This is a read-only archive. Find the latest Linux articles, documentation, and answers at the new Linux.com!

Linux.com

Feature: Linux

FSF asks Lindows, "Where's the source?"

By on April 11, 2002 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

- Tina Gasperson -
Bradley Kuhn, vice president of the Free Software Foundation, says the organization is contacting LindowsOS representatives because the company has not included source code with its "sneak preview" releases. Lindows CEO Michael Robertson says his company will comply with the GPL when the product is released to the public.
Kuhn says a Lindows insider tipped the FSF off to the possibility of missing source code. Lindows insiders are those who have registered and paid a $99 fee to receive beta releases of LindowsOS and other non-public information. LindowsOS is a distribution based on the Linux kernel, which is licensed under the GNU General Public License. The GPL states, in part, that the program instructions in their original form as written by the programmer (source code) must be available to users of the program. The GPL also requires that users be allowed to copy, modify and redistribute the program freely, but they must in turn provide the source code.

Robertson does not deny that the source code for LindowsOS isn't included in either of the two beta releases. "It's a work in progress. We're hopeful our first release will happen around the middle of the year. When we release an official version, all the GPL pieces will be properly distributed."

Robertson doesn't appreciate the negative attention focused on the Lindows project, likening it to "eating your young." He says he is surprised that "some in the Linux community are quick to cast aspersions, with no facts." Robertson points to his contributions to the Open Source community as proof that he has its best interests at heart, beginning with his career at MP3.com.

"We battled for the consumer at every step. We battled for open formats. We fought against secure music schemes. And we made contributions to Open Source software, since MP3.com was entirely LAMP based."

And now that he's working on making the Linux desktop a reality, Robertson says his dedication to Open Source continues. "We've joined KDE League at the highest corporate level. We hosted and sponsored Wineconf 2002. We worked with the project leader to identify the top 25 contributors and paid for roundtrip airfare for all of them, from as far away as South Africa and Norway, to San Diego. There was no registration fee. We also sponsored LPBN.org to broadcast the event.

"We've agreed to sponsor the upcoming Debian conference. Our sponsorship included funds to pay for an awards banquet for all attendees, as well as travel support for some. We've made a large investment in an Open Source company; we've also paid about a million dollars to get code produced ... We've paid these funds to companies as well as individuals."

And, he says, support for Linux and the Open Source community will also come by way of ingenious marketing. "If we can get to 5% market share, an ecosystem of healthy Linux companies will emerge which will be around for the long run. Look at the incredible things that would happen. Hardware manufacturers will ship Linux drivers for their peripheral devices, in the box. Computer stores will dedicate sections of their store. Major OEMs would ship computers with Linux. It's a travesty you can't walk into major retailers today and buy a computer running Linux."

And while the code is important, that is not what it will take to get Linux to "20 million desktops." Robertson says to help more people understand Open Source, better marketing and lobbying is needed. "And yes, battling Microsoft and their huge coffers which influence OEMs, retailers, politicians, and the press in ways you only understand if you talk to them personally, which I have.

"Hopefully, Lindows.com will contribute on each of these fronts, but it will take more than one company. It's a shame that virtually every commercial Linux company has abandoned the desktop. Our goal is to build a company that will give consumers a choice for their operating system. At the same time, we're committed to being a good corporate citizen and being a supporter of Open Source for the long run."

Robertson seems dismayed by the FSF's attempt to enforce the GPL. "No wonder there's virtually no healthy Linux companies. The community seems to attack them when the real focus should be elsewhere."

Robertson says that many of the critical pieces of GPL code that have gone into Lindows have been distributed back to the community already. "Where do you think that Codeweavers got their code for Crossover Office?" he asks.

A high level source at Codeweavers confirms that Lindows has indeed contributed an "enormous amount" of code to the Wine project. But while Crossover Office contains code that was created in conjunction with Lindows, it has also been built on code that was around before Lindows existed. According to the Codeweavers source, Lindows returned modifications to the Wine codebase only because it was persuaded by Codeweavers staff to return it. The Codeweavers/Lindows association was terminated in part because Lindows wanted to be able to keep its Wine modifications private.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on FSF asks Lindows, "Where's the source?"

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

Community obligations

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 12:25 AM
Yada, yada, yada. We've done this, we've done that. We're doing great work here! Why are you attacking us?


They're not attacking you. They're asking you to live up to the obligations that come with the code you're using. You have distributed binaries based on GPLed code. You're not offering to distribute source, as the GPL clearly requires of you. Why not?


If you're using GPLed code and not distributing source, you're not part of the community; you're a parasite on it.

#

Re:Community obligations

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 04:48 AM
I don't really know why some would like to run Windows made applications on Linux. If this guy really wants to help the Linux scene, why not try to replace the missing applications by coding or sponsoring the work of someone? In my opinion he just wants to be on the magazines, on the tv, etc.

In this case, I hope MS crashes him down, cause yeah, it smells like he is just a parasite. He's not helping Linux, or hurting MS, just thinking on himself. I don't like his face.

#

The GPL doesn't work that way

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 06:19 AM
You can use GPled code as much as you like without ever making your code public, so long as you do not distribute your derivative work.

In a limited beta, it could be argued that a work is still an in-house software since all the beta testers are technically employees of the company. Thus they are not 're-distributing' the GPLed code.

This said, I believe Lindows isn't helping their case by being so mysterious ..
I advance the following scenario which might explain their position:
- you are writing application X, which currently uses GPL library Y, but for which you eventually intend to use commercial library W which is not available yet. You want to test your code, but since the ultimate goal is to be commercial, you don't want to distribute it.

What do you do? I understand the position of Lindows but conclude that the longer they hold out on giving out the source, the more people are going to get suspicious-- and it will be because, regardless of whether they are legally in the right, they are not following established practice with Linux distributions.

#

Re:The GPL doesn't work that way

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 06:59 AM
Re the GPL, right, I wrote hastily.


Re the Insiders being employees, nope, check the Insider's page. They're not.


Regardless of moral issues, they are, right now, in copyright violation of any GPLed code they've redistributed. They're redistributing copyrighted materials, which is illegal without a license, and they're not complying with the license.

#

Re:The GPL doesn't work that way

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 09:09 PM

Since when did employees start paying to do work?





Lindows insiders are those who have registered and paid a $99 fee to receive beta releases

#

Re:The GPL doesn't work that way

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 09:19 PM
As a beta tester, I'm an employee of the company? Cool. Where are my 401k and my health care benefits?


Seriously, software beta testers are not employees. And the GPL is not compatible with any kind of beta testing agreements that limit you from getting the source code or redistributing it.

#

Re:The GPL doesn't work that way

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 09:34 PM

I'm not sure about that. Yes, they have to deliver the source to the beta tester, and the beta tester is not an employee, but you might be able to limit redistribution... just a little.

If you force people to sign an NDA before they receive the binary or source, then you can take legal action against the person if they redistribute the code.

However... I would think that if the person redistributes, the cat is out of the bag. They can't do anything but gouge the leak for damages. The code is out there and free.

#

Re:The GPL doesn't work that way

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 05:55 AM
They can't supersede the GPL licence with their own to reduce the rights given under the GPL.

#

Re:The GPL doesn't work that way

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 06:13 AM
If you force people to sign an NDA to get a copy of the source code, you're in violation of the GPL. The GPL is pretty straightforward:


If you distribute copies of the code or derivative of it, anybody who receives it must have both the right and the ability to redistribute that source.


Denying people the right to redistribute your sources is in violation of the GPL. Denying them the ability to redistribute it (by denying the source, itself) is also a violation.

#

Re:The GPL doesn't work that way

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 06:48 AM
Actually, the GPL doesn't allow this, either. A couple of people who wrote Quake mods tried essentially this, i.e. making people agree not to ask for the source in exchange for receiving a copy of the (GPLed) binary. Someone or other convinced them that this isn't allowed, because the GPL prohibits distribution under any terms more restrictive than the GPL itself, and this covers making people sign an NDA beforehand.

#

Re:The GPL doesn't work that way

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 09:37 PM
Nope. The thing with "internal distribution" is that you can make the source available to your own employees, company policy permitting. There are no special clauses for "company internal" uses in the GPL or the LGPL.

The rule is clear: If you distribute the binaries, you must also distribute the source. The exact details as to what the "source" means are explained on www.gnu.org as always.

#

Re:The GPL doesn't work that way

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 15, 2002 05:36 AM
If a company puts gpled software on an Employee's computer, they are not "distributing" it. Hence they do not have to release the code. Same as if I was to take some GPL software, change it, and use it just for myself, I don't have to release any changes.

However, it does not appear that Lindows has done this. Regardless of the relative merits of releasing source code, they need to do so to comply with the licence. They should have offered the source on a seperate cd for some nominal charge plus shipping and handling.

#

Re:The GPL doesn't work that way

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 16, 2002 12:45 AM
If you give the binaries to a user, then you are required to make the source code available. By the GPL, that user is given the right to study, use and modify the source code.


You cannot, in turn, limit that user from re-distributing the source code.


This is the heart of the GPL. All other items are there to support this basis.

#

Re:The GPL doesn't work that way

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 10:46 PM
The beta testers aren't technically employees of the company if they're paying $99 to be beta testers. If anything, that makes them technically customers.

#

Re:The GPL doesn't work that way

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 08:28 AM
What a bunch of spoiled brats.

Why not let them FINISH it then you can get your grubby hands on it.

Instead a bunch of pissing and moaning because you dont have what they didnt even have to beta publicly.

Please grow up.

#

Re:The GPL doesn't work that way

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 15, 2002 01:31 AM
Thats fine with me. Let them finish it, then, *before* they start distributing it. Once they move from coding to distributing the source code *must* follow the binaries. You are right, they didn't have to "beta publicly", and perhaps they shouldn't have. Thats not relevant. What is relavant is that they did "beta publicly" in an illegal manner, and they should a)release the beta source (NOW!) b)appoligize c)appoligize d)appoligize.

#

NDA?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 12:40 AM
Just curious, but can a user waive their right to source code by signing a non-disclosure agreement?

#

Re:NDA?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 01:12 AM
The linux community shouldn't embrace lindows, it would be the worst linux distribution, it would have major security problems and it seems to me as an insider the company is going to give the Linux OS a bad name with their bad practices aimed only on making money.

#

Re:NDA?

Posted by: Seth Hadley on April 12, 2002 01:32 AM
I think you are on the right track.
The GPL does not require you to release the source every time a keystroke is hit. If they are beta'ing the software solely for the feedback of the product, then so what.

If they enforced a waver making the "beta tester" part of the company, then there is nothing here (unless it stays beta forever). And if not, then we are once again complaining about a mistake on there part, and nothing more. These people had to "pay" to test out this product, it is not something you can just download online, or for that matter upload to everyone else.

As for Lindows, it is not something that I would want to use, or anyone else either.

#

Re:NDA?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 02:17 AM
The point is that the GPL requires that if binaries are released then source must be made available. Failure to do so is in violation of the GPL and is therefore illegal.

#

Re:NDA?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 03:37 AM
A closed beta doesn't constitute a "release," in much the same way that you can form a "exclusive organization of developers" with whom to share your GPL'd code, and not be obligated to release code to the public.

