Closed betas and the GPL [LWN.net]

Certain issues seem to come around over and over again. One of those, certainly, is that of closed beta tests of Linux distributions. Can a distributor run closed beta tests and still comply with the GPL? The straightforward answer is certainly "no." If you distribute GPL-licensed software to somebody else, you can not restrict their right to further distribute that software.

That does not stop distributors from doing closed beta tests, however. Corel did it. Caldera (oops...SCO Group...) has done it. Lindows has done it. And UnitedLinux is doing it. The closed beta period ends on September 23, at which point the UnitedLinux beta, with source, will be available to all. In the mean time, however, one might wonder how the current closed beta is being kept closed.

At the UnitedLinux press conference, FSF director Bradley Kuhn asked about the terms of the non-disclosure agreement that was signed by the beta testers. The UnitedLinux spokesperson evidently agreed to disclose those terms. To help them remember, Mr. Kuhn has sent out an open letter on behalf of the FSF asking them to follow through:

Even as you release your new product to the public, the past situation must be clarified. Not only does the community deserve to know, but I also believe it behooves you to put to rest and clarify the legal ambiguities that arise naturally from doing a "closed beta" of GPL'ed software.

It remains to be seen whether UnitedLinux violated the GPL, or whether it just picked a set of beta testers who, of their own will, chose not to distribute the UnitedLinux beta.

Closed betas will always raise this sort of issue however. They are also unnecessary. There are distributors, with MandrakeSoft and the Debian Project at the top of the list, who do all of their development and beta testing work in the open. In return, they get a wider pool of testers, the assistance of the free software development community, and the knowledge that they will not be accused of GPL violations. Distributions, too, are free software development projects; they benefit from frequent, public releases. Is it really worth the trouble to keep a Linux distribution under wraps?

(Log in to post comments)

Closed betas and the GPL

Posted Sep 19, 2002 4:38 UTC (Thu) by virtex (subscriber, #3019) [Link]

Of course, if a company wants to release their distro as a closed beta, they can get away with it by restricting certain parts they wrote themselves. Many distros write their own installer and configuration tools, and maybe some other bits and pieces. They can can restrict these pieces while giving away the rest as required under the GPL, Artistic, BSD, and other licenses. Beta testers would be allowed to distribute the majority of the software, but not the whole distro as a single piece. I thought this was how Caldera used to do their betas, but I could be mistaken.

In any case, perhaps UnitedLinux should try it this way if they want to have closed betas. But I agree that open betas work well, too, and in fact gain more exposure, resulting in more uncovered bugs.

Closed betas and the GPL

Posted Sep 19, 2002 10:00 UTC (Thu) by job (guest, #670) [Link]

I believe closed betas is a sign of misunderstanding the whole open source concept. You have to understand the the "release often and early"-rule before you break it.

We have very many commercial Linux distributions now. I expect to see a few of them go broke and disappear, and I can guess which ones that'll be. Good business deals won't help them if the customers go elsewhere.

Closed betas and the GPL

Posted Sep 20, 2002 17:52 UTC (Fri) by erat (guest, #21) [Link]

I think you may be mistaken about the purpose of UnitedLinux. It's not an open source or free software project by charter/definition; it's a unification of at least four companies' Linux efforts as well as a unification of the current lot of approved Linux standards into one installable Linux system. It just so happens that some/most of the elements of this Linux system are open sourced or free.

When folks chat about the "spirit of free and open source software" they're probably thinking that the project is -- by definition -- a free and/or open sourced project by virtue of the fact that there are free and/or open sourced components contained within. I guess if one chooses to refer to Linux as "GNU/Linux" because of the GNU components that distros utilize, I can see how folks would reach that conclusion.

That's not how UL seems to be identifying itself, though. I'm sure compliance with the licenses under which the components are distributed is something UL is highly concerned about (good luck selling corporations on a Linux system that has known legal issues) but beyond compliance I would guess that the open source and/or free licensing of some components is incidental and will not be highlighted as a major selling point. Nor should it be. There are lots of options out there for folks who want open sourced or free software. UL seems to be tackling the Linux development world from a fresh perspective: focus on bringing applications to Linux by providing a well supported, predictable platform complete with release schedules and worldwide support. It's amazing how difficult it can be to find those two things in modern Linux distributions, and from personal experience having dealt 1:1 with ISVs, it's one of the major reasons ISVs hesitate to dive head first into Linux support.

I doubt that the open source and free licensing of some UL components will be downplayed or ignored, but I also doubt UL sales folks will shine a spotlight on them and try to use them as the ace #1 major selling point of UL. The "identity" of UL (after looking at their FAQ) is based upon standards, consistency, and functionality, not access to source code.

That's my guess... Flame away.

Closed betas and the GPL

Posted Sep 19, 2002 12:35 UTC (Thu) by bluetea (guest, #1108) [Link]

On the subject of RedHat, it's worth pointing out that RedHat has also made Rawhide available for a long, long time. That's where the most current and least tested versions of packages show up - like Debian unstable.

Re: Closed betas and the GPL

Posted Sep 20, 2002 17:03 UTC (Fri) by X-Nc (guest, #1661) [Link]

RH has had all of their betas available to the world since I can remember. Well before Mandrake and possibably before Debian. Slackware has also had betas available to everyone, though I do not now details of those. I think it was unfair to single out Mandrake & Debian in this article.

Re: FSF does the same? What are you talking about?

Posted Sep 20, 2002 17:59 UTC (Fri) by gleef (guest, #1004) [Link]

freitag writes:
I guess the UnitedLinux beta terms are similar to the terms the FSF does their closed emacs betatests under...

What? You mean completely GPL/LGPL covered, with updates available through anonymous CVS via Savannah? Somehow I doubt it.