Lindows - Where's the Source? 532
bbh writes: "NewsForge has an article about the Free Software Foundation asking the makers of LindowsOS a simple question, 'Where's the Source?' Lindows CEO Michael Robertson has an interesting take on what the GPL means."
So I suppose... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So I suppose... (Score:2)
Eating Our Young (Score:5, Insightful)
These are the kinds of silly questions that give open source projects trouble. Business projects, as a rule, have a manager who is (more or less) obeyed. Linus, the closing thing to a Linux manager, obviously can't fire anyone, and the tree can be forked an infinite number of times. This is a good thing, since he can't take his toys and go home when someone finally gets under his skin.
However, when attempting to run an open-source-based business, some semblance of order is required. If the guy says he'll release the code, give him a chance. These dirty-laundry-in-public attacks damage open-source credibility, and that is not a good thing.
I agree that the guy is playing fast and loose with the rules, but I think we should give him a chance by waiting until he meets his deadline. Then, if he doesn't open up, a lawsuit may be in order, but otherwise, what's wrong with waiting a few months? Do we really want alpha- and beta-level projects released and visible to people who will immediately compare them to Microsoft Windows? Let's not forget that there is no such thing as a rough draft - when we see a prototype, we form lasting first impressions. cheers, Andrew
Re:Eating Our Young (Score:3, Insightful)
Are they forgetting that there are thousands of programmers out there willing to audit their source code for free, or are they just afraid that they will lose a few bucks by people trying to compile around their '$99 preview fee', which seems extremely steep to me.
Re:Eating Our Young (Score:5, Insightful)
The only problem is that it sets precedent. Microsoft would like nothing more than to co-opt the GPL. Sure, the FSF would be much more aggressive if Microsoft attempted to do the same, but Microsoft could then point to Lindow's use of the GPL in this manner to do the same thing. The point is that Lindows is making $99 off every beta release.
Admittedly, if the FSF, a private party, is lenient on enforcing the GPL, it's not the same thing as a legal precedent. However, over time, if more and more companies start using the GPL in this way, it will change the meaning of the words incorporated in the GPL. Once the meaning of those words change, it can affect other open source licenses too.
Re:Eating Our Young (Score:5, Insightful)
But this begs the question... has any individual who spent the $99 asked Lindows for the source to the programs they received? I realize the FSF is asking for it, but did they purchase the product? The GPL does not require that you give away your code for free to anyone who asks for it, only to those who you distributed the binary.
That's not to mention that we don't know which programs have been 'enhanced'. Wine? XFree86? KDE? Who's to say... they might have written completely proprietary code to do all their special Windows-esque things and they won't have to release any of it.
Re:Eating Our Young (Score:5, Insightful)
Then this will become the new way to skirt GPL: grab other peoples' GPLed code; modify it somewhat to add some functionality; sell it for a year or so all the time claiming that its not "final" yet; and then release the source.
Folks, the GPL has been around for quite a long time. These sorts of issues would not be coming up unless there's an attempt to do an end-run around the GPL.
Re:Eating Our Young (Score:3, Interesting)
Take a close look at the screenshots. Those are KDE programs with new names.
Yeb big bloody deal (Score:2)
That's when we can debate till the cows come home whether he's complying with the GPL.
Anyway I make its a rule in life to not comply with any rules, regulations or laws I don't agree with. Life would be bloody boring if everyone complied with the rules.
Re:Yeb big bloody deal (Score:3, Insightful)
If you cough up $99 dollars you can download it.
Except for the source.
GPL is GPL (Score:5, Interesting)
If Lindows had licensed a commercial software component and were breaking its license terms, would that be a 'silly question'? For some reason, conforming to open source licenses is considered by some people to be an optional extra...
The only real issue IMO is whether some delay is acceptable between releasing the binary and the source, particularly for betas - this seems to happen with some projects, in practice, but if the project/business goes away in the mean time, the users are left without the source.
Re:GPL is GPL (Score:3, Funny)
Re:GPL is GPL (Score:4, Informative)
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, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
Think about this. (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, say I am working on a piece of code, based on GPL stuff. Say it's for internal use only within my office. I think we all agree that using it on my company's computers only is not distributing it. Now let's say I want to send a copy to Joe because I value Joe's input into UI design, so I send a binary to my pal Joe. AM I now obligated to give Joe source? I don't think so. I am not distributing my new work. I am merely SHOWING it to joe so he can give me feedback. The GPL should not prevent this.
Now.. what Lindows is doing is different.. the bastards are charging people to see a beta, which is slimy to begin with...
So.. anyone know what *really* constitutes distribution?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Eating Our Young (Score:3, Interesting)
The FSF, by publicly alerting the Lindows project, surely has done so after fruitless discussion with the project managers, and so they have the need to publicly call for respect of the GNU GPL.
Lindows is specially based off Debian GNU/Linux, which uses almost exclusively Free Software. It has building processes that include source packages.
That way, if the source packages for the betas are not there, then they are distributin software under copyright law violation by not respecting the source.
This is the second beta. The FSF surely has been trying to talk privately with the Lindows project so bad publicity could be avoided towards the project.
They choose not to respect the GNU GPL terms of distribution. They choose to either ignore or disregard attempts to privately solve this problem (NOTE: this is speculation).
The FSF must've seen no other choice than making a public alert, as the inventors of the GNU GPL.
There are other Free Software licenses, but The FSF has responsabilities with the GNU GPL and GNU LGPL.
This is not eating your young. Imagine it was Microsoft snithcing to the BSA that Lindows was not respecting the software licences? They would probaly then close the project down.
Hugs, Cyclops
ps: silly question? definitely not.
Re:Eating Our Young (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is that he is NOT following the GPL. It says that you MUST give the source to anyone who bought the product. So, if nobody has asked, no problem. If someone asked and they were turned down, or their request is being delayed, they should be talking to a lawyer right now. Hell, I don't use the GPL for any of my code, but if I was one of you that did, I'd be worried that the GPL will loose all of it's legal status because of continual and repeated unchallenged violations.
In all honesty, I think it's ridiculous that every time someone says two words about the GPL, it ends up on the front page, but that's an entirely different subject.
Re:Eating Our Young (Score:5, Insightful)
If they've made an alteration to a piece of software that I'd find useful now, I have to wait a few months or reimplement it myself. If they go bust between now and finally releasing the source, we may never get our hands on it.
People who release their software under the GPL are explicitly stating that they don't want their software redistributed unless source is available. They weren't under any obligation to do that (unless they based it on already GPLed code, but they weren't under any obligation to do that, either), but they did. Perhaps they did that because they don't like the idea of commercial organisations modifying and selling their code without them being able to get at the improvements. Maybe they thought that it was important for users to be able to get the source of the software they use. Possibly they were mad. Who knows? Whatever the reason was, that code was released with an explicit statement requiring companies provide source to software they distribute based upon that code.
Now, you may not think that that's important. The Freeness (in the GNU sense) of software may not be much of an issue to you. But that doesn't change the fact that Lindows is distributing people's software in a way that they have no intrinsic right to do, and which the authors of the software have specifically stated they do not wish to occur. Lindows didn't need to do that. They could have based their product on non-GPLed code.
These dirty-laundry-in-public attacks damage open-source credibility, and that is not a good thing.
One of the most important things about the GPL is that the source is available. Not complaining about companies ignoring that is significantly more damaging to open-source credibility.
This isn't about eating our young. This is about pointing out that the reason much of this code is under this license is because we care about the implications, and companies who want to use this code should abide by the wishes of those who wrote it.
Codeweavers is behind it all (Score:2)
Codeweavers is pretty much against Lindows and Transgaming, the whole "release the code" thing, codeweavers is trying to bully Lindows in the same way they bullied transgaming in the past.
Transgaming released some of the code, but code weavers wants all of the code released most likely so they can use it in their product.
Anyhow, theres more to this than just "release the code", if you look at the wine mailinng lists you can see the fighting between code weavers, lindows and transgaming.
Re:Eating Our Young (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you think would happen if I copied Microsoft Windows from a friend, and when the police knocked at my door, I'd reply "Sure, I'll pay for a license in a few months. Right now, this product seems like a beta-level project to me; I'll think about complying with the license when it's more stable."
Not new: Redhat does the same thing (Score:2)
Hmmm.. (Score:2)
That would include any betas realsed also wouldnt it? Not just FINAL releases?
What's the big deal? (Score:2, Troll)
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:2)
psxndc
More GPL theft than you'd think (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:More GPL theft than you'd think (Score:5, Interesting)
About a dozen years ago, I worked for a small, heartless high-tech startup. The cash money pay was good, my immediate manager was extremely clueless, and the founders and senior management had (for once) greatly overestimated the complexity of the development effort. This made for an extremely leisurely work schedule that (almost) made up for their other obnoxious habits.
My first week there I was writing some code to interpret the logfiles for their product, when I needed to Read the Manual to figure something out. While an MS C Compiler was installed on my peecee, I didn't have copies of the manual and figured they must be around someplace.
Twenty minutes later I discovered that (1) the only copy of the manuals was in the (locked) office of my boss, and (2) there was only one C compiler for about a half-dozen coders. My boss was in meetings all day and didn't want to be disturbed. It was a Friday so I went home before lunch to start my weekend early.
On Monday morning I got the manuals from my boss, fixed the code, and had this entertaining conversation when I returned the manuals:
Me: We need a few more copies of the compilers, at least so more than one coder can read them at a time.
My Boss: We don't have the money for that.
Me: So? We're violating the license agreement. I'd hate to cross MS on something like this.
My Boss: Don't worry, those agreements are impossible to enforce.
I went back to my cube with much to think about. Only a week before, I had signed a fearsome stack of employment agreements with terrifying and nasty language. The employee packet also had an intimidating memo about employee's stealing any company property -- it left me with the impression that I'd end up in jail if I accidentally took a pen home.
Well, like I said my boss was clueless so I kind of let it slide. But I noticed that for a company with over thirty people, there was only two or three legal copies of any word processing or desktop publishing software around the office. Later that week there was a big dust-up and two of the six engineers quit. In order to patch up the morale a cozy meeting was arranged that friday with the company president, my boss, and the remains of the software group of which I was a part.
At one point I brought up the software license issues:
Me: Y'know, having only one C compiler for four engineers is illegal. We really ought to buy more copies.
President: We'd rather hire really good people than buy software.
Me: So you're saying we should steal to support the company?
President: It isn't really stealing...
Me: I doubt Microsoft would agree with you. What you're doing gives every employee who walks out of here with a beef, like [the two guys who just quit], a way to shut this whole company down.
He didn't know how to answer that. My boss gave me a dirty look. A few weeks later a "working group" was set up, headed by my boss, to identify what software we needed to buy and buy it. This group met weekly for over six months and probably after -- well past when I left the company. As far as I know, they never did spend any actual money correcting the problem.
In the following months I noticed that a fair amount of code in the company's products had also been lifted from various places. Some of it was harmless and easily corrected. Some of it went a long way towards explaining why the company was rather secretive about how it had managed to build its products. I told my boss about it and he basically blew me off by adding it to the list of "issues" (e.g. cases of intellectual property theft) his "working group" was looking at.
I quit after less than six months on the job, taking a well-deserved year being mostly unemployed. The company failed a couple of years later, warmly despised by its ex-employees, customers, and probably anyone else who came into contact with them.
My boss was probably more clueless than average, but I don't think crap like this is at all uncommon.
How do you fight this silliness?
If you are into persuasion, I'd try an argument that goes something like this:
We're a technology company. Our primary assets are intangible. One of those assets is the intellectual property represented by the source code to the software we sell. Putting a dollar value on any such software is highly subjective and very vulnerable to perception, both positive and negative. We want to avoid any negative impressions which might cause difficulties, in particular during a due diligence process such as during an acquisition, business partnership, or when raising money from investors.
Probably the best approach is pretty gentle. Make friends with some people in your accounting department. If you've already got a friend there, so much the better. Tell your friend about this problem, emphasizing what it might do to the company's stock price or how much trouble it might make during an acquisition. People tend to lend more credence to information from someone they know than from some person they never met who comes to them with a story of gloom and doom. Unfortunately, this becomes a lot harder in a larger company.
A less discreet approach might be to write a nice memo on paper on the above themes, print it out and sign and date it. Keep a copy for yourself, give a copy to your boss, and give a copy to your CFO or VP of Finance. Emphasize that these kind of intellectual property violations could cause problems with the value of the company or the company's products.
A final approach is to discreetly contact your company's auditors. Auditors have a bad rap right now and are hence pretty stuffy about any iffy situations. They are involved in assigning a value to any assets a company has (like software that might have a license violation) and they will probably be very interested in what you have to say. This can make quite a bit of trouble for your company if you aren't sure it can be fixed easily, so be a bit careful with this approach. However, it is less of an escalation than going public with the embarassing information.
Hmmmm if your boss makes you lift GPL'd code (Score:5, Insightful)
The noble, upstanding thing to do would be to report your company to the FSF. In essence, using GPL code without providing the source is stealing. They wouldn't expect to get away from an audit by the BSA if they were running cracked software, so why should they get away with GPL violations?
However, the noble, upstanding thing to do is often the one that leaves the 'hero' jobless and labelled a security risk.
So, if you feel up to it, take a leaf out of Dogbert's book, and use this opportunity to further your advancement in the company. Hideously cynical, I admit.
Of course, this could just be an adminstrative error. A previous employee could just have used GPLed code as a stopgap way of developing their own solution, and not notified management and / or sourcecode maintenance about the original code.
Point it out to management, and let them know the scope of the legal issues involved. If they've got any sense, they'll release the source.
This is all assuming that the GPLed code exists in 'chunks' within the main codebase. If your company is selling a full GPLed application, start sending your Resume out!
(I wonder why the originally was modded down to -1 30 seconds after posting)
Re:More GPL theft than you'd think (Score:3, Informative)
Work in Progress (Score:5, Insightful)
What is Robertson complaining about? (Score:5, Insightful)
If that doesn't fit into his business plan, he shouldn't have used GPL'ed code; it's not like anybody was tricking him into accepting a license he didn't understand. He shouldn't complain about it, and if he persists in not complying with the GPL, he will lose all rights to using the code in perpetuity. The GPL needs to be enforced in order to be meaningful. If companies can get away with flaunting it, abuse of GPL'ed code will become widespread.
I also wonder what kind of strange plans that company is hatching that they aren't developing out in the open. Why isn't their code on a public CVS repository already?
Re:What is Robertson complaining about? (Score:3, Interesting)
One word: illegal. The GPL'd software may not be relicenced into this kind of a license unless by the author. Lindows cannot sell linux for $99 under NDA and tell people they can't share it. Internal means just that: internal. This process is anything but internal as they are distributing the software to third parties for a fee of $99. The only way it would be internal is if everyone were employees of Lindows.
-- iCEBaLM
Not perfect, but give them a chance (Score:2, Insightful)
However, it is just a beta of a commercial product after all, and he did promise to adhere fully to the GPL when the official product release occurs.
Cut the guy some slack, and see what happens. If they release the 1.0 version and don't release source, then it's time to get mad. It's a one-time thing, no need to bite their heads off.
I don't understand the evasion (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what makes me suspicious, and that's what the FSF is probably responding to -- companies historically have a tendency to support any given "community" only when it serves the company's best interests (which I can't fault); however, they also historically tend to retain the willingness to arbitrarily pull that support, no matter the cost to that community, if it will better their standing.