Also, it should be noted that while the GPL states that you must make the code available, it DOES NOT state that you have to make the code available free of charge. Lindows could make the source code available at $1,000,000 per copy. As long as it is available if someone is willing to pay that, then they are well within their legal rights. Stallman himself has agreed on this point when The Kompany used this model (though not for $1,000,000/copy it should be noted).

#

Re:NDA?

Posted by: Brandon Sharitt on April 12, 2002 04:12 AM
If I'm under standing this correctly, if you use GPL code to develop software, you have the right to sell the code instead of give it away?

#

Re:NDA?

Posted by: sgp321 on April 12, 2002 06:43 AM
Yes, though of course once I've bought the code, I can distribute it for free to the rest of the world (if I so choose) ... the possibility of someone being this magnamanous of course expands with the userbase.


And as a previous poster has said, Lindows could sell the binaries for $99 and the source for $1m ... still, if someone handed over the $1m, they could then give it away.

#

Re:NDA?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 06:46 AM
Yes. Just because software is under the GPL does not mean you can't sell it. You can act like Caldera ans bundle the GPLed parts with non-GPLed parts and licence the whole package any way you wish (such as a per-seat licence).

If requested you have to provide source in a usable form and for moderate or no cost to the GPLed parts only. (Other licences may have similar terms.)

Example: If you make changes to parts of the Linux kernel, you can sell that to a customer.

1. If the customer never asks for the source, you are not obligated to give it to anyone else.

2. If the customer does ask for the source to the changes, you are required to turn over the source.

3. If the customer decides to give it away or sell your source changes to another company, they can -- even over your objections. They, though, are also obligated to follow the GPL.

#

Re:NDA?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 02:03 PM
1) It's not a "closed" beta. It is open to anyone who pays their insider fee.

2) Even if it were a "closed beta" it is still a release.

3) If you were sharing with other developers, you'd ONLY send the source so as to get feedback on build process, environment factors, etc. Many other reasons too; most fellow developers will accept nothing else.

4) You *do* have to make the source available to everyone that you've made the binaries available to. Lots of people have paid $99 for the preview, but did not get their requisite source!!!

5) The Kompany did not use the model you are presenting. Cheap binaries with exorbitantly expensive source code is NOT legal.

#

Re:NDA?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 06:50 PM
Lindows could make the source code available at $1,000,000 per copy.

     
It strikes me as odd that there are so many mis-informed opinions over the GPL. You'd expect Linux geeks to have read it over and over and know it by heart, and maybe read it as prayer every evening.

     
Paragraph 3 of the GPL clearly states you cannot sell the source for a million. You can either: Give it away on the same medium as the binaries (hence no charge), or (3b) sell it separately "for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution".

     
Unless you are distributing the source on hand-carved gold plates, that's more likely going to be $5 S&H.

     
/Y

#

Re:NDA?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 06:43 AM
Unless you are distributing the source on hand-carved gold plates, that's more likely going to be $5 S&H.

:: runs out to hire Tibetan monks to hand-carve source on gold plates ::

Source available [at cost!] on beautiful hand-carved gold plates. $9,999,999.95 + $49.95 Shipping and Handling + $99,999.95 insurance.
Final cost $10,100,099.85. Sorry, COD not accepted.


                                      - Alsee

#

Re:NDA?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 07:18 AM
You CAN sell the source code for $1,000,000. Perfectly legal... But if you do that, then you can't distribute object code without the source. (Section 3 only applies to object distributions).


If you always distribute the object code with the binaries, then your obligations under the GPL are essentially finished. On the other hand: Once you sell Object without making the source available, your only other way to satisfy the GPL is to make the source available to "any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution."

#

wrong

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 05:22 AM
You cannot sell the source for more than distribution costs. i.e. you can sell a cd of it for a nominal fee, say 10 bucks (to include burning time and shippint) but it must be a "nominal" distribution fee.

#

Re:NDA?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 10:26 PM
Take a look at Lycoris Desktop/LX. http://www.lycoris.com Even their current beta has a source iso right next to the binary one in their .iso directory. They are playing by the rules and respecting the GPL and making money. And overall they are a more caring company. I'll bet my dollar on their *native* Linux application platform over some emulation crud any day.

#

Re:NDA?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 02:22 PM
IANAL.

Let's see if I can read between the lines from your post. To be an "insider" you not only have to pay an insulting fee to pay to Michael Robertson's beach-front mansion, you also have to click "I Accept" on something that says you:

1) must not make any negative comments about Lindows publicly,

2) waive your GPL-given rights to the source code that they "borrowed"

3) will wear pink underwear while pogo sticking down the street with LindowsOS tatooed on your forehead.

---

I think the worst they can do is block you from downloading any other 'preview' releases, as long as you are not slandering them.

But since USA legal proceedings decisions are based solely on political monetary contributions, it may be a battle you cannot afford. (Just how much did Vivendi pay Michael Robertson for MP3.COM?)

Lindows needs to release the source. If they want to fight Microsoft in the legal arena, fine. If they want to fight the FSF they can go to hell.

#

Re:NDA?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 04:24 AM
waive your GPL-given rights to the source code that they "borrowed"

The problem with this is that THEY don't have a legal right to distribute the code without source. You can argree to waive those rights all day long but if they do not give the source they lose THEIR right to use the source in the first place.

#

Legal Handwaving.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 08:11 PM
Maybe the user can but it strikes me as an irrelavent fine point. The distributor of the binaries built from GPL source can not escape their requirements so easily. A distributor of GPL code has obligations to two groups of people. The first is his downstream users who may or may not be bound by an NDA not to. I suspect if they hard pedal that with FSF owned code they could be in trouble. The other obligation is to the holder of the copyright on the code itself. The GPL says something like "You do not have to agree to this license but it is the only thing that permits you to redistribute this code..."

A point frequently missed by GPL bashers is that the creator of GPL code holds a copyright on his work. The copyright holder can license the code on different terms to different people. It is certainly possible build a proprietary app on GPL ed code provided one has the permission of the copyright holders. The GPL is one way he can LICENSE that work to others. No fancy NDA footwork obviates that other obligation. A copyright holder can even make a case for those NDA's violating the license on his code.

If Lindows.com hasn't negotiated with the copyright holders and isn't distributing source for whatever reason then they are on shaky legal ground.

#

Re:Legal Handwaving.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 02:51 AM
That's an understatment! If they don't have an agreement, all rights to the derivative work cede to the original authors! (Source: the U.S. Copyright Office).

#

Re:NDA?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 08:56 PM
A user couldn't waive her rights to the source code, as the user isn't the one that licensed the program under the GPL. Releasing the binaries without the source code is a violation of the original authors rights, not the users.

#

Re:NDA?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 09:11 PM
In general, for any code they didn't write that is GPL'd, they are breaking the GPL by asking you to sign away rights that are mandated by the GPL. And in most cases the GPL license is the only thing that gives them the right to use that code.

So, its pretty much a fraud on their part (IMO, IANAL)- they're trying to license something to you they don't have rights to.

The position on any code they did write is quite different- it's their code and they can license it however they want; but the GPL is incompatible with an NDA, so you'd have to resolve that legally, but the question is probably moot here.

#

Re:NDA?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 06:37 AM
Just curious, but can a user waive their right to source code by signing a non-disclosure agreement?


Well, I guess technically, yes.. But once they do that, you don't have the right to give them a copy of the code. The GPL makes it clear that if the recipient doesn't have the right to distribute the source code, you can't give them the object code. As the GPL says:


You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

....
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.



In other words: If the recipients can't copy the source code, you can't distribute the object code.

#

About Wine;

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 02:19 AM
First off, they need not obey the GPL,
only the LGPL,
which only defines releases in a reasonable time frame.

Second, if they had cut their tree when the wine tree was X11, and they've avoided putting new LGPL patches in the tree, they're off the hook.

Please remember this.

#

Re:About Wine;

Posted by: Clinton Ebadi on April 12, 2002 03:57 AM

First off, they need not obey the GPL,
only the LGPL


I think the FSF is referring to the other parts of
the system like KDE. The GPL
says that you have to give the source code upon
request if you have distrubuted the binaries of a
program covered under the GPL, therefore you have to make
the source available to whoever you distributed
the binaries to. Read it yourself. Since the beta
testers recieved the binaries, they have the right
to request and recieve (for a "reasonable cost")
the source code to any GPL licensed software. If
Lindows is refusing to give it to them, they are
in violation of the GPL and could lose their right
to distribute the binaries. The important parts are in section
3:




    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, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections

        1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,


        b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three

        years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your

        cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete

        machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be

        distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium

        customarily used for software interchange; or,


        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.)

So, as you can see from Section 3 of the GPL,
Lindows is violating the GPL. If the FSF ignored
this, then it could weaken future enforcement of the
GPL

#

You're stupid

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 05:02 AM
What do you think the Linux kernel is licensed under? IT'S NOT LGPL (stupid). Lindows uses more than just the Wine source code, and I think the FSF is being very very nice to them by not telling them to release the source code to everyone, not just everyone who pays them a stack of cash.

Frankly, I'm not at all impressed with lindows, he probably just isn't releasing the source because it's identical to wine, and they've tricked a bunch of people who don't follow wine.

#

Re:You're stupid

Posted by: Hal Duston on April 12, 2002 07:33 AM
Actually, the only people the GPL requires them to release the source code to is the people who have received the binary code. No one else is entitled to receive the source code if they didn't receive the binary code


Hal Duston

#

Re:You're stupid

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 01:24 AM
No - only if you include the source with the binary. Otherwise you have to make the the source code available to Any third party.

#

Re:You're stupid

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 01:51 AM
WRONG, idiot. Go READ THE GPL then come back. douche bag.

#

It is "any third party". Quoting from the GPL...

Posted by: tepples on April 14, 2002 05:14 AM


>Otherwise you have to make the the source code available to Any third party.


WRONG, idiot. Go READ THE GPL then come back.


Section 3 of the <A HREF="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html">GNU General Public License</a gnu.org> requires those who commercially distribute binaries to "Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code" or to "Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code." According to <A HREF="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid">the GPL FAQ</a gnu.org>, "The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you."


douche bag.


Huh?

#

Re:About Wine;

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 11:36 PM
Yeeeessssss, but.... There's more than just Wine in Lindows, don't you think?

What about KDE, for example? Do you think they'll give their changes to the KDE project? They should because it's GPL'ed.

What about the kernel and GNU (!) fileutils? I hope they're smart enough to remove/modify stuff there, because you always have 'root' privelidges in Lindows, which is a disaster waiting to happen if you can do everything you and I can do as root on our linux boxes. But Linux is GPL and fileutils is GPL, too.

And so on,
and so on,
....

Greetz

#

Re:About Wine;

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 01:12 AM
I strongly suspect that they have made little or no modifications to most core system components.

Seriously, modifying a component maintained by a third party increases maintenance workload and isn't likely to be done unless it is absolutely necessary.

Still, they need to offer to distribute the source code to any GPL'd components they distribute as binaries, whether or not they have modified them. Not having modified them makes it easier, though.

#

Realy

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 02:20 AM
For some reason this MP3/Lindows guy thinks bashing on Microsoft is supposed to gain him support in the Linux community? Like we have some sort of bond and should accept everything he does without question. In reality all he is talking about is money and power (I gave this, I gave that). Microsoft has got a lot of it and he wants it. They only way he can get there is by leaching on to something that already has momentum. First it was MP3's and now it is Linux. Sound buisness sence for him but not for the rest of the community or the economy. Given the chance he would take GPL code propriatary if he thought he would get away with it. If he thinks the reason there are no healthy buisnesses is because of the community "eating it's young" he obiously hasn't heard of Red Hat or IBM or numerous other "heathy" Linux companies. What Linux need is stable companies willing to work within the bounds of the GPL where they choose to use it. We do not need fly by night, media mongers looking ot make a quick buck and blame their troubles on everyone else instead of themselves. Free the code - 99.9% of it isn't even Lindows'.

#

Re:Realy

Posted by: zangdesign on April 12, 2002 02:48 AM
First, IBM is not a Linux company - they use Linux, they provide updates and patches, but they are not a Linux company by any means. Linux is merely one of the operating systems that runs on their main- and mini-frame hardware options.

As for the Lindows code, give the guy a chance - the product hasn't gone gold yet. If they choose to withhold the code until the release of the entire package, how does that harm the Linux community?

By using a product that already has momentum, Lindows is following the safe path for development, which might ensure a higher rate of return than a blue-sky project. It is not a guarantee, but at least it's more than some companies have started out with.

What I see in your comments is someone that doesn't really want Lindows to succeed financially, or in fact at all. The GPL is a great social tool, but it doesn't feed the family, except in increasingly rare instances.

Get off your high horse.

#

Re:Realy

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 04:45 AM
Yes he hasn't gone gold but he has charged for and distributed the CD thereby making money off of code that should be given back to the comunity who wrote most of it. I don't object to making money off of Linux as long as one follows the rules and with that being said I support companies like Ximian, Mandrake, Red-Hat, Codeweavers and the Kompany. The Kompany doesn't want to use the GPL anymore and I support them in choosing any licence they feel fit, however they play by the rules and distribute source for all GPL'ed software they produce. I support IBM, Checkpoint, Sun and Veritas which makes many closed source products that run on top of Linux. These are type of companies that will push Linux forward in the future. These are the type of companies that will make sure Linux works as a buisness model. If a company can't take critisism, if they arn't willing to be part of the ecosystem, then they shouldn't be there. So far what I have seen from Lindows is a bunch of huffing and puffing about MS and beta products that have been subpar compaired to production product from the likes of Codeweavers. Linux doesn't need more hype and thats all I see Lindows as.

#

Re:Realy

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 06:07 AM
It's garden variety license violation - end of story. Upon request (after distribution of said binaries) he is obligated to distribute the source code. It's black and white in the GPL.

I don't personally share your assessment that the GNU GPL won't put food on the table - I don't think that there's evidence in either direction at this moment. However I will say that with economic analysis, there's nothing in the GNU GPL that keeps profit from being made and that there are models that could very well be leveraged to produce profit with the GNU GPL.

But, that's all beside the point. The code is licensed under the GNU GPL - end of story. If he doesn't like it, he's got to rewrite 90% of the system.

#

Re:Realy

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 07:08 AM
I agree and disagree...

Agree: Bashing Microsoft is no badge of support for Linux or open source. It's just bashing Microsoft. (Personally, I'm pro-open source and against Microsoft only out of necessity; they work against open source in unethical and illegal ways. If they competed fairly, I'd have no qualms with them.)

Agree: Lindows seems to be too sensitive. They should chill out.

Agree: This is a clear violation of the GPL.

Disagree: So what? I'm willing to give them some slack for the short term -- but only because they're new and as a gesture of confidence that they will be supportive in the future.

(Having said that, it's not may say if they release the source or not...it's the copyright holders who used a GPL/GPL-style licence.)

Agree: They should not wait till they officially ship LindowsOS to release the source.

Disagree: It is a *good* *thing* that they are not a company focused on technology and are honestly focused on marketing. Linux (and open source) needs both good tech and good marketing -- so far we've been tech heavy and marketing light.

#

Re:Realy

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 07:34 AM
If the object code is ready for release, then the source code is ready for release (by the terms of the GPL).


As for their crying that "We're the good guys, we're using GPL code, so don't bash us for violating the GPL 'cause you'll be bashing the good guys!":


"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."


    -- I forget which founding father

#

Re:Realy

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 10:14 PM
You people are so pathetic.

#

Re:Realy

Posted by: gumbysworld on April 14, 2002 07:19 AM
"99.9% of it isn't even Lindows'."

Your right, just like microsoft when you start out, you steal and idea and borrow some code , then lable it your own. then it take 2-3 years of figuring out how to re-write or change thing enough so it look like yours. and also so no one figure out how lame it is and steals it from you.

#

ok

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 02:34 AM
For the record, i have posted a couple of Lindows-friendly comments here before...

Listen - do you want to Linux to succeed on the desktop or not? Then stop harassing the brave few who tries. There is absolutely no reason not to expect that they will release the code when they release their product for the general public, and in the mean time they have already contributed millions worth of free software code.

This kind of bickering contributes to a negative perception of a company who needs position self to make for a larger penetration of Linux software. These things spread to the mainstream press, and from the mainstream press to the consumers and investors.

You don't like a dumbed down installation process or logging in as root? Then don't use it. But don't shoot an effort to spread Linux to a wider segment in the foot.

I'd like to go over the line here for once, and say that this narrow-minded geek mentality is a display of such an incredible lack of practical judgement and of plain idiocy.

If Linux doesn't have 40% marketshare on the desktop in four years, as it should have on its technical merits - Microsoft is not going to be the one to blame.

#

Re:ok

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 03:20 AM
There is absolutely no reason not to expect that they will release the code when they release their product for the general public,

Then why don't they do it right away? Remember that they pulled out of their CodeWeaver cooperation just in order to keep things secret.

and in the mean time they have already contributed millions worth of free software code.

So if I contribute a lot to the betterment of my community, am I then allowed some occasional burglary?

You don't like a dumbed down installation process or logging in as root? Then don't use it. But don't shoot an effort to spread Linux to a wider segment in the foot.

The point is not about spreading Linux at any price (e.g. by making it as dumb and insecure as Windows), but to spread something better than Windows. If 90% of all users prefer dumb and insecure software, we have to educate the users, not adapt the software.

#

Re:ok

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 04:15 AM
> Then why don't they do it right away? Remember that they pulled out of their CodeWeaver cooperation just in order to keep things secret.

Partly for practical reasons probably, but frankly, also probably also because they gain a competetive advantage with the effort they use in developing these solutions. As long as they release the code when they start selling it, I don't think anyone should have problem with that. You get the code with the distributed product - that should be good enough.

> So if I contribute a lot to the betterment of my community, am I then allowed some occasional burglary?

Well, no. But there is also a matter of how you deal with it. I have the disctinct impression though, that Lindows plans to play quite fair in this department. If you look in their "warehouse" under the respective products, you will see that credits are made to the relevant projects, and links are made ready to download the code.

I would not be surprised however, that they may have some parts proprietary and that is probably the reason for friction with Codeweavers. Michael Robertson is probably not a free software advocate per se.

>The point is not about spreading Linux at any price (e.g. by making it as dumb and insecure as Windows), but to spread something better than Windows. If 90% of all users prefer dumb and insecure software, we have to educate the users, not adapt the software.

I'm not convinced that this is a good strategy. We haven't realistically got the manpower or incentive to make many millions of people in homes and offices learn commandline, locate packages etc...

A much more realistic goal IMO is to make something that they want to use.

I would preferably find solutions that doesn't compromise security of course, but to the extent it doesn't, i'm convinced that we will still be better off in this department than if Linux remains a fringe phenomenon... In any case security is not a goal in itself, but a means to practical value. There will always be a trade off between security and usablity. The winner should be chosen with regard to maximum practical value.

Linux is to spread free software, which will prevent monopoly locks and and a anti-democratic use of software, and this should be a overriding concern. Problem is, this is pipedream without commercial entrenchment, which is what "dumbed-down" solutions provide.

On a related note, though, I don't share a despise for making sofware that accomodates the needs of non-techincal users. This is merely a different set of tasks to make software perform - ones that deals in human relations, which as matter of craft and inguinity don't stand back to techical task in terms of being interesting and of practical value.


 

#

Re:ok

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 07:25 AM
I was going to write something similar...good post.

#

Re:ok

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 12:02 PM
Lindows is breaking the Law and should be taken to court.

End of story!

#

Re:ok

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 05:56 PM
Lindows made a mistake, though a pretty big one. They probably wanted something like a focus group or test market. If they had kept it in company it wouldn't have been a release and it wouldn't be an isue. Testing a product before public release is just good bussiness practice ( especialy if you are selling your product to non programmers who can't fix there own problems). Then as long as they release the source when they release to the public they're legal. Unfortunately the fail to realize that calling release purchasers "insiders" does not prevent it from being a release!

#

Re:ok

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 10:04 PM
So, how do you plan on "educating" the people, huh? Do you foresee taking an office manager and setting him/her down behind a Linux console and teach him/her the fine art of chmod, or perhaps recompiling a kernel? When are you Linux jackasses going to learn that there are more non technical people than there are geeks? If you want to see Linux take off, then you will have to convince THESE people, not more techno-geeks! Getting Linux on the non-tech user's desktop should be paramount, not demanding someone's head when they don't strictly adhere to the "GPL"'s of the world. New Linux users have been bitching about this for years. Those in the Linux communities think that they (individually) know what is best for the Linux world. And that dogma includes... no stupid users! Well let me tell you something, sunshine. There are no "smart" newbies. If Lindows can get a realistic alternative to the unwashed masses, then let them! Unless, of course, you can do it better.

#

Re:ok

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 11:00 PM
Do you foresee taking an office manager and setting him/her down behind a Linux console and teach him/her the fine art of chmod, or perhaps recompiling a kernel?

You're an idiot.

In a real office, the "Office Manager" doesn't do anything like that with their WinNT desktop. They don't apply patches, they don't do anything that requires maintenace of a computer.

Why not? Because they're not allowed, that's why.

because that's the job of the IT department.

#

Re:ok

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 17, 2002 08:42 PM
I'm an idiot? You seemed to have missed the whole point, but I'm the idiot? I will concentrate on responding to you rather than throwing insults.

So what you are saying is that if you don't have the ability to update your system, then you shouldn't be allowed to run Linux or an NT-kernel O.S.? Just type your memos and go home, huh? Well listen, sunshine... in a REAL office environment, the secretary (or Office Systems Technologist or better yet, Office Manager) handles almost all of the day to day system maint. Do you think the "Mom and Pop" rental companies ('U-REN-CO' comes to mind) or small shops have the budget for a full time, overpaid Linux or MS geek? NO! So who ends up with the responsibility? That's right... either the sec. or somebody's kid. You can damn well bet that the owner is not going to unless it is a technology based shop. It is a basic fact of late 80's and early 90's downsizing.

Now, like I said before, if you want to expand Linux onto a larger market than the geek community, then certain allowances will have to be made to the non-technical users, which, again, no Linux geek seems to want. "If it's not going to be used by geeks, then it shouldn't be used at all because normal users are too stupid!" is the basic mantra of the elitist Linux community and THAT will be the downfall of their precious group. And I can't wait to see it happen, just so I can witness some of these Linux jackasses fall from their high horse and come down here with the rest of us simple users!

#

Re:ok

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 05:25 AM
Maybe what YOU don't get is that most Linux people aren't out to "win at all costs"...

If Linux ended up beating Windows but ending up BEING Windows (closed source, unstable, security-exploit prone), then where exactly is the benefit?

The arguement of "cut him some slack, he's the best chance to beat Microsoft" is both specious and uninteresting.

#

security exploit prone? you're a fucking idiot

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 12:26 PM
How is code that nobody has seen exploit prone? It is a beta so i'm sure right now it IS unstable, and RIGHT NOW it probably has huge security holes. That the company might just want to fix before making the code public. I understand public scrutiny exposes holes very fast, but WHILE STILL IN ACTIVE DEVELOPMENT, I don't think a COMMERCIAL application would benefit from this scrutiny.

#

Re:ok

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 17, 2002 09:06 PM
Maybe what YOU don't get is that most Linux people aren't out to "win at all costs"...

They aren't??? Then why all of the MS trash talking in EVERY forum imaginable? I'm all for alternatives but Linux, right now, IS NOT an alternative on the normal user's desktop. Some Linux users like it that way. That's fine. But don't trash MS for having a crappy O.S. unless you have something better to offer. If you do have something better to offer, then by all means, put it out there. But don't be suprised when users want to be able to do certain things that are taboo to Linux users. Removing the dependance on command line driven software is one item that will help expand Linux onto the desktops that it covets, but , "YOU CAN"T DO THAT!!! It will create this security hole and remove this functionality, etc". New users LOATHE the command line interface!!! It is a simple FACT! Get used to it!

If Linux ended up beating Windows but ending up BEING Windows (closed source, unstable, security-exploit prone), then where exactly is the benefit?

I agree but the Linux community cannot have it both ways. You either have a system that is so secure that only geeks can use it or you open it up a bit and let your grandmother work with it! If someone in the GPL community can find a way to do both, it would be a great accomplishment. I don't believe that the OpenSource community would allow the main Linux desktop O.S. (whatever that proves to be) to remain "closed source" for long. Just look at what happened to Lindows. They release a "not-really-a beta" version of their stuff without the source and we saw the uprising that happened because of that.

The arguement of "cut him some slack, he's the best chance to beat Microsoft" is both specious and uninteresting.

I'm not saying do nothing. I'm saying that if the Linux community is going to closely watch every major piece of GPL software to make sure that they are following "the rules", what makes them different from MS or the gov't? At least MS has an argument for this! You have to pay for Windows, so they should watch their assets closely. However, Lindows is only available to a select few... as a beta... for a trial period! And you folks are on them like vultures on a carcass. "Where's the source... where's the source?". Why does the Linux community want it so bad? I'll tell you why, and the makers of Lindows know this too. If they did release the source earlier, then someone would have beat them to their own release! That's right! Someone would have made another distro that mimics Lindows just because it is allowed in the Linux world. What a pathetic existance. If I were the Lindows CEO, I would tell the whole GPL community to kiss my ass for treating me like that! I would have closed as much of the source as I could and GPL released the source that I couldn't (which is already out there). I would then turn my back completely on the OpenSource community for being a bunch of "Brutus" clones (William Shakespeare, Julius Caeser).

#

Are you a programmer?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 12:15 PM
You don't sound like you are. When I first write code I get it functional, then it's tested and modified, and only THEN do I spend time getting it readable and presentable. The code as I develop it is inscrutable and rather useless, the code when I'm finished is clean and very readable. Would I want people reading my ugly code? Would they get anything out of it? Should I spend time cleaning it while still developing core functionality?

I don't think the linux community should really tell these people how to code. I certainly wouldn't appreciate it if someone told me that I should constantly update documentation while I develop when decisions are going to be reversed five more times and most of the effort will be wasted. Especially when you're looking at getting a product together for commercial release, you don't want to waste the time to do things five times when you only need to do them once.

#

Re:Are you a programmer?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 15, 2002 10:05 PM
hm, if you are indeed a programmer, you must be a lousy one. What is the biggest thing that you programmed so far? 300 lines? what a defense, "would you please be patient until I clean up myself?", LOL

Go back to your little visual basic project, you "programmer".

#

Re:Are you a programmer?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 18, 2002 03:28 AM
hey look... a troll {YAWN}. Boy, you mud-slinging trolls sure are... {yawn}... entertaining...

#

some useful programs are windows specific

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 12:21 PM
I defy you to find me a professional quality linux music creation or manipulation program - they don't exist. They're impossibly complex programs that are only justifiable in a commercial situation where you have a large audience - windows or mac, either one has quality music software - but the *nix community has diddly-squat. Same with image creation, GIMP has some promise, but it's no Photoshop. If your os won't run pro quality music or image software, it cannot become my only os, period.

#

Re:ok

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 05:11 PM
"If 90% of all users prefer dumb and insecure software, we have to educate the users, not adapt the software."

That, in a nutshell, is why Linux will fail. You don't educate markets, you sell markets what markets want. As long as the developer community takes the position of "We'll tell you what you want", customers will not be listening.

So dang frustrating how brilliantly clueless developers can be about how markets work. Windows is exactly as secure as the market demands it to be - witness the numbers of people who turn off the default security settings in Outlook and IE. Linux shouldn't attempt the desktop as an OS until the Linux OS community can get their head around why, exactly, AOL is the number one ISP in America. It isn't built for smart people and, more critically, it goes out of the way to make novices feel smart. The Linux community goes out of their way to step over each other in some sick Alpha male contest to express how damn smart they are to each other rather than help out people with less technical saavy.

Check out #linux on undernet or any other Linux chat channel. Go in and ask "Hey, can anyone help a newbie that is stuck" and see what happens.

RB

#

Re:ok

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 15, 2002 01:47 AM
Your mistake is simply this: you believe a free market exists in a monopoly situation. Thats like using g=9.8m/s^2 in freefall. You let go, but the damn thing doesn't fall, and you can quote Newton's laws of gravitation all day long. Newton (or Adam Smith:The Wealth of Nations) wasn't wrong, *you* are.

#

Re:ok

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 18, 2002 03:44 AM
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? Are you being geeky for the hell of it or are you trying to make a point? "HEY LOOK... I CAN QUOTE A PRINCIPLE!!!". Big deal.

Onto the discussion...

As bad as the Linux community hates to admit it, this is as free of a market as we are likely to get for a VERY long time. There will never be a totally "free market" ever again. If MS were to go bellyup tomorrow... other corps would come in and take its place. Get over it! Learn how to deal with it. More importantly, learn how to make it work for you! For this discussion, if you make a product that non-tech users can get around in, do their work with and talk to their relatives with, you will have a goldmine and a pretty nice product... no wait, that's MS. I can hear the Linux fruits now, "Oh dear lord, let's not try to emulate the good parts of their product! Let's reinvent the wheel... again. But this time, we'll do it right. No, it won't be like the last 100 opportunities we've had! Yes, we'll all get along this time!" {grins slyly}. Can the Linux community get over it's own "who's got the biggest penis here?" mentality? NO... because these Linux geeks have built themselves up to such a self-serving ferver that the only way to fix it now is to bring them down to the normal user's level, which would, in the end, server to destroy their fragile egos!

Don't like it... tough!

#

Re:ok

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 05:14 AM
You don't like a dumbed down installation process or logging in as root?




And you want to know WHY we don't like it? It's a security risk, and it could even be more insecure than windows 9x. This would not leave idiots at large companies with a good impression of linux, and they would think all linux is that way.




I'd like to go over the line here for once, and say that this narrow-minded geek mentality is a display of such an incredible lack of practical judgement and of plain idiocy.




You're just anrgy because you're stupid, and we don't like you. Get a real distribution and come back after reading the manpages 10 times.



If Linux doesn't have 40% marketshare on the desktop in four years, as it should have on its technical merits - Microsoft is not going to be the one to blame.




No, Linux should have 50% marketshare now, but stupid people, greedy companies, and folks like you who don't like any accountability have kept it from happening.



Now, let me ask you a question: What is the point of having the main operating system be a expencive , closed source linux operated by a lying jerk? We'll be right back to the way things are now, only everyone's opionon of Linux will be "no-change", and the chances to get the public to change again will be much less.

#

Re:ok

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 05:30 AM
There is no "SHOULD" to marketshare. And frankly, its not interesting. Make Linux good, and people who want good software will use it for what its good for. That's all.

Every time people talk about what people "should" use, I get pictures of them walking into a persons home and formatting their hard drive. "Sorry, you SHOULD be using this."

Give it up. If Linux is on 5, 50 or 95 percent of machines five years from now is something I care not one bit about. What I do care is that in 5 years it is a stable, well-crafted, secure, and ultimately OPEN SOURCE platform.

#

The reason is:

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 05:52 AM
The GPL isn't suddenly waived because of some company's business situation. If they flout the GPL so early on because it's more convenient, how will they act later on?

#

Re:ok

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 06:13 AM
"I'd like to go over the line here for once, and say that this narrow-minded geek mentality is a display of such an incredible lack of practical judgement and of plain idiocy."

You're right - you went right over the line.

Buddy, if people had your attitude years ago - GNU/Linux never would have gotten even a foothold and you probably never would have even heard of it. It's precisely that geek stubbornness that makes Free Software work. Your attitude amounts to simply wanting to give up the ethics to be popular. I'm not some coding whore and I won't let you make me one. If you want to take GPL'ed code that I've contributed to and turn it proprietary - you're walking all over me and treating me like your damned whore. I refuse to be your whore you whiny little idiot.

People's interests should come before business interests.

#

commie scum. :-)

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 04:14 AM
You have helped restore the hope that people can simply create something that is made for people first. Examples like this are great to demonstrate the integrity of the Free Software movement, and that we will refuse to get stomped on to make a handful of people's wallets fatten. (Especially those who are already rich ...)

It feels good to know that I am involved in a community that has a communist mentality without all the totalitarian holdings. Especially being a person that relates very well to anarchist groups like the <A HREF="http://flag.blackened.net/nefac/introduction.html">North-Eastern Federation of Anarcho-Communists</a blackened.net>.

Sure, I'd like to see Linux be successful on the desktop, but I really don't care to see it just be hijacked by some corporate goons either.

#

Re:commie scum. :-)

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 12, 2002 01:51 AM
We have one totalitarian holding...REDHAT

#

lol. Dear Lindows advocate...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 08:13 AM
We mist nip this in the bud. No, you may not steal code, then distribute it (sneak preview it) without releasing the source. If an exception is made for Lindows, then an exception will be made for IBM, then for Microsoft...

#

Re:lol. Dear Lindows advocate...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 15, 2002 05:53 AM
Am I mistaken? Hasn't Microsoft already taken GPL code and used it? I agree with the Lindows advocate. Let them release their code first then if they don't release the source also, kick them in the nuts! That sounds perfectly ok to me. Besides, it's not even available to the public yet!

#

Re:ok

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 09:46 AM
I personally couldn't care less what wonderful things this guy is doing for the linux movement if he is doing them at the expense of the open source movement. The power of linux is in the freedom that it gives you through the access to the source. He mp3.com/lindows is trying to attach himself to the recently growing media buzz surrounding linux without holding up his end of the GPL

#

Crossover Office is Open Source? Really?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 02:58 AM
Gee, when I look at their <A HREF="http://www.codeweavers.com/products/office/">web page</a codeweavers.com> all I can find is a link to pay them $54.95, not a link to download the source.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

#

Re:Crossover Office is Open Source? Really?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 03:09 AM
Jeremy White, the CEO of Codeweavers, says on the Wine list:

>Since it's LGPL, the Wine code to do that will be coming
back to Wine shortly. Please give us a bit of time;
we're going to be overwhelmed here shortly, and I'd
like to make sure that as the code comes into Wine,
each developer gets proper credit for their work.
Since it's LGPL, the Wine code to do that will be coming
back to Wine shortly. Please give us a bit of time;
we're going to be overwhelmed here shortly, and I'd
like to make sure that as the code comes into Wine,
each developer gets proper credit for their work.

http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-devel/2002/03 / 442.html

Fair enough, but apply the same standards to Lindows, who hasn't even relased a public product yet....

#

Re:Crossover Office is Open Source? Really?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 01:55 AM
Don't need to apply any standards to Lindows. If Codewearvers asked the Wine team to wait a little and they said ok, then Codewearvers was effectively given a license to distribue Wine binaries without the code. But, this isn't the Wine project we're talking about. Last time I checked, there was a hell of a lot of GNU code in your average Linux distro and I doubt Lindows removed it all. If GNU says give up the code, then Lindows gives up the code or has no right to distribut binaries. It's that simple.

#

Re:Crossover Office is Open Source? Really?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 02:41 AM
Its my understanding that you can access the source via cvs. Just because they dont make it nicely available via xyz link doesnt mean its not available.

#

Re:Crossover Office is Open Source? Really?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 15, 2002 04:11 PM
Besides, it doesn't have to be made publicly available. The GNU GPL only requires that the sources be made available to those who get the binaries, as long as such sources come with all rights and obligations guaranteed and mandated by the GPL.

--
Alexandre Oliva

#

Re:Crossover Office is Open Source? Really?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 21, 2002 06:53 AM
True, but even those who get the binaries are not given access to the source code.

This is how this whole thing got started. A Lindows Insider (i.e. he paid for the binaries) realized that he didn't get the source. He then tipped the FSF about it.

AFAIK the Lindows source is not available through CVS either.

#

Re:Crossover Office is Open Source? Really?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 15, 2002 10:46 PM
Exactly. Lindows/Codeweavers started when Wine had an X11 license.. Codeweavers convinced the WINE guys to change the tree to GPL so nobody would 'steal the code'.

From another perspective, it looks like Lindows.com paid Codeweavers to create Crossover, which Codeweavers is now selling as their own...

Either you satisfy the little programmer nut by making the code GPL, or you satisfy the businesses by making the code X11.. One way or another someone is 'stealing' code.

#

Re:Crossover Office is Open Source? Really?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 21, 2002 06:58 AM
Not true.

Most of codeweavers is Open Source wine. Out of the remaining, non-free part, most of it was done by Codeweavers, not Lindows. Lindows did make a significant contribution, but that's far from "paying codeweavers for making the product".

There is another difference: Codeweavers is not doing anything illegal. The issue here is that Lindows is breaking the GPL.

Finally, how is the GPL like stealing code??

#

You can't buy Linux

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 05:42 AM
No matter how much money you throw around in support of your open source strategy, that does not absolve you from your contractual obligations under the GPL.

Nobody cares how much money you spent, it's much more important that the GPL is followed and the code contianed in GPL projects remains free - free to everyone, not just those with fat bank accounts.

#

Re:You can't buy Linux

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 07:13 AM
Ahm...yes, you can buy Linux (meaning the kernel). The GPL does not prevent selling code.

#

Re:You can't buy Linux

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 15, 2002 05:14 PM
So how long have you been learning to read the English language? Sorry, but you're not there yet.

#

the FSF is wrong

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 09:42 AM
This is an example of the FSF acting incorrectly. This is a beta release, and if they don't want to release the source at this point in time, thats fine by me. The FSF should encourage lindows, and give them some time to document their code.

This is a joke.

Somebody should tell the FSF to learn some business skills.

#

Re:the FSF is wrong

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 10:48 AM
Fine by you but not fine by the terms of the license. This is not about business skills. It's never been about business skills. The FSF has no mandate nor motivation to even have business skills.

Need I remind you that the FSF is a non-profit organization. They are not a business and that is a good thing because if they were - it would be a conflict of interests.

When you distribute GPL'ed binaries to somebody, you have to give them the code if they request it. It's in the GNU GPL. It's black and white. It's the backbone of Free Software and Open Source Software alike. No amount of whining about how people want to make proprietary businesses out of Free code but can't will change a damned thing.

Want a proprietary product? Write it yourself. You'll find no shelter in this community.

#

Not posting source means not sharing benefits

Posted by: gerardm on April 12, 2002 12:10 PM
When you post source, the many eyes will/might see. When you do not post they donot and cannot help the code. Evidently the Linows guys post to Wine so they contribute to their source projects. Not posting has one benefit, you can go on coding while the momentum is good. When LPGL allows for it, fine.

When the code does not come out, legalities may crop up later.

#

Re:the FSF is wrong

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 07:57 PM
No.
If the FSF does not act to enforce the terms in the GPL, more and more companies will start breaking the GPL.

With the GPL, when you release the binary, you MUST release the source. This is the rule of the game. It was stated clearly in the beginning. A beta release is no exemption from this.

This is not about business. This is about the licence. About the law.

#

Re:the FSF is wrong

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 12:16 AM
LINDOWS.COM is wrong. Period. If the agreement says you must do so and so and you do not then you are wrong. NO grey area and no middle ground. I think Lindows is doing a good thing but if they are not going to abide by the rules then get the hell out...it is that simple. What the guy should have done is just gotten himself into compliance and then move on. But no. He had to bicker about what he has done, given and provided for the community and its persons which in itself really is low. If you are going to do something for me (my philosophy) with a sincere heart then I will not hear about it again. It is when you do something with unpure motive that I will hear about it again. Remember when I gave you a ride or loaned you some gas money or gave you shelter and crap like that. If you did it sincerely then we would not be hearing about it again (who knew you help codeweavers) and this seems fill selfishness. This guy as far as I am concerned has no integrity...sad to say, but most business savvy persons do not. I hope he sees the error of his ways and come into line. Who knows, Microsoft might even be behind this. Anyway, I think Lindows is on to something that really is groundbreaking, and I would really like to see where it takes us. I am waiting so cut the crap and move on. mhb

#

Re:the FSF is wrong

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 12:05 AM
That sounds like a great way to strenthen the GPL to me. Hey, companies, distribute the source when you want to.. if you don't, that's ok.. just do it sometime, please?

#

Re:the FSF is wrong

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 12:34 AM
> This is an example of the FSF acting incorrectly. This is a beta release, and if they don't > want to release the

  > source at this point in time, thats fine by me

Oh really? And how much of the GPL code used in Lindows did you write?

#

The FSF and FS developers are right

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 02:54 AM
The goal, since 1984, has been to give users freedom to the software they use. This means the right to copy, use, and modify the software. This is what free software is and this is why GNU/Linux exists.

Free software is what makes GNU/Linux different from ever other proprietary operating system and is what allows collaborative development to work. The goal has always been freedom.

This means we do not barter away freedom for popularity and we do not barter away freedom for business. And we definitely don't barter away freedom for more software. Sorry Lindows but if you want to use community software you need to follow community rules.

Also, I would hesitate to call this an attack. From the article it doesn't seem like we're at that stage yet. Release the source and I don't think anyone would be upset.

#

Re:the FSF is wrong

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 15, 2002 04:40 AM
I'm sure Lindows is happy that you're ``fine''
with them not releasing source, but that's not
what the GPL says.

#

Spread the word!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 12:18 PM
Lindows == LinuxOne

If more people start wising up to this, Lindows will be out of business like the last leaches.

#

Sheesh

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 02:43 PM
To be fair, Lindows.com has not released a "beta" product even. They clearly state (over and over and over again) that LindowsOS is in DEVELOPMENT and they have a handful of "insiders" who have had a "sneak peek" of it. Their Beta version isn't due for some time.

I agree with Robertson. No wonder Linux has like .000001% of the desktop market.

#

Re:Sheesh

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 01:59 AM
That is the dumbest way to look at it. Lindows has people paying them to recieve a product and you're trying to claim that this is somehow a special situation? And furthermore, there is bound to be a lot of code copyright the FSF in Lindows. It's their code, it's their copyright, Lindows either follows the copyright or they don't get to distribute anything. It doesn't matter what you label it, if you distribute a "development" release, you still need to release the code according to the GPL. Try reading it sometime and try to comprehend the words before talking about it.

#

Re:Sheesh

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 08:57 AM
Hey, and while they're at it a great business plan would be to keep Lindows in beta *forever*. Then they can keep charging $99 for it and *never* release the source, right?

Clearly you haven't been here long, son.

#

Typical

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 02:48 PM
While Windows rules, Linux feuds.

So typical.

yawwwwwnnnnn

#

Power Struggle

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 12:52 AM
Using some kind of power analogy:

Windows rules -- with an iron fist. Windows is dictatorship. Linux "feuds" show signs of a democracy -- though in fact I acknowledge that it is not.

At least, the Linux community openly debates, communicates and collaborates. The result is not perfect -- like democracy -- but I've seen nothing better.

The Linux community doesn't need the same thing as business -- though if businesses can find ways to succeed in conjunction with the community, so be it.

#

Re:Typical

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 05:35 AM
Oh well, boo hoo, waaah.

If it was some sort of race against Windows, I would care.

Its not.

#

LAMP-style MP3.com

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 03:04 PM
Their contribution to open source was to *use* it??

#

FSF arrogance will stifle FS

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 08:16 PM
How long before Lindows just says "Fuck it," (like The Kompany) then goes with a FreeBSD kernel so they don't have to put up with the crap the FSF throws around? I think the GPL is a great idea and I think the FSF has good intentions, but if they keep clobbering companies that are attempting to find a business model that is compatible with the GPL, there will be no companies that support it. No company is under any obligation to use the Linux kernel or any other GPL'd software -- they do it to push the ideas. There are several free kernels out there. Why should any company put up with the FSF if they can use another kernel without the hassles? Get over yourself, RMS. If you want the M$ FUD that says that the GPL is incompatible with captitalism to work, just keep choking attempts to prove them wrong.

#

Re:FSF arrogance will stifle FS

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 08:35 PM
FSF is clobbering companies attempting to find a
GPL compatible business model? Very wrong.
They simply asked what's up with the source.
As a matter of fact, without releasing the source,
a "GPL compatible business model" is clobbering
not just the FSF, but a whole community.
Now that the intentions were made clear, I doubt
we'll hear much more about this. The FSF doesn't
question people/companies without reason.

