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."
nah, that aint what pisses him off.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:nah, that aint what pisses him off.... (Score:3, Funny)
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Where were you when RMS started his GNU operation back in MA ?
What does that matter? If the poster was in Boston or Madagascar, their geographic location in past has nothing to do with this issue.
Where were you when Linux and all the open source community were / are threatened by MS?
Threatened by Microsoft? Give me a BREAK conspiracy boy. Microsoft has gone after Linux in the Marketplace. Microsoft did not kick in your front door, point a gun to your head and say "Stop programming GPL boy"! Get over it bubbie, we live in a Capitalistic society where you don't get special brownie points for writing software under the GPL. Linux has to compete in the same world as Microsoft. Apple doesn't start crying when Microsoft plays ruff, why should you? They fight back.
Critters like you always pick on RMS, but none of you ever done even 1% of the stuffs RMS has done for the community.
So the only people that comment on a subject, in your opinion, are people that has done a certain percentage of activity on that subject? So if you never made a film in your life, you don't have the right to comment on a film's quality or a director's ability? If you never been an astronaut, you can't comment on NASA's budget? Just because RMS "started" the Free Software movement, he is golden and beyond criticism? I don't think so.
RMS leaves a lot to be desired in the promotion of Open Source software and his public persona might have set it back. The last thing I would want to do is put RMS in front a Corporate Executive to explain why Open Source is better than Microsoft's product. If I were Bill Gates, I would pay the man to make speech after speech to corporations about the benefit of the GPL.
Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?! (Score:5, Insightful)
You said:
"nobody likes the title GNU/Linux, nor uses it"
Wait a minute here.
Do you ever use Linux before, or are you just one of those "parrots" that utter whatever others have said ?
Ever heard of Debian ?
Do you know that the Debian distribution calls their Linux "GNU/Linux" ?
It only goes to show how pathetic some of you can really be. None of you have done as much as RMS, and still you pick on that guy just because of the "GNU/Linux" thing.
Tell you something, sonny, nobody is perfect. Not RMS, nor Ghandi or George Washington.
Remember the famous quote
"Judge not, lest thou be judged"
The way you ( and others like you ) judge RMS is EXACTLY the way others are judging you. The majority of the OSS people may disagree with RMS's stand on "GNU/Linux", but we DO respect what he has done, and we WILL NOT pick on that guy just for the fun of it.
If you are really somebody, show us your stuffs, and let the rest of us judge your worth.
Please stop picking on RMS.
Thank you !
Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?! (Score:2, Insightful)
Likening the practice to Microsoft Software, Slashdot reader 'Jucius Maximus [slashdot.org]' has issued a brief statement condemning the proprietary software that appears to have been recomended for distribution by Richard M. Stallman. RMS called upon developers to refuse to allow their work to be used by UnitedLinux distributions, similar to Microsoft's practices of not allowing their software to run on Free Operating Systems.
/me giggles like a schoolgirl (Score:3, Insightful)
There's just something funny [gnu.org] about comparing RMS [stallman.org] to Ghandi or Washington.
:wq
Re:Nobody likes GNU / Linux ?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Many great visionaries have been considered eccentric because of a few of their views. Many eccentrics have been considered great visionaries because of a few of their views.
These two statements cannot be denied.
RMS is considered a great visionary. RMS is considered an eccentric.
These two statements cannot be denied.
RMS is considered an eccentric. RMS is considered a visionary
These two statements cannot be denied.
Let's face it, RMS is an eccentric visionary (or perhaps a visionary eccentric). Only RMS, or a mindless idiot, could possibly agree with ALL of RMS' views.
In the minds of many, the idea of Free Software paints him as a visionary genius, while the GNU/Linux thing paints him as a mouth-foaming, moon-howling loonie. Unfortunately, the whole GNU/Linux thing gets more press than than the Free Software thing.
Personally, I think that RMS is a nutter, but a nutter that we need.
I also think that Freedom in Software is more important than recognition for the GNU Project.
If RMS disagrees with me on that last point, I'd like to see him admit it publicly!
Re:As I said, nobody is perfect. (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is more important:
a) to have free software and free Operating System.
b) to give GNU-project free publicity and recognition
I believe that point a) is more important. ALOT more important. RMS should be grateful that with Linux, we have free Operating System. Instead of really caring for free software, all he seems to care about is the fame and glory of the GNU-project (which has gotten alot more publicity, thanks to Linux).
Yes, GNU-software is important part of a Linux-distro. So what? The fact still is that we now have a free OS. Why does it matter to RMS if it's not called GNU/Linux, if it fulfills the goal of FSF and RMS? Because RMS is so fanatic when it comes to the naming-thingy, it seems that it never was about free software, it was about glory and fame for the GNU-project, and he just used free software as a tool to get that fame. We have now free software and OS, RMS should be happy. He's not. He's annoyed because his project didn't get all the fame and glory.
If it really were about free software, RMS should be extatic that we now have a complete free OS. He's not.
Re:GNU/Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't think of any that does not. But if you really want to you can always run BASH as your VMS shell. On the other hand you can't run the VMS shell on a UNIX box for reasons explained below.
