Very Computer

Quote:>Just what we needed:

>http://slashdot.org/articles/99/09/20/1051226.shtml

>John Goerzen writes "Corel today began FAXing out beta test agreements
>for its Linux distribution.
>However, these agreements violate GPL in many points by distributing
>software under terms that the GPL prohibits."

>I hope this isn't a trend with commercial companies entering into OSS
>software.

Keep in mind that it is night time in Ottawa, and the lawyers are all
snuggled in their beds.

Secondary indications are that Corel has been contacted by some of the
authors of software that may have been "offended" by the license.  It
may take a few hours or possibly a couple of days for proper responses
to arise.

It seems most likely that the "beta test agreement" was written up by
lawyers that may not have read the licenses attached to the software
that makes up most of the distribution.  This of course does suggest
some questions of competency, which doubtless represents a matter that
will cause consternation tomorrow in Michael Cowpland's office as some
people are called in to see about "damage control."

Give them a chance to respond, thereby giving the opportunity to remedy
their ways, rather than starting out by a proposal to boil in oil.

It is amply evident that the reactions already seen on the matter will
provide lots of grist for journalists who would like to call the Linux
community a bunch of "angry, paranoid hackers" that should be ignored
as cranks.
--
The next person to mention spaghetti stacks to me is going to have
his head knocked off.
-- Bill Conrad

Quote:> It is amply evident that the reactions already seen on the matter will
> provide lots of grist for journalists who would like to call the Linux
> community a bunch of "angry, paranoid hackers" that should be ignored
> as cranks.

Not in Ottawa. Here, we think that Michael Copland (CEO of Corel) is the
one who should be ignored as a crank.

--

Ottawa, Canada
Francais / English / Esperanto
Maintainer, Esperanto FAQ: http://www.esperanto.net/veb/faq.html

Quote:>It is amply evident that the reactions already seen on the matter will
>provide lots of grist for journalists who would like to call the Linux
>community a bunch of "angry, paranoid hackers" that should be ignored
>as cranks.

Sorry, what evidence. On the net, where one would expect the most
reaction, this is the only thread I have seen on the issue.

Also, go to Corel's web pages and look at their page re "Software
Piracy" and their desire that you turn in to them anyone you suspect of
violating Corel's licenses. Where licenses are concened most of the
major software houses are the 'Angry, Paranoid" group. I wish they could
be ignored as cranks but they then also subvert the legal process and
get stupid laws passed that have no concept of what the long history of
copyright or its purpose.

Can you imagine Microsoft's reaction if someone released a verion of
Windows claiming it was their own intellectual property. Although the
reaction would probably not be public, I suspect that company would hear
about it in no uncertain terms.

"Christopher B. Browne" schrieb:

Quote:> It seems most likely that the "beta test agreement" was written up by
> lawyers that may not have read the licenses attached to the software
> that makes up most of the distribution.  This of course does suggest
> some questions of competency, which doubtless represents a matter that
> will cause consternation tomorrow in Michael Cowpland's office as some
> people are called in to see about "damage control."

One of the problems is that the lawyers may interpret the GPL differently
than the rest of the world. When my book came out (Linux User's Resource),
it had a copy of the standard Prentice Hall boilerplate for software
included in their books. I assume that Corel did something similar.

When I got my first copy of the book, that was the first thing I looked for
and was admitted extremely pissed off. My editor at PH said that they had a
right to copyright the **collection** of software that was included on the
CD. Therefore, no one could provide the exact same combination of software,
files and other things. Unfortunately, that's not what the agreement said.

I had sent Alan Cox a copy of the book as a "thank you" for helping me out
with it. Since he is the copyright holder on a lot of the network code, he
pointed out to PH that their boiler plate was in direct violation of the
GPL. They said "Ooops" and agreed to fix it. I know they did in the Spanish
translation as it did not have any agreement at all.

Bottom line is to give them a chance to correct their ways before you call
your lawyer.

Regards

jimmo

I am under the impression that Corel do not conform to the GPL simply
because they do not have to.
They are giving it, as it were, to private non-commercial users, but
even in their case users are advised that the complete suite is
available for purchase, and all commercial users must be licensed. No
GPL, no need for GPL. If it uses GPL'ed software to run it is not a
violation of the GPL. Shaky ethics? Probably not. I value Open Source
software, but at some level commercial software shouldn't be dismissed
out of hand, since standards derived from business will always exist.

