Corel Linux Beta License Violates GPL

John Goerzen writes "Corel today began FAXing out beta test agreements for its Linux distribution. However, these agreements violate GPL in many points by distributing software under terms that the GPL prohibits." Since the distribution is based on Debian, this is justifiably making a lot of folks angry. I've attached the relevant excerpts if you click thru below or else you can view Page One or Page Two of the FAX in GIF format.

The agreement that must be signed states "User may not reproduce and distribute copies of the Products to any other person." This violats GPL sections 1, 3, and 6. It goes on to say, "Upon the expiration of the Term [45 days]. . . User shall promptly destroy . . . Product". This violates the same sections.

It then says "All right, title and interest to all intellectual property with respect to the Products shall remain with Corel and its licensors. No license or other right of any kind is granted by Corel's furnishing the Products to user [except for testing]. . ." This not only attempts to assert ownership over items copyrighted by others, but fails section 6 of the GPL.

Corel Linux beta - Read the FAQ

[calvinto (93446)]

Reserve judgement. Read the FAQ:
http://www.corel.com/betaprogram/faq.htm

From the FAQ: "Once Corel LINUX is ready for general distribution, it will be distributed in accordance with the criteria for Open Source software."

So, it looks like the beta license agreement, while lame, is not how the general distribution is going to be licensed. According to the FAQ, they are also going to release source with the general distribution.

-calvin

Re:Shame. Lawyers anyone?

[Guzzi (61870)]

http://www.corel.com/betaprogram/faq.htm

Corel® LINUX® Beta Q & A

What is beta testing?
Beta testing can be considered "pre-release testing" in which a sampling of the intended audience tests
the product and provides feedback regarding their experience with the product. This feedback often
results in modifications to the product prior to its first public distribution.

How is Corel Beta testing Corel LINUX?
The beta testing of Corel LINUX is being done in the same way that we currently test all of our
software products. We will be selecting individuals from a list of those who have applied to become
testers via our Web site. Those selected will receive a beta version copy of the software on CD-ROM.
Beta testers will then be required to use the software and provide Corel with feedback regarding their
experience with the product.

What are the requirements for becoming a beta tester for Corel LINUX?
We will select users based on their experience with Linux®, the diversity of hardware at their disposal
and on their software testing experience. In addition, we are reserving spaces for some KDE and Debian
developers.

Why isn't Corel putting Corel LINUX on an FTP site for download?
The first version of Corel LINUX is still in the development and testing phase and is not ready for
general distribution. Beta testing is part of the development process that Corel is following to ensure
that Corel LINUX reaches a suitable level of completeness and stability before it becomes widely available.

How many people will be testing Corel LINUX?
In order to ensure that the beta testing process can be properly administered, we will be limiting the number of registered beta testers for this
first round of testing. The exact number of testers has not yet been determined.

Is this testing style in keeping with the spirit of Open Source software distribution?
Yes. The recruitment of outside Beta testers is part of the initial development process of Corel LINUX and will allow Corel to release the
first version of Corel LINUX to the general public at an earlier date than would be possible if Corel relied only on its internal testing
resources. Once Corel LINUX is ready for general distribution, it will be distributed in accordance with the criteria for Open Source software.

When will Corel release the source code for Corel LINUX?
The source code for Corel LINUX will be available with the first distribution of Corel LINUX.

Will Corel be releasing the source code for applications it has created such as the Corel File Manager?
Corel will be making the source code available for such applications. The exact terms of the license under which the source code will be
distributed has not yet been announced.

If I am not accepted for this round of testing, can I still be involved in the testing of subsequent beta versions of Corel LINUX?
Yes. We will be conducting another round of beta testing in the fall and you can apply then. The second round of beta testing will be much
larger than the first and may even be openly available from our FTP site. Keep an eye on the Corel Beta news page or consult Linux.Corel.com
for upcoming beta announcements.

Standard beta test boilerplate

[grrlfox (80643)]

It looks like beta test agreements that I've seen before from IBM and Lotus. Most likely the beta agreements got slapped onto the software by someone in their legal dept. who doesn't have a CLUE what the GPL is.
I doubt that this bodes well for the Corel version of Linux, though, if their legal department can't even read the licenses that are already attached to the distribution.....

Before we all go berserk

[by Anonymous Coward]

Before we all go berserk on Corel, maybe someone at Slashdot could get some clarification from them. Did they just use their standard beta license by mistake? Does the licentse only apply to betas, and not the finished product?

Yup (I'm a former CorelDRAW beta tester)

[Surak (18578)]

And thats *exactly* what that is. They did a global search and replace on "CorelDRAW" and replaced it with "Linux" essentially.

The person who probably crufted together the Beta test agreement is probably a clueless droid and no one caught the error.

Danger, Will Robinson!

[Ungrounded Lightning (62228)]

Corel has a plausible argument that they are NOT actually RELEASING this code yet (note that they're only giving it to a limited selection of volunteers, not making it generally FTPable), that they have some of their proprietary packages mixed in there which they do NOT intend to open-source, and that they were simply trying to accellerate the beta test by not holding things up to sort them out, instead relying on the contract with the beta testers (trading pre-release access for their work and waiver of rights under the open-source licenses).

Now they may not have a leg to stand on. But then again they may. And they HAVE announced an intention to release the source according to the appropriate open-source license terms with the general release, and to sell a separate distribution with their closed-source intellectual property added.

So the courts might agree with them. And other prospective open-source providers might be turned off if someone "bites the hand that feeds them" by publishing Corel's IP along with the beta.

evidence?

[NovaX (37364)]

Personally, the only violation would be not distribting the source code. In that faq, it says they will suply the source code with the product. The GPL says they must supply it, one way or another. They don't have to have it on an FTP.

One can merely email them and say, I want the source code to your beta! If they so 'NO!' then that is a violation. If they say, sure, but we will charge you for the cost of sending a cd specially made for you. That's fine, the GPL says that's ok, as long as its to cover costs. Actually, I believe RMS tries to charge as much as possible if you get the code from them, directly (offline).. something about old tapes. Its on GNU's site somewhere..

The point is, I don't see any violation by Corel unless they refuse to release the source that was gobbled up by the GPL.

12. Intellectual Property Rights
All right title and interest to all intellectual property with respect to the Product shall remain with Corel and its licensors. No license or other right of any kind is granted by Corel's furnishing the Products to User, except for the limitted right to use and test the Product as expressly provided in this Agreement.

{bold done by me}

So, Corel says that the user cannot break the licenses in the distribution, Corel's, GNU's, and others. Wow, I'm so shocked! That does not violate the GPL.

They also say elsewhere that he user cannot disclose confidential information. That's fine, Corel can say 'this part is confidential.' That's in their right.

Corel says they must destroy the copy. That's ok. Corel is the one who must distribcute the code, not the user. As their copy contains Corel non-GPL'ed code, they can say that. Corel must provide the source code on any Open Source software, which would be a seperate cd or however they choose.

Finally, Corel says the user cannot distribute the CD. The above makes this obviouse why, it contains Corel code. Again, the user is not the one bound by the GPL to send out source code, Corel and others are. I can't demand - "You run RedHat! Go find and give me all the free source code!" Thus, this is legal. It would be illegal for the user to distribute Corel's Linux, as it contain's Corel's code. Without that code (I assume some is GPL'ed and some is not), it would be fine.

Actually, Corel never denied distribution of the free code, just not the distribution. The free code makes up some of the distribution, but not all of it.

Does anyone else see this as a mistake by Slashdot readers? How many posters read the license? Even the sections pointed out by Mr. Taco , are not illegal. I believe I've proven why. If not, ask me to clearify some more. I think this is just as dumb as when a a senator (?) was running for office and said niggardly (sp?), and had to drop out because to few people looked up the word and considered it a slander even after they knew what it really meant.

Come on people, this is not a violation. Your just making Corel look evil, and thus hurting a good company, hurting an ally, and may even make people afraid of you. Maybe that's where BSD really does have a plus, companies don't have to be scared of their users.

(I only realized this when a Linux guy stated this, "Post Slamming the GPL." Didn't see these posts in the mess I read.. but I'm sure he posted that for a good reason.)

Tough!

[Chris Johnson (580)]

If they want to control the process, they can damned well write their own operating system and see how far that gets them! They do not have permission to control distribution in this manner. Who cares if they'd be getting tons of bug reports? That's beside the point: to the extent that they follow through on this daft licensing notion they are breaking the contract (the GPL), which says NOTHING about number of bug reports or whether you're calling the software or distribution a release, a beta, an alpha or a _Studebaker_.
I'm glad Bruce Perens has taken it upon himself to try and correct them. It's good to negotiate, but we (GPL using authors of which I am one, though my stuff isn't in their dist) have no ground to give. GPL means GPL. Don't like it, go somewhere else or make up a different license or use BSD instead of Linux. There is no flexibility in what you might call the 'freedom of information' aspects of the GPL. Everything else comes in second to this, it's the whole point of the license in the first place. It is _not_ _encouraging_ to see Corel, even temporarily, thinking "Let's use the GPL, except that we will need to control the information and regulate it for our convenience!". Even though this is evidently a mistake it has to be stopped cold- and it's not delightful to see people arguing that they should be allowed to do it for 'practical' reasons. Again: if you want practical go use BSD licensing- the GPL has an agenda, one that I personally agree with and support and contribute to. The convenience of Corel is beside the point! They need to fix this mistake immediately, either by not having beta testing from the outside at all, or by fixing the licensing. Their choice :P

Re:Line of division

[Adam Schumacher (267)]

Caldera does a very nice job of accomplishing this. Their licencing appendix in the user's guide is a bit bloated, but it does make the distinction between GPL software, Caldera Systems software, and third-party commercial software. It even goes so far as to outline in the EULA which software falls under which category, and attaches the full text of the GPL. Very nice.

- Adam Schumacher
[e-mail]

I wouldn't get upset about it.

[Kaz Kylheku (1484)]

Looked at in the best light, the license is probably intended cover any Corel proprietary content that may be in the distribution. Obviously, the beta test license cannot conceivably apply to any material that is under the GPL, so you can ignore the license with respect to those components that fall under the GPL (or other licenses incompatible with Corel's).

The only gripe I have is that their license doesn't make it clear what is and what is not covered. Newbies might think that it covers every included item.

So this could be just a case of innocent misrepresentation. My guess is that someone in the company who is vaguely clueless about free software just applied some ``standard'' beta test licensing boiler-plate.

Not fully kosher, but possibly legal...

[Christopher B. Brown (1267)]

The stuff that is not "releaseable" is what is called Confidential Information, defined as

... nonpublic information that Corel designates as being confidential, or which, under the circumstances surrounding disclosure ought to be treated as confidential.

Confidential information does not include any information which the User can conclusively establish was (i) in the possession of the user at the time of the disclosure; (ii) prior to or after the time of disclosure becomes publicly available without the act or omission of the User; (iii) is disclosed to the User by a third party under no legal obligation to maintain the confidentiality of such information; or (iv) was independently developed by the user.

Software that represents part of the Debian [debian.org] body of code will fall under item (iii) above, and thus represent stuff that is Not Confidential Information.

It is pretty evident that the lawyers "went a little ape" on this; as likely as not someone needs to wander over to Gowling and Henderson (the big Ottawa law firm) and have words with them.

It is not, however, evident that this represents a clear violation of the GPL.

The only stuff it seems would legally be able to be treated as "Confidential" would be code that Corel themselves produce and provide.

The situation

[Chris Johnson (580)]

They are behaving as if 'beta' testing 'doesn't count' somehow. The contract does not support them in this mistaken assumption, so they either need to not beta test with outside people, or to follow the GPL, _or_ simply this: they can beta test with only selected people, and simply place NO RESTRICTION on those people. Then those people can redistribute all they want, but nobody is forcing Corel to _listen_ to anyone but their selected beta testers. They can select only the people they wish to have feedback from, and ignore anyone else for the beta stages. This fully complies with the GPL, because all the GPL cares about is getting the information out unrestrictedly (except by the GPL itself). The GPL contract nowhere states that the dist compiler _must_ listen to bug reports or work with whoever comes along- it only says that you _must_ give the work to anybody who wants it.

Copyright.

[Signal 11 (7608)]

I'm waiting for Bruce Perens here, since he always posts good material on these copyright issues. But he hasn't posted yet, so I will. :)

Nobody here can do anything about this violation. That's right - you can't stop Corel from doing this. But the authors of these packages can. If Corel won't back off, the community will need to undertake an effort to bring a class-action lawsuit against Corel for violation of the GPL. This should amount to some 200 or so violations if all the authors of the individual packages cooperate. Debian might also be able to sue (IANAL).

Bruce, are you out there? How do you feel about getting a group going to spearhead this? We need somebody to herd cats. :)

For now, everybody just sit tight - I'm fairly certain it won't come to this - Corel isn't this stupid. The legal department probably erred and didn't contact the engineers before slapping these restrictions on. We'll see...

--

GPL is _never_ 'not for redistribution'

[Chris Johnson (580)]

It's that simple.

Maybe they can do this

[crow (16139)]

Maybe the individual packages can't be controlled by Corel, but the compilation may be an independently-copyrightable work. Hence, the distribution itself might be property of Corel, while the individual components are property of others.

Of course, with Corel's distribution based on Debian, the compilation is probably a derivative work of Debian, so Corel can't control a compilation copyright. However, in principle, I think a Linux distribution might be able to be restrictively copyrighted.

Any lawyers wish to comment?

Political Users

[Sludge (1234)]

Corel has slipped up on something that makes passionate software users everywhere an anomaly: There needs to be a connection between the legal department and the PR department.

Coming from a Windows world where messing with copyright terms will not anger most end users, they have made a horrible blunder that needs to be fixed right away if they wish to retain the respect of a large part of the community. If they do not, it is a sign that the support of the hardcore Linux users do not matter to Corel in the slightest.

I don't know about most of you, but as a home computer user, I don't really read the licenses of Windows products that I've installed, but I go through the trouble for a lot of Linux packages, because the implications of a limiting license under Linux could mean a lot more, since distros like Debian Linux can be rolled out in most situations without a second thought as to whether the software that I just installed software that needed to be registered with the company in 20 days, or it becomes disabled.

Corel Linux's blunder has only slightly to do with inconveniencing us from using their modified betas. Rather, it has everything to do with someone stealing the intellectual property that was released to the public. It is a challenge against the GPL.

Don't we have to protect the GPL, or the software that had it's copyright licenses gets violated? The applying laws to this may or may not be the same in my country. Also, does anyone have a list or could pass some names along as to what software was stolen?

This could also bring up a bit of a holy war: People who say that anyone who cries out against Corel for this are overreacting: They will release the source with the distro eventually. However, I believe it's the principal of the thing.

Let's hope this is a stupid mistake and not a stupid company. It is a sign that when Linux grows up enough to have a big enough user base, that the communities of old and wise(sometimes) coders can be ignored by companies and profit can still be made using our software. When this happens, and I'm not saying it did, people will hesitate to contribute to a movement that helps so many companies who do not care about us. Free software has this hurdle to get past, if Linux ever eventually has enough of a userbase of average users. It will probably happen within the next few years.

Line of division

[Natedog (11943)]

Hmm...seems that Corel should have first defined a point of separation between the GPL'd stuff and their own proprietary Products (why did they use an uppercase P?). In other words, they should have worded it something like "This distro contains both GPL and Corel owned product. All GPL'd product can be distributed freely under the terms of the GPL and any changes Corel has made to GPL products is also freely avaliable. However, all Corel owned products are copyrighted by Corel and my not be copied or redistributed."

Re:prosecution to the maximum extent possible un .

[Christopher B. Brown (1267)]

What do you mean, "District Attorney."

In the jurisdiction in which Corel is incorporated, it would be a Crown Attorney that could be relevant, and that only if this were a criminal matter. (With court session probably to be held a couple blocks from my old high school, but I digress...)

The firestorm that would arise from taking such action would have Unintended Consequences that would likely be widely injurious to the free software community.

It makes a lot more sense for one or three of the people that are developers of software known to be included with "Corel Linux" to calmly request that the language in the "Beta License" be toned down a little to correctly reflect the licensing of the free software being distributed.

It is highly probable that the high-handed wording resulted from some lawyers that having arbitrarily applied the sorts of licensing terms they have always applied to beta editions of things like WordPerfect or CorelDraw! without having properly read the free software licenses.

Does it make more sense to:

• Try to burn them in oil, and certainly discourage them from ever considering free software ever again? or
• Respectfully requesting some form of "cease and desist" that provides an avenue for them to back down gracefully, provide a more satisfactory license, and learn something from the process?

I know which option I'd rather go with...

Read COPYING, folks

[Brian Knotts (855)]

It's pretty clear (emphasis mine):

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

No language about "internal use." In fact, "internal" does not appear anywhere in the GPL. Corel is violating the terms of the GPL. Perhaps this was unintentional. Regardless, it must be corrected promptly, if only to specify that the license language only applies to those parts of the distribution wholly developed by Corel.

--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org]

Not Intentional

[kevlar (13509)]

I don't think that this is intentional. I think that they probably took a regular Beta license that they give out for all products and used it for their linux distro. I also do not believe that they would intentionally try to retain rights over things they obviously don't own, or that they would try to keep withhold the source code for their distribution. I think they just don't want every gimp in the world to have a copy of their beta versions, and sending in irrelevent mailings about certain "features".

30 seconds of research goes a long way...

[stnick (10950)]

It took about 1/2 a minute to find this info in the Corel Linux Beta Test FAQ [corel.com]:

Why isn't Corel putting Corel LINUX on an FTP site for download? The first version of Corel LINUX is still in the development and testing phase and is not ready for general distribution. Beta testing is part of the development process that Corel is following to ensure that Corel LINUX reaches a suitable level of completeness and stability before it becomes widely available.

Is this testing style in keeping with the spirit of Open Source software distribution?
Yes. The recruitment of outside Beta testers is part of the initial development process of Corel LINUX and will allow Corel to release the first version of Corel LINUX to the general public at an earlier date than would be possible if Corel relied only on its internal testing resources. Once Corel LINUX is ready for general distribution, it will be distributed in accordance with the criteria for Open Source software.

When will Corel release the source code for Corel LINUX?
The source code for Corel LINUX will be available with the first distribution of Corel LINUX.

Will Corel be releasing the source code for applications it has created such as the Corel File Manager?
Corel will be making the source code available for such applications. The exact terms of the license under which the source code will be distributed has not yet been announced.

Looks like they have "closed" the beta so as to limit "bad" copies of Corel Linux in circulation. This may, indeed, violate the GPL, but doesn't look like they are "commercialising"/"closing" their/debian's distro- not they even indicate that the Corel developed software will be OSS (though not necessarily GPL).

Finally.

[zantispam (78764)]

I think that this is a blessing in disguise.

The GPL hasn't really received a trial by fire yet. While I agree with some earlier posters that this was possibly a MarketDroid typo, I think that we have to be prepared for it not to be.

In other words, legal precedent for the GPL.

IMHO, that, along with a nice point-and-drool install, will advance Linux more than anything.

Re:Before we all go berserk

[John Goerzen (2781)]

Even if it only applies to betas, there is still a serious problem. They are distributing software in a way that violates GPL. Period.

We cannot make exceptions for software that vendors label as "beta". If we do, what's to stop everyone from calling their software "beta" and then continuing on to violate GPL with it?

We must consistently, vigorously defend Free Software.

Re:They're screwing up with this one.

[roystgnr (4015)]

I believe you are being intentionally misleading. The complete quote which you began is "all right, title, and interest to all intellectual property with respect to the Products shall remain with Corel and it's licensors" This clearly indicates that the original owners of non-Corel code, still retain all their rights. The GPL code is therefore not owned by Corel.

Oh, damn. I wasn't being misleading, I was being flat out wrong. It wasn't intentionally, I swear. I don't know how I missed that.

Well, never mind then. The only concern in the license is the restricted redistribution after all.

Re:Finally.

[Millennium (2451)]

Actually, if I remember correctly, the GPL has been violated by a business before. It was NeXT, actually. They added Onjective-C to GCC, then tried to close up their source tree. FSF got mad, took them to court, and the end result is that we now have Objective-C in GCC as Open-Source.

In other words, Corel's about to get slammed hard. And frankly, they deserve it; I don't consider myself an OSS-zealot, but breaking a license like this is another issue entirely.

Re:Before we all go berserk

[rhuff (22750)]

It doesn't matter if the license only applies to the betas or not. The betas contain GPL'ed material, which cannot be licensed under different terms without permission of all the contributors.

While I suspect that Corel didn't mean to do a Bad Thing, that doesn't alleviate their guilt. If they are serious about participating in the free software community, they need to apologize and change their licensing terms immediately.

hold on now...

[xeno (2667)]

Looking at the agreement itself, it's pretty obvious that some legal department lackey did a search-and-replace using the last beta product license for who-knows-what. There are provisions that are obviously in violation with previous and superceding GPL licensing, but I suspect that it's an error, rather than a ploy to try and steal GPL code back into the proprietary world.

Corel will, in all likelyhood, quietly revise the license and try to remove the egg from their collective faces.

don't turn on Corel at the drop of a hat

[Zooko (2210)]

Calm down, people. This is obviously just a mistake. If you think Corel is deliberately setting out to violate the law and torpedo their own product then you're an idiot.

Someone needs to calmly and politely point out their error and try to help them do damage control so that this incident doesn't make their target market nervous about trying Linux.

Corel is a small, struggling company and they are probably working way too hard trying to break new ground for Linux in the mainstream marketplace. Their lawyers are probably wrestling with a thousand complicated issues about how to embrace Linux and still protect Corel from the usual suite of legal threats by opportunistic consumers and predatory competitors. They are bound to make a few mistakes, but they're not trying to rip anybody off.

Help them, don't hurt them.

Zooko

Now now... this is just a good case in point....

[sinnergy (4787)]

that it will take corporate lawyers a little bit of time to learn how to deal with new licensing terms, such as GPL. In the past, they've had complete control (theoretically speaking, of course), of how their software was licensed and used. It takes a while to teach an old dog new tricks. For Corel's sake, I hope they learn fast or this could be a serious black eye. If anything, this might serve as a lesson and reminder to other corporations moving towards the OSS movement. Perhaps this will remind them that they don't necessarily make the rules anymore.

Will the GPL hold up?

[IntelliTubbie (29947)]

This could be the first real test of the GPL's legal viability.

What concerns me is this:
Who will be more convincing in court? RMS rambling about "taking away freedom"? Or Corel's army of knowledgable copyright lawyers, who have probably already found every legal loophole there is in the GPL?

The future of the open-source community hangs in the balance. If the GPL doesn't hold up in court, it's open season for profiteers and freeloaders -- and I think it will be a long time before anyone gives away their hard work for free again.

Losing the benefit of free software

[ghazban (28784)]

Isn't the benefit of free and opensource software to have the code WITH the beta so that the people using it can fix bugs. By not using the GPL for the beta, Corel are losing a major benefit of open and free software. $0.02

This has the potential to become very interesting.

[cemerson (21094)]

This could be the first real test of whether the GPL and other software licences are really enforceable. I see three possible outcomes:

1) Non-enforceable. The whole software industry (including free software) goes into disarray. The terms of the GPL would probably be observed by most companies anyway to keep the community goodwill going. Flamewars about the BSD/GPL flame wars will be meaningless, and everyone will go back to coding.

2) Enforceable. Nothing much changes, except that everyone gets a warm fuzzy feeling about the power of their favourite software licence.

3) Corel backs down. This is the only really likely scenario. This all blows over and the only people who still care would use plain Debian instead of Corel's effort anyway.

(I think I've finally got un-confused about Corel and Caldera both being companies starting with 'C' with Linux distributions - Yay!)

No public distribution, no GPL violation.

[AJWM (19027)]

A few idiots were squawking about this when the beta program was first announced, and they were just as wrong then.

It's a beta test, and although Microsoft has warped that term to mean "early public access for suckers who'll pay us money", it has long been traditional that beta testers are, in effect, working for the company developing the software and that beta copies remain the property of the developer just as they would if all the testers were working inside as full time employees (hence the legal paperwork in the first place).

Since this is a beta, and not a public release, for the purposes of the GPL it can be considered "internal only" and not a public distribution, and thus the GPL does not apply. The licenses explicitly calls this a pre-release, so the product has not been released yet.

(For a similar case, consider the NDA'd development of the 64-bit Merced Linux port.)

Now, if Corel doesn't change the licensing when it distributes an actual product, then folks have a legitimate complaint. Meanwhile, anyone who signs that contract and violates it by posting the pre-release distro is as guilty of piracy as any warez kiddie.

(And no, I'm not and never have been a Corel employee or stockholder.)

They're screwing up with this one.

[roystgnr (4015)]

Just to get something straight, they define "the Products" to be "Beta builds for Corel LINUX" - not just their own software, but the whole wad.

They then claim that they have "all right, title, and interest to all intellectual property with respect to the products", and that "User may not, however, reproduce or distribute copies of the Products"... granted, that last part is GPL-specific, and the GPL has never been tested in court... but the first claim is just a gross violation of copyright law.

And even if they could find a loophole to get away with the second claim, do they really want to be remembered as the company who broke the GPL?

(copied to [e-mail])

NOT A PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION YET!!

[Seth Cohn (24111)]

As I see it, Corel is distributing a PRIVATE software package, to a limited number of people, hand chosen by them. Under the GPL, this is not public distribution, and not subject to all of the GPL _YET_. This is an inhouse only beta test, even if they are picking people from 'outside'.

I might be wrong here. I checked the GPL and I don't see a definition of 'distribution' but it was my understand that inhouse use did NOT mean that you were forced to distribute source to others (or other GPL-ish activities). If I'm wrong, then section 4 means that anyone can distribute the beta:

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

Posts slamming the GPL.

[Dast (10275)]

Kinda funny. This story has brought out yet more posts that basically say "This wouldn't have happened if you use a BSD style license."

Well, they are right. If Linux (and Debian specifically) were licensed under a BSD style license, this wouldn't have happened.

But... That is like saying, if you have no rights, no one can infringe upon you. How much sense does that make?

The reason we use the GPL so we have (hopefully) some legal ground to stop companies doing exactly what Corel (might) be doing. I say might, because it looks to me like a Legal Dept. error.

Yes, we could have used a BSD license and Corel wouldn't have a problem playing unfair. But we want companies to play fair--this one of the reasons the GPL exists. Now, whether or not it is enforceable is a whole other issue. But at least we try.

Re:No public distribution, no GPL violation.

[TheKodiak (79167)]

"Since this is a beta, and not a public release, for the purposes of the GPL it can be considered "internal only" and not a public distribution, and
thus the GPL does not apply. The licenses explicitly calls this a pre-release, so the product has not been released yet."

This is certainly a reasonable take on things - and quite possibly the assumption Corel is operating under. If it is, they really should have mentioned it somewhere themselves - they were sending these documents out to people who have been selected in part because of their interest in free software.

This may not be a legal screw-up on their part - it certainly appears that it is not. I don't think the GPL would be a usable license if it mandated that you had to make your software freely distributable at pre-release stages in development. But it is definitely a PR screw up - and one Corel should have anticipated.

This explanation and the "It's just a standard beta agreement" explanation are mutually exclusive.

Re:Shame. Lawyers anyone?

[by Anonymous Coward]

A few idiots were squawking about this when the beta program was first announced, and they were just as wrong then. It's a beta test, and although Microsoft has warped that term to mean "early public access for suckers who'll pay us money", it has long been traditional that beta testers are, in effect, working for the company developing the software and that beta copies remain the property of the developer just as they would if all the testers were working inside as full time employees (hence the legal paperwork in the first place). Since this is a beta, and not a public release, for the purposes of the GPL it can be considered "internal only" and not a public distribution, and thus the GPL does not apply. The licenses explicitly calls this a pre-release, so the product has not been released yet. (For a similar case, consider the NDA'd development of the 64-bit Merced Linux port.) Now, if Corel doesn't change the licensing when it distributes an actual product, then folks have a legitimate complaint. Meanwhile, anyone who signs that contract and violates it by posting the pre-release distro is as guilty of piracy as any warez kiddie. (And no, I'm not and never have been a Corel employee or stockholder.)

More evidence of Corel's deliberate GPL violation?

[Wholeflaffer (64423)]

I've read nothing but posts saying either 'Corel is violating the GPL (period)' or 'Corel probably made a mistake'. I've decided to check it out for myself. Here's the scoop from:

http://www.corel.com/betaprogram/faq.htm

(Select Portions Follow:)

Corel® LINUX® Beta Q & A

What are the requirements for becoming a beta tester for Corel LINUX?
We will select users based on their experience with Linux®, the diversity of hardware at their disposal and on their software testing experience. In addition, we are reserving spaces for some KDE and Debian developers.

Why isn't Corel putting Corel LINUX on an FTP site for download?
The first version of Corel LINUX is still in the development and testing phase and is not ready for general distribution. Beta testing is part of the development process that Corel is following to ensure that Corel LINUX reaches a suitable level of completeness and stability before it becomes widely available.

How many people will be testing Corel LINUX?
In order to ensure that the beta testing process can be properly administered, we will be limiting the number of registered beta testers for this first round of testing. The exact number of testers has not yet been determined.

Is this testing style in keeping with the spirit of Open Source software distribution?
Yes. The recruitment of outside Beta testers is part of the initial development process of Corel LINUX and will allow Corel to release the first version of Corel LINUX to the general public at an earlier date than would be possible if Corel relied only on its internal testing resources. Once Corel LINUX is ready for general distribution, it will be distributed in accordance with the criteria for Open Source software.

When will Corel release the source code for Corel LINUX?
The source code for Corel LINUX will be available with the first distribution of Corel LINUX.

Will Corel be releasing the source code for applications it has created such as the Corel File Manager?
Corel will be making the source code available for such applications. The exact terms of the license under which the source code will be distributed has not yet been announced.

(end of Corel quote)

Now what do you think?

Re:Maybe they can do this

[msphil (28085)]

Maybe the individual packages can't be controlled by Corel, but the compilation may be an independently-copyrightable work. Hence, the distribution itself might be property of Corel, while the individual components are property of others.

<IANAL>

It is my understanding that copyrighting compilations only holds for compilations which do not have their own rights. Otherwise, for instance, Author A, who writes books published by Publisher P1, could have his books "compiled" by Publisher P2, who could then publish it, and neither A nor P1 could do anything about it. The programs assembled in Debian do not relinquish their own copyright -- the GPL allows them to be distributed without explicit agreement with the copyright holders provided the GPL continues to be followed.

The GPL [gnu.org] explicitly allows the programs to be distributed -- provided that the programs are distributed under the GPL. It becomes the purview of the copyright holders to make the case that the GPL has been violated, and assert their copyright.

</IANAL>

All of that being said, it would be a good idea for interested parties to gently and politely point out to Corel that their Beta agreement violates the GPL that allows them to distribute the software. However, they should also have some means of making an interim test version of the distribution before the product is finalized -- they just screwed up in making the beta agreement. I believe that another poster has already suggested that an amended agreement forbidding redistribution of Corel's portion (as opposed to Debian's) would be legitimate.

If there is an attempt to license the final distribution in an insane manner (such as not allowing the GPL-covered portions to be re-distributed), then the appropriate people should take appropriate steps.

It's being fixed now

[Bruce Perens (3872)]

Apologies for the lateness of this reply, Slashdot was so wedged that I could not post for a while.

I got through to the responsible people at Corel, we just had a conference call, and we discussed strategies for dealing with beta-tests including software that's owned by people outside of Corel. They will fix the problem.

Although I'm not always around to help, feel free to mail [e-mail] when this stuff comes up, and my home-office phone number is in my domain record. The SPI board has my cell-phone number.

I did also tell them they're going to have to keep their eyes on the traditional Windows crowd at their office where things like this are concerned, or they'll appear clue-less and get the authors of the software really annoyed.

Thanks

Bruce Perens

Re:Just don't thrash Corel

[penguinicide (73759)]

If a violent lawsuit is immediately brought upon Corel without any other (documented) attempts to get them to change their agreement, it could scare off many other businesses thinking about using linux. That would not bode well for linux.

Corel vs. Red Hat

[rjaninda (58617)]

I find it extremely interesting that when news broke about the Red Hat trademark issue [slashdot.org] everyone was ready to set fire to the North Carolina mountains even though RH has legitimate rights to their trademark. Yet, now when Corel pulls a stunt like this on software they don't own everyone says, "Let's wait and see what Corel has to say, I'm sure it is just a mistake." Have the Slashdotters lost their "passion" or have they grown up?

Directly from the linux.corel.com Q&A

[Hermelin (15608)]

Doesn't anyone do research? Even a little? Oh well, here is what I found.

Directly from the Corel Q&A on linux.corel.com [corel.com]...

Will Corel LINUX be available as a not-for-charge download or sold as a standalone product?

Most of the Corel LINUX operating system falls under the guidelines of the GNU Public Licence, and will be available as a not-for-charge download. A standalone version, which may contain additional enhanced features, will be available on CD-ROM and will be sold with an accompanying manual and technical support. Final price has not yet been determined but Corel LINUX will be competitively priced to other Linux operating systems. Corel LINUX will also be included with the soon-to-be-released WordPerfect® Office for LINUX.

Is there an advantage to Corel to give away the source code to Corel LINUX and make it available as a not-for-charge download?
By returning the source code to Corel LINUX to the Open Source community and making Corel LINUX available as a not-for-charge download, we are acting within the spirit of the Open Source community, and helping to grow the Linux market by creating new demand for applications in addition to the operating system.
According to this, they appear to want to release under the correct license. But, all other distrobutions have open betas, so I don't understand what they really are concerned with.

But on a strange side note, why do they say they will release Corel Linux with enchanced features that are not part of of the GPL? I assume that it won't have their installer and a free copy of WordPerfect. But that isn't a big deal for me.

Re:No public distribution, no GPL violation.

[ivan_13013 (17447)]

Enh. Wrong.

1. If I have to sign a license agreement to get the software, that software has been licensed to me.

2. If Corel licenses software to me, they must either own the copyright on that software or have the right to sublicense the software. For most of the distribution, they do not own the software and must therefore distribute it under the terms of the GPL. Are they distributing it? Let's see..

3. If the license that Corel holds the software under (GPL) puts restrictions on how the product may be sublicensed, those restrictions must be obeyed.

4. Corel is **licensing** products which they recieved under the GPL to their beta testers.

5. The beta testers are not the same as employees, and a public beta test is not the same as internal use. Here's why: Corel's beta testers had to agree to a **license** to get the beta. When companies do *internal* testing, the QA people get a copy of the pre-release product without agreeing to a license.

6. So if there is a license involved, we are talking about distribution. Allowable distribution terms are very well defined in the GPL.

Re:No public distribution, no GPL violation.

[Bruce Perens (3872)]

It's not at all clear to me that the beta-testers have established a consultant's relationship with Corel, and thus that it's an internal distribution. Remember, the GPL deals with distribution, not release. But let's put the legal point aside. I am author of a few things in there - part of dpkg, Electric Fence, various pieces around Debian. I put that stuff out under the GPL, and I'd feel a heck of a lot better if I had access to the modifications they are testing, even if I'm not in the beta program. So, that's what I told them. They are concerned that too many support-hungry Windows users and the press not get ahold of this software in an early state. But there are better ways to handle that than to overlay their license terms upon mine. So, we discussed those ways. Now, they are thinking about them and will get back to us.

Although their main market is up-until-now-Windows-users, they have to keep the software authors happy, too. It would be a PR disaster for them to do otherwise.

Bruce

Re:It's being fixed now

[Bruce Perens (3872)]

They are considering what to do now. We will need to give them a little time.

Bruce

Not just a clueless decision!!

[GnrcMan (53534)]

The following is taken from the Corel Linux Beta FAQ [corel.com]...The third one is my favorite

Why isn't Corel putting Corel LINUX on an FTP site for download?
The first version of Corel LINUX is still in the development and testing phase and is not ready for general distribution. Beta testing is part of the development process that Corel is following to ensure that Corel LINUX reaches a suitable level of completeness and stability before it becomes widely available.

How many people will be testing Corel LINUX?
In order to ensure that the beta testing process can be properly administered, we will be limiting the number of registered beta testers for this first round of testing. The exact number of testers has not yet been determined.

Is this testing style in keeping with the spirit of Open Source software distribution?
Yes. The recruitment of outside Beta testers is part of the initial development process of Corel LINUX and will allow Corel to release the first version of Corel LINUX to the general public at an earlier date than would be possible if Corel relied only on its internal testing resources. Once Corel LINUX is ready for general distribution, it will be distributed in accordance with the criteria for Open Source software.

GPL is being violated anyway

[David Jao (2759)]

There is an extraordinary difference between what Corel is doing with their distribution and what Intel is doing with their Merced port.

The Intel Merced NDAs only cover changes to the Linux kernel that are specific to the Merced port. That code is owned by the developers working on the port, and Intel is free to make the developers sign NDAs on that code.

The Intel NDAs do not in any way restrict the signatories from distributing outside GPL'd code that they did not themselves author. The Corel license, on the other hand, restricts the beta testers from distributing code within their distribution that is owned by other parties like the Free Software Foundation. That practice violates the terms under which the FSF licensed their software to Corel.

Section 6 of the GPL states very clearly that you may not under any circumstance distribute the code to anyone else except under the terms and conditiosn of the GPL. There is no distinction between "internal-only" and public distribution.

Certainly in the case of "internal-only" distribution it is legitimate for the recipients to voluntarily decline to distribute the code, but Corel cannot forcibly impose this requirement without breaking the law.

Re:Fatal Flaw

[Arandir (19206)]

What if the software has been licensed to a legal entity such as a corporation? All employees are considered under a single license instance. This is why proprietary software often has "site" licenses. If an employee goes online and downloads the Linux kernel, they can do with it what they want since they hold the license, but they can't redistribute their companies tweaked version since the license still belongs to the company. To take it to an absurd extreme, if you come over to my house to borrow my computer you have no legal rights to upload any software from my box.

In a more realistic sense, there are thousands of companies that have modified GPL programs for their own use but aren't distributing them, so should we pursue legal action against them too?