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. Read more in the NewsForge article. Update by ELQ: Open letter to Lindows’ CEO Michael Robertson from Bruce Perens has just been published at NewsForge.
When codeweavers left their business arrangement with Lindows.com, one reason quoted was that Lindows was planning to breach the GPL by refusing to release source code for parts of its distribution – specifically proprietary extensiont to WINE built on Opensource technology.
So this doesnt exactly come as a surprise.
Mike Robertson claimed that Codeweavers Crossover office was build with Lindows code.. Codeweavers denies this..
can’t say who’s telling porkies, one of them must be.
Lindows should be left alone to finish their project.
If FSF has an issue with it, Lindows should pull their preview back. This project has the potential to really put Linux on the map. It should be given a chance to finish before people start complaining.
I hope Lindows has developed this in such a way that they can really protect the intelectual properties. The Linux crowd can be wild at times. This may be one aspect of the community that keeps it from really taking off!
Leave Lindows alone to finish their project!
ciao
yc
This is one of the cases when the almighty GPL turns out to be a piece of crap
if Lindows cant handle complying with the license attached to the source code they are using as a base, then they have no business using that source code. Yes the FSF can be overbearing, but they have to go after EVERY gpl infraction for which they have domain over. if they dont then they risk making a non-verbal statement that GPL violation is ok.
Lindows should have started off with a *BSD as its base, then they could keep it as proprietary as they like.
I am sure that there are a lot of decision makers out there that do not fully understand what the GPL means. But after this incident, the GPL will mean something to them: Potential trouble. This case will scare a lot of people from touching GPL’d software.
Why? They always had the choice to develop their own prprietry kernal and windows simulating software. But they chose to use one that someone else wrote. Why would it be so bad for them to release the source?
I can see where lindows is coming from. They need to do the preview releases to see how people react and find bugs. If they released the code to things that make their product work so well, such as additions to wine and such, before their final release someone else would put it in there product, or maybe not a product just release it, and then lindows would have no upper edge. If Linux is to succed it needs companies that can survive and not just get above break even. If they hold the code till the final release they will have a small period of being ahead of the game. You can’t blame someone for trying to make some gain from their work. It appears that they have done a fair bit with linux and their improvements will help linux a lot. They have employees to pay for doing this and if they hadn’t done this many/most of what they have done may have never gotten done. Give them a break.
This makes me wonder. Why did they go with linux and not freebsd, isn’t the freebsd license more flexible for this kind of thing, example OSX. Maybe they fear lawsuits over the name freedows, from a certain chip maker. Course MS went after them anyways. I guess they choice linux do to the hype over it. FreeBSD might not be as hyped or have the same hardware support but at least they could have avoided the GPL. If they went with freebsd I’m sure they would work on the driver thing.
Hello? You don’t have to use gpled products. You can write your own code and license it anyhow you like, and nobody will come after you. If you choose to use other people’s labour and code, the least you can do is respect their license. Its as simple as that. It is selfish, to say the least, to use years of other people’s work and not expect to contribute to it. I’m sorry, that’s just selfishness. Nothing stops Robertson from building a new OS. People do it everyday.
As for Lindows being the linux saviour, whatever that means, don’t hold your breath. Its not like the price is potentially cheaper, and if I want explorer and Outlook that badly, I just boot to windows, period.
Read the GPL. You don’t have to agree with it, and if you don’t, fine, don’t use it. Its as simple as that.
Why is it so hard for people to understand the GPL? If you use GPL’ed code and distribute a binary you must also make the code for that binary available. I don’t care if the Lindows distribution will get Linux millions of desktop users. The company *IS* violating the license and should be prosecuted unless they comply. If they don’t comply and aren’t prosecuted I think that the original copyright holders for any code they use can revoke their license (anyone else can use this code under the GPL except Lindows). For example, if Linux Torvalds were to say, “Lindows is violating the GPL. They can no longer use any code copyright me,” then Lindows would be in a lot trouble and have to remove a large portion of kernel.
> This case will scare a lot
> of people from touching
> GPL’d software.
Yeah right, because gpl is the great evil, as opposed to those licenses that, say, give their hawkers the potential to turn off your software at will, or to upgrade when you are not willing or able to do so. Wake up and smell the coffee.
2 things that disturbed me.
Firstly, every other open sourced projects are in perpetual alpha or beta anyway — yet they managed to provide the source code to the public because of the GPL licence.
Secondly, Lindows is charging $99 for the preview edition. Those people who paid the 99 dollars should be allowed to get the source code.
It would seem that this company are either stupid or just trying to rip people off. They could have quite easily used a BSD base for their software, which wouldn’t have these GPL problems. However they chose Linux so they could get hyped, there tough luck for being caught out.
I can’t see what all the fuss about Lindows is about. From the looks of it, it is a poor Windows clone that derives no real benefits from its underlying GNU/Linux base. It still can’t run most Windows apps. It is hideously insecure: it encourages people to always run as root, and provides a browser-based superhighway for virii and worms with its “Click-n-Run” malware (http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/04/09/2230251&mode=thread).
If you really want that sort of thing, you’d be far better off using a decent distro like Mandrake and installing Codeweavers CrossOver Office on top. Codeweavers have proven themselves over the years to be a very honest and trustworthy company. They have a 100% money back guarantee. All of their WINE code is immediately given back to the community. In fact, Codeweavers CEO Jeremy White was the main proponent of WINE’s switch to LGPL licensing (from a BSD-like license).
>If they don’t comply and aren’t prosecuted I think that the >original copyright holders for any code they use can revoke >their license.
Uh when people GPL their code, they only sort of hold a copyright. The idea is that the code is able to be used _freely_
Well you also have to remember that a company doesn’t have to provide the source with the program, just that they make it available upon request.
Personally on my code that I write I use the BSD License. At least that way I am not forcing people who use my code to do things they may not want.
Yeah right, because gpl is the great evil, [..]<p>
Why can’t you just read what I wrote instead of what you want to read? I never ever mentioned that other licence.
Under GPL, source code doesn’t have to be available for download, and it has to be available only if you ask for it. *Only* those who receive the Lindows OS (right now only the insiders) are entitled to ask for the source under GPL. Before all this fuss, Lindows had made the source available for *everyone* to download, still is. Besides this, all of the WINE changes were submitted for inclusion to the main LGPL wine tree.
Yet when the GPL zealots don’t have a clue, before asking politely, these usual Linux zealotry like to come out as some short of open source heroes and shoot their own feet. A company investing on Linux, millions of good money, sponsoring it, employing Linux developers, taking Wine ahead, having an open source business…and standing tall against Microsoft bullies in Court.
With these ‘GPL heroes’, looks like the only Linux investing friends are going to turn to be HP and IBM, and maybe even Intel!, those moguls who really couldn’t care less for opensource but for sudden opportunism (read proprietary mainframes in IBM’s case).
There’s some frigging attitude in the Linux community, not all, that really sucks.
“Why is it so hard for people to understand the GPL? If you use GPL’ed code and distribute a binary you must also make the code for that binary available.”
This is not always true. For example, the LGPL doesn’t require you to release your source. This is for example, why you can create closed source products with GCC. If GCC’s libraries were covered with the normal GPL and you linked against them, you would have to release the source for anything you compiled with GCC.
Also, there is still some question about whether the GPL has any legal validity at all. As far as I know, the MySQL case has not yet been settled, although the judge said that he or she thinks that the GPL is probably a legally binding agreement. But I don’t think any definite decision has been made on it yet.
But yes, this is an example of the problems that can occur with the GPL and how it can stifle creativity. As others have pointed out, Lindows should have done what Apple did and built around a BSD core instead of a Linux core. Then they wouldn’t be having any of these problems. And they would also still be able to run Linux apps almost natively using FreeBSD’s Linux ABI.
M,
You are absolutely wrong — Lindows is the one trying to play the “linux hero”. Lindows (needlessly) picks a fight with Microsoft on the trademark issue — that’s a “heroic” publicity stunt. Lindows only contributed their codes back to WINE only after the people from Codeweaver and WINE complained numerously about the issue. Lindows pisses off the WINE people so much that WINE switched its licensing model.
Lindows sponsered WINEconf2002 (again for a good public image) — so what — that’s like Enron throwing a big party trying to bribe politicians —- bribing people so that they won’t support the WINE licensing change or press for source code.
You are the one absolutely wrong.
>>
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.
Jeremy White
CEO
CodeWeavers, Inc.
>>
I can download the Lindows source ( http://net2.com/lindows/source )
Where is Codeweaver’s?
You don’t go to Court challenging Microsoft in search of publicity (more expensive than your best guess), I can assure you that, I’m a lawyer, and you should know also but you are one of those fast talkers. They went to Court in defense of their rights, which happen to be ours when someone tries to trademark a computing generic term.
Lindows sponsered WINEconf2002, “so what”???, SO THEY SPONSORED IT, DAMMIT! Are you bringing the sponsor next time? And do you have anything against “a good public image”? What should a Linux Company (that can afford it) do?
I see you fit the character for being told “why are you insulting me?, I don’t remember helping you”.
Your comparison of Lindows with Enron is of such a flawed reasoning that doesn’t need to be addressed, it just pictures you as a flaming troll. To date Lindows has contributed an is contributing all their code, so quit whining.
CodeWeavers just ended their business relationship with Lindows over licensing disagreement. So let’s see what Jeremy White would say about Lindows’ “generous source code donations”.
Yes, legal costs are alot of money. But if Lindows attracts enough publicity through this lawsuit to get VC funding or an IPO, then the cost equation needs to be revisited.
With respect to wineconf2002, what the community wants is the source code, not a big party.
“Yes, legal costs are alot of money. But if Lindows attracts enough publicity through this lawsuit to get VC funding or an IPO, then the cost equation needs to be revisited.”
I could be wrong but I thought Lindows was already pretty well bankrolled (it would have to be to take on ms in court). If it is why waste cash in court? btw I’m 99% sure ms brought the suit so the publicity theory doesn’t really hold water, imo.
Well we saw this one coming didn;t we guys…?
I remember raking over these issues a few months ago right here in this BBS – looks like the problems we forsaw have come to pass.
It will be interesting to see how/if Michael Robertson can pull Lindows to profitability.
I for one will be bloody impressed if he can.
I think a lot of possible success evolved around the relationship with WINE/Codeweavers and the legal/licensing issues of their code. Now that appears to be gone I wonder what the next step is for Lindows?
Tony
———–
Lindows was founded by the guy who founded mp3.com — but he ain’t going to put all his mp3.com “winnings” into lindows. These people will put in a couple of million dollars and then talk “big” — and then try to attract VC capital or an IPO. Loudcloud was start by the guy who started Netscape, but that doesn’t mean they won’t jump at the first chance of getting the company IPO’ed.
Yes, MSFT was the party suing first. But Lindows needlessly picked the name “lindows” in the first place to attract PR — you don’t see WINE project getting that much attention when they have been around for many years.