Slashdot Mirror
Corel "to fix" Beta Test License
terrified writes "According to the Debian Weekly News, Debian evangelist Bruce Perens has talked to Corel and they said it would be fixed. Here's the relevant text:
"Corel has started a closed beta test of their Corel Linux
distribution. Unfortunatly, they did so under a very restrictive
license, that violates the GPL in several respects. The good news
is that Bruce Perens has already contected Corel and we're
promised that this will be fixed." I'm not sure about how they plan to "fix" it - isn't that a relatively easy thing to do, in light of the GPL nature of the code?
The Debian Weekly News is available here. The text of the message Bruce sent to the Debian-User group is here. "
Although they are wrong, they have not violated the GPL yet. they have made a mistake, they plan to fix it, and all BEFORE there is an actual licence violation.
Anyone who works for anything but the smallest companies knows each departement is worlds away from the next, the legal department probaly didn't even know, just like many PR departments don't know about SPAM being bad
When I saw the beta announcement here on slashdot, I surfed immediately to my E*Trade account and dumped a whole lot of money into CORL. Now, that big earnings shocker they pulled off was a bonus, and the strategic alliences with Loki and Phillips and those other businesses is a plus, too...
But I'm betting on their Linux distro. I'm betting that when they release it, all the media dimwits will think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread 'cause it's easy to install and use (Windows-like, but I don't mean that in a bad way).
All they can do to mess it up is get a lot of bad press and lawsuits, and that's the way we're headed unless this thing gets GPLed but quick...
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
If I had a GPLed program which I wrote in Debian's distribution, and Corel took it and assigned a team of salaried commercial programmers to FORK MY CODE into my version and their version (which people only get to see final versions of) thereby taking control of my own program away from me and also commercially distributing and advertising their version on a huge scale, you are damned right I'd be furious.
Consider yourself refuted completely. This is nothing but a mechanism to fork GPLed code into public and privately controlled codebases. That can't be allowed, not even a tiny bit. They can keep their _own_ code under wraps. They can't keep mine under wraps, fork it, and take it over from me. From the announcements, there are GPLed projects which are already being forked and taken over in this manner.
You know that I don't hide the fact when I think something's wrong in the free software world. If Corel doesn't solve the problem in a way I feel is satisfactory, I'll publish that fact in clear terms.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
It would be interesting to look at the particular laws that require that "no federal funding" disclosure, but for now I'd consider this a non-problem.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I, for one, am glad to see that civilized discourse resolved the matter, rather than this becoming the (apparently) much-anticipated courtroom test of the GPL.
Christopher A. Bohn
cb
Oooh! What does this button do!?
article 1
article 2
So I suppose this reaffirms my beliefs that the SlashDot writers (especially Katz) do not read the comments.
I don't think he meant to belittle the anger at Corel... he just thought it was "amusing" that no one actually tried to contact Corel.
/. disatisfaction.
Anger is one thing, but flaming shouldn't get in the way of action. If, as you say, someone distributed bootleg WP, do you think Corel would just bitch and moan?
I apreciate Bruce's action but, in his own words, "I'm not always around to help...". He's not the Lone Ranger and we shouldn't just expect that someone will fix our problems.
We need action, not
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Well if they do not fix it they are up for a very interesting investigation in the light of their claim of the "product being developed with no federal fundning".
Quote from lance.c
Copyright 1993 United States Government as represented by the Director, National Security Agency.
And contrarily to the GPL issue where there questions of "private distribution" there is no question of private versus federal here.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
That's what I think they'll say. And I think it'll be the true too. The GPL is a completely 180 to what companies do. Remember that. They *aren't* going to get it right at first, because there's been no precedent. That's why we need people like Bruce Perens to help "direct" these companies into the new paradigm.
RMS' vision is taking hold. But we must be encouraging. To throw everyone who makes a mistake out of the market, is a big mistake. We'll never get companies to support the GPL if we don't help them get to where they should be.
Thanks Bruce!
-Brent--
Fragmentation occured in commercial unix because
of competitive pressures to differentiate
products and lock in customers.
