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. ".
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'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
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.
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.
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..."
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.
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.
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.
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?
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath