[SMAUG] Caldera Workstation 3.1

[Rick Moen]

(Again, I'm grinding through several past e-mails, on this one.)


Raphaël Dorado said:

> This [Caldera 3.1 Workstation] is non-free software....

Be careful not to overstate this point.

1.  As Ronald pointed out, almost all distributions include non-free
(AKA proprietary) software.  The pine mailer is proprietary.  (See:
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/#pine )  xv is proprietary.  Please note
that this is true of xv even though source code is freely available!
http://is.rice.edu/~shel/xv-3.10a/availability.html#licensing-information

Netscape Navigator/Communicator is proprietary:
http://home.netscape.com/download/client.html  Did you know that that
licence purports to forbid redistribution?  Isn't that ridiculous? 
(I believe there's a statement available from the company elsewhere that 
countermands that.)

qmail, ezmlm, djbdns, publicfile and daemontools are proprietary:
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/#djb

The opposite of proprietary (non-free) is _open source_.  One
distinguishes the two according to the licence terms -- and the
yardstick conventionally used for that criterion is the Open Source
Definition, http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html .

Please note that the opposite of open source is NOT "commercial".  
If you can sell or buy something -- such as Official Debian disk 1
consisting entirely of open-source code from the "main" package
collection -- then it's commercial, by definition.

I'm _really_ tired of people promoting the notion that open-source
software is non-commercial.  It's just not so.  


Raphaël also said:

> Caldera has released a Linux distribution with proprietary software
> whose source code is not available.

As mentioned regarding the example of xv (which is an excellent
graphics-handling utility), source availability doesn't stop code from
being proprietary.  Simplifying a bit, open source licensing means you
not only have _access_ to the codebase's source, but may create and
distribute modified versions with no restriction on what it may be used
for.

xv's author (John Bradley) doesn't allow that, so it's proprietary.
John has a perfect right to keep it that way, and labelling it
proprietary in no way denigates him or his excellent work.  But it's why
Red Hat Software, Inc. commissioned "Mandrake" (Carsten Haitzler) to
write Electric Eyes as a GPLed replacement -- and that's why Red Hat has 
omitted xv, ever since then.

> It was probably a 2.x release, but I was very disappointed by the (non)
> hardware detection.


Raphaël also said:

Hardware auto-probing during installation is a two-edged sword:  If it
works, you get a more-automated installation process.  But probing can
and does cause some hardware to seize up the machine.  So, distributions
that do aggressive auto-probing (Linux-Mandrake, Corel Linux...) will
completely fail to install on some machines, on which other
distributions that use auto-probing more conservatively (such as Debian)
will load onto effortlessly.


Ronald Joe Record wrote:

> First, I am aware of only one vendor whose Linux distribution does not
> contain proprietary software.  That is the not-for-profit Debian
> distribution.

Yes and no.  No and yes.

(1) Debian comprises the four package "collections" on its multitude of
Internet mirror sites.  They are classified according to licensing:

main:  open-source (AKA free-software) packages with no export issues
non-free:  proprietary code that's freely distributable.
non-US:  software with USA-export problems (mostly crypto)
contrib:  software that is itself free but requires non-free dependencies

The Debian Social Contract (http://www.debian.org/social_contract)
states that the "Debian system" must consist of only free software, 
so Debian is 100% free software in a formal _definitional_ sense.  
But package in the non-free category are no less (and no more)
accessible than those in the other three.  "apt-get install xv" will
install John Bradley's graphics program.  ("apt-get install eeyes" will
get you Haitzler's.)

(2) The Debian distribution is NOT "not-for-profit".  Among the freedoms
guaranteed by open source licensing is the right to use software for
commercial purposes.  In fact, in that regard, open-source software is
much _more_ for-profit than are many proprietary wares -- such as the
copy of Caldera 3.1 Workstation that claims to be legal only for
"evaluation" or "demonstration" usage.


Raphaël also said:

> Caldera can always try, but this business model is Dead On Arrival.
> It requires people pay in order to use Linux in a commercial
> environment.

I don't think it is; I don't think it does.

I think Caldera's somewhat clumsy attempt to introduce per-seat
licensing is, in itself, a perfectly reasonable business model, and one
that does not damage open source at all.  Please note that it's
essentially what you get with SuSE's boxed set:  Since the YaST and
YaST2 programs are proprietary, and are necessary to SuSE installation,
you need to buy a separate boxed set for each host (machine), to legally
use the full SuSE version in a multi-machine environment.  

In my separate reply to Ronald, I was very explicit in what I meant:  I
said that I recommended that his employer switch for its downloadable
ISO image to a SuSE-like licensing model, and drop the legalistic "EULA"
crud.  I cannot endorse your view that there's something horribly
objectionable about (also) offering a proprietary superset.

> I wasn't on it during that period.  What does "much of" mean ? I've
> been involved into several standardizations committees (in another
> industry), and companies most involved in that process are only there
> to pull the standard to their side. Thus I'm not surprised that
> Caldera is there even though their market share is far below other
> competitors.

(1) No, Ronald is correct that Caldera has made significant
contributions to important open-source codebases -- and to the LSB.

(2) Be careful about making allegations concerning "market share" that
you cannot possibly back up.  It's extremely difficult to measure the
sales volumes of Linux-related products.  (Please note that estimating
the number of Linux _installations_ is a completely different problem,
and is even more difficult.)

And now, let me correct one of my _own_ statements:

> I trust you are familiar with Richard M. Stallman's statement that
> claiming compilation copyright over a work that includes GPLed
> components is inconsistent with GPL v. 2 sections 2 and 5.  You would
> not be able to legally include third-party GPLed software in such a
> work (absent special permission from each copyright holder affected).

It was late, I was tired, and I was hoping people would understand what
I meant, even though I didn't say that quite correctly.

Some basics:  Copyright is a type of limited legal monopoly you gain
automatically whenever you create a "creative work in fixed form".
If you write a short story, you automatically own copyright to it.

If you and fifteen other authors submit your short stories for an
anthology volume, you still retain copyright (unless you formally sign
it over), but imply licence for its inclusion.  However, the editor, in
the act of selecting and arranging those sixteen stories, has _also_
made a "creative work in fixed form" -- consisting of the creative 
accomplishment of selecting and arranging stories (plus prefatory
material, etc.).  

Red Hat Software has a file in the root directory of the RH
distribution, asserting compilation copyright over the work as a whole,
and licensing whatever rights it has in that copyright under the GNU
GPL.  The OpenBSD Foundation claims compilation copyright over its
OpenBSD ISO9660 images, claiming you may not redistribute that image,
but rather must buy additional discs from them.  (That's their nearly
sole source of financial support.)

Anyhow, to correct myself:  Stallman said that any alleged compilation 
copyright _that purports to place further restrictions_ on included
third-party GPL software beyond those in the GPL terms is incompatible
with GPL v. 2 clauses 2 & 5.  My apologies for the omission.

-- 
Cheers,                     Chaos, panic, & disorder - my work here is done.
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com