#

Re:FSF arrogance will stifle FS

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 11:40 PM
Well, so let them say so. I've contributed small stuff to GNU and I'm happy to see that the FSF is willing to protect their, and so implicitly my, rights to such code. And I'm sure that many many more GNU/other GPL projects are glad about this FSF action, too...

#

Re:FSF arrogance will stifle FS

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 01:02 AM
If their business model is to violate the GNU GPL, then they are not seeking a business model that is compatible with the GNU GPL. I don't get your point. If they go with proprietary software - fine. I don't give a shit about that. But code that is GPL'ed is GPL'ed - end of story.

#

BSDows? Re: FSF arrogance will stifle FS

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 03:47 AM
Well, Lindows can surely go with BSD, but they are calling themselves Lindows and that won't be right any more...

They want to use Linux for a reason, and they shall obey the GPL--the foundation of Linux.

#

Re:BSDows? Re: FSF arrogance will stifle FS

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 08:53 PM
You Idiot, do you think there is much difference between BSD and Linux other then the kernel and all of that bullshit rc.o,whatever crap in the etc directory? If BSD had a license as strict as the GPL, linux and GNU wouldn't exist today.

#

Re:BSDows? Re: FSF arrogance will stifle FS

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 01:28 AM
I agree, if BSD had been licensed under equivalent terms to the GPL then Linux would never have been needed.

I also agree with you that the most significant difference between Linux and BSD is the licensing terms. That's why it matters that they're enforced. If Lindows prefers BSD to Linux then they should use BSD. If they choose to use Linux then they must follow the lincensing terms. What's your problem?

#

They should have used BSD

Posted by: Anthony E. Greene on April 13, 2002 10:11 PM
No company is under any obligation to use the Linux kernel or any other GPL'd software -- they do it to push the ideas.

They chose Linux because of the momentum Linux has in the market. That momentum may help them make money. Pushing the ideas is something that individuals and companies that already have money can afford to do. Even the company name was chosen to take advantage of market momentum and mindshare.

If they wanted to take someone else's code and make proprietary software, they should have used BSD.

The FSF has a vested interest in making sure companies don't start thinking they can ride roughshod over the GPL. Other projects and thousands of programmers share that interest. The Linux kernel is not the only project that uses the GPL. If the GPL becomes a license that can be readily ignored, it would be a net loss for the community.

They knew what the license was before they got started. They knew this course of action was not in accordance with the license. They knew this course of action would cause them trouble. But they did it anyway, and now they want to talk about the community eating its young. If they are allowed to blatantly ignore the GPL, that will harm the community a lot more than any criticism of Lindows.

--

#

Re:FSF arrogance will stifle FS

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 05:40 AM
Here's a free clue:

The FSF does not care if businesses find a model compatible with the GPL that makes them money. They care about the intentions of the GPL, in that it guarantees the right to review the source code along with ANY distribution of a program.

They really don't CARE if its "incompatible with capitalism"... That's more of the Open Source crowd, which, BTW, the FSF is NOT.

If its TRULY the case (and I don't think it is) that its impossible to make money using GPL programs in the manner in which the license is intended, then the FSF would rather have the license be honored and the money not be made. Thats the simple truth. They don't want to compromise integrity for profit. Oh dear, I guess that makes them evil in your book. Darn integrity, if only people didn't have it, huh?

#

Lindows and CodeWeavers, a clarification

Posted by: jeremy_p_white on April 12, 2002 09:13 PM
There have been several stories on Newsforge lately
that have described details of the relationship between
Lindows and CodeWeavers. I am concerned that they have
created an incomplete and unfair picture of Lindows.


As is obvious at this point, we have worked extensively
with Lindows to enhance Wine.


In fact, I feel that the Wine project has benefited greatly from
Lindows. They have provided Wine with not only funding,
but a vision and a drive that resulted in some very substantial
and important improvements to Wine.


Further, having worked extensively with Michael Robertson and Lindows,
I firmly believe that they are strong supporters of Free software and
are actively working to improve Free software.
They have sponsored improvements to parts of the kernel,
and they have sponsored several conferences, including Wineconf.


Now, it is true that we parted ways earlier this year, and it
is true that a part of that disagreement was over licensing.
However, that was only a small part of our disagrement - there
were other more significant factors that led to our parting ways.


Further, throughout the time we worked together, it was always
clear that Lindows intentions were to provide a major
boost to the free version of Wine.


Finally, I think that Michael Robertson has defined a powerful vision
that has the potential to dramatically expand the reach of Free
Software.


Let me remind everyone: Free Software is about freedom and
flexibility. If Lindows is able to, through their marketing
expertise, bring the benefits of Free software to a whole
range of new users, this benefits us all.


Sincerely,


Jeremy White

CEO

CodeWeavers, Inc.

#

But why not _ALL_ the source?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 11:30 PM
By using GPL/LGPL source code they made an agreement
to publish all the source code.

What possible reason can there be not to release
_all_ of the source?

I'm not saying they've contributed nothing but they
are in breach of copyright.

Free Software is the goal not commercial success.
Getting companies involved can quicken the
development. Sacrifice the companies you still
have a Free system. Sacrifice the freedoms your
given and your just left with a load of companies.

If a company wants to take part they should play
by the rules.

#

Re:Lindows and CodeWeavers, a clarification

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 02:32 PM
"They have provided Wine with not only funding, but a vision and a drive that resulted in some very substantial and important improvements to Wine."

I don't care if he created life with his input. If he is using code from the GPL, I want to see what he did with it.

If he's not sharing, then he is NOT a part of the community.

#

Re:Lindows and CodeWeavers, a clarification

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 12:10 PM
Cut from their read me file in the source directory...

LINDOWSOS LGPL and GPL SOURCE CODE
==================================

NOTES:

1. LindowsOS is not even at a beta stage yet, so the source code provided here is very unstable
and changes continually. Updated versions of the source code are put here throughout our
development cycle. Final versions will also be placed here once Version 1 of the product is
released.

2. There are other changes to code that we have made that are not included here, as they
are now part of the main Debian, KDE, or WINE trees.

http://www.debian.org

http://www.kde.org

http://www.winehq.com

Changes not found in these main trees are included here.

3. Specifically, there are no WINE source code mods here, because ALL of our WINE changes
(even those changes we made when WINE was X11) have been submitted for inclusion to the
main LGPL wine tree. Pretty much all of our changes were accepted and are currently in
wine. Lindows.com currently does all their development on the LGPL wine tree, submitting
all our changes back.

#

Lindows - please pay me to try out Linux?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 09:24 PM
I took a look at the Lindows site. The screenshots they had looked like KOffice to me, not like Windows programs. Then I saw that they wanted $99 for people to sign up and test their software...?!?!? There didn't seem to be anything there that indicated they are reaching their goals. Show me real screenshots of real Windows applications running, then I'll be impressed.

I disagree with an earlier poster, though - Windows compatibility is not necessarily the key to Linux on the desktop. Linux apps exist - it's a matter of changing attitudes of the casual user.

#

Re:Lindows - please pay me to try out Linux?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 11:08 PM
I am a Lindows.com "Insider." If you go to http://lindows.com/screenshots you will see the screen shots of LindowsOS running Windows programs.

Also, I don't know what all the big deal is, there most certainly IS a link to the source code made a vailable when I downloaded the program.

#

Re:Lindows - please pay me to try out Linux?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 02:20 PM
"Show me real screenshots of real Windows applications running, then I'll be impressed."

Why would that impress you? People have been doing this way before Lindows. Either you were setting the table for your own response(i.e. The -I'm a Lindows insider), or you just don't know much about Linux.

#

Re:Lindows - please pay me to try out Linux?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 10:23 PM
Of course he is astroturfing and wrote both the question and the response.

#

Re:Lindows - please pay me to try out Linux?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 07:20 AM
Changing the attitudes of the casual user? Not until the casual user can pop a CD in, install it automatically, and run with it.

#

Insider

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 12, 2002 11:26 PM
I am a Lindows.com "Insider." If you go to http://lindows.com/screenshots you will see the screen shots of LindowsOS running Windows programs.

Also, I don't know what all the big deal is, there most certainly IS a link to the source code made a vailable when I downloaded the program.

#

Re:Insider

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 16, 2002 12:05 AM
Also, I don't know what all the big deal is, there most certainly IS a link to the source code made a vailable when I downloaded the program



Fine, post it here!

#

rumored MSFT ownership of Lindows company

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 05:42 AM
Hubbub has it that Lindows is secretly Microsoft owned. Reason for it is to attack GPL subtlely while seeming to support it. Recall the ways Microsoft shows devious, almost twisted effort in defeating Open or Free software - like fake grassroots efforts, the sign-on to the modified Kerberos as a licensing matter, the restrictions on work you do in the future after you've read their Shared Source, etc.

As an attack this explains unusual Lindows actions:

* run X in root mode, saying it's just temporary, but when trouble shows up later, will claim that's just a Linux/X/GPL insecurity (oops!).

* pretend to support GPL while not giving source to people the binaries were given to.

* pretend they are being attacked, whereas they are really just being asked to complete other half of thing they say they support.

* mention (this is very strange) that Linux companies have given up on the desktop!?!?! Very strange when you consider extensive Red Hat, Mandrake, Suse work specifically for pretty and usuable desktop and office replacements.

* doing tons of Wine code, from a company coming from nowhere. Where the sudden Windows experience that leads to all that work? The MS complaint (albeit false) against GPL is that GPL will 'steal' your work if you 'accidentally' include it -- not true, but it gets some business types riled up. Intent may be to later reveal 'accidentally' include of real MS win code, then claim to courts, and maybe to legislators "Wahhh, look what this Communist bunch made up do!!"

* emotive claim that open/free community is "eating their young", "quick to cast aspersions", "no wonder .. no healthy Linux companies", "community seems to attack", etc

* Lindows president mentions MS huge coffers but where'd they get all money for contributions, conference hosting, etc. Maybe that's MS money?

Anyway, the rumored MS ownership comes from this poor fellow who slipped up trying to establish cred among some developers, who's quite wealthy (comes from money, indoctrinated into 'business sense' like only the already-rich can be, ie never had to work a day in his life but shouts about how no one does anything but him) .. wealthy family and friends lead him to connections that hint as MS ownership, then he let that slip trying to nervously get credibility.

Anyway, that's what I hear - it explains some unusual Lindows actions, but also fits MS twisted outlook. Grain of salt. But be careful.

#

Re:rumored MSFT ownership of Lindows company

Posted by: DKO'HARA on April 13, 2002 09:44 AM
This very scenario I have written about and published an article going on Record as stating that IHMO this would be one Great Ploy for MS to pull off. I mean the best of both worlds and feeding the frenzy from both sides which equates to more Billions and Absolute Control of the Software Market... Think about it. Since Lindows was first introduced in the Media nothing stated has come about yet... Yes teases' but no hard evidence. Read my: "Nostradamus of the Net" LinDows at: "Linux Business Week.com" http://www.sys-con.com/linux/index.cfm

#

Re:rumored MSFT ownership of Lindows company

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 02:40 AM
HEAD www.sys-con.com
200 OK
Connection: close
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 18:18:42 GMT
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
Content-Type: text/html
Client-Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 18:39:47 GMT
Client-Response-Num: 1
Page-Completion-Status: Normal

#

Re:rumored MSFT ownership of Lindows company

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 15, 2002 06:02 AM
And your point is?