This does not happen in the free software
world because everyone can take advantage of
the best technical solutions available.
But if Corel and other companies have long
periods of closed development and testing
they may come out with variants that are
difficult to reconcile.
Maybe Wordperfect will work best with
Corel Linux and M$ Word will work best
with M$ Linux. Ugh.
These companies are like small children - they have to be raised with the values of our siciety. And they will make mistakes. But that's mistakes, not consicious evil! And we should not punich them or harass them, as some people did when this first came up on /., instaed, we should, as Perens did, help them up on the path again!
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
I'm glad to see that this issue will apparently be resolved quickly. My biggest concern was that more and more companies would be releasing non-GPL versions under the claim that "it's still beta and therefore internal" and then just have continual beta releases, thereby circumventing the license.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
One comment was here about just slapping the GPL on the Corel distro. Previous topics had posts mentioning that "Redhat is 100% GPL", "Debian is a GPL'd distro", etc.
Sorry folks, you can't license a distro under the GPL. It's not possible unless each and every line of code within each and every package is GPL, the new BSD or X. This is simply not the case in any distro, and probably never will be. You can't replace someone else's license with your own.
What a distro CAN do is to license their own code, scripts, etc., under the GPL. But this still requires absolutely no modifications to any (old) BSD, MPL, QPL, or Artistic code. I am aware of no distribution that does this. Yeah, it would be nice if every piece of software in the world were GPL, and it would also be nice if every single person in the world belonged to my political party and voted for my candidates solely, but this is the real world and we have to live in it.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Anyone else notice quite a lot of comments on this
issue bagged RMS as a loony but still took an
alarmist stance towards this breach of the GPL?
If anyone were to stand up for the rights of GPL
it would be the Debian community, who are just as
staunch about freedom as RMS.
That's probably why Corel chose Debian, you are
always assured of the GNU ideal when using the
Debian OS. It seems like the "rambling" GNU
"communists" are the most rational after all!
POKE 36879,8
Thanks Bruce!
Ok, I'll most likely be flaimed for this, or atleast rebutted strongly, but I have to say it.
Why do we care if Corel releases something to only a select few. It's an internal beta for chrissakes. Do you expect to have access to everything's source at every level? They would do more harm than good by releasing everything before it was ready...I mean do you really want linux distros to be like Windows?
I say, if they want to keep it internal until it's ready, let them. It does nobody any good to have a broken distro.
I think that we all need to stop, think, and then act constructively before we let our fingers fly across our keyboards in lamentation. All this wailing and gnashing of teeth does little to enhance our image before corporate America. All Bruce Perens did was take it upon himself to call Corel and talk to someone ther who was very receptive to criticism of their GPL violation.
Corel does have an 800 number and a long distance number if you know where to look. Besides some with Mr. Perens'm clout probably knows who to call in order to bypass redtape and bureaucrats.
Romanes eunt domus? People called Romanes, they go the 'ouse? It says Romans go home. No it doesn't. What's Latin fo
...until the code is released.
This has to be tough on corel.
Assuming they have done something fairly innovative with GPL code, and truly want to wring it out with a public beta, it's ugly to have to show all the nifty updates/mods to all your competitors months before your planned release.
IE, RedHat and Caldera look at their stuff and do a quickie hack update and say "look, we did that too, months before corel".
I bet that's the scenario they are concerned about, compaetitors getting early access to the code before the main release.
The most important consideration isn't about whether end users can copy all of the Corel dist freely. That's important, but the most important consideration is whether Corel programmers are forking pre-existing opensource packages into new and modified versions that are allowed to be kept under wraps until final release. Again, that's forking, and that's a straight power play. Assuming they have good enough programmers, they could target any particular software, take it and start to establish a radically different and revised codebase, kick butt and make a substantially improved version, widely distribute it with the advertising and marketing and distribution resources of Corel, and then never permit anyone else a glimpse of their 'current snapshot', only the code of the final releases. Then anyone wanting to make alterations is told, "Sorry- your revision doesn't work with our current development snapshot" and the end result is that Corel entirely controls and conceals the active development of a fork of some major Open Source software, which competes with the 'bazaar model' one, but has more advertising resources, a brand name, and potentially the ability to suppress interim releases and the buggier revisions, giving it a tactical as well as strategic advantage.
There's no way we can allow that to happen. There must be no 'beta exemption' for developers of public open source software. They can hide their own stuff- they can't 'fork' the stuff we have already. Show us the code!!!! There was something about how 'changes to other GPLed software' would be released with the final dist. That's forking. Let's see it NOW.
the proper way Corel should handle this is to slap the right licenses on the right pieces of code.
That means leaving the existing licenses on all the existing Debian packages (and advertise the fact that they can be redistributed), and doing whatever they want to their own code.
For the Corel code this could mean: "not redistributable for now, GPL later when the beta period is over".
That would also mean that the CD as a whole is not redistributable, but parts of it are.
You buy a book as an employee of a company. Do you believe you have the right to make copies of the book and distribute them among your collegues? Of course not.
Software copyrights are no different from book copyrights. You are not allowed to copy a copyrighted computer program, even within your company, unless explicitly permitted by a "license" (which is the legal term for a contract giving you rights and restrictions over copyrighted works in your possession, but I'm sure a real lawyer could word this more carefully)
Now there's only one license to the Linux kernel and to most of the other software contained in the Debian distribution, and that's the General Public License, as written by the Free Software Foundation, otherwise known as the GPL.
That license first states: Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
Now making a copy, wether it is within Corel between employees, or by a Corel employee and given to an outsider, such as a participant in the beta testing program is, as the word say, an act of copying.
When Corel makes a copy, they can only do that in accordance with the GPL. The GPL does not contain an exception for beta-testing or in-house distribution. It clearly says that if you make a copy, you must grant the recipients all rights in the GPL.
A quick summary:
Copying unmodified code:
You must keep intact all notices that refer to the GPL
Copying modified code:
You must cause the modified code to be licensed under the GPL without charge to all recipients. (Which means that all recipients have all rights defined in the GPL)
Copying executable form:
You must allow recipients full access to the source code and the source code must be licensed under the GPL.
Even more interesting is clause 6 from the GPL, which says that the recipient "automatically receives a license to copy, modify and distribute under the GPL".
This means that (and I have to insert a "probably" here) anyone, not only the authors of the software, have the right to challenge Corel. If someone gives me that beta-test copy from Corel, I have automatically received a license under the GPL from Corel, and if Corel sues me, I can defend myself with the GPL in hand.
This point gives a lot more credibility to the people on slashdot who complain about Corel, because it is also their rights that are trampled, not only the authors' rights.
In short, all these people in the past few articles about Corel who say that Corel is in the right because it is "only a beta-test" are simply wrong. The GPL has no exceptions.
EjB
The .gif that was posted here of the license looks like it's just the standard Corel beta test N.D.A. kind of thing. Comments were made right after the public beta that the Corel site was requiring "Wndows 95/98" to do the Linux beta test.
What does that say?? It says that I think it was all just a case of Corel using the stock forms that saying, "We [Corel] use them for all our betas." I don't really think it's some insidious Dr. Evil like plan to copyright Linux and take it away, which, if you consider the fact that Linus keeps the source, isn't possible.
I think it wass more of an unintentional error made by somebody in Corel's marketing department when they put together the mailers for the Linux Beta Test. If anyone out there works in the same area of the building as their marketing department (as I do), you'll know what I'm talking about when I say that a lot of the people in the marketing department have about the same brightness as a 2-watt light bulb....
I would just as much assume to give them a break on this one due to their ignorance more than anything else, and the fact that they are trying to INCREASE the market and mind share for Linux, not damage it....
That's not to say that it wasn't a stupid mistake tho....
== That terrible green-green grass, and violent blooms of flower dresses, and afternoons that make me sleepy.==
Don't shoot until you're sure you both aren't on the same side. That was my fortune at the bottom of Slashdot this morning, and it really does seem to apply quite often. If you wait things through, and try and work through a problem such as Corel's licensing, you will most definately accomplish more than by posting threats and venting anger. Often, that can irritate the entity that you are trying to win over to one's side.
Kudos to Bruce for clearing up the problems.
--
Corel's been in the software industry for a long time. They're a big company, and are presumably adults. They employ lawyers, and any large company knows that lawyers have to be involved in any release process, including a beta release. They clearly know this, or they wouldn't have had a license agreement of any sort on the limited beta release. So what is wrong that their lawyers don't understand the GPL? Did they ignore it, or were their lawyers negligent? While we should be forgiving once they correct their mistakes, we should not cut them any slack until and unless they actually fix the problem.
No matter what they do in the future, they have violated the GPL. Until that's corrected, they shouldn't be treated any differently than Microsoft or Sun would be under the same conditions. They're adults, they can take the heat they deserve.
If someone distributed copies of Word Perfect to several hundred of their friends, does anybody think Corel would let them slide with an answer, "oh, sorry, I thought that was okay?"
strange... they seemed strong on their position... I wonder what Bruce could have done to elicit such a quick reply? Could it have been like (wavy lines)
---
SCENE : a COREL meeting room.
we see BRUCE PERENS, LINUS TORVALDS, and A NAMELESS COREL EXEC.
BP: (to COREL EXEC) So, we hear you're trying to release a Linux distro without following the GPL... Now tell me, my friend, what make you think Linux looks like a bitch? huh?
CE: huh? what do...
BP: (interrupting) WHY DO YOU THINK LINUX LOOKS LIKE A BITCH, MOTHERFUCKER?
CE: (terrified) I don't...
BP: (interrupting) THEN WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO FUCK LINUX LIKE A BITCH? (BP SHOOTS CE in knee)
CE: (writhing in agony) Fuck! you shot my fucking knee! Fine, we'll do whatever you want, just leave me alone! Our distribution's in the suitcase...
LT: (moves to suitcase, opens. The suitcase GLOWS eerily.) Fook. Hjere it is, man.
Later installments will show Bruce Perens dancing with Mae Lin Mak in a nightclub, and this unforgettable scene :
BP: So, you're not gonna talk, huh?
BGIII: Fuck you, man.
BP: That's fine... Bring in the Gimps!
(enter 15 guys with Quake shirts. They babble about Beowulf clusters, kernel updates, and karma. They smell bad)
BGIII: Ah, God, nooooo...
(fade)
The most important issue, IMHO, is reconciling Corel's legitimate interests in keeping the beta release out of the hands of the press, etc. and our interests in protecting the integrity of the GPL.
/.ers here, and Bruce and ESR, who see the solution as Corel re-drafting their Beta license to conform to the GPL. I actually think, given Corel's stated interest in keeping pre-releases in-house, that the best solution is to re-draft the Beta license as an explicit consultancy arrangement, even perhaps with a $1 consultants fee going to the Beta tester. This way, Corel's interests are protected, and the integrity of the GPL is protected as this could no longer be conceived of as a "distribution".
So we care (at least I do) not because I think Corel wants to violate the GPL, but that this beta release could be considered a "distribution" and hence violate the GPL. The GPL is a license like any other, and can be enforced or not enforced, but I personally think it is important - especially since the GPL has never been litigated (and hopefully never will be) - that its integrity as a serious and binding legal contract be protected even against possible and inherently temporary breaches like this one.
The problem is that I agree with you that for a company like Corel, with stockholders, investors, etc., that releasing their product before its time would do more harm than good, given that the role Corel is playing in the Linux community right now is bringing confidence to people unaccustomed to the traditional linux way of producting and distributing products.
Because of this, I admittedly disagree with most
I.
The problem is one of publicity. If Corel gets a reputation as a "borg" in the Linux community, they will lose most of their support from that community. The consequences could be dire. For example, a developer could do a license something like this:
That is actually a perfectly conceivable license. For examples of selective licenses like this, see QPL or (kind of) the Perl license.
To summarize: if Corel wants to continue in the Linux market, they need to fix this license in internet time -- that is, today. Not next week, or next month. Today. Otherwise, they will be regarded as nothing but a bunch of hagers-on by the Linux community and their foray into Linux will be over.
-- Slashdot sucks.