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.
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.
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!
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.
You know, I'd tend to agree, but...
The language that states that the whole thing is the property of Corel and not subject to other licenses is just flat out a violation of the GPL, no matter whether it's internal or not. Legally, (assuming the GPL is binding), they're prohibited from placing their own license on it. Period. What it's being used for is irrelevant.
I'm not even close to being a "GPL or Die!" kind of guy, and I thing people who demand Linux be called "GNU/Linux" are a little silly. However, a license is a license, and if Corel wants to use the software, they've got to abide by the license.
I know a lot of companies that only use Windows internally. Does that mean they don't need to license it from Microsoft? Can they just say they own it, and all the code to it, as long as they don't resell it? Of course not.
I'm not sure how Corel can figure they've got a right to do this.
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
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.
Slash 0.4 anyone?
Three Step Plan:
1. Take over the world.
2. Get a lot of cookies.
3. Eat the cookies.
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 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
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)
Corel believes they are not distributing but are testing. The GPL applys to distributing. You can hack a GPL program to your heart's content and not give the changes away if it is for internal use only.
That's fine, but your missing something: while you are not forced to release any changes you make to a program, it's *still* under the GPL.
To take the example of another poster, let's say I'm working on a program that uses GPL'd code, and I'm not ready to release it yet, but I want my friend to test it. I send to to him, ask him to run it for me and take a look, and see if it seems OK. I tell him to please not distribute him. I may even tell him that if he *does* distribute it, I'll hate him and go punch his lights out. That's okay (well, unless I physically assult him and he calls the police, but that's another matter), but I still must distribute the program to him under the GPL. I can't stick a new license on it, and if he decides to distribute it, that's his right.
Likewise, for Corel, say, any employee could grab their internal beta that they're working on and distribute it to the work, and the guy is allowed to do that. Corel may be able to fire him, depending on his contract. So, what's Corel to do with this beta? They could simply have said "this is beta, please don't distribute since it's buggy", and people just maybe would have listened. Or they could have just kept it internal.
IANAL, but I read the GPL for fun twice. *grin*
'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
Don't panic, folks, it really is being worked on.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens.