Re: Corel Lawsuit

[Joseph Carter]

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.


> 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.


> 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?


> 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 threat.

It's time to stop playing around with them.  They're not serious about
delivering on their promises.  If all they want is a free ride, I have no
use for the company.

-- 
- Joseph Carter GnuPG public key:   1024D/DCF9DAB3, 2048g/3F9C2A43
- [EMAIL PROTECTED]   20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC  44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3
--
 emacs sucks, literally, not a insult, just a comment that its
  large enough to have a noticeable gravitational pull...



pgp2ecsN5o5Cs.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: is this free?

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Nov 26, 1999 at 10:52:07AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 26, 1999 at 08:32:28AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 25, 1999 at 11:56:57AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > > You are free to mix the code with other code, though. All DFSG free
> On Sat, Nov 27, 1999 at 12:00:49AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Note the lack of the word `any'. :)
> In other words, "There exists some code which can be combined with other
> code?"  That's true even for the most restricted, proprietary piece of
> software in existence.

Except that not everyone can willfully combine code with, say, Windows.
Or with qmail, or pine, or whatever.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.

 ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it 
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds


pgpY3mmXRjY5d.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Corel Lawsuit

[Gavriel State]

I'm not sure whether I should be posting this message.  Spokesperson isn't 
my real job (I'm an engineer), but the people whose real job it is may not 
be able to respond on debian.devel in time to avert the weekend flamefest 
I'm dreading.  Though perhaps part of the problem has been that people
have been hearing from too many spokespeople and not enough engineers.
Regardless, what follows should in no way be construed as any sort of 
official Corel position.  It's just me talking.

I'm one of several dozen people working on open source projects at Corel.  
As I see the postings here and on slashdot claiming that we're trying to 
'pull one over' on the community, or that we're just freeloaders and 
clueless to boot, I wonder whether people even know what we've actually 
contributed?  We've been working *really* hard trying to get Linux in 
the hands of the average desktop user, and we've released *everything* 
we've done under open source licenses (much of it under the GPL, some 
under our version of the MPL, and some under the BSDish WINE license):

- All of our setup code - our low-level setup API, hardware and configuration 
  detection code, our setup UI, our partitioning tool, our graphical LILO, etc.

- Our written-from-scratch file manager, with integrated samba, ftp, and NFS 
  browsing.

- Our graphical front end to APT.

- Our improved KDE: hundreds of bug fixes; new control panels for 
  networking, printing, and display configuration; improved kpanel; new 
  documentation; various UI tweaks, and on and on.

- Gobs and gobs of work on WINE (most new apps we throw at it are now about
  90% functional within a week or so).

It's incredibly painful to see our intentions misperceived as they have 
been.  We're trying to make and improve free software, and to forge 
relationships with the wider community.  Now that our engineering team 
is coming back from post-shipping vacations, we're starting the process 
of integrating our desktop work with KDE 2.0, and improving our packaging 
structure to improve compatibility with potato, etc.  

When it comes to license issues, I'm no expert, but I can tell you that 
where we've had conflicts in the past we've learned from our mistakes.  I 
don't fully understand the legal department's reasoning behind the minors 
clause, but I'm sure the clause wasn't put there because we have something 
against minors or because we *want* to deny minors the ability to use our 
software.  The issue of whether a minor can be bound to the terms of a 
copyright license, and the implications within the legal jurisdictions 
Corel operates under are complicated ones.  

Looking at clause 2-b of the GPL, I can see at least one interpretation
myself that would *require* the 'minors clause' to prevent the licensing 
of the software to a third party who would not be bound to the GPLs own 
redistribution requirements.  Or perhaps that makes it redundant.  I'm 
not a lawyer - I don't really know.  

What I do know is that it's more productive for everyone if we work on 
these issues as a community.  Corporations are big and awkward, and by 
their nature can't fit into a community as easily as individuals can.  
But if we can work better together, I think that you'll find that we 
have lots more to contribute.

BTW, we're working on an infrastructure for improving our ties to the wider
community.  It's not ready yet, but when it's up there will be a link to 
it at: http://linux.corel.com/products/linux_os/opensource_development.htm

-Gav

-- 
Gavriel State
Engineering Architect - Linux Development
Corel Corp
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- 
The address in the headers is not the poster's real email address.  Do not send
private mail to the poster using your mailer's "reply" feature.  CC's of mail 
to mailing lists are OK.  Problem reports to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".  
The poster's email address is "[EMAIL PROTECTED]".

Re: Corel Lawsuit

[Bruce Perens]

Hi Gavriel,

From: Gavriel State <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm not sure whether I should be posting this message.

I acknowledge that you guys are contributing work back to free software.
We appreciate that.

It's your legal department that has people tearing their hair. I worked
hard to sort out the first two gaffes. Not a third, please.

> Looking at clause 2-b of the GPL, I can see at least one interpretation
> myself that would *require* the 'minors clause' to prevent the licensing 
> of the software to a third party who would not be bound to the GPLs own 
> redistribution requirements.  Or perhaps that makes it redundant.  I'm 
> not a lawyer - I don't really know.  

The difference is that the GPL is a straight copyright permission, as on
a book, rather than a contract like the tear-open licenses you are used to.
You are responsible to comply with its terms, but you are _not_ responsible
for anyone else's compliance.

Right now, someone has to click "yes" on that license to get _my_ software,
to which it very clearly does not apply. Of course that has us annoyed.

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 they now turn around and say they had no legal
right to give you 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 you should make the same assumption
in your license?

> What I do know is that it's more productive for everyone if we work on 
> these issues as a community.