VMS does have equivalent mechanisms to pipes. However I must say that I have never found pipes to be especially usefull. Sure it is cute to be able to do ls * | grep foo. However at least 95% of the times I need to use a pipe in UNIX it is to construct a command feature that VMS provides for free.
Small tools fitting well together strikes me as something more fitting for the label of "logical", than something that is user-friendly only for beginners, and becomes a mess for more advanced users.
The difference between VMS and UNIX is how the tools are structured. In UNIX the command line handling is built into each program separately, so each command has code to extract flags and deal with them. If you want to change the flag assignments you have to recompile the program.
In VMS each command has a CLD definition that specifies the command, the arguments, program file to run etc. This has a lot of useful side effects, if you want to find out the arguments for any VMS command you can enter the command VERB [Command] to dump out the CLD definition.
This structure has a lot of advantages, not least being that if you want to produce a french language version of VMS you can. You can also generate GUI interfaces that will work with any VMS shell command, they simply query the CLD interface to find out all the commands supported and the arguments supported. The GUI will then work with new commands written after it, or user defined commands.
VMS was certainly not a beginner system, the expertise level of you average VMS user is likely to be much higher than that of your average UNIX user. Just because UNIX is dreadful for beginners does not mean it is good for experts. JCL is also dreadful for beginners but only JCL jocks think it is a powerful and elegant system, most impartial observers think that CP/M and MSDOS were a marked improvement over JCL.
Re:Will you just leave RMS alone ?! (Score:2, Insightful)
He's got his cause and he's fighting for it. Not that it in itself doesn't warrant mocking. But I still find it inspiring he is sticking to his guns.
Re:Will you just leave RMS alone ?! (Score:5, Funny)
You must mean "sticking to his gnus"
Re:Will you just leave RMS alone ?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the BSDs use the BSD user-land. Most have a few tools from the GNU project, but essentially the userland is the BSD core and BSD will work without any of the GNU tools being installed at all.
It's that simple. Take the GNU operating system. Add the Linux kernel (because the GNU kernel, HURD, wasn't ready when Linux was written). What do you have?
If you're a Slashdot AC troll, GNU + Linux = Linux. If you're RMS, Deborah or Ian, me, or half a dozen other people who feel that credit should be given where credit is due, it's GNU/Linux. BSD is BSD, it isn't GNU + anything, therefore it doesn't have GNU in the title.
It would be perfectly possible, incidentally, to create a BSD/Linux, which uses the BSD Init (no, Slackware's is not the same thing), uses the BSD Login and getty routines, logins boot into ASH or KSH, etc. I wish someone would, the Linux kernel has so much support, and the BSD userland is just so logical and pleasant to use.
(Incidentally, how long before this gets modded down? Every time I post anything remotely of the "RMS is not an eye-swivelling loony" variety I get modded down. It's very disheartening, and a somewhat ludicrious position when agreeing with the person who has done more for the free software community than any other living person (not to mention, though he'd hate it being said, the open source community too), is opening yourself up to accusations of trolling and flamebaiting.)
Re:Will you just leave RMS alone ?! (Score:3, Informative)
Refuse? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Refuse? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only question is whether or not UL is violating the GPL. As far as I can tell, they're not, because the thing that requires per-seat licensing is their own code, not GPL'd code... but I haven't looked very hard. If they aren't violating the GPL, then there's no way that a developer can prevent UL from using their GPL'd code without violating the GPL themselves.
But I'm not a lawyer, and I don't really claim to fully understand all the implications of the GPL. This is just the way it seems to me.
$.02.
Re:Refuse? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) United Linux core source code will be avaliable for free. Anyone can recreate the system, but will not be allowed to call it United Linux (this is only a Copyright matter, ragarding the *brand*)
2) United Linux binaries (full distribution) will come bundled with proprietary software. Many of these softwares are not controled by the United Linux members, and cannot be released or distributed in any other way. Many of these software only offers per-seat licenses. So, United Linux MUST be licensed per-seat. (again, this is not a violation of GPL. See [1])
3) The original distributions will still have their releases, with the core United Linux technology. This means, as I see, that it will follow the same standards of United Linux. Any software certified for United Linux will run on these distributions. Looks like that even the 1st CD of these distributions will be pure United Linux. The distributions can follow the licensing scheme of their choice, based on the licenses of the software they provide. (No GPL violation here either)
As far as I can see, United Linux main distribution can very well come bundled with Oracle, LinuxCAD, StarOffice etc. Many of these comercial softwares have per-seat licenses. The choice United Linux have is either to have per-seat licenses, or to not provide these softwares.
About [1], think about this. If you download all
As far as I see, United Linux plan does not violate anything. It only provides what the marketing (big players) is asking for. And that is a Linux distribution there they can run their full scale, proprietary, applications, on certified hardware, with a contract support. Theirs is a good plan, and something we have needed to be able to further Linux adoptions in big corps. Does that mean that Linux will be non-free ? No. Does that mean that they are evil ? Again, no. Does that mean that corporations will have no other choice ? Again, no.
People talk a lot about freedom. Can it still be freedom if it is forced uppon you ? Are the corporations not FREE to choose ? Are these companies not FREE to choose a business model ?
As long as they does not violate any law or copyright (as you can be very sure that considering who they are, they wont), I think United Linux is something we should be extremely proud of.
Re:Refuse? (Score:2)
> If the code's been GPL'ed, how are developers going to stop UnitedLinux from using their code?
Just by complaining that their software, which was released under the GNU GPL, can’t have its use restricted in any way except as prescribed by the GNU GPL. It’s that simple.
Well that settles it! (Score:5, Funny)
Hang on, I was going to do that anyway. . .
Re:Well that settles it! (Score:4, Insightful)
All Red Hat has to do to blow the doors off so-called "UnitedLinux" is not go to a per seat license.
Scratch them off the list of distros other than Red Hat and Mandrake that I will try. Someday, though
Re:Well that settles it! (Score:3, Interesting)
Read title carefully (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Read title carefully (Score:3, Funny)
Ouch!
I hope... (Score:2)
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:5, Interesting)
I hope RedHat and Mandrake and Slack and (insert you distro here) avoid this like the black plague. It's unfortunate, SuSE is a really nice distro. I hope they don't shoot themselves in the foot here.
JB
Re:He's right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone will run Debian.
Re:He's right... (Score:3, Informative)
The source code would, naturally, be freely downloadable, if you want to roll your own.
Cheers, Andy!
Re:He's right... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know, but it seems to me that UL are saying that you can't re-release their own code, not the GPL'd code on the system. And if that's the case they're no problem. But if they're restricting the usage of GPL'd software (in either binary or source code form) then that's a violation of the GPL which provides that once you receive code you can give it away.
But, IANAL, so take my opinion as such.
Re:He's right... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not true. Section 6 of the GPL [gnu.org] states:
My ability to redistribute GPL'd code is granted by the original licensor, not the guy who I happened to get it from. They guy who I happened to get it from doesn't have the right to impose any additional restrictions, like per-seat licensing.
Also, section 3 says:
So this means that I have these rights whether I decide to re-release the binary or the source code form of the program. I just have to make sure that if I re-release the binary form, I also make available the source code. But I'm not restricted from re-releasing a binary. Which means, per-seat licensing restrictions are a violation of the GPL.
But, IANAL, so I may have an overly simplistic interpretation. It seems pretty clear to me, though.
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.
Re:None of it? (Score:4, Insightful)
> 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.
You are also free to run it as you like, including let several people access it. That makes a per-seat restriction in GNU GPL a breach of contract.
Re:None of it? (Score:3, Insightful)
To say otherwise, to claim that the GNU software can ONLY be run on all-GNU platforms, would require the removal of all GNU software from any 'un-pure' OS, and that's just NOT gonna happen anytime soon.
Surely a step backwards (Score:5, Insightful)
If United Linux thinks they can "unseat" RedHat by using a per seat license, they are dead wrong, regardless of what RMS thinks.
Good luck at your going-out-of-business sale, United Linux.
Re:Surely a step backwards (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Surely a step backwards (Score:4, Insightful)
-Paul Komarek
Re:Surely a step backwards (Score:4, Insightful)
Per seat licensing certainly hasn't helped Caldera despite the fact that Caldera controls the remnants of SCO's vast VAR channel. For that matter per seat licensing didn't help SCO in the face of a massive Linux onslaught.
RedHat has become the de-facto Linux standard by writing cool software and giving it away. Caldera, SuSE, and TurboLinux have all created distributions that were better than RedHat's, but RedHat's distribution was freely available, and you could build on RedHat's free tools (because you had the source) and so RedHat won.
Ransom Love has got to be the thickest member of the Linux community. RedHat has beaten Caldera time and again by giving away software, and yet he still refuses to learn. The only way that these companies have a chance of unseating RedHat is to out-RedHat them. They need to give away even more cool software so that they can become the standard.
Re:Surely a step backwards (Score:4, Insightful)
Like Mandrake is trying to do?
Re:Surely a step backwards (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, this argument is flawed, as the number of people using a software much less it's lisence doesn't make software good or bad. "Look at windows!" ;)
As you say, it's a flawed argument.
It sends entirely the wrong message. Better to educate corporate types now that there is an alternative to seat-licensed software.
Corporate types will be disappointed if they try to apply their present software purchasing and licensing mindset to OSS and GPL'd software. This disappointment might translate to a backlash against Linux/OSS and GPL'd software in the future.
They need to start thinking in terms of very low cost to deploy many seats with some fixed support cost for deployment + some fixed cost for development/enhancement/customization + some support cost per seat.
In their present application deployment models, they cost out per-seat licenses + large initial application development costs + typically very small ongoing enhancement/customization costs and + some support cost per seat.
Some are starting to see the no-seat-licensing model as attractive for POS and the like. Best they truly understand what OSS costs are rather than give in to the natural inclination to not rethink.
United Gentoo (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't that what the `emerge united-linux` command will be for?
I guess Gentoo Linux [gentoo.org] becomes more and more important everyday.
Re:United Gentoo (Score:2)
Good point, but make won't go to the united linux website, grab the source, resolve all dependencies, and then run
developer refusal. (Score:5, Funny)
I would refuse to allow my work to be included, but I licensed it under the GPL, so I can't.
Re:developer refusal. (Score:5, Insightful)
RMS says:
"[...] Free software developers, please don't let them license YOUR program per seat. Use the GNU GPL!"
The point RMS is making is that this use is NOT permitted under the GPL, so by using the GPL for your own software you are refusing!
