There seems to be alot of gashing of teeth over ABIT's Gentus distribution.
I'm not sure I understand what the big deal is. I have contacted a couple
fairly open source savvy/Linux friendly companies about how they have
disregard key criteria for redistribution and both have replied back to me
about an unwritten loop-hole where a GPL or LGPL violation can continue to
be distributed for an unspecified amount of time by being reclassified as
being an intermediate package.
Actual cases:
- Tripwire Security
This company makes an intrusion detection application. Originally available
in source code form under a restrictive license, the product has been taken
commerical. The company has announce alliances with Red Hat and Caldera
Systems in additions to claim that they will re-open source their product to
the Linux community ( as stated on
http://www.tripwire.com/press/pr.cfml?prid=36& ). Tripwire Security's
partnerships and actions seem to indicate a company that has a strong desire
to be Linux friendly. However, the demo of their product for Linux (
available from http://www.tripwire.com/downloads/ ) has also been a perfect
demostration of a LGPL violation. Previously, there was a number of LGPL
requirements which where ignored even when notified in writting of them.
RMS has since contacted them. However, they continue to not provide the
object files to the demo binaries to allow for relinking against modified
copies of the LGPL library. When questioned on this, their responce was
that this package is in an intermediate phase and they will be compliant
when their application is available under GPL. They could not give any
indication on how long this intermediate phase while continuing
redistribution without meeting all LGPL requirement will continue. However,
the waving of LGPL requirements using "intermediate phase" designation has
already been in effect since January.
- Corel Corp.
At the beginning of this year, Corel Corp. went on road tour with their
Corel LinuxOS distribution. During the tour they explain the donations of
source code and resources they have made to the Linux community. The point
was driven home that Corel Corp. wishes to be thought of as an open source
aware and Linux friendly company. As part of this road tour, Corel handed
out demostration Corel LinuxOS Open Distribution CD-ROMs. Unlike the box
set, these CDs and nothing supplied with them provided a written offer for
the GPL packages they just provided in binary only format. When questioned
on this, it was stated that they would take steps to correct it. During a
trade show some two months later, they could still not provide information
on where a written offer for source code was being provide while they
continued to redistribute the same Corel LinuxOS Open Distribution CD-ROM.
Again, when their legal dept. was questioned on this, it was explained that
the Corel LinuxOS Open Distribution CD-ROM is in a intermediate phase and
updated versions are being passed through their quality-assurance dept.
They refused to comment as to why a sticker couldn't be added to the present
CD-ROM covers which provides the written statement other than to restate
that the demo is in an intermediate phase. Similar to Tripwire Security,
Corel Corp. could not provide any details as to how long this intermediate
phase will continue. Also, their demostration of violating the GPL has
continued since Janurary.
Closing statment:
Present U.S. Federal Copyright laws and the legal skills withen the Free
Software community is not approbate for accomplishing the goals of Copyleft
via the GPL or LGPL. Even in cases where RMS is aware of a LGPL violation
is taking place, he and the Free Software Foundation can not keep a company
from picking and choosing what redistribution requirements they choose to
wave for an unspecified time period which may exceed 6 months. In the case
of Abit, if they choose to use other Linux friendly companies as a model
then they should be able to wave GPL and LGPL requirements by re-using the
unwritten "intermediate phase" rule. If they release a new version ever 6
months where they new version is in an intermediate phase then they should
be able to wave the requirements indefinately using practices which are
accepted commonly by Linux friendly companies.
Unless your willing to build the legal backing to demand the discontinued
redistribution of GPL and LGPL works when that redistribution does not meet
the license requirement then it seems silly to nit-pick at one company.
Abit is picking and choosing what requirements to follow much like several
other "Linux friendly" companies. This seems perfectly acceptable to me
when you become aware that the GPL and LGPL are commonly treated as a set of
*requests* and not a set of *requirements*. Let just accept that companies
like Corel Corp are going to pick and choose what requests to follow. I
would like to just get back to discussing kernel *development* issues and
leave the silly formalities of the theoretical "legal" licensing issues for
another mailing list.
Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 23 2000 - 21:00:25 EST