Re: Dristributions around Debian
Jérôme Marant wrote: Imagine that I take the latest stable debian distribution as it is and that I decide to improve it with modifying boot floppies, adding new install procedures and creating new tools (for instance administration tools). Everything developed DFSG-compliant of course and all developments offered to the debian project ... My question is simple: can I spread It with calling it Something Debian GNU/Linux, for instance Super Debian GNU/Linux (stupid example but it shows the idea) I beleive so. What are the legal restrictions about it ? Are there possible compromizes ? What am I and what am I not allowed to do with the name debian ? You are not allowed to call anything Official Debian unless it is the exact ISO images we distribute with that name. You are not allowed to abuse the word Debian in ways the debian project dislikes -- as it is a trademark of the Debian project. That's open ended, but it's unlikely the Debian project would object to any thing except things that would be harful to the project in some way. Other than that, you should be able to use Debian however you like. There is no problem with people using Debian in the names of products based on Debian (for example, see Essential Debian). -- see shy jo
Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL
IMPORTANT: READ CAREFULLY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING AGREEMENT (LICENSE) BEFORE DOWNLOADING THE PRODUCT. BY CLICKING ACCEPT BELOW: 1.YOU CERTIFY THAT YOU ARE NOT A MINOR AND THAT YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET OUT IN THE LICENSE BELOW. DOWNLOADING AND/OR USING THE PRODUCT WILL BE AN IRREVOCABLE ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE LICENSE. This in itself is does not make the software non-free, and if GPL-covered code is included, this in itself does not violate the GPL. They (like you) are free to distribute copies or decline to distribute copies, when and as they wish. If they want to distribute copies only to adults, or only people with red hair, that is ok. Asking people to agree that they will use the software only in accord with the license is ok, provided the license is a free software license. If the license is a free software license, then it permits you to put the software on your own ftp site and allow anyone to copy it. So that is a thing you could do about the situation. You sent me only part of the page. The rest of the page may have some sort of problem. For instance, the license may not qualify as a free software license. Alternatively, if this text refers to a specific license, and if the software it purports to cover is GPL-covered, and if the specific license contradicts the GPL, that would be a violation of the GPL. I have, at present, insufficient evidence to know whether either of these is the case. I will send mail now to fetch the URL you mentioned. Meanwhile, could you or someone determine for me whether specific GNU packages such as GCC and GNU Emacs are included in the software that this question applies to?
Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL
On Sat, 27 Nov 1999, Richard Stallman wrote: agree that they will use the software only in accord with the license is ok, provided the license is a free software license. I doubt that it will be. Corel Linux is based heavily on Debian, which of course is (almost?) all free software... (Hell, it's the only well-known GNU/Linux dist that specifically calls itself GNU/Linux and not just Linux)... but something tells me that this license won't be a free software license. Check it out... If the license is a free software license, then it permits you to put the software on your own ftp site and allow anyone to copy it. So that is a thing you could do about the situation. Provided that that is allowed by Corel... I do not have a site with such bandwidth to spare. :/ Perhaps someone out there would be willing to put up their dist for download, for the sole purpose of bypassing that EULA. However, I am under the -distinct- impression that Corel would consider anyone obtaining their distribution without agreeing to their EULA 'illegal'/'immoral', or in other words against their rules. I will send mail now to fetch the URL you mentioned. Meanwhile, could you or someone determine for me whether specific GNU packages such as GCC and GNU Emacs are included in the software that this question applies to? I was not able to find Emacs at all; it does, however, include this: -rw-r--r-- 1 3100 3100 722218 Jan 2 1999 gcc_2.7.2.3-7.deb It may contain Emacs, but I didn't find it. -- = Jon Caspian Blank, right-brained computer programmer at large = .. | Freelance coder and Unix geek / Founder, The Web Union (twu.net) | | Information wants to be free! Visit www.gnu.org. | | WANTED: Writers who share the GNU philosophy. www.forsmarties.net. | | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | | E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Web: http://caspian.twu.net | | Send a short message to my cell phone: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | `'
Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL
On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, Caspian wrote: However, I am under the -distinct- impression that Corel would consider anyone obtaining their distribution without agreeing to their EULA 'illegal'/'immoral', or in other words against their rules. So sad. Corel has no choice in the matter. They are stuck with it because of the GPL, which does not give them the ability to object.
Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL
On Sat, 27 Nov 1999, Richard Stallman wrote: to adults, or only people with red hair, that is ok. Asking people to agree that they will use the software only in accord with the license is ok, provided the license is a free software license. If the license is a free software license, then it permits you to put the software on your own ftp site and allow anyone to copy it. So that is a thing you could do about the situation. You sent me only part of the page. The rest of the page may have some sort of problem. For instance, the license may not qualify as a free software license. Alternatively, if this text refers to a specific license, and if the software it purports to cover is GPL-covered, and if the specific license contradicts the GPL, that would be a violation of the GPL. I have, at present, insufficient evidence to know whether either of these is the case. I'm including the full text below. What I find particularly odious is not the exclusion of minors (though it is odious), but the contention (as usual in purported EULAs) that Corel still retains title to the copy of the software downloaded, whether it's under GPL or not. The problem is, that if they retain ownership, they (or someone else later down the road) may attempt to circumvent the GPL by claiming the downloaders never owned a copy, and therefore the license does not apply to them. I, for one, would like to see some kind of formal (and if necessary legal) opposition to this pretense (for I do see it as a pretense and neither legal nor enforceable - IANAL, YMMV) to clarify this problem for the future and any opportunists who think they may have a loophole to exploit. The difference between this license and the GPL or other free software licenses, is that the latter is a copyright license, and the former is not (or, rather, is a license for permitting what is fair use of one's copy anyway). Corel should segregate all non-free software in their distribution and then limit the pretense to that software, leaving only the warranty/liability disclaimers intact for the free part. End User License Agreement IMPORTANT: READ CAREFULLY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE FOLLOWING AGREEMENT (LICENSE) BEFORE DOWNLOADING THE PRODUCT. BY CLICKING ACCEPT BELOW: 1.YOU CERTIFY THAT YOU ARE NOT A MINOR AND THAT YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET OUT IN THE LICENSE BELOW. DOWNLOADING AND/OR USING THE PRODUCT WILL BE AN IRREVOCABLE ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE LICENSE. 2.YOU AGREE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER FEES, TELECOMMUNICATION AND OTHER CHARGES THAT MAY APPLY AS A RESULT OF YOUR DOWNLOAD OF THE PRODUCT; 3.IF YOU ARE ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF A COMPANY, OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY, YOU REPRESENT AND WARRANT TO COREL THAT YOU HAVE FULL AUTHORITY TO BIND SUCH ENTITY. ATTENTION:THIS IS A LICENSE, NOT A SALE. THIS PRODUCT IS PROVIDED UNDER THE FOLLOWING AGREEMENT WHICH DEFINES WHAT YOU (HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS YOU OR YOUR) MAY DO WITH THE PRODUCT AND CONTAINS LIMITATIONS ON WARRANTIES AND/OR REMEDIES. COREL LINUX LICENSE AGREEMENT IMPORTANT: CAREFULLY READ THIS AGREEMENT BEFORE USING THIS PRODUCT. INSTALLING OR OTHERWISE USING THIS PRODUCT INDICATES YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT YOU HAVE READ THIS LICENSE AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY AND COMPLY WITH ITS TERMS. A. LICENSE: 1. Corel LINUX is a modular operating system made up of individual software components that were created by various individuals and entities (Software Programs). Many of the Software Programs included in Corel LINUX are distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) and other similar license agreements which permit You to copy, modify and redistribute the Software Programs. Please review the terms and conditions of the license agreement that accompanies each of the Software Programs included in Corel LINUX. You can also visit linux.corel.com/products/linux_os/licensing.htm for additional licensing information. 2. In addition to the freely distributable Software Programs, some versions of Corel LINUX may also include certain Software Programs, such as Corel WordPerfect 8 for Linux and Bitstream fonts included with Corel LINUX, that are distributed under the terms of the GPL or similar licenses that permit modification and redistribution. Generally, each of these Software Programs is distributed under the terms of a license agreement that grants You a license to install each of the Software Programs on a single computer for Your own individual use. Copying (other than for archival purposes), redistribution, reverse engineering, decompiling and/or modification of these Software Programs is prohibited. Any violation by You of the applicable license terms shall immediately terminate Your license to use the Software Program. In order to view the complete terms and conditions which govern Your use of these Software Programs, please consult
Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL
Richard, What bothers me is that you have to click yes on that license to get access to my GPL software, even though my software isn't covered by the license. Now, if the agreement was for use of their FTP site, that would be OK. But it's a software license, and it is being used with my GPL work in a way that would confuse most people who download the program regarding whether or not that license applies to my program. Thanks Bruce
Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL
Then let's try an experiment-- let's make a nice Corel Linux mirror site, and publicize it well (read: on Slashdot), and see if they object. Anyone with me? On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, William T Wilson wrote: On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, Caspian wrote: However, I am under the -distinct- impression that Corel would consider anyone obtaining their distribution without agreeing to their EULA 'illegal'/'immoral', or in other words against their rules. So sad. Corel has no choice in the matter. They are stuck with it because of the GPL, which does not give them the ability to object. -- = Jon Caspian Blank, right-brained computer programmer at large = .. | Freelance coder and Unix geek / Founder, The Web Union (twu.net) | | Information wants to be free! Visit www.gnu.org. | | WANTED: Writers who share the GNU philosophy. www.forsmarties.net. | | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | | E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Web: http://caspian.twu.net | | Send a short message to my cell phone: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | `'
Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL
[debian-legal added explicitly; Debian webmaster trimmed] Caspian writes: On Sat, 27 Nov 1999, Richard Stallman wrote: If the license is a free software license, then it permits you to put the software on your own ftp site and allow anyone to copy it. So that is a thing you could do about the situation. Provided that that is allowed by Corel... I do not have a site with such bandwidth to spare. :/ Perhaps someone out there would be willing to put up their dist for download, for the sole purpose of bypassing that EULA. However, I am under the -distinct- impression that Corel would consider anyone obtaining their distribution without agreeing to their EULA 'illegal'/'immoral', or in other words against their rules. You might be forgetting that the product called Corel Linux is a collection of software containing both proprietary software _and_ free software. Because this collection contains proprietary software from Corel, you do not have the legal right to redistribute it without Corel's permission. Corel probably _would_ consider people redistributing their proprietary software without their permission illegal, immoral, or against their rules. The GPL says that In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. Corel Linux is an aggregation of software from several sources, including Debian and Corel. Not all of this software is covered by the GPL, or even by any free software license. For this reason, and this reason only, Corel might object to redistribution of the entire project. There is no indication anywhere, in the Corel Linux EULA or in any statement from Corel, that Corel objects to the free and unlimited redistribtion of the portions of Corel Linux that are free software. I've written a longer message about this on another list, and I might send portions of that message to this list. Richard, has the Free Software Foundation formed any recommendations for distributors of compilations or distributions made up of software packages which are under a variety of different licenses? What would be the most appropriate way for a distributor to explain that some, or the majority, of the components in a system were licensed under the GPL, but that the system as a whole was not? The GPLed programs within Corel Linux presumably retain all of the notices required by the GPL. -- Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL
On Sat, 27 Nov 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote: You might be forgetting that the product called Corel Linux is a collection of software containing both proprietary software _and_ free software. Because this collection contains proprietary software from Corel, you do not have the legal right to redistribute it without Corel's permission. Good point; I DO have the legal right to distribute the parts of it that ARE free. Corel probably _would_ consider people redistributing their proprietary software without their permission illegal, immoral, or against their rules. ...and good for them... The GPL says that In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License. Corel Linux is an aggregation of software from several sources, including Debian and Corel. Not all of this software is covered by the GPL, or even by any free software license. For this reason, and this reason only, Corel might object to redistribution of the entire project. There is no indication anywhere, in the Corel Linux EULA or in any statement from Corel, that Corel objects to the free and unlimited redistribtion of the portions of Corel Linux that are free software. So let's see what happens if we create a Corel Linux workalike by: A: Downloading Corel Linux B: Ripping out all the non-free software parts and C: Replacing them. then... D: Publicizing this heavily. -- = Jon Caspian Blank, right-brained computer programmer at large = .. | Freelance coder and Unix geek / Founder, The Web Union (twu.net) | | Information wants to be free! Visit www.gnu.org. | | WANTED: Writers who share the GNU philosophy. www.forsmarties.net. | | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | | E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Web: http://caspian.twu.net | | Send a short message to my cell phone: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | `'
Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation o
So let's see what happens if we create a Corel Linux workalike by: A: Downloading Corel Linux B: Ripping out all the non-free software parts and C: Replacing them. then... D: Publicizing this heavily. See stormix.com and several others. Stormix has stated they are interested in paying debian developers or people familiar with debian (preference on the former) for work. They are releasing code (L)GPL'ed. Also in the near future, other people will have products like this. What bothers me with Corel is not them using Debian, but rather they fact that they gave nothing back to us or the community. Not code, time, or money.
Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL
[trimming RMS] Caspian writes: On Sat, 27 Nov 1999, Seth David Schoen wrote: You might be forgetting that the product called Corel Linux is a collection of software containing both proprietary software _and_ free software. Because this collection contains proprietary software from Corel, you do not have the legal right to redistribute it without Corel's permission. Good point; I DO have the legal right to distribute the parts of it that ARE free. This was actually the case with earlier versions of Red Hat Linux, for instance, which contained proprietary software, and it's the case with the retail version of SuSE today. The FTP sites for those distributions _do not_ contain the complete contents of the CD-ROMs (though they do provide a usable proper subset), and you are _not_ allowed by the license to post the entire contents of those CD-ROMs on the net. But you are certainly allowed to redistribute all of the free parts. If a license _prevented_ people from making aggregations with proprietary components, it would violate the OSD/DFSG! 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be free software. http://www.debian.org/social_contract If Corel did not have the right to make proprietary additions (I forbear to say enhancements) to Debian, then Debian itself would violate the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Corel probably _would_ consider people redistributing their proprietary software without their permission illegal, immoral, or against their rules. ...and good for them... The Debian Project chose to collaborate with Corel. So the Debian Project should appreciate that Corel may have a perspective on proprietary software which is different from Debian's own. This certainly doesn't mean that Corel is entitled to violate the GPL -- but I really don't think it should be a Big Shock and Outrage to anybody that Corel writes proprietary software. So let's see what happens if we create a Corel Linux workalike by: A: Downloading Corel Linux B: Ripping out all the non-free software parts and C: Replacing them. then... D: Publicizing this heavily. Hm, I think someone has already done this. It was called, um... uh... oh, yeah... Debian GNU/Linux. :-) :-) OK, Corel has contributed a bunch of things under the GPL. If you (Caspian) separate those things out of Corel Linux and distribute them for some other purpose under the terms of the GPL, with the result that Corel Corporation makes _any_ complaint to you about copyright infringement, abuse, or this redistribution being against [Corel's] rules, I will send you any five O'Reilly books of your choice. -- Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation o
On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: So let's see what happens if we create a Corel Linux workalike by: A: Downloading Corel Linux B: Ripping out all the non-free software parts and C: Replacing them. then... D: Publicizing this heavily. See stormix.com and several others. Stormix has stated they are interested in paying debian developers or people familiar with debian (preference on the former) for work. They are releasing code (L)GPL'ed. Also in the near future, other people will have products like this. What bothers me with Corel is not them using Debian, but rather they fact that they gave nothing back to us or the community. Not code, time, or money. ...and, IMHO, as long as companies continue to use GNU/Linux (and I do mean use, as in he USED me.. all he did was USE me) for their benefit, that constitutes the vast majority of what we will see. Someone needs to remain pure. Debian has remained (relatively) pure, but no one outside of the hardcore Linux community has heard of Debian! This is unfortunate, as the world is being flooded with things like Red Hat (made by a company that claims to be all about open source while selling proprietary, closed-source stuff) and Corel (well, you already know what nasty crap Corel has pulled). Red Hat claims to be martyrs when they're not, and Corel doesn't claim anything, but also doesn't give anything back. I feel wary about throwing support behind -any- dot-com that does things with Linux. I feel a lot safer pointing people to dot-org (or dot-net) addresses within the Linux world. The commercialization of Linux is having some very ugly-- and very predictable-- side effects that just don't sit well with me...namely, various companies are raping it for all they can get out of it, while either A lying about their purposes and intentions, and creating cruddy-quality software, a la Red Hat, or B take-take-taking and never giving back, a la Corel. In the wake of all of this, I say-- viva la Debian! What the world needs now is a slick, idiot-friendly Linux distribution that's 100% built on free software, has good commercial -and- non-commercial support available, but gives tons back to the Linux community-- and truly cares. Like the best elements of Debian mixed with the best elements of Red Hat... Anyhow...apparently, since the reaction to the story I submitted to /. (the original post about Corel banning minors from downloading their dist) is so huge, I'm not the only person who this particular rash of side effects (that is, those emanating from Corel) doesn't sit well with... --Caspian -- = Jon Caspian Blank, right-brained computer programmer at large = .. | Freelance coder and Unix geek / Founder, The Web Union (twu.net) | | Information wants to be free! Visit www.gnu.org. | | WANTED: Writers who share the GNU philosophy. www.forsmarties.net. | | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | | E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Web: http://caspian.twu.net | | Send a short message to my cell phone: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | `'
Re: Corel Lawsuit
Oi! I disappear for a weekend and YACF (yet another Corel fuckup) happens? (Sorry, I think we're developing a need for a new acronym) On Fri, Nov 26, 1999 at 11:48:30AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: They are clueless, but are you serious about a lawsuit? Perhaps not _this_ time, but I am throwing up my hands because I have no way to keep them from doing something much more clueless next time and then a suit may indeed be necessary. I think we should be serious about one. Corel has again and again tried to pull this crap with licenses. Each time they do it and we catch them at it they claim they simply didn't know any better. Well this being the fourth or fifth time(?) it's pretty obvious that one of two things are happening here: 1. They truly have made these same mistakes consistantly, which raises serious questions as to their compitence. 2. They're NOT making mistakes and are just trying to get away with whatever they can get away with. I think it's time to quit playing games with Corel. I should point out that I was originally one of the people SUPPORTING Corel's efforts and as late as even the beginning of September would have been willing to try and work things out. But the fact is that either Corel has no clue (about anything) or they're actually trying to pull one over on us. I doubt the company has lasted this long by being stupid, so I'm forced to assume they're trying to pull a fast one. Trying hell--they've already pulled it and have all but gotten away with it at this point. Fact is, you're dealing with a situation where a certain company has induhviduals that believe that they don't owe anything to Debian. From all the stuph I've heard about them, I get the impression that they think that: a) because they're not dealing with a corporate entity, they can respond with anything that's convenient b) they're dealing with a bunch of amateurs or whatever who can't affect them As I recall, a while back Corel claims that they're talking with RMS to sift out issues with the GPL - do you not get the impression that they're ignoring the party whom they've pissed off and trying to get away with it by smoothing things out with authority types? I sure do! It's like (ignoring protests...) - yeah but we know RMS and he said so and so. Good grief! You can tell I'm frustrated. It's because I tried to smooth these things out _twice_ so far, first with the beta license, and again with the APT license issue. Dan Quinlan and I discussed their advisory board at Comdex. The board met once, and never again. Face it, we've been had. We _must_ persue this issue or the licenses on our packages means nothing. Our partnership with Corel was made in good faith. I'm sorry to see them attempt to take advantage of it. I would've thought they would figure things out after the beta fuckup. With Zygo Blaxell indicating that they're trying to hire someone to specialize in licensing issues and such. Frankly I was very pissed off with the way the apt licensing issue was dealt with. Kowtowing to them and letting them get away with things is only going to let them think that they can get away with things. A lot of the software contributors were legal minors at the time they contributed the software, and some of them still are, and Corel accepted _their_ licenses. Should those contributors now turn around and say they had no legal right to give Corel those licenses and thus they are void? Or shall we assume that they had the collusion of their parent or guardian and thus the licenses are legal, in which case Corel should make the same assumption in their license? I don't think anyone can assume anything in this area can they? flabberghasted sounds This all sounds like something some smartass there noticed and decided to use it to their advantage (the 1st sentence there). It strikes me as, we'll deal with your parents but we won't deal with you. I am trying to explain to them that they are distributing somebody else's software, and they keep unintentionally, and with no malice involved, pissing off the very people who wrote their system. And when I explained this to their P.R. person at Corel, it was clear that she thought the developers were whining children and didn't want to concern herself with them. OK, some of them really _are_ children, but Corel bought that headache when they decided to make use of their code. I don't believe that. Not anymore. This is only the latest in a long series of attempts to screw us on the licensing front and essentially hijack a Linux distribution. As long as they were playing fairly I'd have been (and in fact was) happy to support them---and in fact as long as they were playing fairly we _couldn't_ stop them. They've abused our trust and our licenses repeatedly. They show no intent to change their behavior nor do I believe they consider us any real
Re: Corel Lawsuit
I would again urge everyone to consider careful the difference between - Things That Annoy You About Corel - Mistakes That Corel Made - Things That You Can Sue Corel Over Again, these are not at all the same. It seems that the problems with the Corel EULA are being used as an occasion for flaming Corel, questioning Corel's motives, impugning the competence of Corel's programmers... oh, and, of course, threatening to sue Corel. With apologies to Monty Python, it seems that the Debian Project is on the verge of saying to Corel something very like Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!. Corel has good programmers, and they have done good things for free software. They've also made some fairly serious mistakes. Some people might attribute this to the attitude of the company as a whole, and others might suspect it is an artifact of the company's decision-making processes and communication problems. (It's not always easy to explain the free software world to lawyers; I've heard the story of a lawyer who, on being shown a planned free software release, expressed grave concern at the serious loophole in the license that would allow _anybody_ -- _anybody_! -- to use and copy the code.) I don't mean to suggest any enthusiasm for the present EULA, or some of Corel's previous licensing problems; it bugs me, too, and, at the best, Corel deserves some criticism. (Perhaps they are getting a little more than some.) If you don't think you can work with Corel because of these problems, don't work with Corel. This is a fairly straightforward solution. With your code under the GPL, Corel would be free to use it on the same terms as anyone else, and I suspect that they would keep contributing various work to the community. If you see an important opportunity to clear up a misconception or an ambiguous statement, and you see Corel as a colleague, as a helpful partner, or even as an annoying rival or untrustworthy parasite, by all means, clear it up. If you want to keep credibility for Debian, the free software community, and the idea of collaborative development, don't confuse behaviors that annoy you or that you regret with behaviors that are illegal. This is a test. Some day there will be even bigger companies with even more investment in free software (no offense intended, Corel). Some of those companies will have multi-million-dollar law firms (or bigger) with lots of really experienced intellectual property lawyers, some of whom may feel that free software is ridiculous and that most of our public licenses are invalid. Think you can keep those firms there, contributing real free software under real free software licenses, and resolving your differences and misunderstanding without litigation, even if you personally don't like or don't trust those companies? If you see a deliberate and malicious GPL violation, you warn the violator, you verify, with close reading and then with the advice of a lawyer or two, that the GPL is really being violated, and the problem doesn't get fixed, then, by all means, bring a lawsuit. But I don't think that most people have even begun that process. -- Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] | And do not say, I will study when I Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
VMware in non-free
Please have a look at http://www.vmware.com/ and help me
decide if we can distribute VMware in non-free, or only as an
installer package. I currently think we can only do an
installer..
I am not subscribed to -legal, so please Cc me if you need
a reply; I'll check the list archive for messages that didn't
get Cc:d, but will not be able to reply then.
Thank you for your help.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED],havoc,gaeshido}.fi,{debian,wanderer}.org,stonesoft.com}
unix, linux, debian, networks, security, | Serious error.
kernel, TCP/IP, C, perl, free software, | All shortcuts have disappeared.
mail, www, sw devel, unix admin, hacks. | Screen. Mind. Both are blank.
Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL
While this is an important discussion, I do not believe that [EMAIL PROTECTED] needs to be included. Since debian-legal is already included, the proper Debian forum is already involved. Just drop webmaster from any replies. -- James (Jay) Treacy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the GPL
Lynn Winebarger [EMAIL PROTECTED] quotes Corel: 2. In addition to the freely distributable Software Programs, some versions of Corel LINUX may also include certain Software Programs, such as Corel WordPerfect 8 for Linux and Bitstream fonts included with Corel LINUX, *that* *are* *distributed* *under* *the* *terms* *of* *the* *GPL* *or* *similar* *licenses* *that* *permit* *modification* *and* *redistribution*. Generally, each of these Software Programs is distributed under the terms of a license agreement that grants You a license to install each of the Software Programs on a single computer for Your own individual use. Copying (other than for archival purposes), redistribution, reverse engineering, decompiling and/or modification of these Software Programs is prohibited. Emphasis is mine. The marked passage appears to be a typo, doesn't it? -- Henning Makholm We're trying to get it into the parts per billon range, but no luck still.
conflict-of-interest alert
PLEASE DON'T POST THIS ON SLASHDOT. If you want a story, please contact me and I'll give you one. I've been working for a venture capital company for the past few months. I'm the president but only a minority owner, it's called Linux Capital Group. We're getting close to funding what could be percieved as a Corel competitor, although they don't plan to address the same market as Corel. Thus, I think I'd better start to distance myself from this situation. Someone else needs to take the point regarding future relations between Debian and Corel. Thanks Bruce
Re: Corel Lawsuit
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would again urge everyone to consider careful the difference between - Things That Annoy You About Corel - Mistakes That Corel Made - Things That You Can Sue Corel Over Again, these are not at all the same. It seems that the problems with the Corel EULA are being used as an occasion for flaming Corel, questioning Corel's motives, impugning the competence of Corel's programmers... oh, and, of course, threatening to sue Corel. All 3 items are important for consideration. The past behaviour and related items do indicate a number of relevant items including whether or not they are sincere, whether or not they take comments for granted and just ignore it, whether or not they're interested in a working relationship and so on. It's not just a simple matter of whether or not they should be sued, rather, it should be a case of where should things stand between the two parties invovled and how should future relationships be defined. Corel has good programmers, and they have done good things for free software. They've also made some fairly serious mistakes. Some people might attribute Consider this: they consistently make mistakes wrt licensing. How do you perceive this? Clearly it seems that Bruce has been trying to show them how things should be done and yet they completely fail to listen. What does this tell you about their willingness to learn? What does this tell you about their level on sincerity? this to the attitude of the company as a whole, and others might suspect it is an artifact of the company's decision-making processes and communication I hate to say this but if you want to put things in that perspective, then I can argue that M$ is treated too harshly but I've got better things to do with my time so I'll stop here. problems. (It's not always easy to explain the free software world to lawyers; I've heard the story of a lawyer who, on being shown a planned free software release, expressed grave concern at the serious loophole in the license that would allow _anybody_ -- _anybody_! -- to use and copy the code.) Consider this, there are at least n person(s) where n = 1 (developers) in there who have a clue about GPL and such. If they are sincere about doing things right, then why don't they consult them? Of what I've observed and from what I hear of and know of, they seem to muffle most if not all useful suggestions. I don't mean to suggest any enthusiasm for the present EULA, or some of Corel's previous licensing problems; it bugs me, too, and, at the best, Corel deserves some criticism. (Perhaps they are getting a little more than some.) The thing is, will some criticism have any impact? Will they listen? What if you need to work on common grounds in order for the legal types or whoever to understand? Whereby common grounds for legal types would involve legal action of course. If you don't think you can work with Corel because of these problems, don't work with Corel. This is a fairly straightforward solution. With your code under the GPL, Corel would be free to use it on the same terms as anyone else, and I suspect that they would keep contributing various work to the community. If you see an important opportunity to clear up a misconception or an ambiguous statement, and you see Corel as a colleague, as a helpful partner, or even as an annoying rival or untrustworthy parasite, by all means, clear it up. That's if you can. We're not dealing in a ballpark where all parties will act rationally. If you want to keep credibility for Debian, the free software community, and the idea of collaborative development, don't confuse behaviors that annoy you or that you regret with behaviors that are illegal. This is a test. Some day there will be even bigger companies with even more investment in free software (no offense intended, Corel). Some of those companies will have multi-million-dollar law firms (or bigger) with lots of really experienced intellectual property lawyers, some of whom may feel that free software is ridiculous and that most of our public licenses are invalid. Think you can keep those firms there, contributing real free software under real free software licenses, and resolving your differences and misunderstanding without litigation, even if you personally don't like or don't trust those companies? If you see a deliberate and malicious GPL violation, you warn the violator, you verify, with close reading and then with the advice of a lawyer or two, that the GPL is really being violated, and the problem doesn't get fixed, then, by all means, bring a lawsuit. But I don't think that most people have even begun that process. Plus it also sets an important precedence. Future companies can perceive this as an example of how much they can bend the rules in their favour. They might see this as an all talk and no action scenario - they simply won't take things seriously anymore. Amy Fong -- We
Re: Corel Lawsuit
Amy Fong writes: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Seth David Schoen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would again urge everyone to consider careful the difference between - Things That Annoy You About Corel - Mistakes That Corel Made - Things That You Can Sue Corel Over Again, these are not at all the same. It seems that the problems with the Corel EULA are being used as an occasion for flaming Corel, questioning Corel's motives, impugning the competence of Corel's programmers... oh, and, of course, threatening to sue Corel. All 3 items are important for consideration. The past behaviour and related items do indicate a number of relevant items including whether or not they are sincere, whether or not they take comments for granted and just ignore it, whether or not they're interested in a working relationship and so on. It's not just a simple matter of whether or not they should be sued, rather, it should be a case of where should things stand between the two parties invovled and how should future relationships be defined. That makes good sense. But note the subject of this thread: Corel Lawsuit. And note the suggestion of several people, including yourself, that suing Corel is/may be a good idea. Figuring out where things should stand and how future relationships should be defined is helpful and appropriate. Threatening to sue is -- aside from making a pretty final and irrevocable decision about the nature of the relationship -- not appropriate, unless you first try to resolve the situation out of court, and then only upon the advice of a lawyer. (The failure to send a demand letter and then wait to allow it to be acted upon is looked upon _very_ negatively by judges. And a polite, non-threatening letter is more appropriate than a demand letter, especially if you're not _sure_ that you have a cause of action. This is true whether or not you despise and distrust the other party.) It took me about four or five years of my experience writing polemics to learn how to write a polite and focused angry letter. It's still not necessarily automatic. But such a thing exists, and whoever has not at least sent one to Corel is _very_, _very_, _very_ premature in mentioning lawsuits. The lawyers at Corel are probably scrambling, now, figuring how they would respond if someone sued them. There are more useful things, all around, that they could be doing. Corel has good programmers, and they have done good things for free software. They've also made some fairly serious mistakes. Some people might attribute Consider this: they consistently make mistakes wrt licensing. How do you perceive this? Clearly it seems that Bruce has been trying to show them how things should be done and yet they completely fail to listen. What does this tell you about their willingness to learn? What does this tell you about their level on sincerity? I don't know what conclusions I would reach about their sincerity. I perceive Corel's mistakes as creating a very negative impression, of the company in general and also of its free software efforts. I lose respect for them. this to the attitude of the company as a whole, and others might suspect it is an artifact of the company's decision-making processes and communication I hate to say this but if you want to put things in that perspective, then I can argue that M$ is treated too harshly but I've got better things to do with my time so I'll stop here. I have seen Microsoft be treated too harshly on occasion. It's not a logical impossibility. A more important point: I have a friend who is a programmer at Microsoft. He's not engaged in any vast conspiracies to maintain a monopoly or suppress free software or anything. He just hacks on (excuse me, engineers according to high standards of quality and reliability) one of Microsoft's applications. Now, somewhere else in Redmond, there are people who are making business and strategy decisions about what to do with his code, how to increase market share, and so on. So the company is a complex entity with many parts, some of which might be ruthless and unethical, and others of which might be clueless and narrow-minded, and others of which are just full of programmers who write regular programs in regular programming languages. The aggregate result is the Microsoft we know. If Microsoft does something perverse, I don't attribute it to my developer friend, although I might make fun of him over it. :-) Microsoft even employs some former CS professors and pays some of them to do academic research. The place isn't _all_ lawyers and marketing, though it sometimes feels like it. :-) (One of the nice things about free software is that business and strategy decisions made by third parties produce much less harm to the end-user.) problems. (It's not always easy to explain the free software world to lawyers; I've heard the story of a lawyer who, on being shown a planned free software release,