Did you read the article? His statement is only 3 sentences, after all.
Re:developer refusal. (Score:3, Troll)
Re:developer refusal. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, insightful. Regardless of the perpetuation of the RMS misquote from the article summary, the actual content of the message is still somewhat relevant. There seem to be a number of people who understand the situation (RMS is pushing the GPL, as typical; UL is presumably only doing the per-seat license on the parts of the distribution they develop from scratch) who are still upset because they feel it's exploiting a loophole in the GPL to build a semi-proprietary gestalt off of free components.
The comment you responded to essentially points out that this is one of the few cases where the GPL could be seen as having a similar degree of commercial exploitability as the BSD license. The BSD camp is used to accepting this issue in their quest for freedom of the end user, but it's just odd seeing it with the GPL camp and their quest for freedom of the code.
Re:developer refusal. (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember, you can sell GPL software, but you must make the source code available. You can sell it under any terms you like; YOU produced the binaries. However, you can do as you like with the source.
RMS off base? (Score:4, Insightful)
What am I missing? Is UnitedLinux truly as evil as Microsoft for selling a standardized binary set with source code on the side? Or is RMS just tired of capitalism?
Selling CDs != per seat licensing (Score:5, Interesting)
What you are missing is that the GPL allows (and encourages) selling free software [gnu.org], but it forbids taking away the rights of the recipient to further modify or redistribute the software. Caldera (UnitedLinux, by this philosophy, shows that they are just Caldera; Caldera has always done this) can't get around the GPL so I presume what they are doing is distributing source to all the GPL'd parts of the system and noting your rights in fine print somewhere while adding a few proprietary parts such that the whole integrated product cannot be redistributed and you have to pay a per-seat license. This means you're really just paying the license for a tiny amount of the product and not the whole OS.
What you're missing is... (Score:2)
The GPL places no restrictions on use of the binaries, etc. and prohibits distribution with systems that do unless you add exception clauses at the end of the license to allow the same- UnitedLinux states flatly that this is the case, that you can't use the distribution on more than one system.
It boils down to the fact that anyone trying this is really violating the GPL license grant on several levels and the group should be told that they can't distribute the same.
Re:What you're missing is... (Score:2)
And that won't happen, but Linus Tordvalds doesn't seem to care about anything and the Linux user community is too fragmented to get money together for a lawsuit.
Re:RMS off base? (Score:2)
Not true, GPL states that you cannot take away the right to copy/use/alter from the user. So if I buy one seat from them GPL allows me to install in any number of machines I want. The problem is that this distributions have some part of them, probably an indispensable one, that was created in-house, this part is lisensed so you can only legaly be used in one seat, without it the distro won't work.
It seems that someone has finaly found a loop hole in GPL.
Re:RMS off base? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is nothing new; Caldera has been doing this since day one. They've also been failing since day one. Most software developers know that if you keep using the same methods you'll keep getting the same results, but Caldera hopes it will be different with a new name.
Believe it or not, RedHat seems to have a great commitment to freedom. With RedHat and Debian available, I don't see a whole lot of room for other distributions; especially not for non-free ones.
Re:RMS off base? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Uh, no... (Score:5, Insightful)
As a user of the BSD license, I wondered if Ransom could relicense my code under a per-seat license. The obvious answer is "yes". The not so obvious answer is "yes, but so what?"
No matter what Ransom does to my code, my copy and my users' copies will still be free. Nothing he can do can alter my cvs repository. Furthermore, the users of Ransom's per-seat version are still going to know that there's a free version out there. That's because Ransom can't remove my copyright or permission notices.
But what if Ransom makes a derivative of my code and licenses that per-seat? The answer is where RMS and the BSD advocates part ways: code that I didn't write does not belong to me. His derivative bits are not mine and I have no ethical claim over them. His version is not my version. If RMS is correct in saying that "software should not be owned", then derivative software should be owned even less.
Linux and Seat Licenses Don't Mix (Score:2, Interesting)
Hasn't Caldera been losing buckets of money since they switched to a per seat licensing scheme?
This whole concept of United Linux reeks of desperation. These four companies are going to collaborate on United Linux while continuing to put out their own distros? What a muddle.
Reading about United Linux has done nothing except make me decide to go check out Red Hat again.
huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
> Okay, so this "per-seat licensing" consists of them not offering the binaries for free download.
If it was, it wouldn’t be per-seat. Per-seat means each potential user has to pay to have the right to use. Even if it’s binaries, GNU GPL software can’t have its use restricted in this way. Distributing GNU GPL’d software under such a condition automatically revokes your rights to use and distribute GNU GPL’d software, thus making such lincensing illegal.
> The source will still be "freely available".
Unless it’s available in a manner compliant with the GNU GPL, that is not enough.
> it's RMS, so the problem must be someone might make money off of software
Don’t put words in anyone’s mouth. RMS doesn’t object to people making money, he (and I) does object to restricting other people’s freedom.
The Letter But Not Spirit (Score:3, Insightful)
As the creator/author/maintainer of WidgetApp which is licensed under the GPL, I want everyone to not only use the software freely but contribute to it.
However because United Linux has this per-seat cost scheme it appears that you pay for the pre-built binaries. While the source code is freely available for you to download and compile yourself even under the United Linux, it makes WidgetApp appear as if the creator/author/mainters of are getting paid for their development. A person buys the seat of United Linux and will automatically believe that a "piece of the pie" is going to all of the contributors. This is a bad thing and not what was intended with the GPL.
So while they are honoring the letter of the GPL(the source code must be available and is available) it seems to deny the spirit of making useful programs freely available to everyone.
This whole thing shows a loophole in the GPL which may never be closed. As long as United Linux offers source code for free they can charge per seat for binaries. People who don't want the appearance of being paid are now stuck because of the GPL(ie you can't deny United Linux access to the source any more than you can to you or me or Microsoft).
Beyond that as another poster pointed, good luck making this buisness model work. This seems to offer more headache and cost more money and will be hard to compete with Red Hat's service structure or Debian's pure free-ness.
Can you people actually read?? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you had read the article you would realise that Stallman, contrary to some of the fights he picks, is actually being quite reasonable here.
What he's saying is that he doesn't approve of the licence, and that authors should beware of licences other than the GPL because they may not protect their work from being kidnapped like this.
Also, it's worth pointing out that in this case Linux and Main went to Stallman for his opinion, he didn't get on a soap box and force it down anyone's throat.
--
Andy
Re:Can you people actually read?? (Score:3, Insightful)
You may or may not agree with his conclusions.
But if you read what he actually says, he often makes a good point.
It's just as well (Score:2, Insightful)
What I'm saying is that the companies involved in this united linux are probably doing this as a "last ditch" effort. I say this because I've used each one of them and each one of them didn't work all that well which means if I have problems being a slackware user, I'm sure the less knowledgeable people do. No users = no income and thus drastic measures must be taken.
When this fails we might be a few distros less than we are now bringing us closer to a TRUE standard. What I don't understand though is why can't we actually HAVE a standard? What's so hard about it? As a linux user I'm annoyed at the fact that all of these distributions seem to think they are right. I hate to say this but 90% of the software each of them use they didn't write, so why does it matter what the directory structure is? PICK A @#$% STANDARD!!
In the news article (Score:2)
Second, in the news article link, I found this semi-amsuing:
"The focus of this is obviously on the business customer, because we feel that for Linux to be successful over all, we have to solve the business server issue first,"
Anyone aware of a business server issue? Last I knew we just put the distribution CD of choice in and it installs, not much of an issue on it. If we need stuff, download, compile, install and you're done.
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.
RMS #$#@'d in head head as usual ... (Score:3, Funny)
As for the proprietary software, something has to be done to ensure that they survive. Otherwise, there will be only two Linux companies, and eventually there will only be IBM.
Sometimes I feel like I'm watching a bad episode of Highlander when I observe the Linux crowd.
What the? A windows clone? (Score:2, Redundant)
What's wrong with you people? If we wanted a Windows clone we would be using Windows, wouldn't we?
Where have the good old days of free Linux, freedom of expression and powerfull shells gone? Nowadays all we hear about is KDE/GNOME, Redhat/Caldera, etc. and their right to charge for Linux.
Enough is enough and its time for a change.
For once, I stand by RMS and by the GPL.
RMS Again (Score:3, Insightful)
But he wants people to licence software under the GPL, which allows what Caldera et al are proposing. As long as they supply the source code ...
It really offends me when people like RMS seem to work to defeat companies like Caldera and SuSE, who have done a great deal for the Linux community, by taking away their revenue stream. By providing me with a Linux distribution, they provide me a valuable service. Yes, I can roll my own if I want to, but the time and effort that a packaged distribution saves me is worth some money to me!
As long as UnitedLinux complies with the licences of its component parts, neither I nor RMS have any right to bitch about how much the distribution costs.
The comparison to Microsoft is invalid because there are competing distributions of various prices, from Slackware and Debian on the $0 end to RedHat and Mandrake on the pay end, whereas there is no competition to Windows. If the distribution is done right and works well, market competition will take care of "fair pricing."
Re:RMS Again (Score:5, Insightful)
I concur with RMS: Boycott all companies at all involved with per-seating licensing of GPL software.
What is the value add? (Score:5, Funny)
It seems like these companies have a strange way of differentiating themselves from the competition. I can only imagine the meeting this came out of:
Executive 1: "How can we go up against Microsoft and Red Hat?"
Executive 2: [thinks real hard, smoke starts coming out of his ears] "Uh....I dunno."
Executive 3: "Add a free liverwurst sandwich in each box?"
Executive 1: "No one wants that!"
Executive 2: "I might want it."
Executive 1: "No, you wouldn't! That's gross!"
Executive 2: "Well, if I was a Linux user I might."
Executive 1: "Come on, even they aren't that disgusting."
Executive 4: "Hey, I think you're on to something! Let's include something that almost no one wants! Like...hmmm...uh....hmm..." [his forehead starts to sizzle as his brain goes into overdrive]
Executive 2: "I know! A Microsoft-style restrictive license! Red Hat doesn't have that, and Microsoft doesn't have the Free Source software like we do! It'll give us a competi...uh...competi...uh..."
Executive 1: "Competitive advantage?"
