Slashdot Mirror
Corel Clears the Air
Innominius Cowherd gave us hook-up to a letter from Judith O'Brien, of Corel. As she says: "The restrictions on reproduction and distribution of the Beta version of Corel
LINUX contained in the Beta Testing Agreement are intended to apply only to those components
of Corel LINUX that were independently developed by Corel without the use of Open Source
software. ".
GPL doesn't require "publishing" source code. It does require making the source available to those you made the binaries available to. In that case, because they restricted the number of beta testers, and are going to give the GPL'd code modifications to those folks, they are doing exactly what the license requires. If you are not a registered beta tester, you have no legal right to access the source code. When the binaries are available on an FTP site, or they start selling CD's, then they have to make the source to all GPL software included in said distribution available.
LetterJ
Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher
jwynia@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
So, by promising to ship source to the testers to whom they've shipped binary, and by disambiguating that their beta agreement does not overlay terms onto someone else's GPL license, they are entirely fulfilling their obligations under the GPL.
Someone asked what distribution was: the conveyance of a copy from one legal entity to another.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I've got stuff out under the GPL. And you? ;) to the extent that somebody _can_ get away with it, somebody eventually _will_.
And I was yelling bloody murder and posted about five times on the danger of forking existing development, but now I'm appeased.
To be picky- I'll be appeased _when_ they release the source for the GPLed stuff that they've changed. If there's any suggestion that there's an intentional delay that's a very serious problem, even now. I don't see much evidence to suggest that they're intentionally delaying, though- just something to think about.
If Microsoft used this technique to fork existing opensource projects, you'd be singin' a different tune
I'm sorry but there is nothing about 'registered beta testers' in the GPL. It is a legal document. Legal documents are not subject to interpretations of convenience- they mean exactly what they say, no more, no less.
Your claim 'If you are not a registered beta tester, you have no legal right to access the source code' is disturbingly like saying 'therefore you can't see it at all'.
This is dead wrong in a very serious way.
The reality is this: even _if_ 'beta testers' are found to be not distribution in the normal sense (in this case, I think even that is unreasonable), once those testers get the modifications to the GPLed code they have _every_ right to distribute it to anybody they please. Even if you cannot _force_ the original modifier to make you a 'beta tester', all you have to do is ask one of the beta testers and they have every right to redistribute the modified GPLed source, thus re-establishing the flow of information as is their right under the legal document, the GPL.
Please do not ever say 'If you are not a registered beta tester, you have no legal right to access modified GPLed code'. This is at best misleading, and at worst an outright falsehood.
These things are important, and a better understanding of them will help everybody including the proprietary companies. It's really not that hard or that dangerous to work with GPLed stuff and mingle it with the proprietary. You just have to put up a Berlin Wall of licensing- and anything that's derived from GPLed stuff, you completely err on the side of redistribution of information, and on giving people GPL rights. That's not that hard. As for the proprietary, just keep it entirely separate- I for one have no problem at all with Corel writing proprietary software. I have a very severe problem with the idea of their inadvertently or intentionally muddying the waters of the GPL's meaning. They have done that- they got _you_, LetterJ, to believe that if you're not a beta tester you have no right to see modified GPLed source. That's just not true. You have no right to see Corel's _proprietary_ source. Big difference. The stuff in the pool of work covered by the GPL is public, remember that...
If I had my 'druthers, I'd make our criticism more polite and better organized, but I'd not eliminate it.
I dunno, I think flaming has it's place. All it really is is raw emotion and a violent outpouring of opinion. How important is it for companies to see that they are *really* pissing people off. Feedback is good for any organism. Flaming, a reaction akin to touching a hot stove, tells a company, quickly, Don't Do That! I agree that polite organized criticism is more effective, it's what I do, but sometimes you need an edge to pierce thick armor, corporate armor. A bit metaphorical, but I think it holds.
+&x
Instead, they are ceasing to claim that their agreement supercedes the GPL. ;)
So, if you know somebody who has the binaries and source to the modified GPL programs, NOW, then you can get the source NOW by asking for it.
Corel is not compelled to give you the binary and source. They're just compelled to give you the source _if_ you have the binary. They can restrict the binaries (to GPLed stuff) with 'beta' as much as they like, but everybody they give it to has _complete_ rights to redistribute as much as they want. It's GPLed, you know
It seems that quite a few people are standing up to defend Corel on this issue and scold those who voiced disapproval when the license was released.
I completely agree that responses to such issues should be mature and diplomatic, but I strongly disagree with those who advocate remaining silent and using a "wait and see" approach.
Sure, Corel's intentions may have been benign here. That won't always be the case. The day will come, I'm sure of it, when a not-so-benign company DOES attempt to subvert the GPL and gain some control over Linux or other GPL'd code.
When that day comes, it will be important to voice objection immediately, firmly, and, yes, diplomatically. When that day comes it will be important to be prepared to pursue legal remedies, and to make that our willingness to do so is crystal clear.
So, in a nutshell, I disagreed with those who said, when the license first came out, "Leave Corel alone, I'm sure it was an honest mistake." The folks at Corel are adults, if they violate the license terms on several thousand people's code, I think a full inbox is the bare minimum they should be prepared for. And, yes, those e-mails should be mature and diplomatic, not mindless streams of profanity. But they should be sent. And I agree with those who say "OK, they fixed it, get off their back." It turned out to be an honest mistake that was quickly fixed. That's good.
But we must be prepared to stand our ground when that's not the case. We don't want to build a reputation as a bunch of profanity-spewing, immature kids, but we also don't want to give the impression that we're unprepared to stand up for ourselves.
Just one guys opinion.....
I understand the Mozilla problem, is hard to get people working in something apparently useless. But if Corel is about to lunch a beta, I can't imagine that they're launching a useless distribution that actually will be reviewed and commented by thousends of magazines and journalists.
So, the case is really different from Mozilla's...
The real issue here is that Corel is slowly making a hughe culture change on their company. Not only the culture, goals and methods to achieve it are changing. And those changes are always seen first by upper managment and in this case, the general public. Not by middle components of the company...
WE expect to see a open source Corel, THEY want to be a open source Corel, but if they not redefine clearly their methods, THEY will fail to be what they wanna be, because WE will not see it...sounds tricky but it's quite simple.
Other companies that just relase their products for Linux are not critiziced, because they never show to the public a desire to be open source.
If Corel says: "I'll port all my products to Linux"...it's OK, but if they say: "We will relase an Open Source distro", and then they licence it propietary...there's a hughe mistake from them.
I like Corel, but they need time and criticism from the public.
I would wager that the overwhelming majority of the people yelling bloody murder have not ever written a single line of open source code.
I keep hearing this kind of statement, and I have to wonder why writing code is so critical to defending software freedom?
Okay, if I'm an author and I want my code kept free, I must defend the GPL terms. I can understand that.
But, as a user, I am also just as interested in software freedom. The many eyes keeping watch for security holes, bugs, performance hits, etc. in the free software that I use make it imperative that I defend that software's usage terms! Being unable or uninterested in contributing to a software project has no bearing on my defending my use of it. This is a point that must accepted, nay, embraced by contributors. An elitist attitude on the developers' part will eventually get in the way of progress. Like it or not, the developer community and the user community are one in the same when it comes to defending free software.
Certified Microsoft Notworking Specialist
The GPL clearly states that when redistributing a binary resulting from GPL'd source code that either the source code or a written offer for providing the source code has to accompany the binary. So, does the Corel Linux CDs provide either the source code to all the GPL packages or a written offer? If they aren't then they are violating the terms of the General Public "License."
But, so what? Seriously... so what.
The Free Software Foundation gives a How-To Spot a GPL violation but it stops short, once you spot it then you simply contact the copyright holder. But...
- What if *YOU* are the copyright holder?
- Where is a Howto on GPL enforcement?
- Where is a FAQ on enforcing the GPL?
- What is the best way to serve and document that an offical request has been provided for a distributor to correct their business practices when distributing the GPL package?
- What do you do if your an individual developer and a distributor has ignored for over 2 years requests to follow the requirements listed in the GPL?
- What is a method accepted by the US Courts on putting a value on the package or a dollar amount on the "damages" due to GPL violation?
- What is the maxium amount of damages that can be claimed in small claims court?
- How do you go about filing a GPL violation in small claims court?
