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. "
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.
"This has to be tough on corel."
Yes, it does. It seems it would be more effective in general to let one knowledgeable person (thanks Bruce), do the initial contact over license questions. Especially since Debian is the organization directly concerned, and has plenty of people able and willing to look out for their license rights. If Debian can't get satisfaction, they'll let us know, and slashdot can then indicate their community interest in the issue.
Just applying the slashdot flamethrower at the first hint of conflict strikes me as counterproductive. We don't want Corel to associate the letters GPL with flames and trouble, or they may not license their proprietary portions in the way we would prefer. They say they have not decided on that license yet.
I think they probably aren't aware that the Linux community really knows what "beta" means. When hard disks get trashed by bugs (think bug in disk partitioner), big companies have to worry about liability somewhat, and loss of customers a lot, even if the software is clearly marked "beta." So the attempt to limit possible damage to a few informed testers is not completely misdirected.
In this case, early release probably works better than they imagine, but only experience will teach them that, and only if they aren't scared off the GPL first.
Besides, they may know better. If releasing a new beta candidate requires two weeks of formal processing at Corel (who knows?) finding the bugs early might not result in early fixes, and a wide distribution becomes dangerous.
It's a reasonable expectation that if you create value add software for a Linux distribution that you should be able to deploy it first. If they aren't imagining release for a few months yet, they have a reasonable interest in protecting their property -- they paid for that software.
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.