Executive 3: "You said 'titi'!" [Falls out of his high-backed, cushioned chair, laughing]
Yup, that's probably pretty much how it went. (I'll let you figure out which exec is which.)
-Joe
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!"
Is it THAT big a deal? (Score:2)
It's not as though people will have to pay for Linux or people are being locked out. Personally I support the distro(s) I use financially, but not before I tried them out. I use Slack and have IBM Websphere running on it just fine even though it's not a "supported distribution". In other words, you don't HAVE to use only distro 'X', you won't HAVE to use "United Linux".
The point is that if they add value to where their prices are worth it - Great! If not, then they'll have to adjust. Either way, Linux as a whole will remain "untainted", it isn't going to be torn from our hands into the corporate world where it will become a "Linux for Windows".
Who cares? (Score:2)
To me this whole thing seems about as smart as HP and Compaq deciding that instead of revamping their product lines and just giving customers what they want, like Sun and Dell did, they decided to merge two unpopular firms into one big one.
On the upside, this may be a good trend in the industry, as conglomerations of crap may be easier to get rid of then a bunch of small piles.
wow noone actually read what RMS said? (Score:2)
Yes, per seat is evil... pure evil... espically connected with linux. but we expected such debauchery eventually.. Many of us expected it out of RedHat first, but it seems that the greediest of the distros are the ones who are implimenting it. it's sad.. the ENTIRE platform that linux stands on is the fact that deployment and cost of ownership is significantly lower due to the removal of the draconian and asenine restrictions in place on existing software platforms... Adding this to the Linux mix will do one of two things, the companies trying it will fail a horrible miserable torturous death (deserved in fact) or they will utterly destroy linux.
Basically... if WE as linux users, programmers, developers, advocates allow this viral licensing into linux it will destroy what we love. and that is RMS's response...
it's a "HEY, look at this!" nothing more people.
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:From the United Linux Site Faq (Score:3, Insightful)
However I do use Suse.
I'd guess the per-seat licensing is more to do with Service Contracts. Downloaded ISO's generally come with no support, this has been true for RH and Mandrake. Bought distros (like the Suse 8.0 Proffessional version I just recently acquired) come with limited installation support and after that - you're on your own.
Since the United Linux consortium are aiming squarely at Enterprise and commercial custom, they're talking about that sector of the market as it is more likely to be profitable. They are not really interested in the home user.
I'd guess more Corporations might take an interest in GNU/Linux if 'per-seat licensing' were in place as they'd have a support lifeline.
Businesses need to have a support agreement (even huge corporations with inhouse knowledge) no support contract or service agreement would leave them vulnerable to problems which might jeopardise continuity.
I'd seriously doubt they'd strangle the non-enterprise user, they'd have only small change to gain by forcing non-enterprise customers to pay non-seat and too much to loose as a lot of non-enterprise customers are the people who write most of their product.
I doubt very much GNU/LInux is the core product that brings their revenue. I'd guess their principle resource is the knowledge of their staff.
But then, that's true for any company.
Absurd (Score:4, Insightful)
All the GPL says is that if you distribute binaries containing GPL'd code, you must make the source code for those GPL'd binaries available under the GPL I am still free to distribute any binaries I created for a fee, as long as I give you the source under the GPL!
Additionally, a Linux distribution such as SuSE and others, may contain code that is licensed under proprietary licenses. These other applications such as installers, management software, config tools, and other value-added features may be licensed under whatever schema its creator sees fit. Such tools can be licensed on a per-seat basis if chosen.
If I buy a license for United Linux, I can take any GPL'd software distributed with United Linux and reuse the on 100,000 different machines without paying anyone for that useage.
I really don't see the problem here. I write GPL'd software. If my software were to be distributed with commercial software that was charged for under a different license I would not have a problem with this! Hell, it's part of the reason I chose to use GPL in the first place!
Free to use, free to modify, free to redistribute, and free to chage a fee for redistribution!!! RMS, what's the problem here? It is clear to me that if you don't want your work redistributed for a fee, you are using the wrong license!
Re:Absurd (Score:3, Funny)
Huh? RMS is actively encouraging [gnu.org] people who redistribute GPL'd software to charge as much as possible.
GNU & RMS are irrelavent (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the software which counts. People didn't
start using emacs and gcc because the license kept them from making proprietary derivatives. They use these programs because the license allows them to use the software for free. People use X11 all over the place, and (surprise!) it doesn't have a strictly GNU license.
The GNU license is ubiquitous, not because it is on high moral ground, but because it is easy boilerplate to slap on to software projects which noone expects to make money. Back in the day, the equivalent would be to just put some random disclaimer with a statement releasing the code to the public domain. Putting a GNU license on
something is equivalent to genuflecting at an altar. It's doesn't really require a lot of thought.
If linux had a BSDish license, RMS and GNU would be a footnote in free (as in beer) software history. It is not GNU which distinguishes Linux, it is Linux. Its own unique mix of features and hype marks it.
Re:GNU & RMS are irrelavent (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL made writing code a social action -- you could guarantee that your code would always be free, and no one else would ever be confronted with the a myterious black box they couldn't screw with, that contained your stuff. It is about making technology open and transparent.
On the other hand, if it truly is "the software that counts", why didn't BSD win out over Linux ? Isn't BSD generally conceeded to have many benefits and higher qualities than Linux ?
