Corel Linux Beta License Violates GPL 393
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.
GPL is being violated anyway (Score:1)
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.
Yeesh. (Score:1)
This is an internal beta test. They simply don't want places like cheapbytes to start selling CD's to the unwashed masses who would then start complaining that the distribution was buggy and go back to windows (not to return when a stable release came out).
The difference between companies like Corel and your typical open source group is that when Corel puts its name behind a product which is released to the general public, they want it to be rock solid (or atleast stable). They're not trying to steal source code, they just want to get the bugs worked out of their modifications before they release them.
Dear Poser, (Score:1)
Is this polite enough for you, or am I jumping down your throat? I guess you need to read more of
or try man -k loser
and see what you come up with.
--
"New worlds are not born in the vacuum of abstract ideas, but in the fight for daily bread..."
Re:Yeesh. (Score:1)
They can want all they like, but they have to stick to the license they accepted by distributing GPL-derived software.
But geez, why is everybody suddenly such a Corel friend? They're just a big bozo software company that doesn't get open source! They deserve all the criticism that has been leveled at other companies like RedHat that do get the spirit of open source and that contribute to GPL software fairly and squarely.
EjB
Re:getting whipped into a frenzy doesnt help (Score:1)
John
Corel Linux beta - Read the FAQ (Score:2)
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? (Score:1)
Re:Corel vs. Red Hat (Score:1)
Re:Shame. Lawyers anyone? (Score:3)
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.
But where's the FSF when we're talking GPL? (Score:1)
After all, they created the license that we're talking about, they have the lawyers who waterproofed the license, so they are the ones who can most authoritatively say wether Corel did or didn't technically violate the GPL, all other considerations (like what a nice cozy corporation Corel is to embrace Linux) aside.
EjB
They should have known (Score:1)
-Brian
Reform? Where did he say reform? (Score:1)
Besides, the Law says that IF YOU DON'T COVER YOUR ASS, you lose the right to defend a license.
Don't you realize your eagerness to defend your high-and-mighty idealogies is the exact sort of hysteria that characterizes Microsoft's legal department? In your fierceness to defend against look-and-feel, you've become just as lawyer-happy when someone even questions "your" ethics
Come again? He never said defend ideologies. He said defend the GPL. Show some ability to process complex contexts. Defending a license is not the same as being letigious. (Drop the dictionary. The world makes dictionaries, not the other way around. The world therefore has precedence on meaning. Unless this is Oceania.)
Re:No public distribution, no GPL violation. (Score:1)
GPL: Communist? (Score:1)
The GPL, on the other hand, says "Here's the source, here's the program. There's no marginal cost to me if you copy it, so I won't charge you for that. If you want to use it, though, you'll have to agree to my terms. Rather than demanding money in exchange for my work, you must give back any changes you make. Furthermore, you do not gain the right to exclude others from my property, to which I am only grant you license to use."
It's a contract establishing a consentual transaction between parties to establish the rights associated with intellectual property. Sounds pretty damn capitalist to me.
Corel, Corel, Corel.... (Score:1)
Shame. Lawyers anyone? (Score:1)
If Corel insist on trying to license 'Corel' Linux under their terms, I suggest someone start up a GPL enforcement office, and we pay a Lawyer to take these things to court.
I'll give 50 quid to the organisation that impliments THAT.
*shakes head*
Come on Corel, don't lose our confidence.
Re:Before we all go berserk (Score:1)
For employees, there might be laws that prevent them from using the rights that the GPL grants them, but no conditions imposed by the employer can apply, or distributing the software to them would have been illegal.
This is my understanding of the GPL. IANAL.
Re:Finally. (Score:1)
The GPL, on the other hand, specifically states (paraphrasing a bit) "Nothing requires you to agree to this license, since you haven't signed it. However, nothing else grants you the right to use this software." Copyright law gives the author the right to exclude anyone from using the work (except for fair use, which wholesale copying usually isn't.) The GPL states the terms under which the author is willing to allow Joe Public to use his intellectual property.