So, when some business says it's helping the Open Source community, doesn't follow through on part of the obligation, then doesn't give a straight answer when asked "why not", it sort of seems duplicitous in a way. Note that most of the article is Robertson pleading that he's done so much for Open Source, as if to say, "But look at everything else we've done!" Yes, those things are commendable. It doesn't free you from your other obligations, though.
I hope it was just bad reporting on the part of Newsforge. If not, the FSF seems pretty justified in asking what the deal is.
Re:I don't understand the evasion (Score:2)
Good point.
Seems that now, living in really rough times, the GPL started to be really put to test by more and more companies. I don't want to plunge (again) in a discussion that ends in a flamewar, but don't forget that inherently, the GPL is totally counter-intuitive to any classic capitalist; and although GPL'd software *can* be used to make profit in the standard way, it's *less* profit than one could make if they used other people's code and just "forgot" to release their code - even for some limited time (gives them the upper hand/pole position in the field).
I'm waiting for the first court-test. A lot of things can be different depending on how a real judge sees this.
If we dont like the idea... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:FSF should sue *now* (Score:2)
No, they shouldn't sue until all other options have been exhausted. The FSF deals with a lot of GPL violations. Most of them are just the result of misunderstanding and are resolved quietly. That's the best way to handle things if possible. The software is Freed, the company saves face, everybody is happy.
I don't know why Robertson is being such a jerk about this, but if he now releases the source, then there's no long-term harm and that should be the end if it.
If he says "screw you, I'll violate your copyright all I want", then that's another story. RMS should nail him to the wall. I don't know how much of othe code in Lindows belongs to the FSF, but I'm sure it's enough that RMS can put Lindows out of business, and he should do that if they refuse to obey the license. Remember that once the license has been violated, RMS holds all the cards. He can withdraw the license and refuse to let Lindows release their OS, ever.
Damn I hope I'm wrong... (Score:5, Interesting)
I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt when I came across:
Kword repackaged as Wordpublisher [lindows.com]
and other rebadged stuff [lindows.com]
Major credibility plunge there. Not to judge the rest of the package, but it looks more like they're just grepping through the source for places where they can splash the words lindows and/or Michael Robertson. No value added.
Like I said, leech.
Re:Damn I hope I'm wrong... (Score:2)
Re:Damn I hope I'm wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, come on! (Score:5, Informative)
Lindows release PR2. It's the EXACT same thing as Xandros OS which also went out with beta 1 (not public). Xandros, if I recall correctly, doesn't give the sources (yet), so why the FSF doesn't nit-picking them? Is it just because Lindows got a much better PR then Xandros?
You really want Lindows sources? here's what you'll need to do:
* Grab Corel Linux OS (the latest one which you can grab), apply KDE 2.2.2, kernel 2.4.18, nvidia binary drivers, XFree 4.1.0, and remove all the servers services (sendmail, ssh, you know the suspects).
* Grab WineHQ CVS snapshot + Freetype 2.0.8 and turn fonts hinting on - now you got the wine part. That doesn't mean you can install MS Office since this needs few tricks to make it run, simulate reboots, hack tons of registry tricks, etc - but it's more or less the same Wine..
* The Lindows installer - same as Corel Linux installer, hacked a bit to support more devices and updated more...
Thats it! thats the whole thing, more or less - (well, Lindows got Xandros file manager - which sucks, anyway - and I think it's a closed source) and Lindows got their app which does apt-get install some stuff from their web site, and no Konsole icon...
So FSF people - I would suggest you WAIT for the final release. There are other Linux distributions who did some tricks also with their source code (guess who's the company who didn't release in their beta their partition resizing tools source code?)
Enforcing the GPL (Score:2)
With most people following the GPL not making tons of money from their efforts, who will enforce the following of the GPL? I mean, boycotts do not work, and the masses will purchase something without knowing what it means. "Excuse me sir, what is the GPL?" The response would be, "Huh?".
Windows Source (Score:2)
What I would like to know is what is the definition of an "End User"? Anyone outside the company that gets a binary should have the source? If that is the case is there any way for the big distros to compete with each other without destroying the whole?
Consumer (Score:3, Insightful)
Danger, Will Robinson.
Call me user, call me prole, hell call me Ishmael,
but when I am "consumer" little warning lights go off. I suddenly become the doofus who doesn't need to be troubled with all that irritating source. You know what, I wouldn't do a damn thing with the source. But the fact that he waffles about releasing it brands him as someone who has used other people's work to create something that HE SELLS. He received information and will not return his contributions to the pool.
That kind of behavior is bullshit.
"And while the code is important, that is not what it will take to get Linux to "20 million desktops." Robertson says to help more people understand Open Source, better marketing and lobbying is needed. "And yes, battling Microsoft and their huge coffers which influence OEMs, retailers, politicians, and the press in ways you only understand if you talk to them personally, which I have."
Huh...one way of understanding open source is...to release the source.
Hmmm (Score:4, Interesting)
Robertson seems dismayed by the FSF's attempt to enforce the GPL. "No wonder there's virtually no healthy Linux companies. The community seems to attack them when the real focus should be elsewhere."