What Per-Seat License? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not that I disagree with the sentiment, quite the opposite. I know that I would go out of my way to not support a Linux vendor using per-seat licensing, and I think we've already seen that most of the Linux community feels the same. Frankly, after the beating Caldera took for bringing up the idea of a per-seat license, I'd be extremely surprised if anyone even considered such a scheme again, especially Ransom Love (he does give the impression sometimes that he just doesn't get it, though, so who knows).
This per-seat licensing thing is just a totally unsubstantiated rumor! Get over it, people!
There are plenty of other reasons to complain about the project, though. The fact that it's server only seems to me to be monumentally stupid. Linux seems to be doing just fine in the server market, and I don't see how this standardization effort will make much difference in that arena. Linux on the desktop, however, would derive incredible benefit from an innitiative like this. In fact, the lack of an innitiative like this is really the only thing standing in the way of Linux becoming viable on the desktop. If there were a serious effort to standardize for desktop distros, I bet we'd quickly see some of those missing apps being ported to that standard.
Gee...now that we know where RMS stands on... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
What RMS is saying is that UnitedLinux cannot put per-seat (or any other kind) of restrictions on how GPL'd software is used; they can only restrict the non-GPL (and similar license) software. Not saying whether this is good or bad, but if open-source developers were to all use GPL (or compatible) licenses, that a per-seat licensed Linux system would be impossible. This would be a good thing in RMS's mind.
Re:Who cares? (Score:2)
And don't forget, these companies will also be offering their own desktop distributions that will not be subject to this licensing scheme and will very likely continue to be in the form of downloadable ISOs or FTP installations.
Businesses demand quality and support, and providing that sort of assurance is not cheap. There's a fine line between between the idealogy of "Free" software and just being cheap, and I think RMS has crossed it.
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:ego anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ego anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure you can. The whole FSF business model is based on the idea that you can charge whatever you want for whatever you want, as long as you make the source code available. So, if the UnitedLinux people want to apply per-seat fees for support, download, media, whatever, they are not restricted from that practice. Of course, since the source code has to be available for the GPL'd parts, there's also no reason that a customer actually has to pay those fees (since he can duplicate the software from the source) unless he wants the support &c.
Yes, I know RMS issue is with the non-gpl code, but that doesn't change the fact that companies are perfectly free to ask for per-seat fees for GPL code.
If the GPL is so grand what's he worried about? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it is true that open source software is a better way of doing things, that it is more compelling, then this is a perfect test case for it. What will companies think about paying per-seat licensing and having to manage all the licensing nightmares associated with it when most of what they are buying is under the GPL? Will they look to a more open alternative? Will they even care?
RMS seems to be fundamentally afraid that all his claims about open source software are wrong. If it's as good as he claims, then why is he worrying about this. United Linux should get steam rolled by higher quality and cost-efficient software from other places.
Re:ego anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, what you say is entirely unproven. The software economy would not necessarily collapse. It might even get a lot better. We don't know yet because it hasn't been tried. Most of the people engaged in writing software for a living do not write software that ends up shrink-wrapped in a box on a retail shelf. Most developers write custom code for complex one-off applications that, even if the code were GPL, probably wouldn't be very useful except to the customer it was written for.
In fact, what we might see is a boom of software employment as companies took major packages and hired developers to add bits and pieces that they felt were valuable for their business. Of course, you're right. No one would make money selling software. They would make money writing it.
Re:ego anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, if everyone licensed their software under the GPL, nobody could make any money selling that software. The software economy would collapse, and hundreds of thousands of people in the US alone would be out of work.
This is a popular misrepresentation of the software industry.
Most programmers are employed developing custom systems that never leave the buyer's premises. In such cases, software licensing is irrelevant. Only a small fraction of programmers are emplyoed making software that gets sold on a store shelf. The ratio may on average is like 19:1 depending on which job sites/pages you look at, but I suspect it's much higher than that.
To these programmers, free software is actually a huge benefit. In fact. a good deal of free software also comes from these developers as a by-product of work they do for hire.
Oh, you meant it can destroy the shrink-wrap software economy? Ho hum. Only Microsoft really makes money doing that anyway. Everyone else must offer service and support on top of that to survive.
RMS's intentions may be more noble than you think.
No Collapse... (Score:3, Interesting)
Untrue. You would just have to get job using your skills in real problem domains.
The shrinkwrapped office productivity software market is done. Excel and Word haven't gotten significantly better since 1997.
The only interesting shrinkwrapped software nowadays are multimedia (audio, digital video), and web-authoring software. Frankly, these are going to reach a 'good enough' dead-end RSN.
Games are probably the only category of software which still has a long long path of improvement. IMHO, games have been driving much of the increase in desire for computer power (For example, Black & White won't run on my 2.5 year old iMac, but I can still run all the software I need.)
The dirty little secret is that once all you hundreds of thousands of people are out of work of all the GPLd software, there will be jobs waiting for you in Government and Industry. These groups will have a little extra money (because they're not paying the Microsoft Tax) and they'll be willing to hire programmers who can solve problems in their own domain. Imagine the brains that have honed Amazon's transformation of bookselling turned on health care record management, or Pre-fire planning, or Building-department workflow.
And there's also XML. Serious SGML people know the benefit of properly-constructed document. The current wealth of free XML tools will mean that small businesses will be able to apply XML to their knowledge. You think MaryJo in accounting is doing to design an XML invoice schema?
In other words, the job won't be "writing software to sell", it will be "other stuff with software". You see that in the Microsoft Ads already: "1 degree of separation" isn't about how groovy Word is or how easy WindowsXP is, it's all about how custom-made software will solve your business's problems.
The economy would expand if software were free (Score:3, Insightful)
> hundreds of thousands of people in the US alone
> would be out of work.
Imagine a world where air, water, and sunlight were free. Imagine the economic nightmare. If water were free then all the bottled water producers, utility companies, canteen makers would go out of business. If air were free, all the air purification systems, air conditioners, perfume manufacturers would go out of business. If sunlight were free, all the lamp makers, light bulb makers, flashlight makers, and candle makers would go out of business.
Of course, this isn't what's happened, at least in my part of the world.
Why?
Because even free things need packaging, customization, integration, bugetting, and quality assurance and because it's free, the demand for things increase dramatically. Take water, for instance. If producing water were expensive, people would not need garden hoses because they would not be watering their lawns. They would certainly not use it in water engines and fire hydrants, water cooling jackets, water guns, fountains, and bath products because these things would be too expensive to be useful.
Re:The economy would expand if software were free (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ego anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Surprisingly enough, it seems Slashdot screwed up when they said otherwise. Hard to believe.
Re:ego anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
"[United Linux] cannot restrict the GPL-covered programs in the system [with per-seat licensing], 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!"
That isn't hubris, it's consistency with the same message that RMS has been putting out for as long as I can remember: "Restrictive licensing doesn't respect the non-side-constrained freedom of individuals to do as they see fit with software and source."
Hurray, it's fun to bash RMS, isn't it?
Re:Is there anything that RMS likes? (Score:2, Funny)
D'oh!
Re:RMS' philosophy (Score:2)
You're free to distribute it any way you want, so long as the people you distribute it to can redistribute it.
Re:What the? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, having met him a couple of times, I'd say that he's an idealist and difficult to see eye to eye with. But a loony extremist? No - he's way too sussed for that. He's just someone who's been in the business for so long, he's seen way too many people got screwed over on this altar of intellectual property.
However, without more information, I can't tell if the "Per Seat" license covers the 'United Linux' material only, or which. United Linux -needs- to make money. And if a "$50 per seat" license is how they get it, who am I to say its a bad idea. This does not affect me, I don't run any derivative of Linux. (I'm one of those naughty BSD people. boo. hiss.)
Not naughty at all - there's room for everyone. From what I read about United Linux, there won't be a UL "distribution" - it's more like a compliance statement. That is, write an app and it gets certified for any UL compliant distro. So the per-seat stuff will continue to apply to Caldera, but not necessarily to SuSE, or TurboLinux, or whatever.
I've got to say that I too think the per-seat crap is doomed to die. It's exactly what so many IT departments buy into M$'s pool-based licensing system to avoid! They have to employ more expensive people just to chase down the licenses. Screw that.
Personally, I think the whole UL thing is a good idea - but I still see Red Hat dominant a year or two from now (if they can stay in business
--Ng
Re:I can read (Score:2)
What they are doing is licensing the software they wrote under a per-seat license.
You can redistribute/use all of the GPL'd software in United Linux use want without paying a per-seat license, just not the 'propritary' pieces.
Re:RMS objecting to the GPL? (Score:2)
You need to learn both logic and the facts before commenting.
> how can RMS say that all software should be free
Should but isn’t. Only software whose copyright owners released under the GNU GPL [www.gnu.org] or some other free license [www.gnu.org] is free.
> what he really means is free unless it is going to be used or distributed by someone he doesn't like?
It should be obvious from my last paragraph, but here it goes: copyleft [www.gnu.org] does not mean free for all. It means free for those who will respect others’ freedom. Per-seat licensing schemes are a violation of freedom, and besides a violation of GNU GPL licensing. Also, it’s not about not liking someone, but what licensing someone uses to restrict someone else's freedom.
> I find it amusing that RMS and the other GPL zealots
How do you define a zealot? Why is being a zealot bad? What is a GPL zealot? Why is RMS one of them? Remember, a zealot is one who has zeal, and zeal in itself is a good thing.
> want unlimited freedom, unless of course such freedom would result in a choice or course of action that they might disagree with...
That RMS doesn’t want “unlimited freedom” I already proved, and anyway if he wanted that he wouldn’t have created copyleft and the GNU GPL, which are based on copyright, which in itself is a denial of absolute freedom, being an extension of property to the intellectual realm.
Now, denying the freedom to restrict others’ freedom somehow strikes me as completely reasonable.
Re:Hey, RMS...STFU!!!!!!! (Score:2)
It's nothing new, but all you RMS-triggerfinger-flamers ought to conceed defeat. People have always been trepedacious about ideals, but its approaching the levels where the noise the RMS-haters make would drown out any legitamite claims he makes. It's always the same stories with the visionaries
Re:Hmmm... let me ask a question... (Score:3, Interesting)
So the GPL does make no claims as to running the program, but it also says that you can't redistribute it with additional restrictions.