before they post linux articles. Wait, nevermind. Who would we have left to poke fun at if zdnet got hit by a clue-by-four? Better not tell them. :)
--
As someone who said, "hey, that's clever!" upon first examining the GPL (in fact it was on a Windows program, I'd only read one other license more than a little, enough to convince me that basically anything you did after opening the shrinkwrap could be construed to violate it) I have to say that this is entirely false.
/. readers are embroiled in a Holy War: "The GPL forces you to make all your modifications public!!" "No it doesn't you [expletive deleted] dimwit, you can make unreleased modifications for *INTERNAL USE ONLY*!" Both of these claims are partially based in fact. The GPL **DOES REQUIRE** that all rights, including the right of free modification and redistribution, are transferred with the software. This has nothing to do with internal or external distribution. I quote: :-) [ note: I'm over my head. But wouldn't I technically be violating the copyright of commercial software if I stumbled on a CD like that?)
What the GPL states is that *if* you distribute the software, or any modifications thereof, you *must* transfer all rights which you received to the recipient. Period. No exceptions unless you are yourself the copyright holder.
This confusion probably originates from the claim and counterclaim often heard when
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 the License...
However, the second claim also contains a grain of truth! While the GPL does require a complete transferrence of rights, it *DOES NOT* require you to transfer those rights to the world at large. Of course, distribution is difficult (to say the least) to control once it's gone beyond, say, a small development team under contract to you -- but technically, if I give Joe the software, Mary does not have the right to use it until either Joe or I give it to her. Most GPLed programs are provided for anyone to download, so this doesn't come into play much. But unless I have entirely misread the license, this is how things -- technically -- work. Unless the legal system is more intelligent than I thought, and can deduce that placing something under the GPL probably means that finding a CD lying by the side of the road is a perfectly valid way to get a hold of it.
Anyway -- this is all irrelevant since this is clearly not internal distribution. And even if it is, it's clearly a dumb thing to do from the point of view of playing nice; in fact, Corel *taken as a whole* is probably not this dumb. See technocrat.net for a furious posting from an insider about how this decision was (or wasn't) made.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
The reason they might want to try this is very simple - very large sums of money are at stake. Sudden release of a new version of Linux after hidden development serves several purposes. First they get more publicity and excitement over their changes. Second they deprive other distributions of the ability to incrementally (gradually) review the changes and understand them. The issue here is the ability to provide support, not merely copy the disks.
In other words this is an issue of corporate strategy. If they pull this off, then their release will be much more newsworthy, and it is one of the few ways they might be able to make inroads against Red Hat. You can bet that Corel wants its distribution to be #1 after all. Their position in the Linux distribution food chain will directly translate into stock value, and if they dethroned Red Hat as number 1, their stock value would jump by orders of magnitude. Worst case scenario is the OSS community gets really riled up in arms and they pull back and say it was a mistake. Ooops - sorry about that we didn't mean it, let's make up.
I suppose its not a rule but one of the great things about open source software is that most people put thier alpha's,beta's, and even non running software up for downloading so you can try it out. Corel would find more bugs if the beta period was open to everyone.
You don't have to sell the software... just distributing the software means you have to follow the GPL (or else you can't distribute it.)
What company are you talking about? (or am I feeding a troll?)
But it's not very "internal" if they're releasing
it. That it's a "closes beta" makes no difference if they distribute it to "non-internal" employee's of Corel.
What the hell are they trying to get away with?
If you REALLY believe that Corel is the great Satan for infringing on *YOUR* rights, then defend them.
Hire a lawyer and take them to court.
Be a (wo)man, not a mouse.
But I doubt *ANY* of you have the faith in your opinion...or enough to hire a lawyer.
And if you are unwilling to hire the lawyer, stop posting about how this is 'illegal'.
Anyone find it a little strange that Corel based its distro on Debian, the distro that is the most strict about levels of free-ness and using GPL'd software and then broke the GPL?
what would it hurt to release the source, they may even get a few things fixed without having to pay a cent for the help. I'll stick to Mandrake thank you.
Corel is not doing anything good for "the linux community" by putting around this crappy license, and violating the GPL in the process.
Not that the GPL is the last word in licenses, but rather that lots of the stuff in the Corel "distro" is *already* GPLd, that's the problem.
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
A precedent distinguishing between beta and final release should not be allowed to stand. Take, for instance, ICQ - today it is still in beta, yet it netted millions upon millions to Mirabilis' founders when they sold it to AOL.
Take this potential scenario. Corel develops linux, albeit makes it better so that everyone uses it, widely distributes it, but all the time under beta (like ICQ) without releasing the code, claiming it to be beta. From then on, they can practically do anything - and potentially make mucho money out of it, by someting as trivial as perhaps putting a forced banner ad on one of their later versions of "beta" (or shall we call it gamma, or even zeta) releases. Clearly wrong when you think about it - making money off GPL'd work.
Yet, all things considered, I doubt that a closed-source OS will prosper in the long run... and we already have a closed-source linux-compatible OS, which hasn't exactly caught on. It's called unix.
Karma makes sense. It makes a lot more sense if you add reincarnation.
Try reading it some time.
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
What other means do you suggest to bring them to their senses?
I vote quite in favour of the upload-betas approach, myself, as long as quite a few folks do it.
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
(sorry for the empty post, give it a -1)
...
...
-----------
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.
-------------
giving the program to anyone is distributing it. internal/external/extraterrestrial who cares.
closed development of GPL'ed software is of course a problem when other people but the initial authors (who can change the license) are envolved.
anyway: the softwarepackages in a linux distribution are always GPL and NOT in initial development so you have to split up the distribution into two parts. the GPL and the corel part
conclusion:
this beta test is of course a distribution and therefore GPL'ed software and derivatives are under GPL. the other corel software is under their license, and the beta testers can give the GPL'ed part to others
if anyone wants to write GPL'ed software and wants a closed beta test:
1) write the software
2) beta test it under you license
3) change the license to GPL
not difficult, eh?
(although not working for the entire thing in this case)
Cheers!!
grep -1 Security
You'll get quite a lot of this:
3c501.c- Copyright 1993 United States Government as represented by the
3c501.c: Director, National Security Agency. This software may be used and
3c501.c- distributed according to the terms of the GNU Public License,
--
3c503.c- Copyright 1993 United States Government as represented by the
3c503.c: Director, National Security Agency. This software may be used and
3c503.c- distributed according to the terms of the GNU Public License,
--
3c507.c- Copyright 1993 United States Government as represented by the
3c507.c: Director, National Security Agency.
...
Oops.
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
The GPL (!) and free software are the start of an era. Free software had already changed much of the world (Ever heard of perl, php, apache... for god's sake).
Everything in linux should be open sourced. If there is commercial product you can be sure an open source alternative is under development. Free beats money leaving my pocket any day, even if it requires a little more work.
That was friggin hilarious, what kind of Fascist, Humour Impaired, Sad Tomatoe Moderator would rank down such required reading!?
While they are in clear breach of the license for any GPL software that they have included ( by placing restrictions on what the users can do with it, they are violating the license ) , they have no obligation to make their entire distribution available.
I'd like to make another point: all the slashdot kiddies having their two-miutes-of-hate style rants really make linux look bad. It would be great for linux IMO if the self-appointed mouthpieces who do not participate in linux development ( ie the kiddies ) would just shut up and leave the diplomacy to those who have some.
The real issue here isn't whether Corel is being evil (they've done a fair bit already to further the Linux cause), but rather that the GPL could have a nasty loophole that less scrupilous companies (MS?) could exploit.
if so give me a message if you want to fight fire with fire and ill be sure to drop it to a bunch of warez puppies.
xjedi@usa.net
Who knew that Corel would turn out to be a scum-sucking, lying, rotten, thieving, back-stabbing, Nazi, double-crossing BUNCH OF PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE BASTARDS FROM HELL??!?!!!??
Ahem.
Thank you and good night.
-- Captain Carrot
And the brethren went away edified.
Warning: maybe I'm overstepping my bounds by trying to speak for a large segment of the hacker community...
I think that I and many others in the hacker/OSS/Linux/whatever community are not at all pleased with the current business and legal climate that has produced Microsoft Corporation and all it's attendent shenanigans (like the Java suit and the anti-trust trial). Mind you, I don't think Microsoft itself is the source of the problem, merely a symptom of the society and business climate that produced it.
I'm tired of business-as-usual. I'm tired of bogus patents (which includes most software ones). I'm tired of lawsuits and lawyers. I definitely don't want to see the GPL tested in court.
What I want is for everyone involved to talk it over and work something out. I want everyone to get back to work (or whatever they enjoy doing). I want everyone involved with GPL'ed software to have respect for the GPL and the ideals behind it. If there is a conflict, I want people to create a solution that satisfies all parties. The spirit of hackerdom is sharing information and working/playing on cool stuff, not settling things in court.
I suppose lawsuits are necessary when things get too far out of hand and there is no other recourse. But often they are an incredible waste of time and money; not accomplishing a damn thing except to make some lawyers richer.
There were some good solutions posted above, I hope someone at Corel checks them out.
Have a look at 'squishdot' (http://squishdot.org), some people are recreating the layout in Python and Zope (I'm not involved in the development). It's being released under the GPL.
Wayne
FYI, that was Wordperfect, not Wordperfect Office. WP Office is commercial software.
Either way, though, there are restrictions in the Wordperfect licence preventing redistribution, IIRC.
James
Do you honestly think you could trust people not to repost it if you just said 'please don't do it'? I seriously doubt that the license would be effective either, someone will post it on a site or IRC.
Wayne
for some reason i doubt 'slash' is bound by the rules of the GPL...i could be wrong!
-raj jr
I don't even want to start talking about the stupidity of alienating the same developers who's code they plan to sell. Their real problem is that they are ignoring Linus' Law: Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow. Or as ESR states a bit more lengthy,
In CatB, ESR continues by pointing out ``Here, I think, is the core difference underlying the cathedral-builder and bazaar styles. [..] In the bazaar view, on the other hand, you assume that bugs are generally shallow phenomena -- or, at least, that they turn shallow pretty quick when exposed to a thousand eager co-developers pounding on every single new release. Accordingly you release often in order to get more corrections, and as a beneficial side effect you have less to lose if an occasional botch gets out the door.''Chilli *crying*
-=- Just a random lambda hacker
It occurs to me that a contract cannot contain obligations that breach existing laws or contracts. For example, if you sign a contract with me that gives me the mutually exclusive right to live in your apartment, you cannot sign a similar contract with somebody else without going through the proper process of cancelling the previous contract.
It seems to me that if somebody signs up for the beta program and then freely distributes the software as is authorized by the GPL, they are not in violation of contract because the contract is invalid. Any lawyers roaming out there that can confirm or deny this?
I think it's fair to allow them to take a proect to maturity before releasing it to market. They aren't asking for collaberation so as long as they follow through with the open source once they get to market, I think it's perfectly acceptable for them to determine when they "open the kimono".
In my view, Corel is right if they don't want to give out the complete deal before it is thourougly tested, especially because their product is aimed at the newbie-linux user. The re-licensing thing (claiming that they own everything blahblah) is idiotic ofcourse, but i'm sure that's not a deliberate ploy to steal software but simply a slip-up of their legal department that applied a standard-banner used normally for windows-software. Corel has allready said they will release the full sourcecode to everything they have added, so why not stop acting like spoiled kids and calmly wait to see if they hold their promise? I personally bet on it they will, and waiting a couple of weeks will cause no harm to anyone.
One of Richard Stallman's critique's on the new Qt OpenSource-license was that it forbids the internal use of the software without having to distribute the sources. So, being able to develop software in-house, based on GPL'd software and not having to distribute sources is a feature of the GPL that was explicitly put there, it's not some kind of loophole.
In my opinion the betatesting of Corel's linux distribution is internal. It is not yet a product on the market, it is spread into a _closed_ circle of people that are preselected solely for the cause of beta-testing the release. In my eyes this qualifies as being internal testing. Those things combined, Corel complies fully with the GPL. They have stated on their website that there will probably be a second beta-round that will be accessible by a larger number of people.
On a sidenote: Even if you have some personal conviction that Corel is in some way violating the GPL or some other license: So what? They have said they will release the source to the full thing when released, why not be a little flexible and wait and see if they will. Give them some time to adapt to the whole situation, i'm sure working with GPL'd software is something new for Corel too. The possible rewards of a big company like Corel successfully converting to free software as a base of their products are much larger than receiving the sourcecode to a beta product 2 months earlyer than you would have gotten it anyway. The damage done by giving the world the impression that Linux/GPL advocates are a bunch of rabid whining children that utter death-threats as soon as they don't get something they feel they are entibled to is much more damaging to the acceptance of Linux and free software as a whole than simply waiting maybe another 2 months orso for the source to be released.
From the comments i've read on this forum, i'll bet Corel has allready been buried under a large stack of rabid hatemail from drooling idiots claiming they will bankrupt the company or something. Yeah, that must be a real incentive for companies to get involved with Linux and Opensource software in general.
Corel is one of the first really-big software companies that have fully dedicated themselves to Linux. And yet, in this forum there are people speculating that this will be the first court-case testing the GPL. Isn't it wiser to save that for a real enemy instead of a company that is taking its first steps on the slippery open-source ice? Treating them like they are some kind of terrible enemy now will also be seen by other companies pondering the use of other free software. They will see how easy it is to cause a public relations disaster by making a single mistake, even when fully complying to the agreements made. They may find is easyer to go with the standard proprietary software to avoid the hassle of having to deal with a raving mass of rightious fanatics obstructing the development process.
Witnessing this, the sad thing is that they are probably right too.
Well I got to talk to RMS today as he was here at the university, this issue came up and I asked him specifically about the contention that this is a beta and thus is not violating the GPL argument people have been making, his response:
``balderdash!''
Ethan
Now, I'm not a lawyer, so feel free to jump in if you are and correct me, but...
Contracts and licenses are NOT trademarks. If I don't vigorously enforce my trademark, I may loose it. But if I have a contract with someone, and they do something in violation of the contract, but I decide to look the other way, the contract does not "dissolve" or "erode". I can still choose to pursue legal action later for a different violation, or the same violation if I get fed up with them violating it, no?
In short, if those who issue the licenses for their copyrighted software decide to allow Corel to do what it's doing without making a fuss, I don't see how this "erodes the validity of the GPL" in any way...
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Time to start the beginnings of duplicating the features of Corel s/w as "FREE" s/w!!!!! There's nothing to stop us from doing it....
WordPerfect Office for Linux isn't going to be ready until a couple of months after the final version of the distro is released. So it's not going to be included in the distro, at least initially, so I doubt it's in the beta.
You really can't make a license that obligates them to upload it to their FTP server.
Actually you can, so long as you are the author...
I'm somewhat shocked that a large portion of the slashdot community is obviously willing to abandon the GPL at the first sight of a problem. Let's check the facts here: Corel tries to sublicence GPL code from random OSS programmers to restrict its distribution, which is a clear violation of the licence under which the code has been made available to them in the first place.
There is no room for discussion here: Neither calling their distribution "beta" or the declaring the recipients as Corel internals has the slightest relevance here. (Even if a real Corel internal would give away e.g. an enhanced local version of gdb, never intended for publication, the best they could do is fire him but they could never sue him for licence violation.) Just imagine what Corel would do to you if you would publish an "internal beta release" of Corel Draw only differing from the original by a new installer and maybe a new packet format.
While I also thought at first that this might have been a mistake by some culeless lawyer who did a search-and-replace on some standard beta test licence, their own FAQ and the fact that they didn't give any response (let alone excuse) besides "this is being worked on" suggests that this is not the case.
Even if they do give in now (and I think they finally will), the impression will remain that they did so because of PR reasons and not because they felt themselves legally bound. Be sure that this precedent combined with the weak reaction of the community and the obvious lack of any serious (i.e. juristic) challenge of their licence violation will not go unnoticed, neither by other potential freeloaders nor by many OSS authors who might twice before they release their work under the GPL again.
The tragic (and somewhat ironic) point here is that Corel has not the slightest advantage from doing this. If they had restriced their licence to their own self developed products (installers, system management, etc.), they would have lost nothing: Nobody could give the whole thing away and with installers and management tools missing, a distribution is nothing more than a random collection of packages. (And most of them won't really differ from the Debian versions, anyway.)
Mediocre stock price? They've been up and up and up recently. Yesterday, CORL's price reached 10 3/16. This is a serious improvement compared to last year's 1 1/16. Yes, that's an almost tenfold increase!
I'll wait to see what www.debian.org has to say about this. As a devout Debianite, I'd be interested to hear their opinions, since the Corel distro is based on Debian.
"Internal use only"
Okay.. but no, that doesnt' ad dup.
If Me, Mr. IT wizard, makes a special version of the kernel for some reason, I am not obliged to share it with the rest of the world. I HAVE LICENSE to do what I want with it. (so long as I obey the license)
This license states that I may not distribute it. Fine.
Now, as a company, if I deploy said kernel on the workstation sthat my COMPAY OWNS, I, as the COMPANY, am not distributing anything. I am merely installing it on computers that I own. The fact that employees work there is inconsequential. I have not transferred anything to them.
In TurboLinux Cluster server beta agreement it states that.
"This license is only for TurboLinux software components not under the GPL. Software components under the GPL include, but are not limited to, the Linux kernel, all modifications made to the Linux kernel, and many of the Linux programs included with the TurboLinux Server OS."
This would be a good comprimise
Note: the turbolinux beta site seems to be down or something.. but I had already copied it from yesterday (in a conversation in technocrat) and thought it appropriate to point out here.
The Corel situation, on the other hand, is different: they're distributing code written by third parties, and are allegedly violating the license of those third parties
If this were really internal use, Corel wouldn't need a lisence. I don't lisence the software I write to our tech support department. You need a lisence when dealing with external parties.
If I understand what Corel is doing, they just want to have the product tested by a wider base of people before they slap their name on it, and distribute it to the general public. While this desire to release stable products is commendable, their method violates the GPL. Corel is going to have to adapt their business practices if they want to distribute GPL'd software.
I've never released any software under the GPL myself so I guess I'm a bit of an outsider in this discussion, but it seems to me that if the GPL is going to mean anything, it's going to have to be enforced. This might be as simple of a thing as the authors of some of the software in the distribution contacting Corel and telling them that they are violating the lisence, and to cease doing so. Try to avoid lawyers and finacial penalties if possible.
Besides, this really is more an FSF thing than an OSI thing. This would be more up RMS's alley than ESR's...
Anyways, I don't care. As long as someone is on top of it. RMS can work on policy statements and ESR can work on press releases while Bruce sorts it all out...
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
I guess COREL doesn't understand the GPL or OpenSource Liscensing yet. Not that I expected that they would, mind you, but I'm dissapointed that they can't seem to shake their old liscensing habits. Here's a hint COREL. Anything , in any phase of development that has a GPL on it, MUST be released as GPL. This isn't Windows or Mac software where you can be restrictive about the liscense for alpha, beta, etc. You MUST put it under GPL. Personally this just killed any respect I have for them because they don't respect our liscense or our work.
So what did we learn?
Basically the C keyword auto is useless.
The next remark is false. The previous remark is true.
Your logic is twisted.
They do not have to make ANY of their modified GPL code available until the moment they start distributing it. Until they do, YOU have nothing to bitch about.
If a 'mixture' of GPL & other not-quite-oss can not be distributed (wrong), then you would have to kiss goodbye to SUSE, RedHat, Mandrake, Slackware, and EVERY OTHER LINUX DISTRO except possibly (probably) Debian.
GPL applies to *source code* and it's derivitaves, not the Linux distro as a whole.
However, what if they also owned the computer? They aren't 'distributing' anything. You don't get any ownership whatsoever. You are simply permitted to 'touch' it.
If this was an intentional effort on the part of Corel to "lock-up" other's GPL'ed software, then why should we care if we alienate them? We're better off without them!
In my opinion the betatesting of Corel's linux distribution is internal.
;)
I don't see anything in the GPL to allow special privileges to people doing ``internal distribution'' (whatever that might be), or beta testing.
Regardless of that, as one of the copyright holders for some of the software that they are distributing, it was bizarre (to say the least) to find that I was being asked to revoke my right to distribute my own software.
Especially since if I had acceeded to the request, they would have lost their right to distribute my code (GPL clause 4) as soon as they tried it.
Woo, paradox (sort of
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
As much as I am a fan of Corel and Debian, I would have prefered if Corel made their distro available in open source, as it should be by law. If a company, that is quite friendly to the Linux community, does such a thing, would you be surprised if Microsoft does the same? Includes freely available GPL code into their crappy products, and get away with that?
Sigged!
It just seems that you're not a member of it. Pity. :)
:)
The interesting thing about GPL'ed software is that someone making money off it was never a difficult issue to begin with. Money was made the first time an FSF Deluxe Distribution was sold.
The FSF owns the copyrights to many of the programs whose GPL Corel has infringed. The FSF presumably has enough money to successfully sue them. It'd be nice to see this tested in court.
Remember, free software IS the real world, as it has been from the beginning. Just some people are too clouded by illusion to find it.
I am sick and tired of seeing ignorant posts from people who obviously haven't read and/or don't understand the GPL getting moderated up as "Interesting" and "Insightful".
Moderators, please go read the GPL before you moderate, so you can tell when someone like gregm above doesn't know what he's talking about. It's obvious that a lot of people who think they have an informed opinion on this issue have not given the GPL a thorough examination.
I like Corel and I honestly believe that they do not have any sinister intentions, but the precedent set by letting this sort of thing go is just way too dangerous. Legal battles are won and lost by established precedent, and as much as I would want to be a nice guy and let this go, I'm afraid of what a less scrupulous company or individual might get away with and be able to defend in court because the community weakened the GPL by selectively enforcing it.
I will say right up front that I do not have a single line of GPL'd code out there, which might make me a "typical slashdot loudmouth" in the eyes of some. However, I have built a career out of the use of GPL'd software and I enjoy a good income because of it. Coming from a non-traditional educational background, I do not believe I would have had the same opportunities in a proprietary world. I believe the GPL is just as valuable to the end user as it is to the developer. Seeing it weakened makes me nervous that all I've built upon it will also be weakened.
If the worst should happen, and Corel refuses to back down on this issue, I am willing to contribute $1000 (US) to a legal fund for developers to take Corel to court. I can safely say I've gotten tens times that value from GPL'd software. I think if enough of us who believe in the GPL contribute (even a few dollars), we could have a sizeable legal warchest.
Of course, it's up to the developers (it's their code), but I think the rest of us who have benefited so greatly from their work should make sure that they know their options should not be limited by the high cost of legal actions.
they worked in the cvs repo
Yes, Corel screwed up. They made a blanket copyright statement to cover their entire distribution, a distribution that contains GPL software. What we should be doing, folks, is pointing out that this is inappropriate and give Corel a possible solution, not breathing down their necks.
The best possible solution I see is to have two separate license statements. One would cover the Corel Linux GPL distribition. The second would cover their specially licensed Corel add-ons. RedHat did this when they packaged MetroX with their 4.2 version. During the installation process for the MetroX desktop, you had to read through and confirm that you agreed with the license. It wasn't GPL, and RedHat didn't treat it as such.
Of course, this brings up another interesting question. Is it right or even lawful for someone to take a GPL program, modify the code, and use it "in-house" without contributing those modifications back to the GPL community? The answer is an emphatic "no!" At this point, we can only assume that Corel is adhering to GPL policy and that they goofed in their distribution license statement.
assert(expired(knowledge));
You are under no obligation to use the software, and the very fact that the source is supplied gives you immense freedoms (thanks richard!) that cannot be taken for granted.
Yes, you may have to pay financially, or with your time and/or labor in order to adhere to the conditions and distribute the source. A small, but important, price to pay. Be grateful.
-- Reverend Vryl
It's simple. Fsck 'em. Refuse to participate in the beta under those license terms. Corel Linux is not going *anywhere* unless it gets major beta testing. We as the potential beta testers and consumers hold all the cards--if we don't like their license, simply refuse to accept it.
OTOH if they are not distributing it but are selling a service based on it (for instance they are using a modified version in the back-end for a web-site) then they should be fine.
Sincerely,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
I know that the "Spirit of the GPL" would be, "If you can touch it, you must have access to the source". I'm not sure if that is actually expressed in the licence.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Well, perhaps the management just doesn't want to get egg in their face if there are any nasty bugs. I can see them taking quite a bit of persuasion to release it to the world at the drop of a hat, especially months before it has to be ready. They perhaps don't realize that it probably won't hurt their reputation much to release a buggy beta to the general public. I say give them a bit of a break, its their first try.
IMHO it's not the fact that Corel's distro is beta that lets them do this; it is the manner in which it is (not) distributed. That is, if they were completely non-selective as to whom they gave the "beta" to, then yes, this act would violate the letter and spirit of the GPL, no question, even if they called it "beta" and said they weren't "releasing" it.
But if they are highly selective about who will get access; and those people are actually in some meaningful sense Corel employees (or rather, contractors); and the statement and intent are clearly there to perform a full, open release after some finite amount of time; then I think that they are certainly following the spirit of the GPL, and a strong case could be made that they are following the letter as well.
``This, too, shall pass.'' ---Eastern proverb
They do not have to make ANY of their modified GPL code available until the moment they start distributing it. Until they do, YOU have nothing to bitch about.
Maybe if you thought about it, I wasn't bitching at Corel, I am actually on their side. If the reason is twisted logic, then I'd like someone to untwist it. In general, I was posting because Slashdot posters were saying Corel hurt the community and should be shunned, or Corel did an evil, horrible act out of neglect. Or Corel just screwed up because they're run by human beings. In essance, my point is, Corel did nothing wrong, Corel is still a friend so please don't push them away.
If a 'mixture' of GPL & other not-quite-oss can not be distributed (wrong), then you would have to kiss goodbye to SUSE, RedHat, Mandrake, Slackware, and EVERY OTHER LINUX DISTRO except possibly (probably) Debian.
Now that was twisting my words. I never said a mixture can never be distributed, I said that suppose there is closed source, propitary code, then distributing it without concent is illegal. If the distribution creator includes propitary programs which are licensed for one user, and that user copies the distribution for friends, who install those propitary programs, then that's illegal. RedHat used to have MetroX included with their distribution (the box package), and it was in that fashon. As we don't know what Corel has done, this is a definate possibility. They could have included the entire Wordperfect Suite, while they only give the word processor out for free. That's software pirating. The companies can distribute there product, they can also remove the single user / restrictive licensed programs from it and make it freely downloadable, but they can always distribute it.
GPL applies to *source code* and it's derivitaves, not the Linux distro as a whole.
I'm starting to wonder if you even read my post, or are just rambling, because you imply I say things I never did. The GPL applies to source code, its derivatives, and the binaries that are created.
As I said, the reason Corel is in the right is because the entire distribution likely does not only include OSS, and thus the GPL only applies to the parts of the distribution that are GPL'ed. This is not the entire distribution, which is *why* Corel can tell users that they cannot distribute copies free or at a price of their product. They say the same thing with Corel Wordperfect Suite, Corel Draw, etc. The difference is that the distribution does contain the GPL and other OSS licenses that requires them to make those parts freely available, by whatever reasonable way they see fit. My point was, if you called them and asked for it, they had to say no or they violated the GPL. In the ZdNet article, they said.. later. That means if you called and wanted it now, the answer would be no.
So.. do you actually understand this logic? They origionally did nothing wrong. Read both the GPL and Corel's license, and remember the product is not just GPL'ed programs, it could be many things, especially propitary single-user programs. They gave their testers the right to use those progams for 45 days, just like your allowed to use a shareware program for a time limit.
People were on there back, and I believe they never seemed to realize this, just assumed that others had investaged and that Corel was at fault. Slashdot and beta-users assumed things, took them as fact, and then accused Corel in a manner that would hurt the public's opinion of them. That's defamation of charactor, which may or may not be illegal to do to a company. Free speech does not cover everything, and Corel is complying because if they did not, it would be to fight the very users who they want to sell to. Fighting your entire, portential, userbase is illogical.
So, here's my point. Only when the spokesperson refused to give the modified GPL code out to the public did they do anything in violation of the GPL. Please read the GPL, it never says distribution or the user/organization must start once they begin releasing the code. They do not have to pay for the means of giving users the code, which is why putting the beta, stripped of anything that would hinder its free distribution, on an FTP. They still must provide it when wanted. That's one of the points of the GPL, it locks the code to make it publicly owned and controlled.
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
They are saying that its internal, well let them keep it internal, dont go out and get other to test it. The term beta will soon be inbeded in a standard EULA and we will be seeing a Microsux linux coming out soon with enhancenments as tehy claim that their product is still in beta. EVEN after they are selling it at the stores.
.sigs suck, thus nothing here.
I don't understand these people who think that everything linux should be open sourced... the attitude that if its not GLP compliant it's not Linux. I could understand if it was software that was being released. Its not... its a distro... and the quote goes... "Linux is a kernel. Everything else in the distro is frills". Its not like corel is developing thier own closed source linux kernel. Just let them beta test.
If I had GPLed code in the distribution (I have GPLed code but not in their distribution), and I learned that Corel was changing and modifying _MY!_ code but refused to let me or anybody else see what they were doing to it until the time that they released it with a big fanfare, I would be quite justifiably infuriated.
This not only breaks the GPL outright, but there is another negative consequence: to the extent that the changes are major and substantial, this causes a forking of the GPLed code into that maintained by the original authors, and that which is maintained in secrecy by corporate programmers and only released in completed states. As this continues, it will become a major rivalry between the original authors who are publically allowing distribution of interim releases- and the 'beta guys' whose only visible output is (in theory) bugfixed. The end result could be loss of control of many Open Source packages to this corporate entity, which would then proceed to only develop under wraps and secrecy, and then release source to only completed works. If you had changes to contribute it would be difficult because the actual moving target of the development is _not_ visible, it is 'beta' and you don't get to see it until it's done. The original authors would be pressed to conceal _their_ development process, or to be seen as 'releasing bugware' while the corporate distributors hide theirs. End result could be widespread concealment of code under the GPL, by both corporates and individual developers.
This is intolerable.
This has to be stopped cold. It's not just a courtesy issue. Which programs are being modified (effectively 'forked') by Corel? Exactly which people are losing control of the development of their own software due to this power play by Corel? There is just no way that the separate, concealed, destined-for-commercial-distribution development of such programs _wouldn't_ result in forking of the programs' codebase, and there is no reason to believe the concealed-development forks wouldn't _keep_ being forked and developed in more 'beta' concealment. This is a very, very serious problem, potentially. Unless Corel is stopped, the original authors have no recourse, and their only consolation is that Red Hat or most other distributions will run the real snapshots of their programs- which might be buggy!
So, _if_ Corel has a bunch of programmers so good that they can debug GPLed code, then they could be setting up a situation where their distributions always release debugged code, compared to other dists which might be found releasing code that is only a dev-snapshot and buggier. This will tend to make Corel's dist seem better (if their programmers are actually that good at debugging), causing them to take over, outdo RedHat, leading to a state where Linux is basically controlled by a corporation because the codebase is forked, and versions under constant secret development are known to be the most bugfree ones. You could still extend off the code Corel writes- but you can't get it accepted into their workflow because they're already three months ahead of you in secret, and can't integrate changes based on such an older version of their product.
This mustn't be allowed to happen...
And they can show it to the world, and you can't possibly force them not to, because it's GPLed. You can _ask_ them not to. That's different... and very likely they have no vested interest in distributing your rewrite... but they could because that's the license you're using.
Now if you care about your little grep rewrite, what do you think when a team of salaried Corel programmers starts altering and debugging _your_ program to make it work seamlessly with their distribution- and you say, "Hey, cool, can I see that?" and they say "NO! You'll see it when it's done! We're forking your program, buddy- keep developing your version, and you can see _finished_ snapshots of _our_ version, but don't submit any changes, you're not seeing the real state of development and your change doesn't apply to the current (concealed) snapshot..."
Are you seriously saying you _can't_ see the problem with this?
I disagree strongly with Corel on this, actually.
A GPL license is supposed to follow a product everywhere it goes. Therefore, internal/external, released/unreleased, etc. has nothing to do with the GPL. The GPL is meant to guarantee that you will be able to freely distribute a product, and that source code will always be available.
You really can't make a license that obligates them to upload it to their FTP server. The GPL doesn't say "Said product must be uploaded to an FTP server." However, you cannot prosecute or sue someone for copying a GPL licensed product. Corel derived much of Corel Linux from GPL'd code. So making a copy of that code and giving it to whoever should be legal. Period.
Nuf said. I didn't get to rant about this yesterday, so I figured today was a good day.
Peace,
Barleyguy.
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
This should NOt be allowed :( These people need a good slap in the wrist--otherwise, others might take it as sign of weakness of the OS community and think they can get away with real nasty things. Besides, we as a community should ALWAYS remember than when someone does something for profit, what he/she wants is PROFIT :( We shold allow this only *if* the only way to make a profit is to benefit from doing things that are GOOD for the community and society at large. If we do not enforce this, then we might as well surrender to the Evil Empire(TM) and be haapy about it :(
I would very much like to hear more from Amy Fong. A person with that name and a corel e-mail address has submitted bug reports to debian.
> I modify a GPLed program for personal use only, my own use, of course I do not have to provide source to the changes.
Yes, you do -- to yourself.
> I modify a GPLed program (let's call it a cgi program on the web), I do not have to provide source for the changes, if I do not distribute the code, only use it myself on a web page. Right?
Right. GPL doesn't affect use, and that is use.
> I modify a GPLed program for use in my business, my users only, no external users. Do I have to provide source, etc?
Only to your users (the same who got the program).
If I agree with Corel (which I don't), and say that the distribution is to a select few for "internal" development, they are missing the point of GPL.
Beta testing is to find and remove bugs. An "internal" approach is not the most effective. The point of Open Source, is to let a large community debug and improve the product. Being the owner allows you to be the center point of development and support (where the money is).
I don't believe in Corel's "Open Source Spirit". If that was the case, then they would take the bennefits of Open Source, and use it.
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Interesting that Corel is sticking to their business practices which made them a second hand software company.
On the other hand, there is the RedHat way, which made for big growth, successful IPO, significant sales.
Do they think that the same marketing techniques which brought the WordPerfect market share from 80% to 10%, the Quatro and Paradox from about 30% and 40% to about 1-2%, so let's be serious, failed techniques, will work in the Linux environment?
In fact, the Linux environment is even more competitive than the Windows. There will be at least several major distributions, there are at least 3 major commercial office suite-s, it will be at least one (K) but maybe even two open source office suite-s.
I think that the idea that we reuse the Windows experience in a place where it is easier to compete it is a complete miscalculation, and this is what Corel seems to try to do.
Lotzi
However, in a lot of cases, the author has put in a clause which says that the software can be licensed under the GNU GPL, version 2, or (at your option) any newer version - which means that many programs would have "built in" support for GPL 2.1 or whatever.
Really, though, I think perhaps what people should be worrying the most about is what Corel is claiming their "product" is in the license. Are they referring to the distribution as a collection of packages, or are they also including the packages that they're using in the "product" term?
If they're referring to _only_ the bundled-together collection of packages that they're distributing, then they're not really violating the GPL for their beta release. You simply can't re- distribute copies of "Corel Linux" to others. You can still hand out the packages and various software components that are GPL'd, without a problem.
If they're referring to the packages themselves as their "product", _then_ they're violating the GPL and the law by claiming that they own and are distributing software they control, when, in fact, they do not. That type of stuff, if I'm not mistaken, is illegal, regardless of whether it's "internal" or not.
Keep in mind that I am by no means a lawyer, but it looks to me the issue is more along the lines of what Corel defines as its "product", not whether it's an internal or external release.
If I download a bunch of GPL'd code, and change a single letter in it, am I immediately bound to redistribute it? What is the time frame for me having to re-release the code? If I make a change does the rest of the world have to know immediately? The traditional model of Free, OSS is for the public to know what changes are going on in a piece of GPL'd software all the time. If a bunch of friends and I download the Linux kernel, decide to devote a few months to making it Ultra-UNIX-Whoop-De-Doo, and we tell all of our friends (and let some of them have it and test it out) but don't release it to the general public until we feel it's ready, is this a violation of the GPL? I think not (it violates the benefits of OSS, but not necessarily the GPL). If I am a corporation and do the same, is that a violation? I also think not. By the same token, if some little rugrat gets his hands on our modified code, can we cry foul if he sends it back to the cource tree against our wishes? Yet again, I think not. If we include non-GPL'd code with our modified GPL'd code, what is the time frame required for our releasing the modified GPL'd code? Does adding proprietary code change this time frame? Does my corporate/individual status? I think this whole debacle requires a modification of the GPL to deal with situations such as this. How one would modify it I know do not know.
everything you know is wrong
Could be. Either way I'm not too concerned. I'm all for the OSS model, but if Corel is trying a tactic here, I don't necessarily consider that wrong.
But a lot of the articles on /. come from ZDnet. So if they checked here before posting articles there and we checked there before posting articles here, well... the readerships of /. and ZDnet would trade places, for one thing, and no one would ever post anything!
Reminds me of that Greek guy... ZD-eno was it? :-)
----
We all take pink lemonade for granted.
There is no K5 cabal.
I am not the real rusty.
Corel is quite free to release its proprietary parts of it's distribution under whatever beta license they like, so long as those parts, and only those parts are covered by their license.
That is, i, as a beta tester, would be quite free to redistribute, under the conditions of the GPL, any part of Corel's distro that is, or is based on GPLed software, regardless of what Corel might think or feel on the subject. In fact, their 'Beta License' is totally worthless and invalid as it obviously violates the GPL.
Anything thats entirely and independently developed by Corel can be made subject to any licensing agreement Corel desires.
The current 'blanket' beta license is clearly illegal, and must be replaced with a license that refers specifically to those packages/components that Corel has a legal right to protect.
This does not include *any* GPLed portions of their distro.
That is, Corel has absolutely no right to stop a beta tester distributing any portion of their distro that is covered by the GPL. Period.
They can politely request such restraint of action, but they cannot ask anyone to sign a legally binding document enforcing such.
Parts of the Corel distro that aren't covered by the GPL are another kettle of fish and should be considered as such.
However, the current Beta license should be considered totally worthless, and existing beta copies distributed under this license could (and perhaps should) be uploaded to as many public FTP servers as possible. Until Corel provides beta testers with a *legal* agreement, I don't see how they could have a leg to stand on in court.
If Corel doesn't like the GPL, if it doesn't suit their purposes as developers of a commercially oriented Linux distro, then they best get the FUCK OFF OUR PORCH and start work on their own closed version of *NIX.
..my 2c
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
Slash 0.4 anyone?
Three Step Plan:
1. Take over the world.
2. Get a lot of cookies.
3. Eat the cookies.
You win. Several the "Linux" source files contain code from a BSD distribution which contain a standard BSD advertising clause. This is specificly prohibited by the GPL (I think it is section 6, but I don't care enough to look it up).
Hey!! Corel is Deep Pockets man! Real sharks will work pro-bono on this! Let's get cracking!!
Where is RS when you need him...(kicking and screeming!)
oh....my!
Sitting in a forum and arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (never resolving anything) is meaningless. What can be done really but improve the license' clarity?
I humbly ask that this could be moderated up insightful (if it even receives attetion)
Hypothetically, anything hypothetical is possible.
Ok,
Let's suppose I rewrote say... grep. I decide to call up some of my friends and say "Dudes check this out and see if I've done anything stupid before I show my ass to the world." Would this be a violation of the GPL? If so I expect that Linus and the rest of the gang have violated the GPL thousands of times. There's plenty of really important things to bitch about and this just isn't one of them IMHO.
Have a really great day!
Sorry, Bad grammar!
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Probably stronger than the way the "ROTC Dude" at the end of the movie Animal House declared ``All is well! All is well!''; it's more in that vein than most others.
Of course, what puts some truth to the matter is that Bruce Perens is actually the author of some software included in "Corel Linux," and thereby a person potentially being infringed against. Copyright infringment is not, legally, an "offense" against "communities," it is against the holders of copyright...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
FSF should issue a sue against Corel for breaking the GPL. Ha! Let's start a war!
-- You are in a twisty maze of passages, all alike.
I would hate to see Corel loose a major investment because a liscence that is to protect the programming community screwed the said community by being too inflexible. But I also do not want to see the GPL destroyed by non-enforcement. This would be more of a crime that loosing any and all major corperate support. This is my humble opinion. Deal with it.
Laugh, it's good for you!
In order for the GPL to work, there can be no exceptions or exclusions. Being Beta cannot be a special case that bypasses the GPL.
Why not? Well say company XYZ develops a distribution/program/whatever that incorporates things under the GPL. Say they provide support or some great feature that you have to have. You ask company XYZ for it (since they have been talking about Open Source and such) and they say it is not publicly available yet, but you could pay N$ to become an official beta tester.
And if the product never comes out of beta, or you always need the next beta, then suddenly company XYZ is basically selling a product that should be under the GPL, but they are hiding behind the "beta" exception.
Any exception to the GPL that is allowed to stand will destroy the whole point of the GPL.
I say we don't need em. There's plenty enough distros already, and they aren't going to attract my attention unless they do something really special.
Why do they have to play by different rules to anyone else? RedHat and Debian are never scared to release a 'beta' distro under the GPL, so what's up with Corel?
Corel - Get with the program!
I'm wondering if even distribution internally, without obeying the license, is legal. If it is legal, then I can buy some non-free software, create "My Distribution of Software", and distribute it to everyone in my company under a beta license. This is essentially what they're doing, only that the software is under the GPL, but this is just a distribution license like any other.
Johan Jansson
So the simple solution to this conundrum would be to treat the license like the invalid legal effluvium that it is, and violate it. Get a copy of Corel Linux Beta. Distribute it to the world. If Corel really wants to try to defend their license, let them. It simply won't stand up in court.
"Open source licensing: Who knew it could be so complicated? Definitely not Corel Corp."
Obviously.
"Some open source and Linux advocates are outraged that Corel's beta Linux distribution agreement violates the GNU Public License (GPL) in several respects."
Some?
"Some open source advocates argue though that since the Corel release is a beta, and not a public release, it can be considered "internal only," meaning the GPL does not apply."
Well, IANAL, but what the GPL applies to is distribution. I do not believe it makes a distinction between "internal" or "external". If they are going to give us a copy of their distro, they can't attach extra licensing stuff to it. We are not their employees, so even if the "select few" only get to see it, it's still distribution. How they bind down their employees from distributing modified GPL'ed stuff would be a much more interesting topic to explore, in my opinion.
" "As we've stated on previous occasions, Corel has every intention of honoring the GNU GPL obligations once we begin distribution of Corel Linux later this year..." "
So, you can honor it when you want to honor it? I think your view is a little "off".
" "...This beta testing program for Linux, however, does not signal the commencement of the distribution of Corel Linux, but rather the contracting of third party testing services..." "
Hmm. Distribution: 1. to give out in shares 2. to spread out.. This sounds a little like distribution. They "give out" copies of the program? Whether or not you are contracting "third party" help, you are still /distributing/ GPL'ed stuff.. therefore it is to be under the GPL license, not their own, or even a weird hybrid.
"Is that enough? Raymond doesn't think so. He believes that the beta should be under GPL and the other appropriate licenses. As he succinctly puts it, "They'll get toasted over this, and deserve it." "
Damn right. I'm with ESR on this one. Who needs another pointless distro, anyway? Stick to the ones that actually fill a niche.
"As Corel is discovering, making the jump from traditional commercial software practices and licenses to an open source model is harder to make then they might have thought. It's a lesson all companies moving to open source would be wise to heed."
While a lot of people would say that now is the time to test the GPL out in court, I don't think this scenario is really for the best, although it was bound to happen eventually. Companies are out to make money, free software is a new market companies have to adapt to, fight off, or get trampled by, and the GPL doesn't allow for money-making.. at least in the traditional sense conceptualized by "big business". And all this kind of friction between companies and the free software community is going to produce is bad PR relations, and a sense of bitterness on more than a few sides. I was going to add more to that, but I forgot what I was going to say. :)
~ Kish
Let's face it, whether Corel is forced legally to follow the GPL on its beta is not the real issue here. The importance of this is that it symbolizes the conflict that arises when a traditional developer attempts to embrace OSS.
Corel is simply trying to jump on the Linux bandwagon after the action has already begun to happen. They have been up to this time strongly proprietary. I don't know whether this is to enhance their mediocre stock price or to appear cutting edge. In any case, some sort of half-hearted copy of Debian with some "ease of use" features are not a significant contribution to the community. Even WordPerfect is buggy and obtuse when compared to Koffice, for example. Linux has already reached critical mass, and I know of no one that installed Linux in order to run WP 8. Corel is welcome but hardly neccesary.
No offense, but I consider Corel to be in the same category as Sun and Oracle. Companies, which have a myriad of plans to make use of the technology fad du jour (remember Java and the NC?) Their bizarre products are aimed at Microsoft, since all three have an obsession on taking Microsoft's place as the dominant tech company. Linux is yet another avenue for their schemes.
She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist.
Jean-Paul Sartre
This seems like a decision made to make the testing process go smoother. Keeping track of a bunch of beta testers is much easier than trying to sort through tons of "It's not working." type bug reports from millions of users. Keeping the pool small lets them get more specific info about bugs and get back to people who have valid reports. If they try to actually release the distro under this license, there will be hell to pay, until then let them test their software.
this looks like it could turn into an opertunity for one of the real linux co.s (VA, Redhat, etc.) to hurt the competition (Corel), get more good publicity, and put contribute some legal precedent to supporting the GPL. I'd like to see RMS bitch about RedHat or whomever if they are the ones who end up giving the GPL some much needed combat experence.
Jeff
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Not only is Corel in the Wrong for re-licensing linux and other gpl'ed programs. But They are going to lose the respect and interest of many pro-linux people. It seems apparent to me that the reason you license a piece of software is to distribute it. If they are using the software internally, as they claim, why would they need to licence the software to themselves? Because of this I've decided to NOT used corel linux. I will also advocate that other people NOT use it. Andrew
...Linux!
--
"You never know when some crazed rodent with cold feet might be running loose in your pants."
-Calvin
Eat some chocolate chip cookies and milk then spend a nice evening contemplating a tree. Does wonders for that bitterness and vaguely directed hatred.
I won't bother to state that if Corel was "doing something by themselves without help from the opensource community" then they wouldn't use said community's software. Just because we don't steal from our customers doesn't mean it's ok to steal from us.
I also won't bother to suggest that you read some Marx or the Communist Manifesto before you try to apply their concepts to dissimilar movements.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
In haste to make my comment I didn't think about the programmers releasing thier code under the GPL and then having some commercial company take it and close the source. In actuality though if it is released under the GPL you can find the source either on Freshmeat or by your own means. Whatever...
Imagine that a beta tester for COREL Linux desides to go ahead and make it publically availible. People see the distro and can go "COREL Linux is stupid/idiotic/insecure/etc system becasue of specific case XXX." Not like any Slashdotters would overreact to something like a bad distro and chew on it like a pit bull on a side of raw beef, but others might.
Now COREL gets a nice big black eye from the numerous specific tangible complaints about their system. It's beta, it's bound to have some pretty bad screwups in it. Unfortunately, human nature places alot on first impressions, and can remember these for quite a while. You can see where this is going, right? I would keep it "in house" myself, if I had any say in the matter.
And anyway, why would they have some kind of registration or selection criteria to allow beta testers if it was GPL? You should have seen this coming when they first put out the notice for it.
In a bizarre coincidence I was discussing this very situation last week (7 days ago) in this thread
Basically both the GPL and Corel share the blame for this confusion. The GPL is partly to blame as it does not provide a legal definition of the word "distribution". Corel is partly to blame for not consulting relevant authorities (RMS, Bruce Perens) who would have been glad to clarify the matter.
Has any litigation been filed?
Is it being considered?
If not, then the fsf might as well pack up.
The way contract and licensure disputes are
handled in USAn business is through the court.
Corel is violating a license granted by FSF.
FSF may choose to issue a cease and desist (and
could acquire a temporary restraining order to
stop Corel from distributing the software until
a hearing can be set.)
Or, the FSF can choose not to take any action.
Preferably to all this, representatives of FSF should have already contacted Corel to demand that
their license terms be met, and Corel should, upon
that notice, begin to abide by the terms.
Otherwise there are two possibilities:
File a motion, or take a step (inaction) that will tend to erode the validity of the GPL.
I've sent this already to GNU and Bruce... and just sent to ESR... anyone else who wants to take a shot at it, feel free. But I want legal answers, NOT opinions from knownothings.
/dev/null
---
With the hoopla over Corel Linux's illfated Beta license, a question has come up, and I'd like RMS's opinion, as well as any legal ones FSF can provide.
The question:
Is an 'internal use' ONLY change to a GPLed program subject to GPL copying and distribution requirements, source providing requirements,
etc?
Example:
I modify a GPLed program for personal use only, my own use, of course I do not have to provide source to the changes.
I modify a GPLed program (let's call it a cgi program on the web), I do not have to provide source for the changes, if I do not distribute the code, only use it myself on a web page. Right?
I modify a GPLed program for use in my business, my users only, no external users. Do I have to provide source, etc? This is the real gray area.
A lot of businesses have modified GPL code for internal use only, and they do not think they have to 'release', nor should they (in my opinion), unless and until it's given to the public (whatever that means) in some form, for free or pay or whatever. Does 'Internal Usage' involve copying and/or distribution?
If so, does in house changes mean that a user has GPLed rights to distribute beyond the company?
If so, GPLed code can never be under NDA, even in the case of internal use only, say security changes to the source, etc?
----
Answers to these please... Flames to
Help achieve Liberty in your lifetime - join the Free State Project - http://www.freestateproject.org
Why do we know about this?
If it's a "close beta" that's only supposed
to be seen by a few, why is it topic #1 on slashdot?
Who violated their nda with Corel? What bonehead
at corel decided to blab about the license?
They call it a beta but they're not treating it the way we expect a beta to be treated... It's really a not-ready-for-public-eyes testing release (I'd call it an alpha, but to each his own)
Corel is a company with a reputation to think about. They have legitimate reasons for not making this a public release. Granted, this practice is more common in the world of proprietary code, but I don't think it's at all unreasonable.
/* The beatings will continue until morale improves. */
Could it be that the community has grown too large at this point for that to work in all cases? If Corel doesn't have the infrastructure right now to constructively process input from many thousands of beta testers, perhaps it is prudent to begin testing on a smaller scale. (I note that the company continues to hire Linux gurus.)
Of course Corel might also be concerned that the initial beta is indeed incomplete and unstable. As the company has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders (full disclosure: including me), it would want to try to avoid potentially damaging press about a raw beta distro.
OTOH, such a practical concern may well conflict with GPL terms. I'm glad Corel says it will fully release all GPL etc source later this quarter, but I also understand the argument that the GPL needs to be defended against erosion. So I've come to the conclusion that something needs to be done now, not soon, to avoid potentially alienating the coders upon whom Corel will continue to rely.
How about this:
If Corel were to release source in such a way that precludes putting together the pieces to re-create the (potentially incomplete/unstable) Corel Linux distro beta 1, wouldn't that address the company's stated concerns while also living up to the letter of the GPL? If you wrote something that was GPL'd, Corel modified it and now they were giving you the modified code, would you have a gripe anymore?
Disclaimers: To use my favorite acronym of this week: IANAL. I also am not a coder or a GPL expert. Just trying to find possible solutions that aren't counterproductive for either side in this squabble.
Freedom's just another word for nothing left Zulus
In my opinion, the whole thing might have been avoided if Corel had made a distinction between their software and software written by other people.
Most people here would probably agree that Corel has the right (and even the responsibility) to choose a license for the software they develop. They do not have the right to choose a licence for the software they did not develop. They most assuredly do not have the right to change the license for GPL'd software that they have modified.
Unfortunately, the language in the beta licensing agreement makes it sound as if that is exactly what Corel has done.
If they amend that license to apply only to the software they have created or modified from non-GPL'd code, I can't think of any valid criticisms of the license.
--
QDMerge 0.21!
how to invest, a novice's guide
...this is just Corel being clueless. The beta agreement is just the same boilerplate beta agreement that Corel has been using forever.
This is little more than minor snafu. Corel's lawyers are just being clueless as usual. No need to ping flood Corel's site or bombard them with a bazillion e-mails or sign up Dr. Michael Cowpland for every porn list under the sun. Flaming Corel is just a waste of bandwidth.
I'm sure Bruce Perens and other advocates like ESR are handling the situation and educated Corel about the error of its ways. (Any way, Perens said he was talking to corel on his site)
My journal has hot
Anyone got a copy of the beta? Put all the GPLed packages up for FTP and let 'em make the next move. If they come a'suin', it'll be time to break out the ol' beat-down stick.
I figure no one else has listened to anyone else who's said this, so I'll say it. Maybe a few more people might stop and think.
;)
THIS IS NOT A GPL VIOLATION!
If I wasn't rather averse to the blink tag, that'd be blinking. Corel's doing this exactly as they should. If they tried to keep a closed beta but didn't go through the normal beta testing processes (ie, where you are essentially becoming part of the internal testing team, not joe public, and as such are expected to file reports on the software with the company, not just use it and report bugs), then there'd be a GPL violation. But if I want to take every single GPL'ed program out there and restrict access to the combination I've put together, as long as I'm not publicly distributing it, THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
So everyone needs to get a grip.
Corel hasn't said anywhere that they have any intention of violating the GPL. They haven't said that the final system WHEN AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC won't be free! They're simply keeping their testing versions private, which is probably a good thing. Using the general public for beta testing is a Microsoft tactic that is not only inappropriate in my opinion, but also does a poorer job of really methodically testing an environment.
Corel doesn't give a crap about the individual software packages where the beta is concerned -- they're not going to be fixing wierd things like the perl extensions to vgetty not ever working right... that's not what they do. They want to test their install process, the whole integration, the "polish" of the system. That's not an open-source part of the distribution, and doesn't need to be. You can't send a contrib RPM to RedHat and expect to see it in the next version of RedHat's distribution either... I think its completely retarded that I can't mount the swap space before going through all the crap in RedHat's install process -- thus I can't install in 8 meg on a PCMCIA system. But that's RedHat's business, and I can use another distribution.
Corel is undoubtedly one of the best things to happen to the Linux community, there are no lingering questions of their motives like Sun and others. They've been supporting Linux for years with Word Perfect, and with everythign else they're doing, it seems pretty childish to jump on something like this and risk pissing them off.
Linux isn't going to last if the hotheaded members of the community keep flipping out about every little thing, particularly when the flipping out is so uncalled for.
- a reformed hotheaded member of the linux community, for seven years
I'm not a GPL fanatic, nor am I staunch defender of all that involves RMS. Nevertheless, Corel's actions are intolerable, not only when taking the GPL at its word, but when considering the GPL at an *intellectual* level. Corel is not taking a defensible stance on this issue, as they seem to be knowingly trouncing the very principles the GPL stands for. If Corel doesn't soon obey the letter and spirit of the GPL, I will never use their distribution, and I will encourage others to ignore them as well. This is ridiculous.
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
Well, Think about it. If (and I haven't been following their Linux distro, im just happy with FreeBSD) they gave something big planned, they should keep it closed-source until they are ready to release it. But the legality? No idea, i dont think it is... Dunno. Just my $.02....
Completely unverified rumor.... but deserves to be checked out (Can someone confirm or deny?):
Re: Corel Beta-Test Agreement - Officials Urge Calm!
by Amy Fong on Tuesday September 21, @06:20AM
Ok, I don't care if I get in trouble for this or whatever but anyways, I work there and this honest mistake is total bull. (FYI I'm totally
infuriated by this crap)
According to my manager, he had left the agreement people with a 2 paragraph beta-test agreement and then so and so either decided to
ignore it or whatever happened and then there was a story that somebody didn't expect people to actually read the agreement.
True they told Bruce that it will be fixed but I felt it was important to let it out that it's not an _honest_ mistake.
Help achieve Liberty in your lifetime - join the Free State Project - http://www.freestateproject.org
1. download GPL software 2. strip out copyright notices, messages, etc. 3. "embrace and extend" packages 4. compile, and remove source 5. burn it onto a cd 6. call it alpha 1, alpha 2, alpha 666 ... distro MS/Linux!
If I may quote from 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.
Since, as others have pointed out, the GPL makes no distinction between internal and external distribution (or between "product" and "program"), there appears to be no allowance for Corel's sublicensing actions. Thus (imho, ianal) the Corel Beta License is nonbinding on any code previously released under GPL.
BUT, hopefully this will be sorted out in a peaceful, businesslike manner. With ESR and others on the task, there's no need to burn Corel in effigy just because they're having growing pains as they transition from a closed-source model to an open one. Two steps forward and one step back is better than no steps at all.
Jon
I think not...(*poof*)
Corel has to make it's distribution available free
as per license agreement or they cannot distribute or sell it. Any changes and enhancements included. Only add-on programs like say Wordperfect, etc can be withheld from the distribution. I see another Caldera on the horizon. A Corel Lite and Corel Standard?
-- Ted tsikora@powerusersbbs.com
Just remember, software isn't protected by licenses, it's protected by copyrights.
So, Corel has a product, which is under development, and they will one day distribute. When they start distributing it, it must be under GPL.
Right now, they are going into the beta phase of product development. In this phase, the product is tested by a select group of people, under a contract with the company (Corel).
What might be confusing people is that the OSS efforts on the net, like Linux, do not distinguish between beta phases and releases. At most, they have a "reliability" indicator.
The product Corel is developing is being developed in a closed way, and GPL does not forbid that.
Cool down, people. Nobody is stealing code.
(8-DCS)
I should clarify before I get flamed that I'm referring to Corel's own code and code containing their modifications, not code that is entirely written by others. Clearly it's a mistake to stamp "for internal use only" on something that's been entirely released previously under GPL.
However, protecting their own code from premature public distribution is quite reasonable. They just should have been more careful about what they applied their license to.
/* The beatings will continue until morale improves. */
Sure. That was my knee-jerk reaction too. Their license is invalid, therefore treat it as such and distribute at will. Hell, slap it on an ftp server somewhere and invite all your friends!
But wait! wont this just alienate Corel, giving them good reason to detest the Open Source community? Do we really want to be that antagonistic?
As I see it, ultimately they've stuffed up, and are actually legally in the wrong. Someone in Corel just has to admit it, redo the beta license, and move on.
If they don't, if they still need some encouraging in order to sort this out, then infact anyone who owns GPLed code that's in the Corel distribution is fully allowed to tell Corel they no longer have the right to use it. Read that bit of the GPL? Something about breaking the GPL removes their right to the use of the software.
But again, doing that would alienate Corel. This should be handled carefully and diplomatically, not in usual zeolot style flaming manner. My recommendation is that if you wrote GPLed code that's in Corel's distribution, then politely tell them that they're breaking with the license agreement, and could they please modify their licensing or you will be forced to revoke their rights to use your code. Sort of a cease and desist thingie. No need to actually revoke their rights, just the mild warning should do the trick, surely.
el bobo
...because I would hate to think that such a definitive statement regarding the legality of Corel's practices is coming from a "hotheaded" /. reader.
Of all the things that you could possibly refer to as "little," this is not one of them. Yes, Corel has supported Linux in the past. Yes, they've chosen to release their own software on Linux. However, I have no reason to believe that their motives are different from any other profit-motivated software vendor. Do you? They want to release a Linux distro because they see $$, and I don't blame them. But when they RELICENSE someone else's code without permission, they violate the spirit and intent of the GPL, if not the letter.
You (and Corel) may claim that the beta testers are now "internal" members of Corel, and therefore the software has not been publicly released. If you truly believe this, however, you shouldn't be suprised when a less-than-admirable company comes along and licenses its "beta" version of Linux only to "internal users" where internal is defined as "those who have paid a subscription fee" or other such scenario. This is a serious problem facing the GPL, IMO.
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
You /can/ charge for GPL'ed software. I could put a copy of Red Hat Linux 6.0 onto a CD-ROM, then turn around and charge $500 for it. Sure, you'd be stupid to buy it, but there would be nothing illegal involved in such an exchange. I could even take said Red Hat distro, modify to suit my heart's desire, and not make a public release. The GPL doesn't force you to distribute, it simply places certain restrictions on how it may be distributed (that is, you have to make the source available to those you give the program to). I could force people to pay me that same $500 for a copy. You'd still be stupid to buy it, but since I could not change the license, once you got a copy, you could set up a public ftp site to distribute it for no cost.
Point is, this isn't about charging for a copy of the software.. It's about the licensing. You can't take GPL'ed stuff and claim it as your own IP, or even make any change whatsoever to its licensing. Once GPL'ed, forever GPL'ed. For those of you too used to BSD-style licensing, this may be a foreign concept, being unable to make the software proprietary. But.. there it is.
And yes, as always, IANAL!
~ Kish
"I don't understand these people who think that everything linux should be open sourced... the attitude that if its not GLP compliant it's not Linux."
That's really vague.. do you mean Linux as in the kernel, the GNU/Linux system, or software for the GNU/Linux system? I'm all for calling GNU/Linux by the name of Linux just for brevity's sake, but at least I'm not ambiguous about it.
"I could understand if it was software that was being released. Its not... its a distro..."
Are you attempting to assert than an operating system or a distribution of an operating system are not software? That it is actually hardware? I'm not sure that I follow /that/ particular comment very far.. After all, I can't put my new nifty Xeon processor into Linux, because it is software, not a physical manifestation.
"and the quote goes... "Linux is a kernel. Everything else in the distro is frills". "
If you say so. Try using the Linux kernel and nothing else.. then try to accomplish something. Linux is indeed just the kernel. Then you have GNU. GNU is your operating system. Linux is the kernel that "makes things happen". Everything else besides Linux /and/ GNU is frills. GNU/Linux is what you need to be able to do stuff.. The other stuff bundled up with the distribution are frills.
"Its not like corel is developing thier own closed source linux kernel. Just let them beta test."
Even if they were, I don't think it would be widely accepted unless Linus accepted it, despite the GPL. Development forks aren't always good.
In short.. If you modify the base GNU/Linux system, if you distribute the system, you have to do so under the terms of the GPL. You can not alter /any/ GPL'ed programs (or even not change them and do the following, for that matter), rerelease them, and do so under any other license. And if you think Linux is the only GPL'ed piece of software in a GNU system or any of the various distributions, you are sorely, and I mean /sorely/ mistaken.
~ Kish
Quick points: (These are just my opinions, of course, and they could all be wrong, but they are what I've come up with after some pondering.)
1. Corel copies the Linux Kernel, for internal development. The Linux Kernel is under copyright, which means that it can only be redistributed with permission from the author(s). This permission is, of course, granted by the GPL, under certain terms. Corel is now bound by the GPL as to how it may copy the kernel.
2. User A signs a contract with Corel agreeing (among other things) to not distribute its Beta Linux operating system (including the Linux Kernel, of course), to other people.
3a. User A is now bound by contract not to distribute Corel Beta Linux. User A is granted permission by the GPL to use Corel Beta Linux on his own machine, of course.
3b. Corel has now violated the license under which it is now copying copyrighted software; the license says that in this case the license becomes null and void. Therefore, Corel is in big legal trouble for breach of license (breaking copyright law, basically).
Any comments?
I'd like to know the reason for this. If they want to take advantage of Open Source they need to post beta software. So other users can find bugs. Therefore the end "stable" product will be better.
Is there any GPLed program in the beta distribution that they have modified and not released modifications to?
I am asking this honestly. Most of the parts people mention, like the compiler and kernel, are almost assuredly the same as you can find plenty of other places. There are other pieces of code, like Wine, that are critical to Corel's distribution which they have modified and released patches for. (Wine is not GPLed.) How close are the publically released pieces to what is in the beta? Is it identical for all GPLed programs?
There are certainly pieces in their distribution that are proprietary and will remain that way. Unquestionably the distribution as a whole will not be free.
But when all is said and done, can't they meet the terms of the GPL by having a publically available ftp site with patches and/or full source-code to the modified GPLed programs in their suite?
(And yes, there is a real issue here. If Corel can get good publicity for improvements to a product in their beta while denying other companies the opportunity to match this, the resulting first mover advantage is something that the GPL is intended to prevent.)
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
It can't fill a niche when it's not there to fill it. And honestly, while a user-friendly Debian-based distro could be cool, I don't think Corel should be who makes it. I don't think Corel's products are all that worthwhile, and hardly requisites. Others may disagree, but the point is, it's obvious these people don't need to be the ones who make Debian user-friendly.
~ Kish
I completely agree, and I hope that Corel does solve this problem by distinguishing between their software and sofware developed by other people (including a very small amount by me!).
If they have made changes to code I have contributed then I want to know so that I can merge their changes into CVS.
However before Corel takes this action they must first realize that they are "distributing" software, this is currently the crux of the issue. If they are distributing GPL'd software then they are violating the GPL, they are currently claiming that they are not distributing software.
There's been a lot of flaming going on. Yes, I think Corel blundered, and is wrong. They are in clear violation of the GPL (distributing to 3rd parties). They'll correct their blunder shortly, I'm sure, or have hell on their hands. I wish the best for Corel, we need good companies backing Linux. I think "in the big picture" Corel's doing Linux good, but they need to follow the rules just like everyone else. For now, though, I'm still waiting for RMS's word on the ordeal.
I don't fault Corel for what they did. I think I understand what they are trying to do.
The Problem: Corel wants to recruit beta-testers. They don't want details of their linux being sold or shown to anyone, as they aren't distributing yet. They don't want to spoil the surprise.
The Problem: They can't use copyright law / licensing stuff to forbid you from distributing GPL software or it's derivatives. They simply CANNOT put a restrictive license on it, period, whether it is internal or external.
Now, it may be possible to have people sign an NDA in which they agree that *ALL* information sahred between corel and them during the course of the beta-test is confidential, including software. Nobody would have a problem with this.
(In this way, even if the user distributed part of the code... the code's license would allow it, but the NDA would slap them in the face)
The main reason that Corel's slapped on this extra licence is because they're including their Wordperfect (Office?) for Linux with their Corel Linux distribution. The problem is that they wanted to do a test of what it'd be like in the final copy.
The problem they ran into was that they didn't want people redistributing their Corel Wordperfect along with their Corel Linux distribution. Also, technically speaking, their installer and KDE apps are also their own intellectual property. Now, even if they could seperate Corel Wordperfect onto a seperate disc, so that it could be redistributed seperately, how do you seperate the installer?
Personally, I agree; they definitely got the wording wrong on the licencing agreement. However, so long as the GPLed software that they're redistributing is available elsewhere, the community isn't really being harmed. You could say that the spirit of the licence hasn't been violated.
That being said, it really sucks that they've (potentially) violated the wording of the licence..
James
Bzzzt! Incorrect. The point here is not that we really really want to help Corel (that is looking less and less likely now, isn't it?) but that we want Corel to obey the rules.
This is not a socialist concept, but perhaps the most "american" that linux gets! We want Corel to abide by the license that governs the software we've written, which (hopefully) guarantees our rights.
LoppEar on public terminal.
Hmmm...
Who did the StrongARM port of Linux?
Corel.
Who has been contributing to Wine in a big way?
Corel.
Who has a big mouth?
Stephen Bamattre.
Who is, judging from the irritating smart quotes, using Windows while playing holier than thou about Linux?
Stephen Bamattre.
Enough said I think.
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
The more important point is that even if it IS an infringement of the GPL, it is in our best interest to let them do it. Corel, as a major software player can't afford to publicly release a beta version of their distribution. If they do, PCweek or some other bottom-feeding computer magazine is gonna through it on a lab box, test it, and tell the world that the product is crap. No one will buy it then.
Corel isn't making a distribution for us, they're making it to sell to corps who would not otherwise use linux. I say give them the benefit of the doubt and let them fool around for a while. Hell, everything in there that is GPLd is probably debian anyway. The value added stuff is probably not.
Corel's product, their distribution plus whatever extra tools they have, need not be GPLed. Sure, large portions of it have to be. But they can do like SuSE, Caldera, and others have in the past and have a distribution that has non-free pieces and cannot be freely redistributed.
Regards,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
The GPL basically can be summed up in four points (As I understand it)
So, this applies to Corel as follows:
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Why would Stallman bitch about Red Hat? The last I heard, he was concerned about Intel and Netscape investing in them, but thought that they were making good decisions so far.. coming more and more in line with the free software community. Therefore, I fail to see what inspired that comment.. Care to enlighten?
By the way, Corel would be competition to Red Hat, not VA. VA puts Linux on their computers, not make their own distro (the standard distro on their comps happens to be Red Hat.. surprise surprise..).
~ Kish
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns. I suggest, mildly, that RMS releases the GPL 2.1, which defines what "distributing" a program is. I think, probably, that saying that dissemination and use within a company, including possible 3rd party testers/developers would be best. Outside of a company, however, should be considered true 'distribution.'
I look at it this way: Corel wasn't being closed sourced... They were just being closed beta. The people in the beta program would have gotten source and everything, but what they would have had was just the beta. Now, I don't think it was right for Corel to force beta testers to sign that very closed agreement... If Corel wanted to conduct beta testing in such a way then they should expect that those beta testers have the right to copy and redistribute the betas. All Corel was doing was trying to have an expanded internal-type beta program. And it all would have worked nicely if they didn't screw up that stupid agreement. I mean... That sort of closed beta program would have been totally cool... A select few people they wanted to be able to submit bug reports and such would have the access to sumbit bug reports and the beta testers that got the copies could then at their leasure freely redistribute the betas. Lets take... Say... OpenLinux and make a very loose fictional example. OpenLinux has a closed company-only beta program. But if a developer gave a copy of their distro to a friend and so on then that would be cool because of the GPL. And that's the way the Corel beta program should have gone. I agree that Corel should have the choice to conduct whatever style beta program they choose... They just SHOULD NOT force beta testers to keep everything closed, because legally they shouldn't be allowed to do that. Anyhow, that's my take on the situation. I hope I wasn't too confusing.
But enough posters didn't seem to understand it...
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Would it perfectly legal for a company to only make internal releases, and make users pay to be an internal beta tester, like you can do with microsoft.
I think there should be a tighter definition on what can be considered internal testing.
If corel is going to have this in beta for six months, then the rest of the community is being denied the ability to adopt and improve on changes that corel has already made.
Isnt the whole point of the GPL and OSS that software is developed in the open to allow feedback and hence a better product.
Does corel believe the whole "community" is not worthy or doesnt deserve the chance to assist them in development.
The GPL is the backbone of the open source community, if it fails then what will become of us ?
'the GPL covers the terms under which the software must be distributed'
No, the GPL quite clearly states:
'4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License.'
Now that quite clearly means that however you define distribution is irrelevant, because they are copying, modifying, and sublicensing. The GPL goes on to say:
'Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.'
So, if we were to do this by the book, then we could say they have already voided their rights. But I think that's probably going just a little over the top as yet! The GPL goes on again to say:
'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.'
Which to me states that we can work with the Corel Linux Beta as it if were a normal GPLed distribution anyway.
Please if you know more about licensing law than me, do correct me.
Of course, this is all very subversive talk, and probably quite unnecessary as I'm sure Corel will figure it out soon enough and sort things. But still, it does put things in an interesting light. The GPL actually appears quite powerful at the end of the day, when it comes to defending the end user. Not so good for people like Corel who want to do things their way though.
elbobo
But the GPL doesn't enforce any policy in that regard.
Assuming Corel has modified GPL licensed portions of their distribution, they have no requirement to send out binaries/source until the entire thing is ready for distribution. Beta testers, even 3rd pary beta testers, can still be considered part of Corel internal development and not part of the public at large.
In short, Corel doesn't have to release GPL'd source - yet. And if Corel hasn't made any modifications to anything GPL'd, they don't have to release the source at all. For instance, bundling closed-source WordPerfect with their distribution is okay, so long as the GPL'd distribution itself is available.
But this whole episode is so frustrating because it doesn't feel like a true open-source project. Sortof a "that's not how we do it" feel.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Now, its illegal, if that's a definate fact. To re-iterate, before they violated only if you assumed that the "Product" was entirely open source, not containing any closes source code. I assume it has a mixture, and thus they "Product" cannot be redistributed, etc. The Open Source part can. Thus, it never violated the GPL, as you have the right to call them and ask for copies of any modified GPL code.
However, saying they have modified code under the GPL and wont release it till xx date, that's illegal. So, now you can flame Corel, or whatever, but whether you were for or against them before, just remember (if I am correct) they only violated it after they denied releasing the modified code. No one asked them, but they answered it for you.
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
OpenWord, hmm, I kinda like it..
"If you don't use windows then what do you use?"
"FreeBSD."
Don't panic, folks, it really is being worked on.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens.
If one can lose his/her rights under the GPL by becoming a member of the testing team, the user group, signing a contract, working as an intern in the anteroom, or otherwise getting double shuffled by the lawyers, then it will be open season on the GPL, with the lawyers all trying to figure out how to persuade or intimidate the largest part of the public into waiving its rights. I've been pressured by lawyers into signing away my rights to public domain software. If the GPL stands for anything, it has to stand against this.
The suit would ask that the source be available. Which it will be when it is officially released. And this would probably happen before the court date.
Just have a privately-disclosed email address for the proper betatesters to email to. Ignore everything else. It's not that hard, and it's irrelelvant to whether Corel is violating the GPL as it appears to be doing.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
I'm looking for beta testers for my Corel distribution. It will include Corel Draw, Word Perfect, Quattro Pro and every other product of Corel. All you need to do to become a beta tester is sign an agreement which assigns to me all the rights for this software. This way you will get software which is worth thousands of dollars all for free. If you are afraid that this might be considered software piracy - don't worry. By the time I make the official release (sometime around 2034) I promise to take care of all licensing problems.
Isn't this a dangerous loophole in the GPL? I mean, particularly if subscription-based access to software becomes common place. Think about it: code is available, you can test it, but since you are part of a subscription program, you aren't a "3rd party".....
Anyone else wondering where Eric Raymond and the OSI are? This would seem to be right up their alley, but Perens seems to have beaten them to it. Come to think of it, I haven't heard anything out of them since the "Take my job, please" fiasco.
I have been (very mildly) a supporter of Raymond and the OSI for a while, but this is making me wonder. Hackers respect people who get the job done, and right now that looks a lot like Perens, and not Raymond. Come on, OSI, show us there's more to you than hot air!
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
The point is, no one would want to distribute it, so it's sort of a moot point. However, it is against the OS Creed of post early and post often, but in the end that only hurts Corel.
It's the 21st Century Do you know what your government is doing
This product is not officially released to the public yet. That's why they have those beta agreements for beta testers.
To be on the safe side, Corel should not refer to this as a release. It is a pre-release beta distribution. Then by definition, it has not been released.
The word "release" is not a precise word.
This is a very interesting issue. In my opinion, Corel is violating the GPL by not making the source available for their beta of their new Linux distribution. My question is, what to do about it?
:) I would hate to see them abandon their Linux efforts due to some hotheads going off over an issue that could probably be solved without lobbing any cerebral nukes. Not that anyone in the Linux community would ever do that :)
I think a lot of times the answer would be: "Flame them till they submit and release the source code." But I don't think that's really the best answer.
I have a lot of respect for what Corel has done and is doing for the Linux community. (no, I don't work for Corel
I can see why Corel may want to keep this beta "closed." This may or may not be their reasoning, I don't know. But instead of having a public beta and having the source code out there for several months (with bugs) prior to the final release, they can knock the public's socks off with an awesome public release when their beta program is over. That way, it's not the same old code everyone's seen for months, only without bugs (hypothetically speaking of course). Granted this is more of a commercial approach than the Linux community is used to but I think Corel is very serious about making a big impact and trying to pry market share away from Microsoft. That's certainly respectable but is this an approach that is acceptable to the OSS community?
I think that we as a community should try to work with Corel to find a solution that will help them to be profitable while maintaining our important Open Source values. I mean, shouldn't we be trying to work with them as much as possible anyway? We want to take over the world, right? We want to attract more companies like Corel to the "Light Side" right?
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the sanctity of the GPL and it's relevence to Open Source Software is far too important for us to allow a company like Corel to encroach on.
Just my opinion, but I think we are capable of a solution that maintains the crucial aspects of Open Source Software and the GPL but allows companies like Corel to market successful products and be profitable.
"2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy
... "
and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these
conditions:
......
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the
Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. "
Can this be read as "all third parties except
third party contract beta-testers" ?
-------------
Also I'm wondering what the heck section 4 means:
" 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.
It sounds like a company could permanently lose
the right to do anything with a GPL'd program
if there was any slip-up in complying with the
license. And presumably anyone who contributed
code would be able to apply for an injunction.
Seems a bit extreme to me.
-------------------
Witty comment about the need to beta-test software licenses.
They beta test in limited batches to get limited amounts of feedback from users they feel would help them the best. The reason campanies don't release betas to the world at large to keep is it make technical support a complete nightmare (read costly). Corel might 'actually' support this distro, as opposed to all the other ones, so I wouldn't be so quick to condem. I was on various Corel Draw beta programs, the wording seems very familiar but I haven't dug it out. Its also not the type of document you want to just whizz out over lunch. What you say can have pretty long term implications, so companies tend to over state things and sound very heavy handed. Thus clauses like 'if this is legal where you live...' If I am having troulble with code that I know does not work right, and send it to Mary to have a look have I violated anything? Perhaps I didn't post it to the world, hoping to avoid lots of mail saying 'it doesn't work'. That type of mail can last years. So? So reeelllaaaaxxxxxxxx..... - Robin
A bit off topic, but I find it amazing that Team Slashdot is not NR1.......600 000 people per day read this site.........
I agree that this is a good test of the GPL license. As long as people stays calm, it will probably end in Good resolution. As far as future abuses go, I think they can be headed off easily with crystal clear definitions of "beta" and "internal". Just off the top of my head-
Beta: Software that you have not made any money on. Once any money change hands in exchange for the software, it becomes "released".
Internal: Everyone using the software is employed by the developing company. I'm sure employment is defined in some legal document.
The important one here is "beta". The main argument I've seen here is that companies, such as MS, could slap illegal licenses on GPLed software and have them permanently be betas. That would be fine as long as they can't make a dime off this "beta" software.
Are these two terms defined somewhere that I'm not aware of? Let me know. The lack of a JD doesn't stop anyone else on Slashdot from pitching in thier $.02, why should it stop me.
-Barry
Who cares, Corel's releasing a product, in which they want to have a few beta testers before it goes mainstream. What the hell is wrong with that? I certainly wouldn't want to release a Linux distribution without a few people testing it beforehand, not to mention, if I was a huge company such as Corel. Corel's doing a good thing for the Linux community, and GNU's been a mere religion lately. Give it up already, and let them handle it like it's a "real" product. Corel Linux seems as it's going to be the most hip thing since sliced bread.
"True refinement seeks simplicity."
I wonder how Corel has responded to license violations in the past.
It's not warez, I'm just using -insert Corel product here- internally . When I get serious about using it I will start complying with the license.
Gimme a break.
It is a great pity; but corel have shot themselves in the foot.