Lindows is a company that claims it will provide a software solution that, like WINE or Codeweavers, will permit Linux users to run Windows applications. So, for example, you wouldn't have to buy Windows in order to run Microsoft Word. Oh, and it will be extremely easy to use, so easy the average user will be able to just put the CD in and install it. Lindows was created by Michael Robertson, a controversial and visionary CEO who also founded MP3.com. Most recently, Lindows has been famous for the trademark lawsuit brought against it by Microsoft, which claimed Lindows was consfusingly similar to the Windows trademark. Unfortunately for Microsoft, the effort seems to have backfired, with a judge ruling that Lindows had rebutted the presumption of validity for the Windows trademark (Microsoft Loses Courtroom Battle Over Windows Trademark - March 18, 2002). This, of course, is publicity that you can't buy. Unfortunately for Lindows, they are now recipients of publicity they may not care for.
The Free Software Foundation creators and defenders of the GNU General Public License (GPL), is questioning whether Lindows has violated the license with their "Insiders" beta testing program. The Insiders program permits individuals to receive beta versions of Lindows software for a $99 subscription fee. However, one "Insider" let it be known that even with the fee, Insiders do not get access to the Lindows source code. This would appear to violate the GPL, as it requires that if you distribute software under it, you must make source code available upon request. Newsforge broke the story (FSF asks Lindows, "Where's the source?"). Robertson has admitted that the source is not available, but claims that is because the software is in beta and that source code will be properly released when the product is complete. Indeed, Robertson seems offended by the questioning, "No wonder there's virtually no healthy Linux companies. The community seems to attack them when the real focus should be elsewhere." Open Source guru Bruce Perens has written an open letter in response (Open letter to Michael Robertson from Bruce Perens) — "I don't think we've met, but you and I are partners. I'm one of the authors of the 'Lindows' system." Slashdot readers get worked up about the issue (Lindows - Where's the Source?).
This contretemps comes shortly after Lindows had a falling out with technology partner Codeweavers over similar issues regarding source code (CodeWeavers leaves Lindows behind).
Although Robertson may prefer to think that the Linux community eats its young, the FSF has valid concerns. The fact that Lindows is in beta is not relevant. The license doesn't make a distinction between alpha, beta or theta software. If the software is distributed, source code must be available for the asking. Were the FSF to permit an exception for "beta" code, the GPL would become largely useless. Much software, let alone software under the GPL, is in perpetual beta. Moreover, many software projects cease before they are completed. Under Robertson's view of the GPL, such code would never have to be released.
It is understandable that Robertson wants to maintain some secrecy about his source code in order to maintain some business advantage. I have no doubt that Robertson does intend to release the source code in the future. Certainly, Robertson's companies have been very supportive of the open source community, sponsoring conferences and providing large amounts of code. However, there is a legitimate way to hold back source code under the GPL and illegitimate ways. If Lindows did not distribute the code at all, and kept it internal to the company, it would be permissible to keep the source code under wraps. But Lindows is distributing the code for a price. Robertson claims that people are paying for the privilege of being beta-testers, but in reality, they are paying for the code as well. It might be plausible to claim that selected beta testers are employees or contractors of the company, and thus there would be no distribution. This argument does not fly for Lindows, since the only requirement to become an "Insider" is a $99 fee. Lindows can probably use the cash flow, but their clever wording shouldn't protect them from the FSF's inquiry. Lindows should either release the source or abandon their Insider program.
After all is said and done, though. The question remains: is Lindows just hype or what? Newsforge reviews the latest vesion (LindowsOS sneak preview 2: Some good stuff, but I'm still root). Monolinux has another critical take (Peering Into Lindows - The Disturbing Facts (Part 1 of 2)). The Newfactor Network is more positive (Hybrid Windows/Linux OS Offers Preview of Future). Kuro5hin had a good look at the Lindows hype back in March, before the current troubles (Lindows Linus - Examining the facts).