ANN: Microsoft goes Open Source

[Robert M. Riches Jr.]

On Apr 2, 1:27 pm, "Robert M. Riches Jr."

I don't get that. Linux is GPL'd which requires that you charge only
for "distribution" costs. After that isn't it up to the user what
they do with it? How can Redhat even have a license other than the
GPL? Or are they licensing an installer or something that is not part
of Linux?

You are welcome to read the old discussions about HatRed's
"license agreement". If you look hard enough, you can find
the full text of their document on their web site. Sorry,
but I don't remember where they have it hidden, but the link
is called "Licenses". It contains a bunch of cryptic stuff,
such as defining "software" to mean their support services,
and later leaving it very unclear whether "software" means
"software" or their support services. As has been
discussed, they refuse to clarify.

At least one reasonable reading of the document concludes
they are prohibiting the purchaser from installing the GPL
software on the CDs on more than one machine without paying
extra for the privilege. Yes, that violates the spirit and
arguably violates the letter of the GPL. That's largely why
I don't use their distribution any more.

 

[Morten Reistad]

On Apr 2, 1:27 pm, "Robert M. Riches Jr."

I don't get that. Linux is GPL'd which requires that you charge only
for "distribution" costs. After that isn't it up to the user what
they do with it? How can Redhat even have a license other than the
GPL? Or are they licensing an installer or something that is not part
of Linux?

There is no restriction in the GPL about what you do with the
finished, binary product. You can charge whatever you like using any
license you prefer.

The GPL only states that the source code be available at nominal
cost. So, as long as $LinuxVendor puts up the source on the website
or includes it on a CD with the package they can charge what they
like.

Also, they can add other IP rights like artwork and patented technology,
where the access to the source code is not a complete guarantee you
can rebuild the product at will.

GPL (at least pre version 3) is also not very clear on the access to
the toolchain. You could build your product with $fancycompiler, and
keep that licensed.

-- mrr

 

[Grant Edwards]

Not everything in the distro is GPL'ed.

Yes.

There is no restriction in the GPL about what you do with the
finished, binary product.

Wrong. You may not prohibit re-distribution of GPLed programs.

You can charge whatever you like using any license you prefer.

Wrong. You have to use the GPL.

The GPL only states that the source code be available at nominal
cost.

Wrong. It states a bunch of other stuff as well. In
particular it prohibits you from restricting redistribution of
binaries and it prohibits you from distributing the binaries
under anything other than the GPL. Any recipient of the
program has the exact same rights that you have as a
distributor of that program.

So, as long as $LinuxVendor puts up the source on the website
or includes it on a CD with the package they can charge what they
like.

True, they can charge anything they like for binaries of GPLed
programs.

However, they can not prohibit re-distribution of those
binaries, and they can not distribute those binaries under any
license other than the GPL

 

[Chris Hills]

Perhaps Chris was referring to HatRed's "You are allowed to
install on _only_ one computer without paying us extra per
installation" clause in their license agreements. There
have been earlier discussions about this on
comp.os.linux.misc.

I will agree that there is a drastic difference between the
two companies.

I was referring to this:-

I got the details from the eWeek news letter see
http://ct.enews.eweek.com/rd/cts?d=186-5933-8-85-160091-663531-0-0-01

It turns out that RedHat are getting all corporate and are trying to
protect their IP just like other commercial companies. Redhat is trying
to stop people offering training in the RedHat H***** platform
(apparently the word is their trademark). They have told various people
offering training in various RedHat systems that they can not mention
the name in course advertising.

It seems like the big winners in the OS world are in fact as commercial
and corporate the nasty commercial and corporate companies who sell
pay-ware.

Whilst digging around on the Redhat item I discovered that the Open
Source Development Labs and the Free Standards Group merged to form the
Linux Foundation on March 27th,
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS5616022499.html

the point worrying many was that Linux Foundation's new 15-member board
is made up mostly of executives from multi-billion dollar companies
including many Fortune 500 executives from around the world. For
example, Tim Golden, senior VP of the Bank of America; Dan Frye, IBM's
VP of Open Systems Development; and Hisashi Hashimoto, the Hitachi
section manager who oversees workstations and mainframes. The board
doesn't include representatives from purely community-based Linux
organizations such as Debian. So the Linux Foundation is basically a
commercial corporate organisation.

One of the more interesting comments came from Eric Raymond, one of the
great initiators of Open source when Freespire said it aimed to include
legal support for every proprietary format and program that is available
to Linux. Examples include: MP3, DVD, Windows Media, QuickTime, Java,
Flash, Real media, ATI and NVIDA graphic drivers, Eric said, "If that
means paying licensing fees to the Microsofts of the world so that
people can watch Windows media files, then so be it." So Linux may now
contain proprietary and commercial code.