So what's he trying to say here, we shlould ignore gpl violations because they're on our side? No. That's a good bit of the reason we don't like MS. They bend the rules for those on their side, admittedly they use strongarm tactics to force companies into it, but that's beside the point.
The GPL might have a hole here (Score:2)
If you read the GPL you will notice that it says that you have to ACCOMPANY the source or the offer of the source TO THE DISTRIBUTED BINARY.
Which means that you have to offer the source only to the people who you have given the binary to. So currently i think only the members of the beta program are in a position to demand the source.
but it seems they arenot getting it either (Score:2)
Shut up or get the hell out of dodge. (Score:2, Insightful)
Guess what, people? The GPL is a license. Be it a 'good' license or a 'bad' license is up to the individual software developer. Whether or not they think they can 'ignore' the rules of that license is most certainly not.
"It's only beta!" "They'll release it when they're ready!" No deal. You use the GPL, you release the source with the binaries. Last time I checked, there's no 'Beta-version Exception Clause' or 'But Really, When It's Convenient Paragraph'.
"This type of behavior soils the image of GPL software in the eyes of business/home users/your mother.."
Call me crazy, but I'd choose the latter. Businesses sure as hell won't take GPL'd software seriously if we let others walk all over us.
Don't bite the hand that feeds you (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a lot of excitement around Lindows. Especially for people who use Windows, but are too afraid to start into Linux. Lindows has a very good chance of becoming popular and gaining some market share if it does everything it says it will.
So I propose that we let them tweak their software with these beta releases. Then when they release a final version we will see the source code. Why do we need to see it now? It almost sounds like a bunch of three-year-olds that can't wait to open presents.
I don't need to see the source code to make any fixes. That what the Lindows programers get paid for. So let them do their jobs and when Lindows is released THEN we can poke at the code.
Re:Don't bite the hand that feeds you (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just another case of the digital commons being fenced off to benefit a few sheepherders. It's better to stop it early than when it has momentum.
Re:Don't bite the hand that feeds you (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly for this reason, they *should* release the code. The have no chance at beating or "harming" M$ in a one-to-one fight, with rules that M$ not only masters, but over the time suggested, improved, and outright invented.
Microsoft is afraid of GPL, you can see this. GPL may have it's shortcomings, but on the short run, whatever is seen as a threat by M$ - and is not illegal, obviously - must be used against them.
Is there a ls -laR of the Lindows beta? (Score:2)
in a Lindows install. If you can do this, please get in touch.
well (Score:2, Interesting)
"The Codeweavers/Lindows association was terminated in part because Lindows wanted to be able to keep its Wine modifications private.
"
look what else they want in their crown jewel set
Robertson is a petulant child. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent:
Time for bed, Johnny
Johnny:
"I don't want to go to bed!"
Parent:
"Look at the clock Johnny, it
Johnny:
"The clock doesn't matter!"
Parent:
To bed this instant!
Johnny:
Why?!!!?
When arguing with children, there is no logical foundation to the argument. They will whine and wheedle in any way they can to get what they want. No need to let little things like reality get in the way of an angry child.
And Robertsons arguments seem to go like this:
GPL:
"Robertson, you are a sentient being who was fully aware
of the GPL before starting your business. Fullfill your part of the agreement"
Robertson:
The agrement doesn't matter! Look at all the nice things I've done. Therefore the agreement doesn't matter!
GPL:
Robertson, you are abusing the goodwill of thousands of people who realeased their software under the condition that that goodwill be perpetuated.
Robertson:
That doesn't matter! Look at all the nice things I've done!
What Lindows States They Have Made Available (Score:5, Informative)
According to the Lindows Licensing Information page [lindows.com] Source code is available for download at http://net2.com/lindows/source/ [net2.com]. Of interest is the statements to check the main developer trees for products they use (KDE, Denbian, Wine), as most modification made by Lindows have been accepted and integrated into the main trees.
The dates on the source files are 12 Apr 02, although the downloader is cautioned in two places the Lindows OS software "has not even been released in beta", so the source may not reflect the most current build.
In a related story... (Score:5, Interesting)
OBEY THE GPL!! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry if it doesn't fit into his business model or plans...perhaps he should have planned better. Its not our problem.
Our problem is that HE is violating the GPL, and that SOME in the OSS (Open Sourced Software) / FSS (Free Sourced Software) are ACCEPTING that.
The reasons for accepting this guys violationg of the GPL range from, "It's not even a beta release," to "Give him some time," to "All this bashing of Linux companies is what harms Linux". Sorry, none of those reasons cut it.
The GPL is a license, and he agreed to that license before using it. He agreed that in exchange for FREELY taking advantage of the HARD WORK of THOUSANDS of benevolent programmers, he would in return contribute his source modifications back to the community. By not doing that, he is taking advantage of thousands of programmers who generously GPL'ed their code.
Until he does release that code, he will and should be criticized. The FSF should contact him and try to get him to release the code; if that fails, a lawsuit is in order. In order for your contributions to the GPL to have any affect, the GPL must be obeyed.
When he does release the source, then we'll drop it. No hard feelings. We're not in it to ruin his company, his image, or his product. We simply want our license -- the GPL -- to be treated with respect.
Its not an unreasonable license. It has very simple requirements, which are more than fair when you consider that you're getting all this stuff free as in freedom, and usually free as in beer too. Its not like the EULA, where you have no rights and violations will result in multi-million dollar lawsuits. Violations of the GPL don't cost companies any money -- not like the EULA does. Lawsuit's brought are only to force the company to release the source, not to punish the company, bankrupt them, or make an example out of them, as the BSA does. There is no GPL-BSA which goes around raiding companies to see if they're violationg the GPL.
Re:OBEY THE GPL!! (Score:3, Interesting)
all animals are equal but some are more equal (Score:3, Insightful)
I think there is NO such reason. Even if we love lindows & MR, the principles of the GPL are too important to weaken them by saying: "usual people have to fulfill it point for point, but some for some special people we turn a blind eye".
Damned - who decides what is "beta", "final", "contributing enough open source", "good project for the free software movement" an so on? If we Let Lindows do what they want we will see more and more GPL violations and excuses "they let lindows go, why do they sue me?" (there is a post above exacly like this), "hey, i already published some GPL ware", "oh just wait a few month until my project reaches a status i define as 'release'" or "my project is so nice and good PR for the FS movement".
We should not behave like officials in the old soviet union: "everybody has the same rights and has to fulfill the same duties - except good old merited communists..."
Parallels with MP3.COM (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed, this is a great idea and it was long overdue. But, that is not the way copyright law works in this country. Robertson was overconfident that the law would be no hindrence to his business plan, and thus ignored it -- at his peril. The copyright industry took MP3.COM to court over the service and won, they won bigtime. MP3.COM ended up blowing over half their IPO wad on just the pay-offs of the Big5 in the copyright industry. At $25,000 per song per copy maximum fines that $200M was actually a huge discount. But, come on man, a $200M mistake is a huge mistake nonetheless.
Fast foward to today. MP3.COM has sold out to Vivdeni-Universal and Robertson made out like a bandit on the sale. Now, here he is working on a very good idea, an idea whose time is longer overdue. But he is ignoring the law AGAIN because he doesn't think it should apply to his special case because what he is doing is so ground breaking.
Now, I am not saying that the GPL is equivalent of the RIAA bandits. But if Robertson weren't quite so gung-ho-with-blinders-on he might have made MP3.COM a true force for topling the copyright industry as was once his battle cry. Instead he sold out and the dream was killed. If he continues to follow true to form, he is going to end up adding little to nothing to the Libre Software community and may end up harming it in the process.
Grow up Mike, you should have learned your lesson the first time around. Ignore the rules at your own peril.
Bruce Perens has his say (Score:3, Informative)
GNU is pretty clear on GPL for beta releases (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:He's right (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, the GPL is great. We should all share code, no matter how small or large we write something for.
But I think Lindows is doing an okay thing. The moment they have a final release, go ahead, and release the source. At the moment, keep it quiet for a bit, so no one "steals" the product before it can be released (hint hint at Redmond maybe?)
I too recommend gcc and vim (yeah, not emacs for me ;) ) for OS related projects. It just makes sense. But then again, a good IDE usually helps.
Re:He's right (Score:5, Informative)
The thing is, Lindows is vapor, as far as I'm concerned. I'm very suspicious.
Consider:
Re:He's right (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:He's right (Score:2, Insightful)
No, because Microsoft has a monopoly, and Lindows.com don't.
Re:He's right (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:He's right (Score:5, Informative)
Any distribution (other than internal distribution) requires the source to be available. And yes, it's only required that they distribute it to people who have the binaries and request it. However, the implication of his statements is that they wouldn't do so anyway.
That's the catch, though... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, I see no problem here--as long as the code is released once the product leaves beta. Though, it does open the possibility for an interesting loophole--perpetual beta! Of course, if they kept the product in beta indefinitely while selling their product through beta-tester registration fees, I'm sure a Court would easily determine they're acting in bad faith and violating the GPL. I just thought I'd point out that scenario before someone else did.
Re:That's the catch, though... (Score:2)
They have distributed a binary that came from GPLed source. The GPL requires that those who recieve the binaries must be given the source if they request it.
I don't think that they should be hounded and harrased, but they should also make a good faith gesture to show that Lindows inc. is not (as one person has said) a leach. With this being an issue now, they should do something more positive to show that they respect these licences.
Re:That's the catch, though... (Score:2)
I don't think the GPL distiguishes between public distribution and distribution within an organisation. Whoever recieves the binaries is entitled to recieve the source. This is no different from proprietary licenses - you cannot buy a single license for a prorietary program and then install it on all computers within your company.
Re:That's the catch, though... (Score:3, Informative)
Hmm... lets see what FSF has to say.
"Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement? [gnu.org]":
" Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under a nondisclosure agreement? [gnu.org]"
I understand this as: it's okay to develop under NDA (that is, you have access to source, but you're not allowed to distribute anything) but it's not okay to work under NDA and receive only binary. Of course, if this interpretation isn't correct, GPL could be circumvented by "hiring" all the users as employers for the wage of -99 bucks.
You've found your own counter-arguemnt. (Score:3, Insightful)
They obtained a license to make copies of the source code - modified or otherwise - which requires them to provide source on demand and an automatic sublicense to any party to whom they have given or sold the object. Period. There is no exception for "employees" - especially "empoyees" who have PAID for the privilege. If they fail to do this they are in violation of the license - regardless of how much they have "helped the open source movement" in the past or concurrently.
Further: For an open source project having the source, modifying it, and installing the mods ARE PART OF THE BETA TEST.
Which is PRECICELY why the open source community, and its FSF spearpoint, can't afford to let the loophole exist, even for a short period. If it is OK for a while you get into a perpetual battle of defining what is "a while". In the software biz a few months of lead time - FOR EACH RELEASE - is all it takes to make a monopoly. If it's not OK AT ALL, the problem is nipped in the bud.
If you pull up the FIRST weed to sprout in your lawn before it goes to seed you avoid thousands of its offspring.
Re:That's the catch, though... (Score:5, Insightful)
Calling it beta testing is frankly bullshit- WHAT Free software is really, truly 'done'? What proprietary software is? The whole concept falls apart. In regards to Free software there is NO SUCH THING as 'beta'. It is ALL like a growing organism as opposed to a manufactured product. There is also NO distinction between 'consumer' and 'producer'. The GPL uses legal, binding language to establish this state of affairs and there isn't a word wasted. It doesn't HAVE to define 'beta' software: software is software to the GPL. Calling it beta doesn't stop it being software and turn it into, for instance, office supplies, staplers, ballpoint pens. It is GPLED SOFTWARE, and to effectively forbid the distribution of copies AT ANY level would mean losing the right to distribute the GPLed software at all.
Read that again. "To effectively forbid the distribution of copies AT ANY level would mean losing the right to distribute the GPLed software at all." If you give a copy of GPLed code to YOUR EMPLOYEE and he wants to distribute his copy on the internet, your only recourse is to forbid your employee from doing so- meaning that he cannot legally comply with your restriction and the GPL at the same time- meaning that he can't legally produce GPLed code under those conditions! (normal companies treat GPL coding as a public process in the first place, making it a nonissue whether the person posts their code or not).
Your employee might have no reason to want to post their first draft of modifications to GPLed code on the internet. But you as an employer CANNOT FORBID them to do so without placing them in a situation where they can't legally work on GPL code at all- if they can't distribute, they don't have rights, and if they don't have rights they have no business making modifications for eventual distribution. You can't set up sweatshops for hacking on GPLed code- the license doesn't allow it.
Re:Doesn't really surprise me (Score:5, Insightful)
It does not matter if you sell it, rent it, give it away, lend it or anything like that. As long as you distribute it, you have to abide by the GPL.
You are however right in that they don't have to provide source unless someone requests it. Now someone HAVE requested it however, and they have to comply with that request.
Re:Doesn't really surprise me (Score:2)
If they don't provide the source with the binaries right away, they have to accompany the binaries with a written offer for the source.
Re:He's right (Score:4, Informative)
Once anyone is permitted to obtain access to the program it is considered public. There are no non-disclosure agreements allowed with the distribution gpl'd source or binaries. If there seem to be any restrictions they are there purely because the people holding the code or binaries choose not to redistribute them.
You are permitted to make an internal release, such as within a company, and are not forced to release any of the changes to anyone in public. The recipients of this internal release are entitled to the source code upon request and they can also release the source if they so wish thus making it public.
Once you are in posession of a binary release you're entitled to the source code upon request but there is one interesting aspect that involves the licensing of modified versions and is kind of a cornerstone of gpl. If you make modifications to an existing gpl program all the recipients of the original program automatically have a license for your version once it is released to the public(even if you don't have a copy yet you're entitled to it).
Of course if someone owns the full copyright for the source code they can also relicense it with a different license. The gpl'd versions and their modifications are still considered to be public but this does not apply to the relicensed versions.
To summarize:
If you have the binaries you can get the source. If you don't have them, stop whining.
There is one aspect that I don't fully understand.
If I have a program that is gpl'd but not released to the public and it is somehow stolen from me is it legal for other people to distribute it. Gpl does grant me the right to distribute but as I understand it doesn't allow other people to claim as their birthright..
give them a chance geez (Score:2)
Let Lindows release before attacking it.
Re:Nice troll, but IAAL (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL is not keyed to selling anything. It is keyed to distribution. In fact, the closest thing the GPL contains to the kind of exception you're describing is in section 3(c), describing an alternative means of distributing source code whereby noncommercial third parties can simply pass along the information that informs recipients where and how to obtain source code.
Any distribution by the Lindows folks outside of their organization will be commercial whether they charge for binaries (Oh! Gee! They're even charging for the beta) or not. Lindows is a commercial enterprise and their releases are part of furthering that enterprise.
There is no serious question that people who purchase their beta are entitled to purchase or otherwise receive the source code. In fact, if you'll read carefully, they're entitled to receive it in machine readable form via the mail.
Re:Lindows Insiders? (Score:2)
If Lindows is baed on GPL code, and they are selling it (which it could be argued that they are, even if they give it away for free, which they aren't), then they are legally required to provide source, when asked. People have asked, they haven't given source. Hence the dilema.
Re:Lindows Insiders? (Score:2)
The law says you can't murder someone. If someone signs an NDA that says it's okay if I kill him, that doesn't mean that it's now legal.
Re:Let Lindows do what they want (Score:4, Insightful)
But what if there is never a final release? They are selling access to this "beta" version ($99); if someone pays for this version, then under GPL they are entitled to get the source. Remember, the GPL does not say "the source code can be released when convenient".
Re:Let Lindows do what they want (Score:2)
Um, exactly when does one "get to" never? How long do you wait until you conclude they aren't releasing beta code ever? Will it be releaed only at the end of its useful life? It's the same problem with the Sony Bono Copyright Act: Infinite and unlimited extensions make a mockery of any concept of "limited times" or of "eventually".
Re:Let Lindows do what they want (Score:2)
How long do you wait until you conclude they aren't releasing beta code ever?
You use common sense. It's what separates us from computer programs, you know.
It's the same problem with the Sony Bono Copyright Act: Infinite and unlimited extensions make a mockery of any concept of "limited times" or of "eventually".
Good. You just argued my point. You can't look at the letter of the law ("limited times"). You have to look at the spirit of it. In this case, if they're going to release the source code in a relatively short period of time, they've complied with the spirit of the GPL, if not the letter of it.
Re:Let Lindows do what they want (Score:2)
All we have is the letter of the law. The "spirit of the law", such as it has any thrust, is decided by the courts. You can't let a potential offender, or for that matter, a potential victim, be the sole arbiter of what the law means. In a system of law, under the rule of law, it is quite important that we conform to the letter of the law
If Lindows feels this "law" is invalid, then they can follow their conscience and not obey it. But they sure as hell have no moral right to whine when someone calls them on it, or attempts to have the law enforced.
GPL: take it or leave it (Score:2)
There's no discretion to GPL's applicability or separate rules for Linux friendly companies or whatever. Either the GPL does cover Beta release (note that people PAID for the "Beta", which would seem to destroy any position they may otherwise have had), or it doesn't. The FSF appears to think that it does, and I believe they know more about it then either you or I do.
Re:Let Lindows do what they want (Score:2)
If you allow this to pass, then ANY GPL code could turn into an XFree license where's companies are NOT required to release binary + source code versions. The only way arround this would be (in my opinion, and i happens that IANAL) to pay this beta testers for testing the product ($1 would be ok) and treat them like hired personel. The very second you give it away to a non-team, non-hired "personel", you HAVE to release the code.
What do you GPL experts think?
Re:Let Lindows do what they want (Score:2)
Then everybody could get GPL code, do just as ICQ did (every version has been a beta, for years! Well, at least they are not lying - it is so buggy it deserves the title of beta), and never release code...
All we're asking is compliance with copyright (Score:2)
It doesn't work any differently with GPL. If you want to redistribute software that is GPL, you are required to do so under the terms of the GPL, because nothing else grants you the right to redistribute the software.
This isn't whining; it's just a request for license compliance.
"Beta" versions are not granted an exception to the terms of the GPL; if you are redistributing to anyone outside your organization, you must comply with the terms.
So, "Lindows" needs to start complying with the terms forthwith.
Re:Let Lindows do what they want (Score:2, Insightful)
Just a thought.....
Re:Let Lindows do what they want (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly (Score:3, Insightful)
CodeWeavers are the ones behind the "release the code"
They are the company who wanted Wine to be GPL, Transgaming is clearly not GPL, and Lindows is GPL well some of it, and other parts arent.
Who benifits most from Lindows releasing their code as GPL? Transgaming? No Code Weavers.
Re:NO (Score:2)
Re:WINE was BSD until a short while ago (Score:2)
Yes, but they only have to give the source to the parts that they modified. If they didn't modify them, they can just point you to the ftp repositories of those projects.
As far as I can tell, all Lindows did to KDE was add a new skin. I don't think that skinning qualifies as modification (if the underlying code had support already for skinning, that is).
Re:WINE was BSD until a short while ago (Score:5, Informative)
If they didn't modify them, they can just point you to the ftp repositories of those projects.
Not exactly:
(Emphasis added)
Re:Conspiracy theory (Score:2)
This would be a perfect MS ploy. "Look at this poor company that's trying to use GPL software! See how it's failing them? It's a cancer!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:calling the Lindows bluff (Score:4, Insightful)
But it seems like the FSF is shooting themselves in the foot. The world is watching this event, and it's proving to them right now that going Open Source is a bad idea for business. If you look at some of the failures of Open Source (Eazel, Netscape) and consider what troubles Lindows has to overcome, most businesspeople have enough reason to never think again about contributing to or joining the Open Source community. This is not the public image that we need
So, what you're saying is: we shouldn't take a stand against these thieves ripping off GPLed software for their own personal profit, because if we do, we might scare off other companies who were thinking of ripping off GPLed software for their own profit? Sound thinking, dude.
Re:Doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
What possible reason could there be for claiming that he'll distribute the source for the final release, but not the beta? Is there something in the beta that shouldn't be there? Is he ashamed of his modifications?
If the GPL allowed distribution in object form only of prerelease software, that would completely undermine the whole concept, since almost no free software is ever "final" (nor is most proprietary software, for that matter). Companies that wanted to keep their changes private, as Robertson apparently does, would simply release a never-ending stream of prereleases and betas.