RMS Condemns "UnitedLinux" per-seat License 749
dep writes "Likening the practice to Windows, Richard M. Stallman has issued a brief statement condemning the per-seat licensing that it appears will be employed in the "UnitedLinux" core distribution. He calls upon developers to refuse to allow their work to be used by such a distribution."
He's right... (Score:5, Informative)
If Caldera and Company want to license support on a per seat basis, that's fine and dandy.
Licensing the software itself on a per seat basis is absurd. It's not their software to begin with.
Go RMS!
Go Away, Caldera!
Re:He's right... (Score:3, Informative)
The source code would, naturally, be freely downloadable, if you want to roll your own.
Cheers, Andy!
Uh, no... (Score:5, Informative)
No he doesn't. He calls on developers to use the GPL, so as not to offer distributors a target to make proprietary. Hell, it's only three sentences long -- I'll just quote it:
Whether or not you agree with this (he seems to suffer from the Slashbot notion that developers who use a BSD license, for instance, are too stupid to realize they're allowing their code to be relicensed instead of grasping that the point is to offer code for use to whoever wants it), it's not as obviously unreasonable as what the writeup suggests.
I can't believe what I'm seeing here.. (Score:5, Informative)
We all know that RMS doesn't like non-Free software, where Free means you can modify it, you can use it for any purpose, and you can give original or modified copies to anyone else.
This new UnitedLinux distribution has a per-seat license. This license can only apply to non-GPL (or similar licenses) components. The people who buy UnitedLinux for their commercial needs can still take the GPL components and do whatever they want with them. The non-GPL components, however, cannot be redistributed. This is what RMS doesn't like.
What he's saying is that if everyone would distribute their software under the GPL, this type of (partially) non-free distribution wouldn't be possible.
He is in no way saying that he doesn't like the way his GPL software is being used. He is also not trying to stop other people from distributing GPL software. He's just saying what he's always said: that software should be Free and that non-Free software is bad. Since all the parts of UnitedLinux aren't Free, UnitedLinux is bad.
This isn't necessarily my opinion, I'm just trying to help get across what RMS is trying to say.
Dep Misquotes RMS (Score:5, Informative)
And here is what RMS _actually_ said:
"They cannot restrict the GPL-covered programs in the system that way, because that would violate the GNU GPL, but the system also contains non-copylefted programs which are points of vulnerability. Free software developers, please don't let them license YOUR program per seat. Use the GNU GPL!"
None of it? (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL code isn't theirs, but is that all that's in their distribution? I thought they included a bunch of other software with it. No wait, I know they include a bunch of other stuff with it.
If you buy Caldera Linux, powered by UnitedLinux, you are free to copy, modify and distribute any of the GPL code that comes with it. If you only purchase the binaries and choose not to accquire the source, it may be difficult to separate the two classes of software (or even identify the difference). But as long as source is provided for all GPL parts I don't see the problem.
From the United Linux Site Faq (Score:5, Informative)
#9
"Will users be able to download free versions of UnitedLinux for non-commercial uses, similar to how Linux is freely available today?
Yes, UnitedLinux sources will be made available for free download as soon as version 1 is released. "
FAQ Frequently Asked Questions
I doubt very seriously that question was EVER asked. It's a leading question which are generally bad.
I'm not thinking that the words non-commercial and the GPL go together. It's one thing for them to have a per seat license (which could be ignored as soon as a legitimate buyer re-released all the gpl'ed source), but entirely another thing for them to limit the use of the source to non-commercial use. Suse has done this with Yast since time started but Yast certainly isn't the whole distribution. If this is allowed to happen, Bill G could bundle all the GNU tools with his version of Linux windows as long as he forks over the source to the GNU parts.
There's a fine line here.... I think United Linux is crossing the line by tying up gpl'ed software in their non-free distro. Yet I see nothing wrong with a distro including non-free software as long as the distro itself remains free. Mandrake seems to be going down this same road to a limited extent.
Even if United Linux removes the "commercial use" business on the source it'd be trivial to obfuscate the configure parts of the makefiles to make it nearly impossible to figure out how to compile their distro into a useable system.
I figured the world would find and exploit holes in the GPL, I didn't figure that generally good Linux companies like Suse would. I've used Suse since 5.0 and will now have to think seriously about switching.
G
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)
The core distribution, as noted in an earlier linuxandmain.com posting, is the standard set of GPL'd software. Each company will be putting together "company-specific packages on additional CDs" - the binaries in question - which will "not be made freely available." Nor has there been any clear mention of source for *these* packages being available. This is the crux of the debate, really - and it's a weak point that United Linux is (IMO) deliberately not emphasizing.
Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?! (Score:1, Informative)
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
So just judge well if you do judge.
Big Deal (Score:2, Informative)
I get the distinct feeling that even if every piece of software in the world was called GNU/something_or_other he still wouldn't be happy. All he is doing is marginalizing himself by looking like a chronic crybaby.
Re:Nothing to see here, move along (Score:2, Informative)
If I buy a copy of Red Hat Linux, I am perfectly within my rights to place it up for download, and burn a million copies and hand them out at parties. The only restriction is that Red Hat won't support those copies (which is reasonable). GPL has guaranteed me the right to redistribute that code.
However, because of per-seat licensing, if I were to have some kind of brain tumor which caused me to actually purchase a copy of UL, I would NOT be allowed to hand out copies at parties. This restricts my right to redistribute GPL'd code, which is a violation of the GPL license (they're obviously getting around the violation part by only per-seat-licensing some small part, like the installer, as has been speculated in other posts).
RMS is trying to encourage developers to use GPL for the purpose of preventing abuses like UL's.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SELLING OR NOT SELLING
IT HAS ONLY TO DO WITH (RE)DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS
Now, I agree that this is destined to fail, but it is very disheartening that 4 major distributons have come together under this lunacy.
Color me a very happy Red Hat customer, and this is only one of the reasons why.
Re:Will you just leave RMS alone ?! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Refuse? (Score:2, Informative)
There's not? [mostang.com]