#

Re:rumored MSFT ownership of Lindows company

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 15, 2002 06:18 AM
Actually, Red Hat announced a month or more ago that they intended to abandon the desktop. If you're going to be paranoid, at least try to keep up on your reading, eh?

Take another look at the reality: the Open Source comunity does eat its young. We are dominated by folks whose concept of "free" knows no purer foundation than "free lunch". Wake up to this fact of life ... if money does not begin GUSHING into the open-source coffers, Microsoft will win. Our own cheapness could well doom us to either extinction or a shadowy existence. It is good that free distros are available ... but don't forget to buy one once in a while, eh?

So far as "doing tons of Wine code" from "a company coming from nowhere" ... do you really think there is some shortage of Windows programmers? What is lacking are programmers conversant with both Windows and Linux who are paid to hammer out code instead of whacking away at it after dinner. PAID programmers spend the better part of each day programming ... the amount of code a good team can put together is considerable.

I don't know where you got that "hubbub", but this is the first I have heard of it and I don't think it has any credibility. For all I know, YOU are a Microsofty sent to poison the well against Lindows to keep a potential desktop competitor out of the running.

Your posting did nothing but spread FUD.

#

Re:rumored MSFT ownership of Lindows company

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 18, 2002 07:15 AM
This is absurd. I work at [said company], and what you suggest is comical at best. The money came from private investments, mostly money left over from the sale of MP3.com to Vivendi by Michael Robertson. I guarantee you we have nowhere near the coffers of MS.

#

Michael Robertson is NOT TO BE TRUSTED!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 08:13 AM
I know the guy personally. Worked for him for 2 years before I got fed up with him and bailed.

He kept a fridge full of gatorade (the executive fridge) and got seriously p*ssed if he ever found it empty and drove an old beat-up Honda before the company went IPO.

Saw him cuss out lots of hard working people for no good reason, saw him throw temper tantrums, seen his lust for power and money. He is a pretty boy used to getting what he wants. He had a few failed business ventures, got lucky with MP3.com, (lots of people built great stuff at MP3 and created value, it was Michael who browbeat the lawyers into submitting to his plans and got the company sued and greatly devalued much to the detriment of the people who work there) and then took all of the money and ran off to attempt to make more. Michael Robertson is not at all interested in serving the Free Software (or even the Open Source) community. He is interested in fattening his bank account.

He looks down on Linux people as having no business savvy. Because business savvy and being rich are what it's all about, right? Helping other people and sharing with your friends are totally foreign ideas to him. If he gives money to some free software project it is only to further his own goals. We don't need his marketing help. We are making slow but sure progress.

Answer me this: Where is the code that Michael had written? Where can I download it? Is it GPL'd?

What about the WINE license? He has intentionally forked and proprietized the BSD-licensed WINE code. That is definitely NOT in the best interests of the community.

Most of this is my opinion, of course. But I knew the guy, he seemed really cool at first, but having been used by him I now just feel slimy. I'm glad I don't have to see him every day anymore.

#

Re:Michael Robertson is NOT TO BE TRUSTED!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 09:20 PM
tall poppy syndrome anyone ...

Give the guy a break. For anyone to get to the position Michael Roberts is in takes a lot of guts. Sure he's gonna make enemies along the way, but fuck, stop your whinging and give him a little bit of credit

#

Re:Michael Robertson is NOT TO BE TRUSTED!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 11:18 PM
Are you his mother??

#

Re:Michael Robertson is NOT TO BE TRUSTED!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 06:36 AM
sure getting to where he is now takes guts. it also takes walking over the backs of a lot of people and being an asshole.

#

Re:Michael Robertson is NOT TO BE TRUSTED!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 06:54 PM
In other words the ends justify the means?

#

Re:Michael Robertson is NOT TO BE TRUSTED!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 15, 2002 09:54 PM
He drove an old beat-up Honda? Oh the horror! Someone save us before its too late! Nooooooo!(read with Charleton Heston overly dramatic voice).

#

credit where credits due

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 09:47 PM
the idea of open source and open standards is that principally of kudos for those who develop them and community spirit.

to be honest I don't know or pretend to know the in's and out's of any of the GNU licences or their specific requirements, but I would expect the FSF to have at the very least a vague idea the requirements upon those that use such licensed software. (and to me it seems they are labelling a cause for concern at the moment)

and to the criticisms and support for Bradley Kuhn he just seems like another individual trying to make money (let him unless he breaks the GNU licenses he may be subject to), he doesn't have to be a 'nice guy' to succeed, but he does have to fulfil his obligations.

But personally I wouldn't use Lindows just because of the name, why go for a 'copy' that costs as much? When you can dual boot, SuSe and Windows 98se (only until I get a working DVD player for my Linux system and I learn LaTeX so I can dispense with word)

#

Re:credit where credits due

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 11:36 PM
Somebody else who didn't read.

Bradley Kuhn is the FSF guy - NOT the Lindows CEO...

Yawn...

David

#

Re:credit where credits due

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 02:13 AM
xine works fine on some DVDs under Linux.
I find it works better(this is my personal belief) under Mandrake 8.2 than Suse 7.3

Ive used Suse from 5.3 to 7.3 and tested Mandrake 7.2 to 8.1, Now with 8.2 out theres nothing Hard about Linux 8.2 is as easy as windows -- even on a LAN with windows hooked to it.

I did it and Im not a Professionel -- just a Painter & Carpenter.

#

Re:credit where credits due

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 18, 2002 07:07 AM
working DVD player for my Linux system


xine+dvdnav

I got mplayer working first; it seemed to work well, the OSD looks very nice, but it has major licensing issues, and it's choppy when using the x11 output. Xine+dvdnav is the fastest software DVD player I've used, and that includes the version of WinDVD that came with my laptop. Even when I run with the xshm output driver (which I have to on my lappy), xine+dvdnav doesn't skip a frame, even scaling up to 1024x768. Plus, the menus are partially working!

#

Switch to FreeBSD

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 10:54 PM
Linux is dying. If they would switch to FreeBSD as a
base, they wouldn't have this problem.

#

Re:Switch to FreeBSD

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 13, 2002 11:22 PM
It really is sad, but true.
Everyone here seems to think that just because it is based on "freesoftware" that he is required to release the source.
You GPL Nazi's need to realize that the BSD license that he appears to be using for his "forked" version of wine does not require release.
He has REAL freedom, to do what he wants with it.
How can someone steal what is considered "free"?
The move of wine to a gpl license was a bad move imho. These companies contributed code back when they were NOT required to.
Yet they are some how still "evil".
So I recommend you GPListas go read the X11 license, and the old wine license before you get all upset and wake your parents. :)

-Ober

#

Re:Switch to FreeBSD

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 01:04 AM
I dont believe this is about wine, but rather all the other (GPL!) software in lindows.

You may not like the GPL, and noone is forcing you to use it. However if you do not agree to the license you have *no rights* to the code, go write your own if the available license does not suit you...

Free software means that the software itself shall remain open, it does not mean you are free to take it and sell your own rebranded version.

#

Re:Switch to FreeBSD

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 05:16 AM
Free software means that the software itself shall remain open, it does not mean you are free to take it and sell your own rebranded version.

Actually it does let you "take it and sell your own rebranded version", as long as you release the source

#

Re:Switch to FreeBSD

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 06:15 AM
It really is just as simple as "play by the rules as they are set down at the beginning of the game".

I don't understand why all you AntiGPLSatanistBarbarianNematodes don't get that.(how's that for a baseless, inane, insult) You know what you are LOUDLY proclaiming when you use phrases like "GPLnazi" and "GPListas?"

"I'M TOO STUPID TO MAKE RATIONAL SENSE. SOMEONE PITY ME."

#

Re:Switch to FreeBSD

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 21, 2002 07:40 AM

Everyone here seems to think that just because it is based on "freesoftware" that he is required to release the source.


If you extend GPL software then you are required to abide by the GPL and release the source. That's what the license says.

#

Re:Switch to FreeBSD

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 05:04 AM
Linux is dying

When it's good and dead, and nobody left cares to enforce the GPL or their copyright, maybe then, maybe you can ignore the GPL OK ?



If they would switch to FreeBSD as a base, they wouldn't have this problem.



fair enough. switch. It really doesn't bother me at all, but you must release source to code already distributed if it was built upon GPLed code.



I already gave $$$ to ...

thanks. now release the source.



I helped ...

thanks. now release the source.



I released some...

as you should. Now release the rest



I'm a good/bad guy

Couldn't care less. now release all the source.

#

Re:Switch to FreeBSD

Posted by: Glanz on April 15, 2002 06:25 PM
Great!!! FreeBSD has the most outrageously glitchy installer in existence, and happens to be the most difficult OS to install on X86 systems. It is also fun to hand pick 6,600 applications. And the greatest pleasure of all is typing "startx" only to be told that "neither "user" nor "root" exist because of an error in the installer.

#

Re:Switch to FreeBSD

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 22, 2002 03:13 AM
There is nothing wrong with the FreeBSD installer - it's just a good idea to read the simple instructions first. Compared to the only decent Linux distribution, Slackware it's quite a lot easier.

Searching through the packages isn't complicated either - Want to install BitchX? user /stand/sysinstall , select configure, select packages, select IRC, select BitchX. That's not that hard for an OS which runs (as most people who use it notice) Linux apps faster than on Linux. It's the only *nix I've used that can apps around about the same speed as M$ Windows Mozilla took 2 seconds to launch on FreeBSD, and about 30 on Red Hat. This was on a P4 1.7Ghz machine. Incidentally, Windows Xp loaded IE6 in under a second. Linux, Lindows et al have a long way to go yet, and insulting anything to do with FreeBSD won't help you guys at all. BSD has a larger desktop takeup (thanks to Mac OS X, based on the FreeBSD kernel) than linux by 3 times.

#

The source

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 01:10 AM

Re:The source

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 05:09 AM
Contents of the source site:
kdebase.tar.gz
kdelibs.tar.gz
kdenetwork.tar.gz
kdepim.tar.gz
kinkatta.tar.gz
koffice.tar.gz

So, apparently their only work that isn't already in the main trees is for KDE...

#

Just use Lycoris Desktop/LX

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 05:38 AM
If you want to support a Linux desktop OS from a company that respects the GPL, just use Desktop/LX. They have the source available for both their stable and beta versions. They may be a smaller company, but at least their heads and hearts are in the right place. And they are making a <A HREF="http://www.msnbc.com/news/TECH_Front.asp?ta=y">name for themselves</a msnbc.com> and the native apps are soon to follow if we stick with them.

#

Let's Give Lindows a Chance.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 07:17 AM
I do not petend to be a fan of Michael Robertson and/or Lindows. I have heard all the negative publicity surrounding Robertson and the shortcomings of Lindows' sneak previews. Let's face it, why does a Linux user need Microsoft Word. We've got StarOffice, Open Office, Koffice, Abi Word, Hancom Office, and God only knows what else. The fact is that Lindows may provide a 'migration path' from Microsoft to Linux. As Linux users we ALL must realize the great advantages that a Linux OS (even one with as many shortcomings as Lindows) has over Microsoft Windows. As people convert to Linux they will learn how much more stable, secure, and powerful it is. They will learn that Linux isn't so scarry after all. They will probably learn that they do not need ANY M$ software, and start trying other more substantial distributions. In the end Linux wins.