-Mike List

-Mike List

[Posted and mailed]

Quote:>> "Christopher B. Browne" schrieb:

>> > It seems most likely that the "beta test agreement" was written up by
>> > lawyers that may not have read the licenses attached to the software
>> > that makes up most of the distribution.
...
> I am under the impression that Corel do not conform to the GPL simply
> because they do not have to.
> They are giving it, as it were, to private non-commercial users, but
> even in their case users are advised that the complete suite is
> available for purchase, and all commercial users must be licensed. No
> GPL, no need for GPL.

You're talking at cross purposes.  The original post was about Corel's
beta test agreement form for *COREL LINUX*, which is the new Linux
distribution Corel is preparing.  You appear to be talking about
WordPerfect, which is entirely different.  The GPL most emphatically does
apply to components of any Linux distribution (like the Linux kernel).
Corel can do whatever they like with WordPerfect, of course, since it's
not GPLed.

--
Rod Smith

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~smithrod
Author of _Special Edition Using Corel WordPerfect 8 for Linux_, from Que

Quote:>I am under the impression that Corel do not conform to the GPL simply
>because they do not have to.

Oh, yes they do. The GPL is the license under which they are allowed to
copy much of the code in Linux. As such they have to abide by it.

On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:07:07 GMT, Rod Smith

Indications elsewhere seem to suggest that the wording of the "Beta
agreement" is virtually identical to other agreements Corel has
distributed in the past for products that were unambiguously
proprietary.

The "principle of least astonishment" would suggest the scenario:

  -> Corel decided to do some beta testing of Corel Linux
  -> They pulled out a beta testing agreement template that they have
     used before, and changed the name of the "product."
  -> They didn't think to look more closely at how palatable this
     might be to the third parties that wrote the bulk of the
     software.

That seems vastly more likely than a scenario like:
  "We'll be loading up the black helicopters, and bombing select sites
  in Cambridge, Raleigh, Redmond, and Silicon Valley."

--
Rules of the Evil Overlord #91. "When I create a multimedia
presentation of my plan designed so that my five-year-old advisor can
easily understand the details, I will not label the disk "Project
Overlord" and leave it lying on top of my desk."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html>

 >
 >Indications elsewhere seem to suggest that the wording of the "Beta
 >agreement" is virtually identical to other agreements Corel has
 >distributed in the past for products that were unambiguously
 >proprietary.
 >
 >The "principle of least astonishment" would suggest the scenario:
 >
 >  -> Corel decided to do some beta testing of Corel Linux
 >  -> They pulled out a beta testing agreement template that they have
 >     used before, and changed the name of the "product."
 >  -> They didn't think to look more closely at how palatable this
 >     might be to the third parties that wrote the bulk of the
 >     software.
 >
 >That seems vastly more likely than a scenario like:
 >  "We'll be loading up the black helicopters, and bombing select sites
 >  in Cambridge, Raleigh, Redmond, and Silicon Valley."
 >
I agree, but recent interviews with spokespersons from Corel
don't encourage the view that, having made an unintentional mistake,
they now understand what the problem is and what to do about it.
They seem more interested in covering their asses than in
complying with the licenses on the software their distribution
will be using.  

Bob T.

Quote:> I agree, but recent interviews with spokespersons from Corel don't
> encourage the view that, having made an unintentional mistake,  they now
> understand what the problem is and what to do about it. They seem more
> interested in covering their asses than in complying with the licenses
> on the software their distribution  will be using.

Sounds like experienced bureaucrats to me.

    -Jerry
--
============================================================
Jerry Lapham, Monroe, OH

Written Thursday, September 23, 1999 - 08:48 PM (EDT)
============================================================
MR/2 Ice tag:  Close only counts in horseshoes and Pentiums.

They *are* in Ottawa, with bureaucrats in every conceivable direction...

--
Have you heard of the new Macsyma processor?  It has three instructions --
LOAD, STORE, and SKIP IF INTEGRABLE.

http://linuxtoday.com/stories/10357.html

This is the 'Official' Corel Statement of Clarification, as it pertains to
'Beta Testing' of Corel Linux.

(opinion)
I do not, at this time, see a need to 'jump to conclusions'. I will rather
wait and see what they do with the final product. That will be my deciding
factor. Until that time, I can not conclude anything.
(end opinion)

Jim Jeup
-----> Linux -----> Get it?
--------------------------------

and Linux BBS at http://www.pctechshop.com
---------------------------------------------------------------