 

[Robert M. Riches Jr.]

Not everything in the distro is GPL'ed.


Wrong. You may not prohibit re-distribution of GPLed programs.


Wrong. You have to use the GPL.


Wrong. It states a bunch of other stuff as well. In
particular it prohibits you from restricting redistribution of
binaries and it prohibits you from distributing the binaries
under anything other than the GPL. Any recipient of the
program has the exact same rights that you have as a
distributor of that program.


True, they can charge anything they like for binaries of GPLed
programs.

However, they can not prohibit re-distribution of those
binaries, and they can not distribute those binaries under any
license other than the GPL

Grant, thank you for setting the record straight. As you
correctly stated, the GPL requires that binaries as well as
source code must be redistributable without restriction
other than those specified by the GPL.

 

[Anthony Irwin]

Not everything in the distro is GPL'ed.

I believe you are wrong here. There are many distros like centos that
take the redhat enterprise code and create exact clones with their own
logos and name.

I think you will find that everthing in redhat enterprise is available
in source form via cvs and that you are only paying for the prebuild
binarys and support.

Yes.

They are licensing their prebuilt binaries that they have tested and
offer support for.


Kind Regards,
Anthony Irwin

 

[toby]

Perhaps Chris was referring to HatRed's "You are allowed to
install on _only_ one computer without paying us extra per
installation" clause in their license agreements. There
have been earlier discussions about this on
comp.os.linux.misc.

I will agree that there is a drastic difference between the
two companies.

Illustrated, inter alia, here:
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653

How many antitrust convictions does RH have?

 

[Chris Hills]

Illustrated, inter alia, here:
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653

How many antitrust convictions does RH have?

I got the details from the eWeek news letter see
http://ct.enews.eweek.com/rd/cts?d=186-5933-8-85-160091-663531-0-0-01

It turns out that RedHat are getting all corporate and are trying to
protect their IP just like other commercial companies. Redhat is trying
to stop people offering training in the RedHat H***** platform
(apparently the word is their trademark). They have told various people
offering training in various RedHat systems that they can not mention
the name in course advertising.

It seems like the big winners in the OS world are in fact as commercial
and corporate the nasty commercial and corporate companies who sell
pay-ware.

Whilst digging around on the Redhat item I discovered that the Open
Source Development Labs and the Free Standards Group merged to form the
Linux Foundation on March 27th,
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS5616022499.html

the point worrying many was that Linux Foundation's new 15-member board
is made up mostly of executives from multi-billion dollar companies
including many Fortune 500 executives from around the world. For
example, Tim Golden, senior VP of the Bank of America; Dan Frye, IBM's
VP of Open Systems Development; and Hisashi Hashimoto, the Hitachi
section manager who oversees workstations and mainframes. The board
doesn't include representatives from purely community-based Linux
organizations such as Debian. So the Linux Foundation is basically a
commercial corporate organisation.

One of the more interesting comments came from Eric Raymond, one of the
great initiators of Open source when Freespire said it aimed to include
legal support for every proprietary format and program that is available
to Linux. Examples include: MP3, DVD, Windows Media, QuickTime, Java,
Flash, Real media, ATI and NVIDA graphic drivers, Eric said, "If that
means paying licensing fees to the Microsofts of the world so that
people can watch Windows media files, then so be it." So Linux may now
contain proprietary and commercial code.

 

[Grant Edwards]

I believe you are wrong here. There are many distros like centos that
take the redhat enterprise code and create exact clones with their own
logos and name.

Perhaps you're right. At one time there were things in RH
distros that weren't GPLed. In any case, that's a way that
RedHat could have a license other than the GPL for a
distribution. (Which I thought was the question.)

I think you will find that everthing in redhat enterprise is available
in source form via cvs and that you are only paying for the prebuild
binarys and support.

Then there is no way that RedHat can restrict re-distrubution
or multiple installations.

They are licensing their prebuilt binaries that they have tested and
offer support for.

You just got done saying that everything in the distro was
distrubuted under the GPL. That means RH can not prohibit
re-distribution or multiple isntalls. The only thing they can
do is refuse support.

 

[Richard Bos]

It seems like the big winners in the OS world are in fact as commercial
and corporate the nasty commercial and corporate companies who sell
pay-ware.

It always amazes me that OS zealots are surprised by this.

Richard

 

[Chris Hills]

It always amazes me that OS zealots are surprised by this.

Richard

I know. Business is business.

 

[Morten Reistad]

Perhaps you're right. At one time there were things in RH
distros that weren't GPLed. In any case, that's a way that
RedHat could have a license other than the GPL for a
distribution. (Which I thought was the question.)

The limitations are in practice for the use of RedHat trademarks
and artwork. You can copy the data, but you cannot use it.

Then there is no way that RedHat can restrict re-distrubution
or multiple installations.

Grey area. The precedence between the different parts of IP rights
has not been well settled in the courts.

You just got done saying that everything in the distro was
distrubuted under the GPL. That means RH can not prohibit
re-distribution or multiple isntalls. The only thing they can
do is refuse support.

What the Centos distro has done is to copy RH sources and
toolchains, change all references to RH trademarks and build new (sometimes
dummy or blank) artwork; and build a separate set of support servers.

-- mrr

 

[Grant Edwards]

The limitations are in practice for the use of RedHat trademarks
and artwork. You can copy the data, but you cannot use it.


Grey area. The precedence between the different parts of IP rights
has not been well settled in the courts.

If everything in the distro is under the GPL, then I don't see
how RH can claim you can't redistribute it -- unless the
aggregation _itself_ is copyrighted and not under the GPL.

 

[toby]

I got the details from the eWeek news letter seehttp://ct.enews.eweek.com/rd/cts?d=186-5933-8-85-160091-663531-0-0-01

It turns out that RedHat are getting all corporate and are trying to
protect their IP just like other commercial companies. Redhat is trying
to stop people offering training in the RedHat H***** platform
(apparently the word is their trademark).

So what? Linux has long been Linus Torvalds' trademark. Is 'Phaedrus'
yours? Or do we need to talk to Robert Pirsig?

They have told various people
offering training in various RedHat systems that they can not mention
the name in course advertising.

It seems like the big winners in the OS world are in fact as commercial
and corporate the nasty commercial and corporate companies who sell
pay-ware.
...

Hardly. Call me when they commit a crime. MS' continued existence is a
crime.

... comments came from Eric Raymond, one of the
great initiators of Open source when Freespire said it aimed to include
legal support for every proprietary format and program that is available
to Linux. Examples include: MP3, DVD, Windows Media, QuickTime, Java,
Flash, Real media, ATI and NVIDA graphic drivers, Eric said, "If that
means paying licensing fees to the Microsofts of the world so that
people can watch Windows media files, then so be it." So Linux may now
contain proprietary and commercial code.

The kernel can't. But of course it has always been possible to run
commercial/proprietary/closed code on Linux.

It is certainly time for Apple to bring QT to Linux. Who cares about
WMV (like everything from that source), it's merely a lock-in play.

 

[Robert M. Riches Jr.]

The limitations are in practice for the use of RedHat trademarks
and artwork. You can copy the data, but you cannot use it.

Trademarks don't affect _use_, they only affect what you can
_sell_. As has been discussed earlier, trademarks do not
provide a legitimate basis for HatRed's language that
appears to attempt to prohibit multiple installations by one
paying customer of a boxed product.

Grey area. The precedence between the different parts of IP rights
has not been well settled in the courts.

While I am definitely not a lawyer or a judge, and some
judges have done some pretty insane things over the years,
the language of the GPL is very clear. The GPL says nobody
(including HatRed) can restrict redistribution or multiple
installation of GPLed code, and that goes for both source
and binary forms.

 

[Michael Black]

So what? Linux has long been Linus Torvalds' trademark. Is 'Phaedrus'
yours? Or do we need to talk to Robert Pirsig?

Not so long, and there's a story behind it.

He didn't trademark it at the beginning. Eventually some company did,
and they started going after other companies that were using the name
"Linux". Which then caused Linus with some others to pursue the matter,
since they'd been using the name before the other company trademarked
it (and this was in terms of Linux as an operating system, not someone
who'd trademarked "Linux" as a name brand of washing machine). Since they
proved prior use, or something like that, Linus gained the copyright.

In other words, his copyrighting the name was to get it away from
the third party, who was using the ownership in a bad way. I don't think
he really cares about owning the copyright, he just didn't want someone
else to have it and use it in a way that would cause problems to
the operating system.

The case is somewhat similar to GPL. Release something in the public
domain, and you have no control over what others do with it. Release
it under the GPL, and then if people take advantage of prior work
that is licensed under GPL, if they release that work, it must also
be under GPL.

If Linus didn't take hold of the Linux trademark, then he'd have
no control over it's use. I don't think he particularly cares about
owning it, only that others not be able to use it simply because they'd
claimed it.

Michael

 

[Paul Gotch]

great initiators of Open source when Freespire said it aimed to include
legal support for every proprietary format and program that is available
to Linux. Examples include: MP3, DVD, Windows Media, QuickTime, Java,
Flash, Real media, ATI and NVIDA graphic drivers, Eric said, "If that
means paying licensing fees to the Microsofts of the world so that
people can watch Windows media files, then so be it." So Linux may now
contain proprietary and commercial code.

Leaving aside the fact that Linspire/Freespire are a pariah in the
community...

There is a vast difference between an open source implementation of an open
spsec for which binaries can't be distributed for patent reasons (mostly
MPEG standards) and a closed implementation of a closed spec (DVD CSS,
Windows Media etc.)

Linux is a kernel the GNU/Linux operating system has always (modulo some now
forgotten wobbles with the C library) been able to legally closed source
binaries. It never would have got as popular as it has otherwise. Infact
many distributions have had more restricted software in them for years.
SuSE's package manger and configuration tool were under a restrictive
license until Novell bought the company and GPLed them.

Before they GPLed it some distributions were in a position to distribute SUN
Java because they could comply with SUNs distribution restrictions, others
such as Debian couldn't.

Similar things applied to the Nivida and ATI binary drivers (leaving aside
the legality of loading them into the kernel) before both these companies
releaxed their distribution restrictions.

Encrypted DVDs will never come legally to desktop Linux as the DVD licensing
authority will never license the CSS decryption scheme for use on a
non-embedded Linux box. Free Software has been availiable to play
un-encrypted ones for yonks.

Freespire/Linspire probably use the same mechanisms of loading Windows dlls
using wrappers but have obtained a license from MS to distribute them. They
didn't get a license for the DRM stuff.

Flash is available for Linux in binary form with distribution restrictions.

Real Media is generally available for Linux in binary form with distribution
restrictions.

Support for the Quicktime container format has existed in open source form
for Linux for ages. However it was largely pointless due to the lack of
support for the proprietary Sorenson codec.

Support Quicktime in Linspire/Freespire is using the Windows version via
CodeWeavers CrossOver Office product which itself is basically a Windows
emulation layer, their code goes into the open source version of their
software "WINE" every so often.

In short the only thing that Linspire/Freespire have actually done other
than bundle things together which can't be done by others is sign a license
with MS.

ESR does not speak for the FSF, Linus Torvalds or any of other many and
varied copyright owners in the software distributed as part of a typical
GNU/Linux distribution so what he says has no weight.

You should do some research into the issues at hand of which the license is
only one amid a thicket of patent and trademark issues before you make
sweeping generalisations about Linux and open source software in general.

You should also read and understand the GPL.

-p

 

[Paul Gotch]

In other words, his copyrighting the name was to get it away from
the third party, who was using the ownership in a bad way. I don't think
he really cares about owning the copyright, he just didn't want someone
else to have it and use it in a way that would cause problems to
the operating system.

Plus the fact that if you don't defend your trademark you lose it which is
why the Linux Mark Institute defends the trademark and charges a pretty
pathetically small license fee which convers their operating costs for doing
so.

-p

 

[Keith Thompson]

He didn't trademark it at the beginning. Eventually some company did,
and they started going after other companies that were using the name
"Linux". Which then caused Linus with some others to pursue the matter,
since they'd been using the name before the other company trademarked
it (and this was in terms of Linux as an operating system, not someone
who'd trademarked "Linux" as a name brand of washing machine). Since they
proved prior use, or something like that, Linus gained the copyright.

In other words, his copyrighting the name was to get it away from
the third party, who was using the ownership in a bad way. I don't think
he really cares about owning the copyright, he just didn't want someone
else to have it and use it in a way that would cause problems to
the operating system.

[...]

The "Linux" name is trademarked, not copyrighted (you can't copyright
a name). Trademarks and copyrights are very different things.

And April Fool's Day is over; perhaps this discussion can be taken out
of comp.lang.c, where it's off-topic. Followups set (but it may be
off-topic in some of the remaining groups as well).

 

[Chris Hills]

So what? Linux has long been Linus Torvalds' trademark. Is 'Phaedrus'
yours? Or do we need to talk to Robert Pirsig?

Robert Pirsig has less claim on the name than I do strangely enough.

Phaedrus is a couple of thousand years older than Pirsig.

Hardly. Call me when they commit a crime. MS' continued existence is a
crime.

Not religious about it then.