Your not going to find a FAQ covering the above questions. They aren't answered by the Free Software Foundation and they aren't answered by OSI. The reason isn't because everyone follows the GPL, there are all sorts of violations of the GPL to be found. Fortuantly, serveral companies will change their actions when notified of the violation and when asked nicely to change. However, there are cases where companies have refused to follow GPL requirements even when notified of the terms of redistribution stated in the license. So, the lack of a GPL enforcement Howto/FAQ is due to lack of interest in enforcing the GPL, not due to lack of need. As a result, the developers that choose to publish under the General Public "License" do so making a good-faith request, where as an enforced license give a list of demands that are required. In fact, it would be more approbate to say that Corel has "violated" the GPGFR (General Public Good-Faith Request) by continuing to distribute GP"L" packages in binary form without the source code or written offer of source code. And if this isn't a big enough issue to go to court over or at least give a Howto to developers to provide information on how they can take GP"L" violations to court then stop your whinning. People are forever ignoring requests if they feel it is in their interest to do so.Myself--I'm going to publish future works under the latest BSD license. The BSD license "restrictions" are ones that I'm prepaired to enforce. I'm a programmer, not a lawyer and no one is giving me any law advice so I can be any different. The BSD license lets me be just a programmer without making any claims to how the package should be used that I'm not prepaired to back.
The point Corel's actions make is to let programmers be programmers and give up on getting them to enforce an ideology that they aren't prepair to back. Whinning about GPL violations is like crying about j-walkers. In the end, there is no point in continuing to publish code under the GPGFR joke (formally known as GPL).
If I had my druthers, someone would post a rational argument regarding why something was wrong and then the vast multitude would chime in politely and help to get the change enacted. This time it wasn't quite that neat. I found John Goerzen's argument to be quite rational, but John didn't know how to take the next step - how to get their attention and get a negociation started first, so that he could say that was going on in his initial announcement. That would have damped down the panic response somewhat. But I ended up doing that stuff as soon as I heard what was happening, and it worked out OK.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Nothing about this says that those testers can or must redistribute _Corel_ stuff that is not released under the GPL. That's completely different, and that's Corel's business. The only requirement we're talking about here is the nature of redistribution to beta testers as specified by Corel.
The reason it's not possible to force distribution to interested parties, for instance the original author of a program, is that this might be a roadblock to development- if that person dies or is locked up or otherwise becomes impossible to communicate with, it would be impossible to legally continue developing that software. The expectation is that all interested parties would be able to get access to important modifications being made in the code. This stands up fairly well to attempts to break the flow of information- if a company wished to fork a program, and (under their GPL rights) made major changes privately and then wished to bring it into the mainstream without letting the maintainers of the original development stream get the information, they'd have three main options:
- not release it, which would be ineffective at forking the development stream- that constitutes not even distributing it, and obviously, is no threat
- release it to only handpicked people (beta testers). In this case they are not _forced_ to release it to anyone not a beta tester, because they do not have an obligation to distribute binaries to all- the extent to which they do that is the extent to which they are distributing, and they're not required to distribute. The trick is, each of the recipients gets full rights under the GPL- so if even _one_ of the beta testers wishes to give the information to the original author, to Slashdot, to Jesse Berst or whoever, that is their right. This means that in a situation of an attempted power play, the control of information can blow at any seam- anyone can legally be the link from the controlled environment to the outside world. It becomes very unlikely that such a power play can be carried out except under very tight wraps, which markedly diminishes its effectiveness.
- release it to all, which abandons any attempts to wrest control of the development of the GPLed software from others.
This is critically important to understand- the GPL is not most significant as an UberLicense to which everybody must submit. It's not even necessary for all software to be licensed under it. The important thing is that the GPL is carefully constructed, down to the smallest detail, to cause the fullest dissemination of information under even the most hostile conditions. It is possible for people to (legally) try and control source under the GPL, because of the doctrine that binaries == source and the failure to _require_ that binaries be distributed. However, by the same token, the GPL is uncompromising in that when you _do_ redistribute, the recipients get full rights, and any of them can distribute further to anybody they choose. You can't stop them or even slow them down. You can ask them not to, but that's _it_, that's all you can do, is ask, they are entirely in the right to do so.To analyse possible risk areas further, let's consider another possibility- the distributor says, 'Please don't redistribute our Linux betas. If you do, we will drop you from the program and you won't get any more binaries _or_ source from us'. This is legitimate under the GPL! However, it's also waving a red flag- there doesn't need to be a formal contractual punishment for this, because of the inevitable backlash effect. Other beta testers would defect and redistribute. There would be new testers who'd sign on just long enough to get binaries and source and then (legally) redistribute and (legally) be dropped from the beta testing ranks. The only way to rule that out entirely would be to cease any beta testing at all- and even then, you're assuming that all the programmers working on the project internally will keep it under wraps. They get full rights to redistribute too!
Thus, even in severely hostile situations, if the GPL is followed to the letter, it will tend to route information around attempts to blockade it. That's what it's for- that's the GPL's overriding purpose and goal.
If it ever becomes a problem to get modifications of GPLed source out of a company, go straight to those who are working with the binaries in any context. They are formally and legally allowed to redistribute all the GPLed source they have.
"For such a behemoth to change its course in 4 days is certainly not an unacceptable delay!"
Certainly not. I honestly believe that no one got hurt. No blood, no foul.
I do think Corel did themselves a great disservice, however, by not taking those 4 days before the fax went out, instead of after. Then again, who's to say that we would have noticed if they had done things right the first time? Would we have been as friendly then as we were angry?
Nevertheless, they did make themselves look bad - an oversight I think they would have done well to avoid. But they didn't hurt me, they didn't hurt anyone I know, and maybe they've ensured that the next big company to try this sort of thing will know better what they're getting into.
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
We kept a really bad precedent from happening. You know the story about just letting the camel's nose into the tent, and then shortly afterward the entire camel is in the tent. Some day, some company is going to deliberately run rough-shod over our copyright rights, and we'll really have to defend ourselves. We could not allow the precedent that just a little violation was OK, for a little while. I don't believe the argument that there would have been no violation, either. The way I read the beta agreement, the GPL, and the definition of distributuion, there would have been a violation.
I am also very little concerned about scaring business away from Linux at this point. Business is all over us. Corel claims to be the world's second largest company in its market, just behind Microsoft. They can smell money as well as the next business.
What I am concerned with is that the individuals who built all of this software will be overwhelmed by the giant corporations. I did my best to keep that from happening and to keep everybody, including the corporation, happy about the resolution we came to. Yes, I think a valuable goal was achieved.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Ask any of the beta testers, or any of the Corel programmers doing the work. If they have access to the modified GPL software at all, they have full rights to redistribute under the GPL as much or as little as they like. This does not mean they have similar rights with non-GPL software, but the GPL stuff becomes their property and they are perfectly free to give you a copy if they like.
However, just to be contentious, if you are not the person who gave them the binary, you don't necessarily have the complete source code. It could have been modified downstream. Nyah! :-)
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Considering how Corel has embraced the OSS movement, it would be pretty strange for them to go back on their word. From everything I've heard from them, they're pretty clued-in.
Corel is putting quite a few of it's eggs in the Linux basket, which (for an "old-school" company) is a pretty big risk. We should all give them as much support as we can (whether that's monetary support by buying their products, coding support for whatever software they release as OSS, or even just giving them the benefit of the doubt instead of flying off the handle.)
There's an important rule to know if you want to be a successful agent for constructive change. Once people start doing what you want, stop complaining! Corel has done the right thing and should now be congratulated and praised.
They have made it clear that the beta agreement does not restrict the distribution of any Open Source code. Not just the GPL code, where there was a legal issue. That means they consider the desires of the community to be important - they've given us more than they really had to.
I think the criticism regarding the speed at which this took place is incorrect. Corel is a huge company, the biggest software company in Canada and one of the world's largest. For such a behemoth to change its course in 4 days is certainly not an unacceptable delay!
There's also criticism because they choose to not apply an Open Source license to some stand-alone products, not containing other people's code, until those products are finished. That's their perogative. I'm sure they'll experiment with open development, but as we've seen with Mozilla, it's difficult to get community participation on something that doesn't work yet. Only now that Mozilla is useful are we seeing significant contributions from outsiders.
And yes, they said some clueless things while this was going on, and even something that many took as insulting. But diplomacy means ignoring stuff like that and just concentrating on the goal. We achieved the goal, they understand now, they conceded. What went before that is irrelevant now.
So, now it's time for us to encourage Corel.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens.
My translation of this: "Sorry, we fucked up, either because we/our lawyers weren't paying attention or because we were just being careless with our legalese. Our bad."
I found it interesting to see that they were quick to point out that they've contributed (in the past sense) much code to WINE. Of course, not being on the winedev mailinglist, I wouldn't know whether they've actually contributed major/useful amounts or if they're just trying to keep the dogs docile. Either way, it did come off a bit as "Hey, after we've done so much for you, don't bite our faces off!" but being the generous porcupine that I am, I'll let it slide. Hopefully others will do the same (and we can, of course, ignore the trolls who will use any opportunity to flame the "big evil companies" whenever they can because they feel justified or whatever).
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
In regards to the people complaining about Corel not being open source, etc. This closed license is SPECIFIC to this being a beta test. Even the XFree86 team closes off their source for development. Public betas are not guaranteed under the constitution, so relax. They may release source when they're ready, but for stuff they wrote themselves, it's really at their discretion.
:)
Until the final is released, chill out.Try and remember that this is not a Linux-only company, they have a lot of policies that will have to adapt to our ways, but let's give them some time (and then, if need be, freak out
----------------- "I have a bone to pick, and a few to break." - Refused -------------------
Maybe some of the people that started yelling so loudly about this should have found out what exactly did Corel mean. People in this forum have a tendency to start crying foul without ever knowing the facts. I am not defending Corel or any other company or person, just please, before you start going off about this or that open source topic, find out for your selves what the facts are.
I would wager that the overwhelming majority of the people yelling bloody murder have not ever written a single line of open source code.
ok....
Flame Suit on........
"...Beer..."
Software Maker: Here, try this.
Software User: HEY WAIT A GODDAMN SECOND, THIS IS SUPPOSED TO OPEN AND FREE!!!! (continues for 72 pages...)
Software Maker: Whoa, just kiddin' folks. Here, try this.
(Software Maker's lawyers: Dang!)
Software User: That's better. Thanks.
Software Maker: No problem (walks away with tail between legs)
Enough money is being moved into Linux now that many of the remaining issues, err, issue (usability) will be solved. Enough competition is coming in to force improvements and increase innovation (MSFIN, haha). Enough people use it now and understand the philosophy behind it, that it can't be changed or subverted. Free software is here to stay. enjoy.
+&x
Well, I think that is fair. They have said that after the beta they will release the source code of any components they created back into the community. Being a large company it would look bad if they released beta software that doesn't quite work a la Microsoft. Give Corel a chance to show us what they are capable of. ps. our handling of this matter was rather militant, I suspect we could do better in the future. Otherwise a company may try to challange the GPL in court.
An exploration of mixology, spirits and bartending.
My interpretation is that they've done two kinds of work:
- Corel-written modifications to GPLed code. The source to this will be included in the beta, since it is "tainted" by GPL. (I don't mean that in a derogatory way, no flames please.)
- Stuff written from scratch by Corel. The beta will not include the source to this, and Corel owns the copyright. They will eventually release the source (after the beta) under some kind of open source license, not necessarily GPL.
Does that sound like an accurate summary?It looks to me like the second part (the Corel-written code) shows that they still do not understand the massively-parallel debugging advantage of open source.
---
Have a Sloppy day!
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
OK, I'll correct you. They will release the source at a later date, thereby "complying" with your opinion (and that of many other Linux users).
Personally, I feel that even though open source is the way to go, it's Corel's business (quite literally) if they choose to keep it closed. It then becomes the users' choice whether or not we support their distribution. I don't really plan to ever use Corel, but if a company wants to keep its apps' source "close to the vest", I don't have a problem with that -- all software doesn't have to be open to be good.
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
All this means is that the legal team (for Corel Corporation, as well as many others) needs to be educated on the full ramifications of the Gnu Public License before they trot out the same old License Agreements/Beta Test restrictions that they have always used.
The GPL is going to require a lot of rethinking of standard legal department processes in the years to come.
The mistakes Corel made are not due to any attempt to subvert the GPL, merely a lack of understanding of it (or even knowledge of it) amongst key personnel.
--"You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
--"You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
It sounds good.
I'm still cautious about wether they understand that even if they use a portion of a GPL'ed program in a new program (instead of modifying a GPL'ed file), they're required to license it under the GPL.
But I think this is a good response of Corel within an appropriate timeframe.
I also think that seeing how many people disliked their earlier proposal must have convinced Corel that some action was necessary - Bruce may be a good talker, but it's very nice that he can back up his diplomatic skills with some weight in the form of looming bad publicity.
And Corel should be thankful, for being averted from commiting software piracy. (If big companies can use big words to describe innocent teenage behaviour, so can we to describe the behaviour of big companies that should know better).
But all in all, I think we got what we wanted, nobody got hurt, so yea, I guess that qualifies as "success"!
EjB
And if Corel wants to put non-GPL portions under their own license as part of the distribution, that's okay too. Perl comes with virtually every Linux distribution, and is not GPL'd. The choice is Corel's. Choice is what Linux is all about.
And if someone uses GPL'd code and doesn't release under the GPL, then they're committing software piracy. I see no reason the GPL as a license is any less valid than a Windows license or a MacOS license. But if piracy is okay with you as a programmer, perhaps you haven't developed anything worth stealing.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
I read the original license and it was wrong. I followed the comments coming out of Corel indicating their preference was to keep the license unchanged -- in violation of the GPL.
The community acted in a mostly rational fashion, there were some hotheads, but most people remained sane. I thinks it's safe to say the reaction of the community was appropriate and that Corel's response was as well.
Cool, mission accomplished.
Bottom line: the GPL must protected from both the the malicious and the clueless.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Actually, this is not true, on both counts. If I get a GPL binary (no source attached) from Corel, I am entitled to ask them for the source code. I am also entitled to distribute this distribution to anyone I want. So far so good.
But, under the GPL, anyone I distribute the binary to can also ask Corel for the source. Of course, they can ask me for it, but unless I distributed it commerically I do not have to comply
This is only the case of distributing binarys only, but this can be relevent to Corel, as they don't want to release the full source for their mods quite quite yet, but if one of the beta testers distribute the GPL modified binaries to slashdot, and everyone in slashdot asked Corel for the source, Corel would have to send to each and every one.
For reference, the relevent sections of the GPL follows: (emphasis mine to see where I'm coming from
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 [...]
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, [...] a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, [...]
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.)
Only if Corel distribute the source along with the beta distribution would the complusion to supply source be passed from them.
--
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
It has nothing to do with public/private distribution, any distribution requires the GPL to be transfered.
Internal use may even count as distribution, however GPL only forces you to give source code and confer the license to those internal people, and it's likely they'll agree not to distribute further. You probably can't 'enforce' that as a company, but you can probably 'suggest' it, as Corel could have simply indicated to their new beta testers that they'd prefer it wasn't passed around.
The fact that Corel themselves released a license for the beta indicates that it is not an _internal_ beta.....if it were then confidentiality etc etc would be covered by existing contracts would they not?
They are however doing the right thing now but it is understandable that people get angry. When it comes down to it without the GPL we have 'nothing'. If they'd tried to violate another companies license they'd probably get something far nastier than a tongue lashing on Slashdot
The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Well, unless they really broke Debian, it would have to be good. :-)
Bruce Perens.
The GPL is a legal document. If you refuse to take it seriously you're setting yourself up for a fall, because you seem to be arguing that you can win in a case of overt and egregrious contract violation, regarding a contract that is as clear as day. ;P). Ask a lawyer. Are you sure you want small claims court?
Since you seem to be thinking of personal grievances let's look at your questions. Any Slashdotter lawyers reading this?
What if *YOU* are the copyright holder?
Then you might be one of the people most interested in fixing the situation. Doesn't mean you're any more entitled than anybody else. The GPL is everybody's business, and if there's a grievance anybody can pursue it, they don't have to be the copyright holder.
If you mean 'me and not the FSF', surprise! You've still released under a legal document. It's still binding. You could assign the copyright to Microsoft and the document still is binding. If the FSF doesn't attack violators, maybe people need to be signing copyright over to something that does, or simply using their names and getting together to exchange the names of lawyers who'd love a piece of the action from suing a rich company over an egregrious contract violation.
Where is a Howto on GPL enforcement?
Beats me, perhaps we need one.
Where is a FAQ on enforcing the GPL?
Beats me, perhaps we need one.
What is the best way to serve and document that an offical request has been provided for a distributor to correct their business practices when distributing the GPL package?
Have you considered the usual formalities, such as having the request notarized, or requiring a receipt to certify that the recipient actually got and signed for your written request? Here we're getting into the realworld legalistics, and this is orthogonal to the actual GPL.
What do you do if your an individual developer and a distributor has ignored for over 2 years requests to follow the requirements listed in the GPL?
Please specify exactly what failure you mean. Who is this, and what have they done? They do _not_ have a requirement to distribute to you specifically. If they gave you binaries of GPLed stuff they do have a requirement to give you the source. If they're modifying something of yours, they do not have a requirement to give you specifically their result, but if they give you the binary they have to give you the source. Also, you can get the source indirectly, as anybody who _did_ get it is fully empowered to redistribute. Exactly what happened that has you so upset, and is it genuinely a violation or not?
What is a method accepted by the US Courts on putting a value on the package or a dollar amount on the "damages" due to GPL violation?
That's irrelevant to the GPL, ask a lawyer. The GPL just happens to be the contract in question.
What is the maxium amount of damages that can be claimed in small claims court?
Beats me, ask a lawyer.
How do you go about filing a GPL violation in small claims court?
Beats me, I don't go around suing people (so far!
Do we have any lawyer-like slashdotters willing to give some input here?
I have to totally agree with you.
Corel is being very careful not to upset the Open Source community. For now, we are a strong ally against their main enemy.
It's a GOOD THING(tm) to uproar about anything we think is wrong, even if it is just a hint. As long as you don't go flaming or throwing insults, and respond in an intellectual manner. Of course we have those that don't do that and I'm embarrassed of that, but I will complain if they just seem to be breaking the rules.
I liked their response (Although I'm sure RMS can't stand it and wonders "What type of Open Source license they will use", since it was stated that the terms will be developed later).
This response probably would not have happened without the reaction of Slashdot. They could be acting like a child, pushing the rules until they are stopped.
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Internal use does indeed count as distribution. Anyone working on a GPLed program, no matter who's hiring them to do so, by definition has complete rights to the program, including the legal right to redistribute it. I think it's possible that if someone were fired because they redistributed GPLed stuff when the company wanted it kept private, they would have a case for wrongful termination because they'd be punished for doing something explicitly allowed in the program's license agreement, and there is no reasonable expectation that just by working for a company the person would have less rights in this regard.
Distribution is defined as transfer of the binary/source from one legal entity to another legal entity. As such, internal distribution is unambiguously considered distribution, and the provisions of the GPL apply. The recipient (the programmer in the next cubicle, for instance) is afforded the full and undiluted rights under the GPL, just as if they were doing the work on their own time. If the company does not like letting its employee's intellectual property become potentially public property, then they need to have that employee work on something else, because the GPL is unambiguous and makes no allowances for 'company time' or 'private releases' or any of that. Contracts mean exactly what they say, and this one (the GPL) is phrased very explicitly and bluntly in key areas- and not by accident.
To address one of your points- the GPL has no provision for waiving itself in the case of an employee who has signed confidentiality agreements. For the purposes of the GPL, the company does not exist. If it conflicts with confidentiality agreements, either the confidentiality agreement breaks by necessity, or the employee ends up legally unable to work on such a program (and this begins to be a civil liberties issue. Can you forbid a person from participating in software development that gives them property rights to the software, and freedom to redistribute?)
I think this demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of Corel. Selling free software is not like selling traditional software, it's more like selling Coke/Pepsi, or Ketsup. Anyone can make their own, you're selling service and convenience (and name brand).
So the model for selling this stuff is simple. You dump your License in the trash (when was the last time you Licensed a can of Coke?), and simply distribute the stuff with an expiration date and a clear warning label on it that indicates it is not yet a complete product (and a pointer to where to upgrade later, for advertizing purposes.)
There are many reasons you would want to distribute in this way:
1) You don't look like you're some kind of authoritarian control freak, trying to dictate the exact terms of your products. This is an especially bad PR mistake to make in a Community that values freedom, as it demonstrates that you don't fit in.
2) You get a wider audience for testing, and benefits of OSS in general, as discussed in Eric Raymond's classic paper "The Cathedral and the Bazaar." Release early and release often is the appropriate mantra here, as it gives you more smart people looking at bugs and features.
3) You make your Beta Testers happier and increase mindshare by treating them as equals. The more time and energy that you can get the Beta-Testers to expend on the product, the more vested interest those testers will have in seeing the product succede on release.
Anyway, here's hoping that they come to their senses soon.
Michael
As I recall, the GPL requires publishing modifications to GPL code.
Two issues here:
One: If Corel produces new code (that doesn't include GPL'd code, of course) they can do what they like. We can request opening of code, but we may not get. Even if they plan to GPL it, they hold their full copyright until they do.
Two: If anyone works on GPL'd code, they are required to publish, right? When? How often? If I add a comment to a piece of GPL code, do I have to run out and post it on a web page, and submit the link to Slashdot? I hope not, because that's going to screw up the revision check-in a bit.
However, if I release the binaries, even if I call them beta, and seems pretty clear that I should make the source available by then, no?
(Note: I'm not accusing Corel of the latter... However, they have been accused of that by assumption...)
I have deep faith in Corel and their distro that :)
:)
is due out soon. People don't seem to realize it yet, but Corel is in a VERY good postion to dominate the OS market in general, not just the Linux market. Their Distro is for windows users, they are also working heavily on WINE. Do you know how good WINE has been getting lately? Its unbelivable the software that you can run on it now. It doesn't take much thought to see what would happen if a brandname like "Corel" comes out with a distro that not only Looks & Feels like windows, connects to windows computers, but also runs ALOT of windows software thru WINE, oh and sorry.. its not bloated, and doesn't crash.
