Corel "to fix" Beta Test License

terrified writes "According to the Debian Weekly News, Debian evangelist Bruce Perens has talked to Corel and they said it would be fixed. Here's the relevant text: "Corel has started a closed beta test of their Corel Linux distribution. Unfortunatly, they did so under a very restrictive license, that violates the GPL in several respects. The good news is that Bruce Perens has already contected Corel and we're promised that this will be fixed." I'm not sure about how they plan to "fix" it - isn't that a relatively easy thing to do, in light of the GPL nature of the code? The Debian Weekly News is available here. The text of the message Bruce sent to the Debian-User group is here. "

The Beatings Will Continue...

...until the code is released.

This has to be tough on corel.

Assuming they have done something fairly innovative with GPL code, and truly want to wring it out with a public beta, it's ugly to have to show all the nifty updates/mods to all your competitors months before your planned release.

IE, RedHat and Caldera look at their stuff and do a quickie hack update and say "look, we did that too, months before corel".

I bet that's the scenario they are concerned about, compaetitors getting early access to the code before the main release.

Priority One

The most important consideration isn't about whether end users can copy all of the Corel dist freely. That's important, but the most important consideration is whether Corel programmers are forking pre-existing opensource packages into new and modified versions that are allowed to be kept under wraps until final release. Again, that's forking, and that's a straight power play. Assuming they have good enough programmers, they could target any particular software, take it and start to establish a radically different and revised codebase, kick butt and make a substantially improved version, widely distribute it with the advertising and marketing and distribution resources of Corel, and then never permit anyone else a glimpse of their 'current snapshot', only the code of the final releases. Then anyone wanting to make alterations is told, "Sorry- your revision doesn't work with our current development snapshot" and the end result is that Corel entirely controls and conceals the active development of a fork of some major Open Source software, which competes with the 'bazaar model' one, but has more advertising resources, a brand name, and potentially the ability to suppress interim releases and the buggier revisions, giving it a tactical as well as strategic advantage.
There's no way we can allow that to happen. There must be no 'beta exemption' for developers of public open source software. They can hide their own stuff- they can't 'fork' the stuff we have already. Show us the code!!!! There was something about how 'changes to other GPLed software' would be released with the final dist. That's forking. Let's see it NOW.

Don't claim rights to other's code

the proper way Corel should handle this is to slap the right licenses on the right pieces of code.

That means leaving the existing licenses on all the existing Debian packages (and advertise the fact that they can be redistributed), and doing whatever they want to their own code.

For the Corel code this could mean: "not redistributable for now, GPL later when the beta period is over".

That would also mean that the CD as a whole is not redistributable, but parts of it are.

The beta license VIOLATES the GPL, and here's why

You buy a book as an employee of a company. Do you believe you have the right to make copies of the book and distribute them among your collegues? Of course not.

Software copyrights are no different from book copyrights. You are not allowed to copy a copyrighted computer program, even within your company, unless explicitly permitted by a "license" (which is the legal term for a contract giving you rights and restrictions over copyrighted works in your possession, but I'm sure a real lawyer could word this more carefully)

Now there's only one license to the Linux kernel and to most of the other software contained in the Debian distribution, and that's the General Public License, as written by the Free Software Foundation, otherwise known as the GPL.

That license first states: Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.

Now making a copy, wether it is within Corel between employees, or by a Corel employee and given to an outsider, such as a participant in the beta testing program is, as the word say, an act of copying.

When Corel makes a copy, they can only do that in accordance with the GPL. The GPL does not contain an exception for beta-testing or in-house distribution. It clearly says that if you make a copy, you must grant the recipients all rights in the GPL.

A quick summary:

Copying unmodified code:
You must keep intact all notices that refer to the GPL

Copying modified code:
You must cause the modified code to be licensed under the GPL without charge to all recipients. (Which means that all recipients have all rights defined in the GPL)

Copying executable form:
You must allow recipients full access to the source code and the source code must be licensed under the GPL.

Even more interesting is clause 6 from the GPL, which says that the recipient "automatically receives a license to copy, modify and distribute under the GPL".

This means that (and I have to insert a "probably" here) anyone, not only the authors of the software, have the right to challenge Corel. If someone gives me that beta-test copy from Corel, I have automatically received a license under the GPL from Corel, and if Corel sues me, I can defend myself with the GPL in hand.

This point gives a lot more credibility to the people on slashdot who complain about Corel, because it is also their rights that are trampled, not only the authors' rights.


In short, all these people in the past few articles about Corel who say that Corel is in the right because it is "only a beta-test" are simply wrong. The GPL has no exceptions.

EjB

The beta test License looked...

The .gif that was posted here of the license looks like it's just the standard Corel beta test N.D.A. kind of thing. Comments were made right after the public beta that the Corel site was requiring "Wndows 95/98" to do the Linux beta test.

What does that say?? It says that I think it was all just a case of Corel using the stock forms that saying, "We [Corel] use them for all our betas." I don't really think it's some insidious Dr. Evil like plan to copyright Linux and take it away, which, if you consider the fact that Linus keeps the source, isn't possible.

I think it wass more of an unintentional error made by somebody in Corel's marketing department when they put together the mailers for the Linux Beta Test. If anyone out there works in the same area of the building as their marketing department (as I do), you'll know what I'm talking about when I say that a lot of the people in the marketing department have about the same brightness as a 2-watt light bulb....

I would just as much assume to give them a break on this one due to their ignorance more than anything else, and the fact that they are trying to INCREASE the market and mind share for Linux, not damage it....

That's not to say that it wasn't a stupid mistake tho....

Trigger-happy

Don't shoot until you're sure you both aren't on the same side. That was my fortune at the bottom of Slashdot this morning, and it really does seem to apply quite often. If you wait things through, and try and work through a problem such as Corel's licensing, you will most definately accomplish more than by posting threats and venting anger. Often, that can irritate the entity that you are trying to win over to one's side.

Kudos to Bruce for clearing up the problems.

--

Slashdot response considered appropriate

I'm glad that Bruce has made the effort he has, but I have to say I'm more than a little rankled by his attitude towards anger at Corel.

Corel's been in the software industry for a long time. They're a big company, and are presumably adults. They employ lawyers, and any large company knows that lawyers have to be involved in any release process, including a beta release. They clearly know this, or they wouldn't have had a license agreement of any sort on the limited beta release. So what is wrong that their lawyers don't understand the GPL? Did they ignore it, or were their lawyers negligent? While we should be forgiving once they correct their mistakes, we should not cut them any slack until and unless they actually fix the problem.

No matter what they do in the future, they have violated the GPL. Until that's corrected, they shouldn't be treated any differently than Microsoft or Sun would be under the same conditions. They're adults, they can take the heat they deserve.

If someone distributed copies of Word Perfect to several hundred of their friends, does anybody think Corel would let them slide with an answer, "oh, sorry, I thought that was okay?"

Pulp Linux

strange... they seemed strong on their position... I wonder what Bruce could have done to elicit such a quick reply? Could it have been like (wavy lines)
---
SCENE : a COREL meeting room.
we see BRUCE PERENS, LINUS TORVALDS, and A NAMELESS COREL EXEC.

BP: (to COREL EXEC) So, we hear you're trying to release a Linux distro without following the GPL... Now tell me, my friend, what make you think Linux looks like a bitch? huh?

CE: huh? what do...

BP: (interrupting) WHY DO YOU THINK LINUX LOOKS LIKE A BITCH, MOTHERFUCKER?

CE: (terrified) I don't...

BP: (interrupting) THEN WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO FUCK LINUX LIKE A BITCH? (BP SHOOTS CE in knee)

CE: (writhing in agony) Fuck! you shot my fucking knee! Fine, we'll do whatever you want, just leave me alone! Our distribution's in the suitcase...

LT: (moves to suitcase, opens. The suitcase GLOWS eerily.) Fook. Hjere it is, man.

Later installments will show Bruce Perens dancing with Mae Lin Mak in a nightclub, and this unforgettable scene :

BP: So, you're not gonna talk, huh?

BGIII: Fuck you, man.

BP: That's fine... Bring in the Gimps!

(enter 15 guys with Quake shirts. They babble about Beowulf clusters, kernel updates, and karma. They smell bad)

BGIII: Ah, God, nooooo...





(fade)

Well, for starters...

The most important issue, IMHO, is reconciling Corel's legitimate interests in keeping the beta release out of the hands of the press, etc. and our interests in protecting the integrity of the GPL.

So we care (at least I do) not because I think Corel wants to violate the GPL, but that this beta release could be considered a "distribution" and hence violate the GPL. The GPL is a license like any other, and can be enforced or not enforced, but I personally think it is important - especially since the GPL has never been litigated (and hopefully never will be) - that its integrity as a serious and binding legal contract be protected even against possible and inherently temporary breaches like this one.

The problem is that I agree with you that for a company like Corel, with stockholders, investors, etc., that releasing their product before its time would do more harm than good, given that the role Corel is playing in the Linux community right now is bringing confidence to people unaccustomed to the traditional linux way of producting and distributing products.

Because of this, I admittedly disagree with most /.ers here, and Bruce and ESR, who see the solution as Corel re-drafting their Beta license to conform to the GPL. I actually think, given Corel's stated interest in keeping pre-releases in-house, that the best solution is to re-draft the Beta license as an explicit consultancy arrangement, even perhaps with a $1 consultants fee going to the Beta tester. This way, Corel's interests are protected, and the integrity of the GPL is protected as this could no longer be conceived of as a "distribution".

I.

Re:The Beatings Will Continue...

"This has to be tough on corel."

Yes, it does. It seems it would be more effective in general to let one knowledgeable person (thanks Bruce), do the initial contact over license questions. Especially since Debian is the organization directly concerned, and has plenty of people able and willing to look out for their license rights. If Debian can't get satisfaction, they'll let us know, and slashdot can then indicate their community interest in the issue.

Just applying the slashdot flamethrower at the first hint of conflict strikes me as counterproductive. We don't want Corel to associate the letters GPL with flames and trouble, or they may not license their proprietary portions in the way we would prefer. They say they have not decided on that license yet.

I think they probably aren't aware that the Linux community really knows what "beta" means. When hard disks get trashed by bugs (think bug in disk partitioner), big companies have to worry about liability somewhat, and loss of customers a lot, even if the software is clearly marked "beta." So the attempt to limit possible damage to a few informed testers is not completely misdirected.

In this case, early release probably works better than they imagine, but only experience will teach them that, and only if they aren't scared off the GPL first.

Besides, they may know better. If releasing a new beta candidate requires two weeks of formal processing at Corel (who knows?) finding the bugs early might not result in early fixes, and a wide distribution becomes dangerous.

It's a reasonable expectation that if you create value add software for a Linux distribution that you should be able to deploy it first. If they aren't imagining release for a few months yet, they have a reasonable interest in protecting their property -- they paid for that software.

Corel is going to have to fix this.

Corel is going to have to fix this -- and soon -- if they are more serious about the Linux market than they were about the java market. The problem is not one of legal procedure. The breach would be cured long before this ever got to court. The question of whether this is, in fact, an internal distribution is irrelevant.

The problem is one of publicity. If Corel gets a reputation as a "borg" in the Linux community, they will lose most of their support from that community. The consequences could be dire. For example, a developer could do a license something like this:

This software is licensed under the terms of the GPL for everyone but Corel Computer Corporation. Corel must contact me for an outrageously expensive commercial license.

That is actually a perfectly conceivable license. For examples of selective licenses like this, see QPL or (kind of) the Perl license.

To summarize: if Corel wants to continue in the Linux market, they need to fix this license in internet time -- that is, today. Not next week, or next month. Today. Otherwise, they will be regarded as nothing but a bunch of hagers-on by the Linux community and their foray into Linux will be over.