The only possible hitch would be if you'd purchased GPL'd software; then it might be argued that the UCC grants you certian rights because you purchased it. (although with the new UTICA, there's no reason to believe it would be any less valid than any other software license agreement.) The fact that you are able to obtain any GPL'd software gratis seems to be to be pretty clear evidence that what you are purchasing is not the software per se, but rather the service of the distribution itself.
Yes, it's ironic that the GPL depends on the existence of intellectual property rights. My personal feeling is that RMS is fully aware of this, and probably loves the paradox. I know I do.
So ignore it (Score:1)
all distribution is the same (Score:1)
Wouldn't it be nice if I could buy one copy of any software and 'internally' distribute it to whomever I choose, worldwide without violating any license?
Re:Will the GPL hold up? (Score:1)
Dude. The FSF has lawyers, not just rambling old RMS =).
Also, a certain company called RedHat would tend to want to defend the GPL. Have you ever heard of SuSE, GmbH? How about Walnut Creek CDROM? Linuxcare? All of these companies woud be in a Bad Way (TM) if the GPL was non-functional.
Another thing is: If the GPL is invalid, then all software licences are invalid.
Also: What argument exactly would Corel use?
"Ahh, well, we, err, think, that, umm, because they, ahh, released the, err, source code, then, umm, it should be treated, uhh, as if it were, err, in the public domain. Yea, uhh, that's it."?
I think the GPL's on some pretty solid ground with some pretty sold backing.
Isn't It Ironic? (Score:1)
Hopefully they will see the error in their ways and correct this problem very soon.
write tham and let them know how we feel (Score:1)
write them and let them know we are upset.
Let them know that we wont support their distro on IRC, that we wont help new users using their product, that we will actively boycott their distribution and encourage others to do the same. Let them know that we will donate a few bucks each to organizations like the FSF who will persue them in court ($2 * 2 million linux users == $4,000,000 == lots of lawyers) and finally let them know that its not too late to win our trust back!
You would be surprised how much Corel needs our help on IRC and throughout the community to do their job of tech support for them. If they dont have our help they will have to spend many tens of thousands of dollars extra on tech support.
now that i have finished ranting i will go to class and turn my FORTRAN assignment in...
Standard beta test boilerplate (Score:4)
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.....
Who's gonna use this???? (Score:1)
Cmon....
Before we all go berserk (Score:4)
Ouch... (Score:1)
Corel just went down a couple of places in my 'cool companies that do stuff with linux' list.
What? A plain Debian CD? (Score:1)
I may just be a pessimist at the moment.
I do have faith that Corel will do what's right...
I just hope that it's not misplaced this time... *erf!*
Re:Sorry, I don't buy it (Score:1)
---
Not *necessarily* a problem (Score:1)
All they need to do to comply with the GPL is offer an FTP site for the source code of all GPL'd programs and derivatives thereof.
If they don't do even that, THEN they're violating the GPL and should change their ways or action should be taken against them.
Re:...Bzzt.... (Score:1)
It is a very important distinction. When and if Linux is a smouldering wreck, sunk because it carried a big blatant target called the GPL, and sorta begged all the missle launchers to let go at it, the BSD projects will still be chugging along.
Re:No public distribution, no GPL violation. (Score:1)
Re:Loophole? (Score:1)
Court injunction? (Score:1)
Re:getting whipped into a frenzy doesnt help (Score:1)
It doesn't matter, if you don't enforce your license you pretty much relinquish it. They need to be corrected now.
By the way, changes made to software because it is 'internal use' do not have to be destributed by the GPL - but if you have access to the software in binary or source format you have rights with the source (if you have it in binary format, you have the right to get the source it was compiled from). This goes without it being internal beta or not. You cannot place a restriction on (for instance) your employees that they cannot redistribute the modified GPL program's source, or else you are actually in violation of the GPL. So the beta users should have the right to get the source, recompile it, or distribute it, which the license does not allow. Beta or not, the license is in violation of the GPL.
GPL vs. IP rights (Score:1)
Perhaps they are afraid that some of their 'competitors' such as Red Hat or Mandrake will borrow the code they released and make it their own. (Which won't happen because GPL means no one has the IP rights to it to begin with...I think)
I cannot even use the old addage "Even bad publicity is good publicity" to rationalize this. Except in maybe someway they want to give people the sense that their code is "Forbidden fruit"...thus causing a lot of people to pirate the code even though they really aren't because its under GPL.
*shrug* Its been a long day.
Why is Chewbacca on Endor? Wookies don't live on Endor! It makes no sense!
>;)
-Vel
bnews.corel.ca = corels linux beta newsgroup (Score:1)
Read the licenses before making stupid responses (Score:1)
Re:Maybe they can do this (Score:1)
Re:another post from technocrat.net (Score:1)
I need to move to a country where law is simpler. But damnit, then we'd have to still listen to international law.. mebbe that private moon base will have a few apartments up for rent soon..
Ouch! (Score:1)
they were doing.
If we look at it in a bad light, then Corel don't have a leg to stand on. The GNU Project guys will crucify them...
getting whipped into a frenzy doesnt help (Score:1)
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.
--by which they probably mean the GPL
Yup (I'm a former CorelDRAW beta tester) (Score:3)
The person who probably crufted together the Beta test agreement is probably a clueless droid and no one caught the error.
Danger, Will Robinson! (Score:2)
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? (Score:3)
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! (Score:3)
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
Re:Line of division (Score:3)
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
cybershoe@mindless.com
I wouldn't get upset about it. (Score:2)
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... (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Copyright. (Score:4)
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' (Score:2)
Maybe they can do this (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:5)
Re:prosecution to the maximum extent possible un . (Score:3)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
30 seconds of research goes a long way... (Score:2)
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. (Score:4)
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 (Score:2)
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. (Score:2)
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. (Score:2)
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 (Score:4)
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... (Score:2)
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 (Score:5)
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.... (Score:3)
Will the GPL hold up? (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
This has the potential to become very interesting. (Score:2)
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. (Score:4)
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. (Score:3)
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 corellinux@corel.com)
NOT A PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION YET!! (Score:2)
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. (Score:5)
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. (Score:2)
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.
I wonder if Corel *meant* to do this (Score:2)
"Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity." :)
Re:Shame. Lawyers anyone? (Score:2)
Hold on a second...
While it is a good idea to enforce the GPL where applicable, it certainly should not be necessary to be as litigious as our closed source friends. This American ``sue everyone'' mentality really gets on my nerves sometimes (and I'm American!).
Corel obviously made a goof. You work on proprietary software long enough, you start to think there is nothing else, especially if you're a software company's lawyer drone, using search and replace to do 10 years of contracts and EULAs.
Certainly, if someone (perhaps the Debian folks) were to contact Corel and point out the error, they should have no problem writing a real agreement that is compatible with the GPL. I mean, they pay the lawers for something, right? Right?
Re:Shame. Lawyers anyone? (Score:4)
More evidence of Corel's deliberate GPL violation? (Score:5)
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 (Score:3)
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 (Score:5)
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 bruce@perens.com 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
Case closed, but not how you think (Score:2)
Eventually this breaks down- are temps insiders? What about people who've only worked for the company for a short while? Eventually you get to people who are definitely insiders. (You could make an argument that, even so, those people have a right to the GPLed source!) However, making a public announcement fishing for members of the public to do beta testing is, well, public- there's no way that's an inside release. It's not intended to stay an inside release, it's not being tested on the inside anymore- it's distribution to the public, just on a smaller scale.
Again, they ought to select beta testers and then decide to only pay _attention_ to their own choices for beta testers, while allowing the testers to redistribute. Do you realise that such a tester would, under Corel's original idea, be confronted with a whole _Linux_ distribution that hopefully is a good synthesis of lots of opensource software from all over- and yet the tester would be forbidden to distribute any of it through that channel? That's just not right- there's no reason such conditions have to cover the whole distribution. They can cover the proprietary bits, hopefully not for too long.
It's being fixed now (Score:2)
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 bruce@perens.com 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 (Score:3)
Give Corel a break (Score:2)
Bruce Perens just posted a message to debian-user stating that he talked with Corel and they will be fixing the problem.
Corel is the most supportive commerical software vendor going when it comes to Linux. They have stated that they plan to give most (all?) of their work back to the Debian community.
I'd quote the message but I don't think it's my place to do so ...
Corel (implicitly) admits to GPL violation (Score:2)
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.
whoa. they do go on to say that all of thier additions, including thier new file manager et al. will be released open source. at least that. but i dont think that the beta license we saw was a boilerplate/mistake. ick.
Re:Shame. Lawyers anyone? (Score:2)
Corel vs. Red Hat (Score:3)
Directly from the linux.corel.com Q&A (Score:5)
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.
Not just the GPL! (Score:2)
Re:No public distribution, no GPL violation. (Score:3)
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. (Score:5)
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
Standard Legalese (Score:2)
It's also in clear violation of the GPL, and one of the reasons that I'm not too excited about the Corel distribution.
Red Hat is beta testing, too - sign up for the mailing list, grab the beta from one of the mirrors, and offer some feedback to a company that gets it.
I expect that there will be a quick retraction and apology from Corel, but this sort of thing does not breed confidence.
Re:It's being fixed now (Score:5)
Bruce
Re:Before we all go berserk (Score:2)
Now, having said that - I agree that this needs to be addressed. This sets a dangerous precedent for companies releasing things under the title Beta that are really just commercial-grade.
Not just a clueless decision!! (Score:3)
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.
Corel is missing the whole point of Open Source (Score:2)
Now Corel is inventing the Cathedral Model of software development again. They're not getting it: they're just using Linux because it's popular, not of the philosophy behind it.
I'm sorry to say, but I don't believe after seeing this that Corel is going to be a benefit to the OSS community, people will probably be needing to correct them all the time.
This isn't neccesarily a violation of the GPL (Score:2)
However, their distribution can be a copyrightable work in it's own right. That is, their particular way of organizing the distribution can be regarded as copyrightable. This would not impact the license to the individual parts, and would not let Corel stop anyone from excersizing their rights under the GPL to the individual parts. But it would let Corel attach specific terms to their particular organization of the programs.
Since, as far as I remember, the GPL specifically allow GPL'd programs to be grouped together with non-GPL'd programs on the same media, it is quite possible that a court would find that a GPL'd program could be part of a non-GPL'd distribution as well.
To make an analogy:
If I paint a painting, it would be a copyright infringement to take a photo of my painting and distribute it without a license from me. However, if my painting was only one part of the photo, and the value of the photo could be considered as the arrangement of items and lighting etc., then it would likely not be an infringement. In the case of a GPL'd painting, however, the aggregate work could be compared to a program consisting of separate image elements, and would be covered.
But what if someone make a photo album, and redistribute it?
If my painting had been included, it would be a copright infringement, however if the pictures aren't arranged randomly, the placement of the pictures could be said to be copyrightable in itself. Which would mean that even if all the pictures were mine, or were under the GPL or in the public domain, I would not neccesarily be free to copy the way they were arranged in the album.
This analogy is close to the Corel distribution. And the GPL doesn't specifically mention it. Which may or may not be how it should be. On one hand, being able to copyright a distribution does not limit peoples right to use the software, but it does limit peoples right to organize collections of the software in a particular way and distribute the result...
GPL is being violated anyway (Score:4)
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 (Score:3)
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?