PEOPLE.. This distro in many people's eyes is going to be one of the MAJOR noose-loosing steps against Microsoft. It very well is going to end up being the answer to MANY people looking to throw Micros~1 Windows out the door for good. Corporate world is big business, Redhat is pulling in good dough. BUT.. The Corporate world has alot of end-users just as the home-based market.. in the end, it costs too much to train employees on a new OS.. if the OS looks, feels, works JUST like Windows.. Its going to save a TON in Training costs. Corel is going to end up putting a big dent in Micros~1's Home and Business market. Its no mistake that they put as many programmers as they did into the WINE project.
I made a killing off Redhat, Yahoo, and many other companies.. ANd I definitely recommend a STRONG buy on Corel for those reasons and more.
I'm generally about as diplomatic as they come, but I can't fault anyone who was vocally upset about the way Corel licensed their beta. They didn't get it right the first time. If everybody had just waited for them to fix it, assuming the best, it's quite possible nothing would have ever happened.
I'm not condoning abuse or unfounded accusations of evil intentions, but I think anyone who sees the discussion of this topic on Slashdot as some sort of religious frenzy is missing the point.
The GPL is ours (as software users), and the only way it's going to stay that way is if people are willing to stand up for it, defend it, and even call an otherwise good company on their screw-ups. One of the easiest ways to do that is to discuss our issues right here, out in the open, where Corel and the rest of the world can see it.
Personally, I would have been a lot more worried if it looked like someone was violating our license and nobody cared.
I would add considerably to your wager; I'm quite sure that most of the flamebait comes from people capable only of writing flamebait.
After all, if they had the reasoning abilities to write code that would work, they'd probably write better flamebait...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Well, you can certainly look at the reaction to this as "embarassing" and "hyperreactive," but that type of criticism sounds pretty shallow to me. Do you know what Corel would have done had everyone not had a fit over this issue? I don't.
No one seems to know *why* exactly Corel didn't have a clear beta license to begin with (or, for that matter, why they insist on a "beta license" at all). Why should everyone have read the original license, said "their ignorance of the GPL must be an honest mistake" and accepted it as-is?
The rabid GPL activism of Linux folks is a good thing, IMHO. No one is capable of predicting the "correct" level of reaction to a violation at the time, and those who think they can are working within the comfy confines of 20/20 hindsight. These reactions, right or wrong, keep companies honest in the long run, and I want to see that trend continue.
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
Which would you prefer as a company? Something which says "when I click this button, I get a crash!", or something which says "Hey, I found a bug in this button, the problem is that you're doing a divide by zero on line 51, and, oh, here's the patch to fix it and make it work..."
The former is "business as usual" for big companies, and explains a great deal of why closed source products generally suck. The latter is an example of how Open Source(tm) software works...
Notice that Corel really doesn't "get it" yet, or they'd be saving themselves energy and taking true advantage of the beta test by doing the latter.
We achieved the goal, they understand now, they conceded.
I'm sorry Bruce, and I know out of everyone your in deepper then anyone else who posted, but what goal did "we" achieve? Corel never, ever, ever did anything wrong in there license. Reading the license and understanding that "Product" meant a combination of Corel code, open source code, and perhaps other's closed code makes this obvious. Corel was always in there right. They already had done the right thing.
So please... I don't want to sound disrespectful or to negative, but how did "we" do anything good? All I see is that "we" bashed, flamed, and degraded Corel's reputation in the Open Source world, merely because, as a whole, "we" did not read there license and did not understand what it meant. "We" made assumptions off what we didn't understand, and since the popular idea is that any company used to closed source automaticly despises open source, "we" decided that Corel was attacking and undermining the community. "We" did the wrong thing, "we" screwed up, "we" are the ones who should apologize.
Personally, I think that Slashdot should apologize for posting an article where they made assumptions. Slashdot is the portal for a huge number of open source users, and by being a substantial news source owned by Andover, they should post corrections and apologies. Freedom of speech and freedom of press go so far, but Slashdot crossed the boundries, and "we" tried to hurt a company who was trying to improve the technology and accelerate the cause (while making enough money to survive).
So Mr. Perens, what went before that is not irrelevant. Maybe other people don't understand this, or maybe I'm flat out wrong, but the entire incident was wrong to begin with. Those who lost respect for Corel, those who made comments against Corel, and especially those who misinterprited and publicized this should reflect and try to stop this from happening again.
Thanks.
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath