Corel Clears the Air 117
Innominius Cowherd gave us hook-up to a letter from Judith O'Brien, of Corel. As she says: "The restrictions on reproduction and distribution of the Beta version of Corel
LINUX contained in the Beta Testing Agreement are intended to apply only to those components
of Corel LINUX that were independently developed by Corel without the use of Open Source
software. ".
Re:What's the timeframe, then? (Score:2)
LetterJ
Writing Geek/Pixel Pusher
jwynia@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jwynia
Re:What's the timeframe, then? (Score:4)
So, by promising to ship source to the testers to whom they've shipped binary, and by disambiguating that their beta agreement does not overlay terms onto someone else's GPL license, they are entirely fulfilling their obligations under the GPL.
Someone asked what distribution was: the conveyance of a copy from one legal entity to another.
Thanks
Bruce
Fine, I'm a minority ;P :) (Score:2)
And I was yelling bloody murder and posted about five times on the danger of forking existing development, but now I'm appeased.
To be picky- I'll be appeased _when_ they release the source for the GPLed stuff that they've changed. If there's any suggestion that there's an intentional delay that's a very serious problem, even now. I don't see much evidence to suggest that they're intentionally delaying, though- just something to think about.
If Microsoft used this technique to fork existing opensource projects, you'd be singin' a different tune
Re:Jumping the gun??? (Score:1)
I agree it was bad to not find out the facts, I am just saying I think we 'pulled a Homer' or whatever. We did not do the 'right' thing but our doing the wrong thing might prove to be the best thing to have done in the long run. (if you follow all that).
Re:So there not supporting open source ? (Score:1)
Re:Corel Still Clueless (Score:1)
Re:IBM had a similar problem with Apache (Score:1)
Wrong, wrong wrong! gah! (Score:3)
Your claim 'If you are not a registered beta tester, you have no legal right to access the source code' is disturbingly like saying 'therefore you can't see it at all'.
This is dead wrong in a very serious way.
The reality is this: even _if_ 'beta testers' are found to be not distribution in the normal sense (in this case, I think even that is unreasonable), once those testers get the modifications to the GPLed code they have _every_ right to distribute it to anybody they please. Even if you cannot _force_ the original modifier to make you a 'beta tester', all you have to do is ask one of the beta testers and they have every right to redistribute the modified GPLed source, thus re-establishing the flow of information as is their right under the legal document, the GPL.
Please do not ever say 'If you are not a registered beta tester, you have no legal right to access modified GPLed code'. This is at best misleading, and at worst an outright falsehood.
These things are important, and a better understanding of them will help everybody including the proprietary companies. It's really not that hard or that dangerous to work with GPLed stuff and mingle it with the proprietary. You just have to put up a Berlin Wall of licensing- and anything that's derived from GPLed stuff, you completely err on the side of redistribution of information, and on giving people GPL rights. That's not that hard. As for the proprietary, just keep it entirely separate- I for one have no problem at all with Corel writing proprietary software. I have a very severe problem with the idea of their inadvertently or intentionally muddying the waters of the GPL's meaning. They have done that- they got _you_, LetterJ, to believe that if you're not a beta tester you have no right to see modified GPLed source. That's just not true. You have no right to see Corel's _proprietary_ source. Big difference. The stuff in the pool of work covered by the GPL is public, remember that...
Re:On your 'druthers (Score:3)
I dunno, I think flaming has it's place. All it really is is raw emotion and a violent outpouring of opinion. How important is it for companies to see that they are *really* pissing people off. Feedback is good for any organism. Flaming, a reaction akin to touching a hot stove, tells a company, quickly, Don't Do That! I agree that polite organized criticism is more effective, it's what I do, but sometimes you need an edge to pierce thick armor, corporate armor. A bit metaphorical, but I think it holds.
Correction :) (Score:2)
So, if you know somebody who has the binaries and source to the modified GPL programs, NOW, then you can get the source NOW by asking for it.
Corel is not compelled to give you the binary and source. They're just compelled to give you the source _if_ you have the binary. They can restrict the binaries (to GPLed stuff) with 'beta' as much as they like, but everybody they give it to has _complete_ rights to redistribute as much as they want. It's GPLed, you know
Re:They did the right thing. (Score:1)
Corel are planning to make money, probably a lot of money, from code that the free software community produced. They have a right to do that, and nobody (well almost nobody) is angry about it, but the "we" in question does have the right to be touchy if they even come close to stepping on "our" toes.
I think it is good that the community puts its foot down to show that the GPL is no matter to be taken lightly, even if it wasn't really necessary in the case. Certainly, if it has caused a couple of companies hungry to do dig in on the Linux distribution goldmine with as little open source as possible to reconsider, no one has really been hurt.
-
Re:Calm down. (Score:1)
The prior statements of the license as quoted by excerpt were a clear violation of the GPL, and deserved at minimum and immense amount of criticism. I am very glad that the current statement is different. I do wonder whether the revised statement applies to thos who agreed with the prior one. I also wonder whether the "shrink wrap license" will be considered to superceed the publicly reproduced letter which appears to come from someone at Corel (I'm not directly involved, I don't know the folk at Corel, so I can't judge whether this person is the president or the janitor... possibly a significant point, and I don't know how to weigh it). etc.
So, I'm very pleased by the statement, but also very pleased that I didn't agree to the license. This is clearly the right direction, and much slack needs to be available. But I won't be comfortable until there is a more formal retraction of the prior license and until the developers who did agree to the prior license are freed to exchange that license for the one being informally proposed here.
Re:I just put $17,000 in COREL (CORL)'s Stock. (Score:1)
Full disclosure: CORL long.
Re:Corel Wine Contribution (Score:1)
Anyway, having said that, my understanding is that Corel is taking on all the yucky stuff that isn't "cool" or "fun"... ie: the stuff that no-one wants to do on their own, but which still needs to be done.
In that respect (if it's true), then they are performing an extremely valuable service, and are fully entitled to any bragging rights (so to speak) that come with that.
--
- Sean
Re:On Corel (Score:1)
Do *you* know the requirements for a dufus? (Score:1)
The statement re unauthorised use at the bottom of my pages has everything to do with licensing.
People have sent me pictures for my page under the strict conditions that I take them down if they later request and do not allow distribution elsewhere.
The easiest way I have of fulfilling my multiple obligations to different people is to get people to ask me if they can use a photo.
When I have no such restrictions I generally have no problems allowing use:
See here for an example [angelfire.com]
The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
FTP site (Score:1)
Re:Corel is responding correctly. (Score:1)
Maybe, just maybe.... (Score:3)
I completely agree that responses to such issues should be mature and diplomatic, but I strongly disagree with those who advocate remaining silent and using a "wait and see" approach.
Sure, Corel's intentions may have been benign here. That won't always be the case. The day will come, I'm sure of it, when a not-so-benign company DOES attempt to subvert the GPL and gain some control over Linux or other GPL'd code.
When that day comes, it will be important to voice objection immediately, firmly, and, yes, diplomatically. When that day comes it will be important to be prepared to pursue legal remedies, and to make that our willingness to do so is crystal clear.
So, in a nutshell, I disagreed with those who said, when the license first came out, "Leave Corel alone, I'm sure it was an honest mistake." The folks at Corel are adults, if they violate the license terms on several thousand people's code, I think a full inbox is the bare minimum they should be prepared for. And, yes, those e-mails should be mature and diplomatic, not mindless streams of profanity. But they should be sent. And I agree with those who say "OK, they fixed it, get off their back." It turned out to be an honest mistake that was quickly fixed. That's good.
But we must be prepared to stand our ground when that's not the case. We don't want to build a reputation as a bunch of profanity-spewing, immature kids, but we also don't want to give the impression that we're unprepared to stand up for ourselves.
Just one guys opinion.....
On Corel (Score:3)
So, the case is really different from Mozilla's...
The real issue here is that Corel is slowly making a hughe culture change on their company. Not only the culture, goals and methods to achieve it are changing. And those changes are always seen first by upper managment and in this case, the general public. Not by middle components of the company...
WE expect to see a open source Corel, THEY want to be a open source Corel, but if they not redefine clearly their methods, THEY will fail to be what they wanna be, because WE will not see it...sounds tricky but it's quite simple.
Other companies that just relase their products for Linux are not critiziced, because they never show to the public a desire to be open source.
If Corel says: "I'll port all my products to Linux"...it's OK, but if they say: "We will relase an Open Source distro", and then they licence it propietary...there's a hughe mistake from them.
I like Corel, but they need time and criticism from the public.
Re:reactive (Score:1)
Corel said that components derived from open code as well as any other open code can be distributed as open code. Their code however, is not currently open code. They will make it open in the future, but right now, as beta software, it's closed. Why is this so complicated?
-Rich
Re:Jumping the gun... (Score:3)
I keep hearing this kind of statement, and I have to wonder why writing code is so critical to defending software freedom?
Okay, if I'm an author and I want my code kept free, I must defend the GPL terms. I can understand that.
But, as a user, I am also just as interested in software freedom. The many eyes keeping watch for security holes, bugs, performance hits, etc. in the free software that I use make it imperative that I defend that software's usage terms! Being unable or uninterested in contributing to a software project has no bearing on my defending my use of it. This is a point that must accepted, nay, embraced by contributors. An elitist attitude on the developers' part will eventually get in the way of progress. Like it or not, the developer community and the user community are one in the same when it comes to defending free software.
Corel demos GPL as the joke it is (Score:3)
The GPL clearly states that when redistributing a binary resulting from GPL'd source code that either the source code or a written offer for providing the source code has to accompany the binary. So, does the Corel Linux CDs provide either the source code to all the GPL packages or a written offer? If they aren't then they are violating the terms of the General Public "License."
But, so what? Seriously... so what.
The Free Software Foundation gives a How-To Spot a GPL violation [fsf.org] but it stops short, once you spot it then you simply contact the copyright holder. But...
- What if *YOU* are the copyright holder?
- Where is a Howto on GPL enforcement?
- Where is a FAQ on enforcing the GPL?
- What is the best way to serve and document that an offical request has been provided for a distributor to correct their business practices when distributing the GPL package?
- What do you do if your an individual developer and a distributor has ignored for over 2 years requests to follow the requirements listed in the GPL?
- What is a method accepted by the US Courts on putting a value on the package or a dollar amount on the "damages" due to GPL violation?
- What is the maxium amount of damages that can be claimed in small claims court?
- How do you go about filing a GPL violation in small claims court?
Your not going to find a FAQ covering the above questions. They aren't answered by the Free Software Foundation [fsf.org] and they aren't answered by OSI [opensource.org]. The reason isn't because everyone follows the GPL, there are all sorts of violations of the GPL to be found. Fortuantly, serveral companies will change their actions when notified of the violation and when asked nicely to change. However, there are cases where companies have refused to follow GPL requirements even when notified of the terms of redistribution stated in the license. So, the lack of a GPL enforcement Howto/FAQ is due to lack of interest in enforcing the GPL, not due to lack of need. As a result, the developers that choose to publish under the General Public "License" do so making a good-faith request, where as an enforced license give a list of demands that are required. In fact, it would be more approbate to say that Corel has "violated" the GPGFR (General Public Good-Faith Request) by continuing to distribute GP"L" packages in binary form without the source code or written offer of source code. And if this isn't a big enough issue to go to court over or at least give a Howto to developers to provide information on how they can take GP"L" violations to court then stop your whinning. People are forever ignoring requests if they feel it is in their interest to do so.Myself--I'm going to publish future works under the latest BSD license. The BSD license "restrictions" are ones that I'm prepaired to enforce. I'm a programmer, not a lawyer and no one is giving me any law advice so I can be any different. The BSD license lets me be just a programmer without making any claims to how the package should be used that I'm not prepaired to back.
The point Corel's actions make is to let programmers be programmers and give up on getting them to enforce an ideology that they aren't prepair to back. Whinning about GPL violations is like crying about j-walkers. In the end, there is no point in continuing to publish code under the GPGFR joke (formally known as GPL).
Re:Wow! (Score:3)
If I had my druthers, someone would post a rational argument regarding why something was wrong and then the vast multitude would chime in politely and help to get the change enacted. This time it wasn't quite that neat. I found John Goerzen's argument to be quite rational, but John didn't know how to take the next step - how to get their attention and get a negociation started first, so that he could say that was going on in his initial announcement. That would have damped down the panic response somewhat. But I ended up doing that stuff as soon as I heard what was happening, and it worked out OK.
Thanks
Bruce
Re:reactive (Score:1)
Perhaps these comments are really an indictment of the average reading comprehension of GPV zealots...after all, anyone that had READ the article would have seen that 1) the restrictions don't apply to any code but the stuff Corel is developing themselves, and 2) that Corel intends to release that code as Open Source as well once they think it measures up.
Reasonable people can understand Corel's position, especially when they explain it as they have. Only the most rabid GPV zealot, it seems, can misinterpret it.
--
Let's consider everything about Co rel's distro... (Score:1)
My take on the Corel fiasco is that the lawyers were lazy, picked up a pre-written EULA and slapped it on the beta. They should have written a new liscense agreement that just said something like "software contained herein is liscensed under the agreement specified by the copyright holder. Software under copyright of Corel Corporation remains property of said coorporation and under the terms of the beta test shall not be copied or transferred without prior... yada yada yada.
Yes, exactly (Score:3)
Nothing about this says that those testers can or must redistribute _Corel_ stuff that is not released under the GPL. That's completely different, and that's Corel's business. The only requirement we're talking about here is the nature of redistribution to beta testers as specified by Corel.
The reason it's not possible to force distribution to interested parties, for instance the original author of a program, is that this might be a roadblock to development- if that person dies or is locked up or otherwise becomes impossible to communicate with, it would be impossible to legally continue developing that software. The expectation is that all interested parties would be able to get access to important modifications being made in the code. This stands up fairly well to attempts to break the flow of information- if a company wished to fork a program, and (under their GPL rights) made major changes privately and then wished to bring it into the mainstream without letting the maintainers of the original development stream get the information, they'd have three main options:
- not release it, which would be ineffective at forking the development stream- that constitutes not even distributing it, and obviously, is no threat
- release it to only handpicked people (beta testers). In this case they are not _forced_ to release it to anyone not a beta tester, because they do not have an obligation to distribute binaries to all- the extent to which they do that is the extent to which they are distributing, and they're not required to distribute. The trick is, each of the recipients gets full rights under the GPL- so if even _one_ of the beta testers wishes to give the information to the original author, to Slashdot, to Jesse Berst or whoever, that is their right. This means that in a situation of an attempted power play, the control of information can blow at any seam- anyone can legally be the link from the controlled environment to the outside world. It becomes very unlikely that such a power play can be carried out except under very tight wraps, which markedly diminishes its effectiveness.
- release it to all, which abandons any attempts to wrest control of the development of the GPLed software from others.
This is critically important to understand- the GPL is not most significant as an UberLicense to which everybody must submit. It's not even necessary for all software to be licensed under it. The important thing is that the GPL is carefully constructed, down to the smallest detail, to cause the fullest dissemination of information under even the most hostile conditions. It is possible for people to (legally) try and control source under the GPL, because of the doctrine that binaries == source and the failure to _require_ that binaries be distributed. However, by the same token, the GPL is uncompromising in that when you _do_ redistribute, the recipients get full rights, and any of them can distribute further to anybody they choose. You can't stop them or even slow them down. You can ask them not to, but that's _it_, that's all you can do, is ask, they are entirely in the right to do so.To analyse possible risk areas further, let's consider another possibility- the distributor says, 'Please don't redistribute our Linux betas. If you do, we will drop you from the program and you won't get any more binaries _or_ source from us'. This is legitimate under the GPL! However, it's also waving a red flag- there doesn't need to be a formal contractual punishment for this, because of the inevitable backlash effect. Other beta testers would defect and redistribute. There would be new testers who'd sign on just long enough to get binaries and source and then (legally) redistribute and (legally) be dropped from the beta testing ranks. The only way to rule that out entirely would be to cease any beta testing at all- and even then, you're assuming that all the programmers working on the project internally will keep it under wraps. They get full rights to redistribute too!
Thus, even in severely hostile situations, if the GPL is followed to the letter, it will tend to route information around attempts to blockade it. That's what it's for- that's the GPL's overriding purpose and goal.
If it ever becomes a problem to get modifications of GPLed source out of a company, go straight to those who are working with the binaries in any context. They are formally and legally allowed to redistribute all the GPLed source they have.
Re:They did the right thing. Now, give them a brea (Score:2)
Certainly not. I honestly believe that no one got hurt. No blood, no foul.
I do think Corel did themselves a great disservice, however, by not taking those 4 days before the fax went out, instead of after. Then again, who's to say that we would have noticed if they had done things right the first time? Would we have been as friendly then as we were angry?
Nevertheless, they did make themselves look bad - an oversight I think they would have done well to avoid. But they didn't hurt me, they didn't hurt anyone I know, and maybe they've ensured that the next big company to try this sort of thing will know better what they're getting into.
Re:Actually, you're not correct about the GPL here (Score:1)
(Or on a more practical level, they could send you a microfiche with the entire distro's source, written in machine readable bar-codes.. that would be [relatively] cheap as well as fulfilling the minimum requirements.)
When one really gets nit-picky there are lots of small holes, most of them too bothersome to be worth bothering with. But any company that actually took advantage of them would be clearly marked "does not play nicely". So far that hasn't been worth anyone's while. (Besides, all it would take is one person with a seven track tape drive, and everything would be loose).
Re:On Corel (Score:3)
If I had my 'druthers, I'd make our criticism more polite and better organized, but I'd not eliminate it.
Bruce
Re: What did we really achieve? (Score:4)
We kept a really bad precedent from happening. You know the story about just letting the camel's nose into the tent, and then shortly afterward the entire camel is in the tent. Some day, some company is going to deliberately run rough-shod over our copyright rights, and we'll really have to defend ourselves. We could not allow the precedent that just a little violation was OK, for a little while. I don't believe the argument that there would have been no violation, either. The way I read the beta agreement, the GPL, and the definition of distributuion, there would have been a violation.
I am also very little concerned about scaring business away from Linux at this point. Business is all over us. Corel claims to be the world's second largest company in its market, just behind Microsoft. They can smell money as well as the next business.
What I am concerned with is that the individuals who built all of this software will be overwhelmed by the giant corporations. I did my best to keep that from happening and to keep everybody, including the corporation, happy about the resolution we came to. Yes, I think a valuable goal was achieved.
Thanks
Bruce
a bit of slack, er, debian... (Score:1)
It gives them credibility and history of supporting Free Software. (If MS said something like that it would be laughable, in that they've made no such contribution... but Corel has, and in fact is betting on WINE as their way of porting apps to/from Linux: why port CorelDraw, say, when just linking the Windows version to libwine will have the same effect?)
We should be patient with our friends, asking politely if things seem amiss. We should avoid accusing them of being pariahs until they either consistently refuse to answer (which is more than "hey, I mailed them 10 minutes ago and didn't get an answer yet!") concerns or violate the trust they've earned.
Treating every friend of Linux as a potential enemy is the sort of thing that made "TeamOS/2" look like fools years ago. For the long term health of Linux, we are just going to have to give some slack to companies like Corel and IBM and RedHat and Compaq and VA and the rest.
They do have their own money and reputation on the line here, and by treating them as friends they will keep investing both of them. If we are always quick to jump on them for perceived problems, they shan't be friends long, and will decide their money and reputation are at risk and will move to where they are appreciated.
Ask any of the beta testers (Score:2)
Re:reactive (Score:1)
--
Re:Fine, I'm a minority ;P :) (Score:1)
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Small Claims (Score:1)
What is the maxium amount of damages that can be claimed in small claims court?
If you are in California [ca.gov], the maxium is $2,500. Other states are probably similar. Keep in mind that in small claims court, you represent youself and cannot have a lawyer present.
Re:Actually, you're not correct about the GPL here (Score:3)
However, just to be contentious, if you are not the person who gave them the binary, you don't necessarily have the complete source code. It could have been modified downstream. Nyah! :-)
Re:Corel, give and take (Score:1)
Re:Actually, you're not correct about the GPL here (Score:3)
Bruce
Re:What's the timeframe, then? (Score:1)
I've got no problem with them taking a little time to cut CDs -- though I'd suggest that, should the license ever need to stand up in court, setting a permissible time period for things like that wouldn't be a bad idea.
I'm starting to understand how legal documents get as long and boring as they are.
Re:Educate the Lawyers - not possible (Score:1)
Lawyers are the reason companies have to have this legal crap... kinda funny how they can get away with racketeering, yet if I do that it's illegal..
what a fun world...
Re:I just put $17,000 in COREL (CORL)'s Stock. (Score:1)
Re: What did we really achieve? (Score:1)
We kept a really bad precedent from happening.... We could not allow the precedent that just a little violation was OK, for a little while. I don't believe the argument that there would have been no violation, either. The way I read the beta agreement, the GPL, and the definition of distributuion, there would have been a violation.
As you can tell, I read the license differently. I agree, any company that makes a violaion, big or small, should not be let go. If I believed Corel did violate the GPL, I'd be calling for a calm warning, and Corel to immediately aplogize. But the fact is, you shouldn't attempt to set a precedent, even if its better for the long run, by using an innocent company as the criminal.
How I read the license, Corel said "Product" with a capital 'P' to refer to the entire distribution. The product in question, as I hypothesized in earlier posts and that you confirmed, contains propitary and open source code. Corel also said that the beta tester would have to comply with Corel's and other licenses that were in the "Product." That almost explains it all.
It is illegal to distribute propitary, single-license code and binary. Thus, distributing the beta would be software piracy, as you could distribute Word Perfect Suite and break the same laws. Therefor, Corel did have it in their rights to say the user could not distribute their beta. I refer you to section 12 in the Corel license on this point.
What else did Corel restrict? They restricted what users could say, only when Corel informed them it was on the hush-hush. They signed an NDA, its in there rights, and Corel said most things were allowed to be publicized. This is fine, and never was questioned.
They also restricted using the "Product" after 45 days. That's perfectly legal, its like their code was shareware.
I am also very little concerned about scaring business away from Linux at this point. Business is all over us. Corel claims to be the world's second largest company in its market, just behind Microsoft. They can smell money as well as the next business.
Oh, I'm not too. Even if we make an enemy, we have to many friends for it to matter. But, I don't like it when we try to make an enemy for no reason. Attacking and accusing Corel of something, which I personally believe they never did, is just sickening. Its doing it for the rush, the fun of it. Its not justice, as much as people would like to claim it is, its childish. Yes, Corel is an ally due to money, but so many of our allies are in it for the same reason. That's no excuse either for linux users to attack and attempt to degrade Corel's public opinoin.
What I am concerned with is that the individuals who built all of this software will be overwhelmed by the giant corporations. I did my best to keep that from happening and to keep everybody, including the corporation, happy about the resolution we came to.
And if Corel really did, or had, broken the GPL I'd be extremely greatful. I am greatful because you did it believing Corel was at fault, though we disagree on that matter. I think most usuers are afraid of trading the individual programmers for large companies, not ony for the ideals involved but because we know what each is doing it for. I'm afraid it could be inevitable, but with enough effort and concern, maybe we'll get lucky.
Yes, I think a valuable goal was achieved.
I'm glad you feel your effort went to some good. Since we cannot turn back time, and I'm sure slashdot maintainers and readers could not be convinced that they should apologize, I really hope a valuable goal was achieved. Even if it hurt Corel, or just degraded my opinion of the Linux/GPL community, if something good comes out of this I'll be content.
If everyone had rolled over and let Corel 'get away with it,' that wouldn't have been any better. I think Slashdot misinformed its readers and did a disservice to the community, but if the community had not reacted as they had (and had not agreed with me that Corel was not breaking the GPL), then that would have been, quite frankly, horrible.
In anycase, I'd just like to sum up that I don't think Corel was wrong. I also disagree that the "argument that there would have been no violation" is untrue, because there would have been no violation as they never violated the GPL.
My understanding was different, and while I still view it as correct, I'm happy to have heard yours. Thanks for taking the time to reply, and to help solve this matter.
Re:Jumping the gun... (Score:1)
you were aware that corel were developing opsn source software long before the press release.
why didnt't you "excersise your rights" and demand that they give you weekly snapshots of the software in development?
oh yeah
because it was >>IN DEVELOPMENT
and it still is. so quit whining everyone and wait for the REAL product. never have i heard such a bunch of facile and childish arguments from a group of people who are supposed to be intelligent.
thank ---- for that! (Score:1)
Re:reactive (Score:1)
A note: it took them more than a week for this one and before the "clarification" the copyright should have been understood as on all the distirbution. And it took may be more flame and flack that anything for the last two years.
Overall, let's see the licence slpapped on the distirbution.
Re:On your 'druthers (Score:1)
If I get an email that starts with "You are an idiot", unless I am really bored, it will automatically be forwarded to /dev/null. So whatever briliant revelations may have been further on in the letter are lost.
Constructive critisism is much more effective. mention the good with the bad. Think about what you are writing. And most importantly, wait 5 minutes and re-read your message before sending it. You will most likely have calmed down and realize that what you've written sounds way to harsh for the situation. Remember, there is no cancel button once that Email is out the door.
reactive (Score:1)
Re:Corel Linux apparently is a contradiction. (Score:1)
Seems reasonable to me, though we should watch for the terms.
Re:reactive (Score:1)
--
Re:So there not supporting open source ? (Score:1)
instalation and other programs as open source with the final distribution.
The testers are getting now the source code for
all changes Corel made to GPL software under GPL.
exactly (Score:4)
Corel is putting quite a few of it's eggs in the Linux basket, which (for an "old-school" company) is a pretty big risk. We should all give them as much support as we can (whether that's monetary support by buying their products, coding support for whatever software they release as OSS, or even just giving them the benefit of the doubt instead of flying off the handle.)
They did the right thing. Now, give them a break! (Score:5)
There's an important rule to know if you want to be a successful agent for constructive change. Once people start doing what you want, stop complaining! Corel has done the right thing and should now be congratulated and praised.
They have made it clear that the beta agreement does not restrict the distribution of any Open Source code. Not just the GPL code, where there was a legal issue. That means they consider the desires of the community to be important - they've given us more than they really had to.
I think the criticism regarding the speed at which this took place is incorrect. Corel is a huge company, the biggest software company in Canada and one of the world's largest. For such a behemoth to change its course in 4 days is certainly not an unacceptable delay!
There's also criticism because they choose to not apply an Open Source license to some stand-alone products, not containing other people's code, until those products are finished. That's their perogative. I'm sure they'll experiment with open development, but as we've seen with Mozilla, it's difficult to get community participation on something that doesn't work yet. Only now that Mozilla is useful are we seeing significant contributions from outsiders.
And yes, they said some clueless things while this was going on, and even something that many took as insulting. But diplomacy means ignoring stuff like that and just concentrating on the goal. We achieved the goal, they understand now, they conceded. What went before that is irrelevant now.
So, now it's time for us to encourage Corel.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Makes complete sense (Score:3)
My translation of this: "Sorry, we fucked up, either because we/our lawyers weren't paying attention or because we were just being careless with our legalese. Our bad."
I found it interesting to see that they were quick to point out that they've contributed (in the past sense) much code to WINE. Of course, not being on the winedev mailinglist, I wouldn't know whether they've actually contributed major/useful amounts or if they're just trying to keep the dogs docile. Either way, it did come off a bit as "Hey, after we've done so much for you, don't bite our faces off!" but being the generous porcupine that I am, I'll let it slide. Hopefully others will do the same (and we can, of course, ignore the trolls who will use any opportunity to flame the "big evil companies" whenever they can because they feel justified or whatever).
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Calm down. (Score:4)
Until the final is released, chill out.Try and remember that this is not a Linux-only company, they have a lot of policies that will have to adapt to our ways, but let's give them some time (and then, if need be, freak out
Jumping the gun... (Score:3)
I would wager that the overwhelming majority of the people yelling bloody murder have not ever written a single line of open source code.
ok....
Flame Suit on........
Why Linux will Dominate the World (Score:2)
Software User: HEY WAIT A GODDAMN SECOND, THIS IS SUPPOSED TO OPEN AND FREE!!!! (continues for 72 pages...)
Software Maker: Whoa, just kiddin' folks. Here, try this.
(Software Maker's lawyers: Dang!)
Software User: That's better. Thanks.
Software Maker: No problem (walks away with tail between legs)
Enough money is being moved into Linux now that many of the remaining issues, err, issue (usability) will be solved. Enough competition is coming in to force improvements and increase innovation (MSFIN, haha). Enough people use it now and understand the philosophy behind it, that it can't be changed or subverted. Free software is here to stay. enjoy.
Corel (Score:3)
Re:So there not supporting open source ? (Score:3)
My interpretation is that they've done two kinds of work:
- Corel-written modifications to GPLed code. The source to this will be included in the beta, since it is "tainted" by GPL. (I don't mean that in a derogatory way, no flames please.)
- Stuff written from scratch by Corel. The beta will not include the source to this, and Corel owns the copyright. They will eventually release the source (after the beta) under some kind of open source license, not necessarily GPL.
Does that sound like an accurate summary?It looks to me like the second part (the Corel-written code) shows that they still do not understand the massively-parallel debugging advantage of open source.
---
Have a Sloppy day!
Re:Moderation? Come on, that sucks (Score:1)
His opinion being popular or unpopular is irrelevant - the fact that he didn't read (or comprehend) the article, combined with the WAY he said it (and the fact that he didn't mention anything to back up his claims) means it's a bad post, and should be moderated as such.
I didn't moderate it (just used the last of my points) but if I did, it would have been flamebait.
Re:So there not supporting open source ? (Score:2)
Personally, I feel that even though open source is the way to go, it's Corel's business (quite literally) if they choose to keep it closed. It then becomes the users' choice whether or not we support their distribution. I don't really plan to ever use Corel, but if a company wants to keep its apps' source "close to the vest", I don't have a problem with that -- all software doesn't have to be open to be good.
Educate the Lawyers (Score:2)
The GPL is going to require a lot of rethinking of standard legal department processes in the years to come.
The mistakes Corel made are not due to any attempt to subvert the GPL, merely a lack of understanding of it (or even knowledge of it) amongst key personnel.
--"You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
Re:They did the right thing. Now, give them a brea (Score:2)
I'm still cautious about wether they understand that even if they use a portion of a GPL'ed program in a new program (instead of modifying a GPL'ed file), they're required to license it under the GPL.
But I think this is a good response of Corel within an appropriate timeframe.
I also think that seeing how many people disliked their earlier proposal must have convinced Corel that some action was necessary - Bruce may be a good talker, but it's very nice that he can back up his diplomatic skills with some weight in the form of looming bad publicity.
And Corel should be thankful, for being averted from commiting software piracy. (If big companies can use big words to describe innocent teenage behaviour, so can we to describe the behaviour of big companies that should know better).
But all in all, I think we got what we wanted, nobody got hurt, so yea, I guess that qualifies as "success"!
EjB
do you *know* the requirements for GPL packages? (Score:2)
And if Corel wants to put non-GPL portions under their own license as part of the distribution, that's okay too. Perl comes with virtually every Linux distribution, and is not GPL'd. The choice is Corel's. Choice is what Linux is all about.
And if someone uses GPL'd code and doesn't release under the GPL, then they're committing software piracy. I see no reason the GPL as a license is any less valid than a Windows license or a MacOS license. But if piracy is okay with you as a programmer, perhaps you haven't developed anything worth stealing.
Re:What's the timeframe, then? (Score:1)
If I understand what you're saying, they're currently in violation of the GPL, but that's O.K. as long as they make good on their promise at some point in the (I'm assuming near) future.
(And people think this GPL stuff is complicated...)
Not tryin' to flame you or anything -- Call me a wanna-be legal student.
Re:Jumping the gun??? (Score:2)
I read the original license and it was wrong. I followed the comments coming out of Corel indicating their preference was to keep the license unchanged -- in violation of the GPL.
The community acted in a mostly rational fashion, there were some hotheads, but most people remained sane. I thinks it's safe to say the reaction of the community was appropriate and that Corel's response was as well.
Cool, mission accomplished.
Bottom line: the GPL must protected from both the the malicious and the clueless.
Re:What's the timeframe, then? (Score:2)
Bruce
Actually, you're not correct about the GPL here (Score:3)
Actually, this is not true, on both counts. If I get a GPL binary (no source attached) from Corel, I am entitled to ask them for the source code. I am also entitled to distribute this distribution to anyone I want. So far so good.
But, under the GPL, anyone I distribute the binary to can also ask Corel for the source. Of course, they can ask me for it, but unless I distributed it commerically I do not have to comply
This is only the case of distributing binarys only, but this can be relevent to Corel, as they don't want to release the full source for their mods quite quite yet, but if one of the beta testers distribute the GPL modified binaries to slashdot, and everyone in slashdot asked Corel for the source, Corel would have to send to each and every one.
For reference, the relevent sections of the GPL [gnu.org] follows: (emphasis mine to see where I'm coming from
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code [...]
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, [...] a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, [...]
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Only if Corel distribute the source along with the beta distribution would the complusion to supply source be passed from them.
--
They still don't get it... (Score:1)
Re:IBM had a similar problem with Apache (Score:3)
Thanks
Bruce
Do *you* know the requirements for GPL packages? (Score:2)
Internal use may even count as distribution, however GPL only forces you to give source code and confer the license to those internal people, and it's likely they'll agree not to distribute further. You probably can't 'enforce' that as a company, but you can probably 'suggest' it, as Corel could have simply indicated to their new beta testers that they'd prefer it wasn't passed around.
The fact that Corel themselves released a license for the beta indicates that it is not an _internal_ beta.....if it were then confidentiality etc etc would be covered by existing contracts would they not?
They are however doing the right thing now but it is understandable that people get angry. When it comes down to it without the GPL we have 'nothing'. If they'd tried to violate another companies license they'd probably get something far nastier than a tongue lashing on Slashdot
The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
Re:Corel Still Clueless (Score:1)
Sorry... not the way it works. As someone who has participated in formal beta tests for large products, as well as having selected people for beta-tests, that's not the way you pick beta-testers (unless you're a complete idiot).
Yes, you may have "windows newbies" beat on your application, but that's not part of the beta test period, that's part of the Usability Study period (for a company like Corel anyway). That's when you get "people who meet certain criteria" (that criteria being the same as your target audience) and have them try the product out, and find out what they like/dislike and what works/doesn't-work for their skill level, perceptions, etc.
The point of beta-testing is to find bugs and problems that the alpha-testers (usually in-house) couldn't find. The reason you have a beta period is simply to increase the "number of monkees beating randomly on the keyboards". You are increasing the number of people with odd hardware/software/installation/whatever combinations that may (and invariably WILL) find problems in your code that you didn't know about, simply because you can't - in-house - test every combination.
Bugs are best found by hacker-types who will also tend to correct the bugs if they can. As soon as Corel realizes that, they'll have a clue about the Open Source community.
IBM had a similar problem with Apache (Score:1)
"When IBM wanted to use the Apache Group's open-source software as the cornerstone of their WebSphere e-commerce package, the lawyers found themselves dealing with a 20-person nonentity. The group has no legal existence, and is defined by little more than Brian Behlendorf's Web site. Even so, the group was able to dictate terms: that the deal remain open-source and non-exclusive. Since the group didn't want any money, IBM wasn't sure how to negotiate the cooperation of these programmers."
Re:may be off topic, but... (Score:2)
Re:Just get rid of the idiotic gpl (Score:1)
Next time you ask for information (eg. software or "what time is it?"), I'll ask you to pay me. If you bitch, I'll tell you to get a job.
Also, as far as I understand it, computer literates are one of the highest-paid of any labour force. A lot of us HAVE jobs. Did you ever think of that?
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
I strongly disagree- rebuttal (Score:2)
Since you seem to be thinking of personal grievances let's look at your questions. Any Slashdotter lawyers reading this?
What if *YOU* are the copyright holder?
Then you might be one of the people most interested in fixing the situation. Doesn't mean you're any more entitled than anybody else. The GPL is everybody's business, and if there's a grievance anybody can pursue it, they don't have to be the copyright holder.
If you mean 'me and not the FSF', surprise! You've still released under a legal document. It's still binding. You could assign the copyright to Microsoft and the document still is binding. If the FSF doesn't attack violators, maybe people need to be signing copyright over to something that does, or simply using their names and getting together to exchange the names of lawyers who'd love a piece of the action from suing a rich company over an egregrious contract violation.
Where is a Howto on GPL enforcement?
Beats me, perhaps we need one.
Where is a FAQ on enforcing the GPL?
Beats me, perhaps we need one.
What is the best way to serve and document that an offical request has been provided for a distributor to correct their business practices when distributing the GPL package?
Have you considered the usual formalities, such as having the request notarized, or requiring a receipt to certify that the recipient actually got and signed for your written request? Here we're getting into the realworld legalistics, and this is orthogonal to the actual GPL.
What do you do if your an individual developer and a distributor has ignored for over 2 years requests to follow the requirements listed in the GPL?
Please specify exactly what failure you mean. Who is this, and what have they done? They do _not_ have a requirement to distribute to you specifically. If they gave you binaries of GPLed stuff they do have a requirement to give you the source. If they're modifying something of yours, they do not have a requirement to give you specifically their result, but if they give you the binary they have to give you the source. Also, you can get the source indirectly, as anybody who _did_ get it is fully empowered to redistribute. Exactly what happened that has you so upset, and is it genuinely a violation or not?
What is a method accepted by the US Courts on putting a value on the package or a dollar amount on the "damages" due to GPL violation?
That's irrelevant to the GPL, ask a lawyer. The GPL just happens to be the contract in question.
What is the maxium amount of damages that can be claimed in small claims court?
Beats me, ask a lawyer.
How do you go about filing a GPL violation in small claims court?
Beats me, I don't go around suing people (so far!
Do we have any lawyer-like slashdotters willing to give some input here?
Some contributions? (Score:1)
You just threw $17,000 in the toilet (Score:1)
Corel Linux will likely be a highly refined, high-quality product; their proprietary admin tools will probably be lovely. But it's going to be sold by Corel.
Re:No apologies! (Score:2)
Corel is being very careful not to upset the Open Source community. For now, we are a strong ally against their main enemy.
It's a GOOD THING(tm) to uproar about anything we think is wrong, even if it is just a hint. As long as you don't go flaming or throwing insults, and respond in an intellectual manner. Of course we have those that don't do that and I'm embarrassed of that, but I will complain if they just seem to be breaking the rules.
I liked their response (Although I'm sure RMS can't stand it and wonders "What type of Open Source license they will use", since it was stated that the terms will be developed later).
This response probably would not have happened without the reaction of Slashdot. They could be acting like a child, pushing the rules until they are stopped.
logging Onto the Future (Score:1)
Internal use _does_ count as distribution (Score:2)
Distribution is defined as transfer of the binary/source from one legal entity to another legal entity. As such, internal distribution is unambiguously considered distribution, and the provisions of the GPL apply. The recipient (the programmer in the next cubicle, for instance) is afforded the full and undiluted rights under the GPL, just as if they were doing the work on their own time. If the company does not like letting its employee's intellectual property become potentially public property, then they need to have that employee work on something else, because the GPL is unambiguous and makes no allowances for 'company time' or 'private releases' or any of that. Contracts mean exactly what they say, and this one (the GPL) is phrased very explicitly and bluntly in key areas- and not by accident.
To address one of your points- the GPL has no provision for waiving itself in the case of an employee who has signed confidentiality agreements. For the purposes of the GPL, the company does not exist. If it conflicts with confidentiality agreements, either the confidentiality agreement breaks by necessity, or the employee ends up legally unable to work on such a program (and this begins to be a civil liberties issue. Can you forbid a person from participating in software development that gives them property rights to the software, and freedom to redistribute?)
Re:Just get rid of the idiotic gpl (Score:1)
Opposition = Innovation
"Nullumst iam dictum quod non sit dictum prius."
(Nothing is ever said that has not been said before). Publius Terentius Afer (Terrance) Eunuchus, 41
Re:reactive (Score:1)
Jumping the gun??? (Score:1)
Corel doesn't get it. (Score:2)
So the model for selling this stuff is simple. You dump your License in the trash (when was the last time you Licensed a can of Coke?), and simply distribute the stuff with an expiration date and a clear warning label on it that indicates it is not yet a complete product (and a pointer to where to upgrade later, for advertizing purposes.)
There are many reasons you would want to distribute in this way:
1) You don't look like you're some kind of authoritarian control freak, trying to dictate the exact terms of your products. This is an especially bad PR mistake to make in a Community that values freedom, as it demonstrates that you don't fit in.
2) You get a wider audience for testing, and benefits of OSS in general, as discussed in Eric Raymond's classic paper "The Cathedral and the Bazaar." Release early and release often is the appropriate mantra here, as it gives you more smart people looking at bugs and features.
3) You make your Beta Testers happier and increase mindshare by treating them as equals. The more time and energy that you can get the Beta-Testers to expend on the product, the more vested interest those testers will have in seeing the product succede on release.
Anyway, here's hoping that they come to their senses soon.
Michael
Corel is responding correctly. (Score:1)
Their contributions to the wine group are not trivial. They have proven themselves to be a good supportive menber of the community, and deserve reciprocal support from us. Their gpl slipup was simply an error made by their legal staff and will surely be rectified to everyones satisfaction.
Do they plan to make money off of linux? Well, yes, but so do most of us, in one way or the other... That is the freedom we have with the gpl.
thanks corel. thanks debian. thanks bruce.
What's the timeframe, then? (Score:2)
Two issues here:
One: If Corel produces new code (that doesn't include GPL'd code, of course) they can do what they like. We can request opening of code, but we may not get. Even if they plan to GPL it, they hold their full copyright until they do.
Two: If anyone works on GPL'd code, they are required to publish, right? When? How often? If I add a comment to a piece of GPL code, do I have to run out and post it on a web page, and submit the link to Slashdot? I hope not, because that's going to screw up the revision check-in a bit.
However, if I release the binaries, even if I call them beta, and seems pretty clear that I should make the source available by then, no?
(Note: I'm not accusing Corel of the latter... However, they have been accused of that by assumption...)
I just put $17,000 in COREL (CORL)'s Stock. (Score:3)
is due out soon. People don't seem to realize it yet, but Corel is in a VERY good postion to dominate the OS market in general, not just the Linux market. Their Distro is for windows users, they are also working heavily on WINE. Do you know how good WINE has been getting lately? Its unbelivable the software that you can run on it now. It doesn't take much thought to see what would happen if a brandname like "Corel" comes out with a distro that not only Looks & Feels like windows, connects to windows computers, but also runs ALOT of windows software thru WINE, oh and sorry.. its not bloated, and doesn't crash.
PEOPLE.. This distro in many people's eyes is going to be one of the MAJOR noose-loosing steps against Microsoft. It very well is going to end up being the answer to MANY people looking to throw Micros~1 Windows out the door for good. Corporate world is big business, Redhat is pulling in good dough. BUT.. The Corporate world has alot of end-users just as the home-based market.. in the end, it costs too much to train employees on a new OS.. if the OS looks, feels, works JUST like Windows.. Its going to save a TON in Training costs. Corel is going to end up putting a big dent in Micros~1's Home and Business market. Its no mistake that they put as many programmers as they did into the WINE project.
I made a killing off Redhat, Yahoo, and many other companies.. ANd I definitely recommend a STRONG buy on Corel for those reasons and more.
On Jumping the Gun (Score:2)
I'm not condoning abuse or unfounded accusations of evil intentions, but I think anyone who sees the discussion of this topic on Slashdot as some sort of religious frenzy is missing the point.
The GPL is ours (as software users), and the only way it's going to stay that way is if people are willing to stand up for it, defend it, and even call an otherwise good company on their screw-ups. One of the easiest ways to do that is to discuss our issues right here, out in the open, where Corel and the rest of the world can see it.
Personally, I would have been a lot more worried if it looked like someone was violating our license and nobody cared.
Moral Prerogative (Score:2)
I would add considerably to your wager; I'm quite sure that most of the flamebait comes from people capable only of writing flamebait.
After all, if they had the reasoning abilities to write code that would work, they'd probably write better flamebait...
No apologies! (Score:3)
No one seems to know *why* exactly Corel didn't have a clear beta license to begin with (or, for that matter, why they insist on a "beta license" at all). Why should everyone have read the original license, said "their ignorance of the GPL must be an honest mistake" and accepted it as-is?
The rabid GPL activism of Linux folks is a good thing, IMHO. No one is capable of predicting the "correct" level of reaction to a violation at the time, and those who think they can are working within the comfy confines of 20/20 hindsight. These reactions, right or wrong, keep companies honest in the long run, and I want to see that trend continue.
Re:Jumping the gun... (Score:1)
In any case, the point of my statement was that there is a a very vocal segment of the Linux/free software community that simply jump at the chance of attacking anything that even smells like it might not be free software. I may go out on a limb and say that I believe a great deal of those people to be more interested in the free beer aspect rather than the free speech. My statement, again I regret not being more clear, was meant to point out that when we have a group of people that do not know about or care about the development of the system, just care that they can get it for free, and simply start yelling and screaming GPL this or GPL that....well it just sounds silly to me because I continually get the feeling that these people haven't even read the article that was posted or know exactly what the facts are, or even read the GPL before they start crying bloody murder.
that's all
...............
Corel Still Clueless (Score:2)
Which would you prefer as a company? Something which says "when I click this button, I get a crash!", or something which says "Hey, I found a bug in this button, the problem is that you're doing a divide by zero on line 51, and, oh, here's the patch to fix it and make it work..."
The former is "business as usual" for big companies, and explains a great deal of why closed source products generally suck. The latter is an example of how Open Source(tm) software works...
Notice that Corel really doesn't "get it" yet, or they'd be saving themselves energy and taking true advantage of the beta test by doing the latter.
Re:Calm down. (Score:1)
Glad to see Corel has come around (as if there was any doubt.)
Re:They did the right thing. (Score:2)
I'm sorry Bruce, and I know out of everyone your in deepper then anyone else who posted, but what goal did "we" achieve? Corel never, ever, ever did anything wrong in there license. Reading the license and understanding that "Product" meant a combination of Corel code, open source code, and perhaps other's closed code makes this obvious. Corel was always in there right. They already had done the right thing.
So please... I don't want to sound disrespectful or to negative, but how did "we" do anything good? All I see is that "we" bashed, flamed, and degraded Corel's reputation in the Open Source world, merely because, as a whole, "we" did not read there license and did not understand what it meant. "We" made assumptions off what we didn't understand, and since the popular idea is that any company used to closed source automaticly despises open source, "we" decided that Corel was attacking and undermining the community. "We" did the wrong thing, "we" screwed up, "we" are the ones who should apologize.
Personally, I think that Slashdot should apologize for posting an article where they made assumptions. Slashdot is the portal for a huge number of open source users, and by being a substantial news source owned by Andover, they should post corrections and apologies. Freedom of speech and freedom of press go so far, but Slashdot crossed the boundries, and "we" tried to hurt a company who was trying to improve the technology and accelerate the cause (while making enough money to survive).
So Mr. Perens, what went before that is not irrelevant. Maybe other people don't understand this, or maybe I'm flat out wrong, but the entire incident was wrong to begin with. Those who lost respect for Corel, those who made comments against Corel, and especially those who misinterprited and publicized this should reflect and try to stop this from happening again.
Thanks.
Re:Jumping the gun... (Score:1)
Re:Jumping the gun??? (Score:1)
Corel, give and take (Score:1)
I have got 4 people to drop windows ENTIRELY since pointing them at WP8. It's not open source, but it fills a painful niche until LyX matures.
A painful niche? Wow, talk about a weird mixed metaphor...
Phil
Re:Corel doesn't get it. (Score:1)
Your examples don't even go farther than that. Sure, you're free to make a cola, the general formula for 'a cola' is out there. Go nuts. The specific formula for 'Coca-Cola' or 'Pepsi-Cola' are not out there though. The specifics of the formula are how those two companies differentiate.
The open source portion of the Corel distribution is the formula for 'a cola', the codes they hold secret are what differentiates it. It would be nice if they released that portion of it publicly but there is no onus on their part to do it. It would also be nice if every person who did a linux install would contribute every piece of code they write under GPL. I don't see that happening somehow.
I don't even know what you were referring to, it sounds like your post would be more appropriate to the original news item where source code and redistribution were being restricted.
Corel Wine Contribution (Score:3)