Right. Corel _had_ an advisory board made up of people from the community.
They met once and never again. Your company seems to have dropped the ball.

But legal issues aside, you guys just seem to unintentionally, and without
any malice involved, do things to piss off the people who wrote your own
system every chance you get. Red Hat, in contrast, was much more careful
about these issues, and their success shows that.

Corel will not have them either if you just listen to the software
contributors a bit harder and ride herd on your own legal department
and its tendency to run things as they did for non-Open-Source software.

Thanks

Bruce

Re[2]: Corel Lawsuit (fwd)

[Bob Bernstein]

Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Then imagine the potential shareholder lawsuits against Corel for not
> excercising due-diligence in preventing the losses incurred by the delayed
> release, wasted CD's and other materials, and civil suits by copyright
> holders because they failed to listen to the copyright holders when they
> complained about the incorrect license in the first place...

Absolutely right. This is the only language that's understood in boardrooms,
which, given the structure of publicly traded for-profit corporations (one
might argue) is only as it should be. Those in control of Corel have two
priorities, and they are intertwined: increasing shareholder value, and
increasing the value of their own compensation packages, which are (one can
safely guess) in significant measure made up of options to buy Corel stock.

Any notion that Corel is playing anything other than hardball is wishful
thinking. On October 19 CORL closed at $4.69; yesterday it stood at $14.13!
The stock has not seen this level since 1996! This 300% surge in share price
has been *precisely* coincident with Comdex and the debut of Corel Linux. (In
the same time frame RHAT has similarly gone from $77.50 to $213.50; it has
doubled its value in the last nine trading sessions alone!) With dollars like
this in contention it's clear that in said boardroom the attorneys will hold
sway, not even taking a second place behind the accountants!

My experience with these outfits is that *if* anyone is going to listen, it
*may* be the lawyers who oversee investor relations. They understand the
intimate connection between share price and public image. Contact information
for IR at Corel is at:

http://www.corel.com/investor/other411.htm

Email is: [EMAIL PROTECTED], where one David Hladkowicz holds forth.

The experience of the kde developers will prove useful in this context. Corel
has "promised" that it will - in so many words - do things differently when it
comes to implementing version 2.0 of kde. Corel claims it will mend its ways.
Would anyone wish to wager a few bucks on that claim? 

My father, who knew a lot about both, never tired of warning me that: "Money
changes people." My fear is not that money will change Corel; they are already
all about money. My fear is that money will change Linux, and not to its
improvement. It's already started. 


--
Bob Bernstein   http://members.home.net/ruptured-duck
at   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Esmond, R.I., USA Learning..OpenBSD 2.5! 

Re: Apology to Corel

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Fri, 26 Nov 1999, Bruce Perens wrote:

> I think I'd better apologize to Corel. I'm frustrated because I've tried
> to smooth problems with them out twice before, but I should not have suggested

Erm, it seems to me that at least the 2nd instance, went rather well - why
are you frustrated?

Jason

Re: Apology to Corel

[Bruce Perens]

From: Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Erm, it seems to me that at least the 2nd instance, went rather well - why
> are you frustrated?

Because they are taking so long to get a clue.

Thanks

Bruce

Re: Corel Lawsuit

[Raul Miller]

On Sat, Nov 27, 1999 at 12:12:16AM -0500, Gavriel State wrote:
> I'm not sure whether I should be posting this message.  Spokesperson isn't 
> my real job (I'm an engineer), but the people whose real job it is may not 
> be able to respond on debian.devel in time to avert the weekend flamefest 
> I'm dreading.  Though perhaps part of the problem has been that people
> have been hearing from too many spokespeople and not enough engineers.
> Regardless, what follows should in no way be construed as any sort of 
> official Corel position.  It's just me talking.

And that disclaimer probably captures the nature of the problem in
its essence.

You're the folks doing the work, and you're doing it with Corel's backing,
but you don't have the final say.

The situation is perfectly understandable, of course.  But, on the
legal side, it seems as if there are changes which must be made, and
that a certain amount of pressure must be applied on Corel to make these
changes happen.

Corel's legal dept. *should* be dealing with these issues before deploying
legal requirements.  Nobody is happy that outsiders are having to deal
with Corel licensing issues after the fact -- not those outsiders,
not Corel employees, not people who hear about it.

> I'm one of several dozen people working on open source projects at
> Corel. As I see the postings here and on slashdot claiming that
> we're trying to 'pull one over' on the community, or that we're just
> freeloaders and clueless to boot, I wonder whether people even know
> what we've actually contributed? We've been working *really* hard
> trying to get Linux in the hands of the average desktop user, and
> we've released *everything* we've done under open source licenses
> (much of it under the GPL, some under our version of the MPL, and some
> under the BSDish WINE license):
...
> It's incredibly painful to see our intentions misperceived as 
> they have been. We're trying to make and improve free software,   
> and to forge relationships with the wider community. Now that our 
> engineering team is coming back from post-shipping vacations, we're   
> starting the process of integrating our desktop work with KDE 2.0,
> and improving our packaging structure to improve compatibility with   
> potato, etc.  

And you've been doing great work.

But, as you've indicated above, you don't have the final say in how
that work is deployed.

I know this isn't your job.  But: if there's anything you can do to
get your legal department to invite comment on future potential debian
licenses on debian-legal, before they're deployed, I think everyone
concerned would be happier.

> BTW, we're working on an infrastructure for improving
> our ties to the wider community. It's not ready yet,
> but when it's up there will be a link to it at:
> http://linux.corel.com/products/linux_os/opensource_development.htm

I'm curious, but I guess I'll have to wait and see what will be there.

Thanks,

-- 
Raul