As far as jumping down his throat for no source codes (which I am anxiously awaiting to peruse) you have to give him a chance. Lindows 1.0 does not exist yet. If Lindows had a stable distribution I would be crying bloody F@#$%ING murder about where are the source codes, but that is not the situation. As a gret man once said, "Patience Danielson."

#

Re:Let's Give Lindows a Chance.

Posted by: WolfX on April 14, 2002 01:57 PM
Why? Because (in my case) i love Linux, but can't use it at work because i use: Adobe Photoshop, Flash 5, Illustrator, Fireworks and Dreamweaver daily. Don't tell me to use Gimp like the guys at programming tell me. What a joke. I'm stuck with a ssh shell to do my programming. I would love to use only linux if it could have linux versions of these programs or if i found a version that support these programs. There are a lot of people in my situation. That is, why.


Steve

#

Linux on the desktop?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 07:19 AM
I already run Linux on my desktop. It's been there for years. Why do they think they're doing something incredible by making [usually slow] Windows applications run on my machine. Hasn't xbill shown we need to keep it from infecting our systems???

#

GPL promotes free software, not greedy parasites

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 07:37 AM
I'd say that, under the GPL, that they can't charge for the code itself, but they can charge for the transfer medium and/or services they provide. Technically, they can charge for the resources they used to transfer, but I'd harldy say that they used $99 worth of bandwidth for each download, and I don't know of a place that sells $99 CD's, does anyone else? Also, do any of the testers out there know if the GPL License was distributed with their beta copy? If not, that would also be a violation of the GPL. It should not be assumed that they can charge for the source or binaries just because the license doesn't state as such. Anyway, below is an excerpt from the GPL that would be relevant to this thread.

" 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."

#

I found the source code

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 11:22 AM
I guess the FSF doesn't bother looking very hard, it took me all of 1 minute to locate the source code.

http://lindows.com/licensing

Can we move on now?

#

What this guy carefully

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 11:41 AM
It is obvious that this guy is one slick operator. He has that politician quality where, when his actions are found wanting, he actually turns it around so everyone else is really at fault.

For whatever reason you might fear Bill Gates (unjustly in my opinion) atleast you know where he stands.

Watch this guy very carefully and don't let up on him and make him comply with his open source obligations.

#

Re:What this guy carefully

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 11:49 AM
Yes, he's so slick that he DOES have the source available on his site, but gets people like you to talk about it. Press is press I suppose.

http://lindows.com/licensing

#

Re:What this guy carefully

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 06:57 PM
He states in the article that he des not intend to provide the source code untill it is finally released. So I have no idea what you have there to download unless he has caved and is now providing it, which means this discussion was very sucessful.

By the way I thought the point of open source was so that lots of people (including the testers of the software) can check the code and more bugs can then be found?

#

Re:What this guy carefully

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 21, 2002 07:56 AM
Did you actually visit that link?

That website simply has links to the home pages of the KDE, Debian and WINE projects. That is not the same thing as providing the source.

Further down there is a link to the source only three programs.

This is not GPL compliance.

#

Just checked out source code

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 12:06 PM
I checked out the link, and the source code is there for any and all to see. I also know they gave back all their code to wine.

...cut from read me file in source directory ...

LINDOWSOS LGPL and GPL SOURCE CODE
==================================

NOTES:

1. LindowsOS is not even at a beta stage yet, so the source code provided here is very unstable
and changes continually. Updated versions of the source code are put here throughout our
development cycle. Final versions will also be placed here once Version 1 of the product is
released.

2. There are other changes to code that we have made that are not included here, as they
are now part of the main Debian, KDE, or WINE trees.

http://www.debian.org

http://www.kde.org

http://www.winehq.com

Changes not found in these main trees are included here.

3. Specifically, there are no WINE source code mods here, because ALL of our WINE changes
(even those changes we made when WINE was X11) have been submitted for inclusion to the
main LGPL wine tree. Pretty much all of our changes were accepted and are currently in
wine. Lindows.com currently does all their development on the LGPL wine tree, submitting
all our changes back.

#

source ?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 01:16 PM
Somehow I find it hard to believe that if I download debian, kde and wine, plus the 6 tar.gz files I can end up with LindowsOS(tm)... call me cynical. This is not open to interpretation, they are breaking the GPL, the license that made their product possible in the first place.

#

Re:source ?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 18, 2002 07:17 AM
What does LindowsOS have in addition to debian, kde/kofficve, and wine? Nothing GPL, I'll tell you that. The only other software is their Click-N-Run thing, which is developed entirely by them.

-An Insider

#

GPL

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 01:28 PM
They are only required to include the GPL pieces, not anything that doesn't use other GPL code. Most installers, for example, don't use GPL code.

Sounds like they gave back all their changes or included anything GPL.

#

Re:GPL

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 02:01 PM
When the FSF says LindowsOS(tm) is A-OK with regads to the GPL I'll believe it, until then those 3 links and six tar.gz files mean nothing to me.

#

Re:GPL (can't pass off obligation to 3rd party)

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 15, 2002 02:40 PM
It doesn't MATTER if they gave all their changes
back. They are distributing binaries and they have the direct obligation to make the sources to those binaries available. Their obligation is not discharged because someone else (might) be doing what they are required to do under the GPL. As a user/developer, I wouldn't want it any other way. What if I wanted to make some change to their software? As it is, I have no way to know which version of the source code someone else is distributing matches the binary that they gave me. In fact, it's likely that the source code that matches that binary might
never become available to me. Chances are their changes will be merged with other changes in
some future public release which will make it impossible for me to ever re-create their binaries from source. Oh and it doesn't even matter if they didn't make any changes to the program
in question. They are STILL obligated to make the sources available. The act of distributing a
binary makes one obligated to distribute source, not the act of modifying source code.

#

Lindows == Linux taken seriously by end users

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 14, 2002 10:36 PM
I personally am sitting here waiting with my $99 cheque (or ~$AU200) for the first release of LindowsOS. I don't come from the GPL development community. But the way I see it, they are finally the first company that may well be a decent alternative to Windows.

Any distro of Linux that I've seen has been thwarted with the occurence of error messages that are of absolutely no help to the end-user. That's because the developers write the software with only one type of person in mind - a developer.

The reason Microsoft do well is because everything that the user sees is written in a way that they can at least 'pretend' to understand. Users therefore don't get disheartened by their experiences quite as quickly as what they do with Linux.

Having said all this, I think everyone should wait until the first official release of the product is made. If they don't release the source code then that would be something even I would quetsion before handing over my money.

#

Send that check to Lycoris for 3 Desktop/LX boxes!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 15, 2002 02:02 AM
Don't wait. There's already an OS that is taken seriously by end users. If you don't believe it, see for your self. And it's won't cost you $99 USD. It's $29.95. It's consumer friendly, and it's here now. Don't be blinded by the million dollar hype.

#

Re:Send that check to Lycoris for 3 Desktop/LX box

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 15, 2002 10:50 AM
Will it run all my Windows Apps out of the box? Whats the web address? Where's their marketing? Is it really something that is to be taken seriously by end users? And besides, you sound like a cheap demtel ad :p

#

Re:Send that check to Lycoris for 3 Desktop/LX box

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 15, 2002 03:52 PM
I tried Lycros. It didn't install.

#

Re:Lindows == Linux taken seriously by end users

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 15, 2002 04:30 AM
Only a moron would pay $99 for a bata test. You want to by the Brooklyn bridge?

#

Biting the hand that feeds you!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 15, 2002 12:27 AM
Why are you upset, while the developers welcome Robertson's Help. Yes, he is a business man, high risk. And he doesn't target the traditional Linux market. No one will replace Debian by Lindows or Suse by Lindows. Lindows OS bases on Debian, the bettter and most free Linux distri.
We shall fight against our enemys, not against those you join us. Robertson said that the fianl version will include the source. Well, that's it. Read the Wine - List: You will regard with respect what Lindows does.
Even the user does support the plattform. Lindows depends on OSS Development, so we should respect it as an contributor. I think Lindows isn't more worse than ximian, RedHat, TheKompany, Trolltech and other businesses around GNU/Linux.
They support the plattform, Lindows fights against Windows, so what do we expect more?

#

Re:Biting the hand that feeds you!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 15, 2002 02:00 AM
We shall fight against our enemys, not against those you join us



We need less of these kind of statemens in the open source community. Who is our enemy? Microsoft? Please, this is not a popularity contest, its about the GPL. I am upset if someone breaks (or bends) the GPL, no amount of excuses fixes this.

#

Re:Biting the hand that feeds you!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 15, 2002 11:38 PM
He didn't break it. Recognize that as a fact. And please read Wine Weekly News. Note: Wine ist NOT GPL nor has it been. Now there is a x11 and a LGPL Tree. that means very little and wasn't caused by Robertson!

#

Re:Biting the hand that feeds you!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 21, 2002 08:04 AM
He DID break it.
Wine might not be GPL, but most of what makes Lindows is.

And no, having links to the websites of Debian and KDE does not constitute compliance.

Daniel

#

I'm confused

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 16, 2002 12:54 PM
I'm confused... whats the Lindows position on this?

a. source is available or merged back
b. don't have to give source until final release
c. don't have to give source because it's not GPL
d. GPL nazis, please don't eat your young.
e. excluded from the GPL provisions because we are out to annoy MS.

I mean, some of these are mutually exclusive, some are stupid, and some just assume I'm stupid. Sounds to me like a OJ defense... toss out as many semi-plausible scenarios and do damage control. It just might work too.

#

Lindows must be put out of business

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 16, 2002 03:17 PM
This company is a wolf in sheep clothing. They pretend to be a friend of the community, but stab it in the back at the first chance. How could they ask anyone from the free software world to sign a NDA?

Who ever is saying on these site that they are an "Insider" is a lier. Why?
Well, a person can not sign a NDA for GPL software. So that means that Nothing that a person get will be any thing from the GPL code. In other words no software.

The only ones that would possibly be defending the actions of Lindows are Lindow employees. They are the ones say that they are "Insiders". They are the ones that are attacking people for questioning Lindows intentions.

Why are they doing this? IPO!

If Lindows fails they they have lost their investments, their stock offerings, their time.

But beware Lindows is just another Enron. It's all smoke and mirrors and it's just trying to cash in before anyone realizes that.

But too late for Lindows the word is out. And if you think fighting Microsoft is going to hard, you ain't seen nothing yet.

#

Lindows does not share OSS spirit, doomed to fail

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 12, 2002 09:06 PM
You can't go up against Microsoft using their own tactics. Like someone has said, Microsoft generates its own gravity and reality (the dark side of the force) and while it's already very hard to defeat it by using its own tactics, trying the inept cannot-decide-which-is-which mix of closed and open source Lindows seems to be practicing is even less likely to succeed. At least Be had the honesty to stick to the closed source path.

If I want to run Windoze apps, I'll add $100 more to my $99 and get the real thing - Windows XP.

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya