Is UnitedLinux Violating The GPL? 382
mmayberry writes "NewsForge has posted an article, UnitedLinux might not be very GPL-friendly. With a closed beta that includes an NDA, UL may be on the verge of angering a large part of their target market. You'd think that the likes of Suse, Turbo, SCO, and Conectiva would get the point by now..."
Stupid Question (Score:4, Interesting)
Poor GPL (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously tho, if they're violating the GPL by distributing GPL'd software nobody is allowed to redistribute, what chance in hell does the final distro have in terms of having the support of coders who are GPL proponants? And wont GPLd software represent a significant chunk of what United Linux is going to base its worth upon?
And how can MS possibly state the GPL is so evil and viral if they get away with this? Seems to me like MS would have to about-face: "We love the GPL
I don't mean to sound like a license nazi, but in the interest of the copyright of the original author, I really have to say it again
Public Release vs Distribution (Score:5, Interesting)
If it is distributed, it MUST be distributed under the terms of the GPL.
Re:Public Release vs Distribution (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you give the source code for GPL programs to everyone who works for you? Doubt it.
Research before you speak (Score:4, Interesting)
1) I an a UnixWare developer. Obviously, we're not all laid off, but some of our good friends and coworkers were tossed out
2) Please indicate, concretely, where UL violates the GPL
3) Newsforge is the only FUD-distributor that uses extortion to get details: "tell, or we'll print misinformation". Really, people. With the same intensitity that you mistrust anything but the One Pure (RedHat|Debian), verify your other sources
4) Ransom never put down hte GPL; he said it was great for development but had no business case
5) SCO-formerly-Caldera was formerly SCO, and is well-known in the retail industry. Again, check your facts, and check under the hood of the places you're buying your junk food and brand-label-knockoffs. We just don't advertise. With the hatred of popups, you'd think this was a good thing in this community
6) for the record, I call it "Linux", not "FNU/Linux" nor "GNU/Apache/X/Linux", since, although all these tools and more are part of Linux, Linux is Linux is Linux. Thanks for the work thus far in what you have contributed to LINUX.
Of course you're going to frag my comments, go ahead. You might want to include some factual arguments.
The non-factual FUD shouting here is only one step above "woo hoo! first post!"
Re:Public Release vs Distribution (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Public Release vs Distribution (Score:4, Interesting)
I cannot buy software on behalf of the company and interpret the terms of the agreement to mean that I can take it home and start using it for my personal purposes.
By participating in a closed beta, you are acting as an agent of the company. The software is not being redistributed here.
This issue has come up time and time again on Slashdot, and every time, we hash out these same arguments.
Re:Hardly unusual (Score:3, Interesting)
Many Linux distributions first see light of day as closed betas.
The fact that it's a "closed beta" is not the issue here.
For example, the Xandros betas have been available to only a small number of people,
What Xandros has or hasn't done also isn't the issue here. I don't know any details about what Xandros did, but I remember hearing that they talked to key Debian and FSF people. I would be surprised if they released GPL software under additional restrictions (particularly since an earlier version of their distribution got slammed [lwn.net] for doing the exact same thing back when it was first beta tested by Corel).
all of whom have signed NDAs.
That is the issue. It is perfectly legal to release your own code under an NDA, or your distribution of BSD-licensed code. However, the GPL does not permit you to redistribute the software with additional restrictions, so wrapping a distribution of GPL software in an NDA is solidly illegal.
It should be fairly simple for them to write the NDA containing appropriate holes for the GPL to peek through, something along the lines of "This NDA does not cover the software in this distribution licensed under the GPL, LGPL or any other license that explicitly precludes additional restrictions". This way, you still get a "closed beta", since nobody can redistribute the whole thing, but if people feel the need to redistribute a GPL'ed bit from inside the distribution, they retain the legal right to, as required by the GPL.
As I understand it, the FSF is merely asking to see the text of the NDA, to ensure that it is worded so as not to violate the GPL.
As I see it, a closed beta is not a public release, and therefore not violating the GPL in any way.
The GPL [gnu.org] does not say anything about "public release", it is a license for distribution, and a beta distribution, even a "closed" beta distribution, is still a distribution.
In these situations, making the full source available would not help anybody
I disagree, I have found source code helpful in many unexpected situations.
Your comment here makes me wonder if you understand the situation, the question isn't "is source code helpful", the question is "is UnitedLinux violating the GPL". I'll do a simplified rundown: take Alice, Bob, Carol and Doug. Alice writes a piece of software, and releases it under the GPL. Bob creates a software distribution containing precompiled binaries of many different programs under many different licenses, and sells a copy to Carol. Neither Bob, Carol nor Doug have any interaction with Alice or her legal representatives.
In order to legally distribute his package to Carol, Bob has accepted the GPL, and must abide by its terms (this is called a contract of adhesion). One of the terms is that he is legally obligated to make the source available to Carol (Section 3). Another is that along with the distribution, he must pass on a copy of the license to Carol, with no additional restrictions (Section 6). This ensures that, if Carol wishes, she can also accept the GPL and give a copy of Alice's software to her friend, Doug.
If Bob distributes his collection under an NDA, that doesn't change his legal obligations to Alice. It doesn't matter that Carol can get the source from SourceForge, Bob is obligated to make it available to her himself. It doesn't matter that Bob wants to keep the details of his collection under wraps, he is required to give Carol a GPL, unencumbered by the NDA or any other additional restrictions. He can legally use the NDA to cover other parts of his collection, but not Alice's GPLed software.
If Bob violates these terms, Alice has the legal right to sue, seek injunctions against Bob's distribution of her software, and so forth.
The current Bob (UnitedLinux) is not necessarily violating the GPL, the FSF is trying to determine if they are or aren't. I assume, given past history, if the FSF determines that UnitedLinux is in violation, they will offer advice on how to do what they want to do without violating the GPL, and not go farther unless UL makes no attempt to fix the situation.
(1. slower development due to extra hassle,
Cost of doing business.
2. most code is available from original sources anyway,
As described above, it doesn't matter. UnitedLinux has the legal obligation to make all the source code used to produce the GPL software they distribute available to the people they distribute to.
3. modified code will be in a state of unstable flux
That's an easy one, the source code to make available is the source used to create the binaries being distributed. If your code is in such "unstable flux" that you don't know what you compiled in order to make the binaries, then you certainly shouldn't be doing a commercial beta distribution.
At the point of full release, well, that's a different matter.
No, it isn't. The GPL makes no distinction between distribution to one person, and distribution to the general public.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, the above should not be construed as legal advice. If you have an NDA to write, I strongly recommend you consult a real lawyer for advice on how to appropriately word it.
Re:This is comical... (Score:3, Interesting)
The GPL allows you to distribute a closed-source modification of a GPL, as long as the distribution is within the organization making the modification. One could argue that by placing beta testers under an NDA, they're making those testers part of their organization. Who knows? Maybe they're giving them membership cards.
Of course, UL can't make the entire world a member of its organization, so they'll have to release the source when the product goes public.
This gray area hasn't been a secret. In fact, the Affero GPL [sourceforge.net] was created for the purpose of closing this loophole. Problem is, nobody's using it because it limits the people who will use the software to corporations with no need to adapt it to their needs(a rare case where a custom-built system would normally be used), and people of the general OSS community.