Slashdot Mirror
Novell May be Banned from Distributing Linux
Hymer writes "Reuters is reporting that Novell may be banned from selling Linux. In the wake of the (much maligned) Novell/Microsoft deal, the Free Software Foundation is reviewing Novell's right to sell the operating system at all. The foundation controls the rights to key parts of the operating system, and council for the organization said that 'the community wants to interfere any way it can' with the Novell business arrangement. No decision has yet been reached, but one should be made in the next two weeks." Is this a measured response, or an over-reaction to the Novell/Microsoft arrangement?
"The two companies agreed to jointly sell their products and also develop technologies to make it easier for businesses to use Linux alongside Windows software."
Why is that so bad?
Free as in Beer?
That would be dumb, it would hand Microsoft a victory, even discussing this casts doubt over distributors of Linux. Is the story even real or is it MS FUD?
If the FSF has the power to do this, I wouldn't necessarily oppose them doing it, but do they have the power to do this with GPLv2? I'm aware that GPLv3 wouldn't allow Novell to enter into a patent swap deal with Microsoft.
Considering that the software is still all under the GPLv2 and not GPLv3, on what grounds could the FSF revoke Novell's right to distribute copyrighted FSF software?
I don't think that I ever really trusted this agreement, something about Microsoft wanting to "help" Linux, or free software for that matter, never really digested with me.
The article is poorly written. For example, the GPL3 is referred to ("If the foundation decides to take action, the ban would apply to new versions of Linux covered under a licensing agreement due to take effect in March."), but the writer doesn't explain that 'Linux' won't be under this license - only parts of it.
However, the point is somewhat (perhaps) valid - if most of SUSE goes GPL3, and if the GPL3 is indeed in conflict with the Novell-Microsoft agreement, then there may be an issue (both qualifications seem likely, at present, but time will tell). The issue may be easily solvable, however, depending on the details of the Novell-Microsoft deal - which we do not know (Eben Moglen, however, supposedly does, or so we have been told).
penile?
Statements like that make lawyers see dollar signs. Nice move, idiots.
From the article:
If the foundation decides to take action, the ban would apply to new versions of Linux covered under a licensing agreement due to take effect in March.
Since the kernel isn't changing licenses any time soon, this appears to apply to portions of the distribution that may go GPLv3. However, nothing prevents Novell from forking the GPLv2 and keeping those around.
It's also unclear exactly how the new license will prevent this sort of activity. If it's not crystal clear and the FSF tries to use it to remove Novell's right to distribute immediately, we may see an immediate legal challenge to GPLv3.
Don't know; Don't care; Don't ask
In any case, I switched from SUSE to Linux Mint a while ago... it's the only other distro I've found that supports my wireless card with WPA-PSK "out of the box". Being able to play DVDs and videos without finding and manually installing the packages is a bonus.
If the FSF can actually do this and if they go through with it, this is going to be very BAD for busines adoption Linux (and therefor, Linux development). And what's worse is not that FSF doesn't know this, they do, it's just that they don't care about anything but their distorted definition of "freedom". As Stallman once said: "We are not here to give users what they want, we are here to spread freedom".
This will be another example of Microsoft's very successful "take and break" strategy. Once SuSE is up to speed and working well with Windows abominations such as Active Directory, other distributions will be the ones which are somehow not compatible with the "SuSE Linux Standard". Once Microsoft has killed off the other major distributions, they will quietly break compatibility even with SuSE, in a flood of tiny little things that just have to be that way, because of the structure of the WIndows kernel (or some damned thing).
The only reason we are not all using Java desktops with a common intermediate layer is the Microsoft "take and break" implementation of the JVM.
Don't trust anyone under thirty.
Microsoft has found the FSF to be in violation of over 9,000 patents.
\.
But.. Novel is going for SCOs throat at the moment. Isn't there a phrase that goes something like 'If my friend's enemy becomes his friend, and my friend is killing my enemy, I should avoid killing my friend until he's finished killing'?
;)
Something like that....
Gah. Stupid principles.
I'll believe in corporations having personhood when Texas executes one... - advocate_one
If they haven't banned SCO from selling Linux, I don't know how they can consider banning Novell.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
From the millions of the deal with MS, Novell hires people to work on the kernel/gcc/x.org.
That is certainly good. But the kernel/gcc are already projects that cannot be beaten. So they can take as much money as possible from Novell until they bankrupt.
>Is this a measured response, or an over-reaction to the Novell/Microsoft arrangement?
It's simply exercising what rights they have to code under their copyright. MS/Novell would do exactly the same if it suited their purposes. Make no mistake, the war is truly about to being..
If the FSF actually tried to do this, it'd be great for Microsoft. It would basically allow Microsoft to say that Linux can't be taken seriously by any business, because the FSF will basically revoke your "right to use" Linux if they don't like how you do business (do you have software patents? No Linux for you).
It wouldn't matter if it was technically correct or not, the perception would be enough. And frankly, the fact if the FSF is really even considering this casts a bit of a shadow on Linux and Enterprise Support in general: Is it FSF sanctioned businesses only?
Besides, why just Novell? IBM has patent agreements with Microsoft. IBM sells Windows Servers. This seems like nothing more that "We don't like the MS/Novell deal, so let's punish them!"
Breach of the ToS: despite you being able to use it in the past, you no longer can use it.
Breach of EULA: despite you still owning the product, you no longer have license to use it.
GPL: despite you still having the code, you no longer have license to use it.
Doesn't seem to be a problem with the first two, so why the third?
Linux has a great potential to balance out the power in the OS market (eventually), but not if this lunatic attacks every big enterprise that attempts to promote it and scares away big name investors. Novell has the right to enter into any arrangement it likes with the devil (Microsoft), as long as it does not violate the GPL.
FAQs are evil.
how can the "free" community be so narrow-minded? ... and that too when microsoft has finally seen the light. :-)
Is this free? Is this fair?
this is unnecessarily opening sores!
why make a mountain out of a M$hill?
Watta buncha hypocrites.
It's been clear for a long time that FSF intend to tailor GPLv3 to harm Novell as much as possible. Both Mogeln and RMS has said that numerous times and there is very little doubt that they will make sure Novell gets stuck with GPLv2 apps. TFA is just something cooked up by a journalist having to fill his quota or something.
Novel is still free to distribute gplV2 software; the article states that they haven't decided what to do and the ban would only apply to V3 licensed versions:
"f the foundation decides to take action, the ban would apply to new versions of Linux covered under a licensing agreement due to take effect in March."
Which means Novell would be free to fork v2 and keep anything they do under v2 as well as prevent it from being incorporated in any v3 licensed version; since they could limit it to v2 and earlier licenses.
In addition, the ban would only apply to FSF's copyrighted code; since they can't release other's v2 code only under v3 without violating v2's license provision.
While MS probably doesn't want to take on the FSF for PR reasons, they could bury them with lawsuits if they wanted to - so even if the FSF wins in the end they could very well be litigated out of existence. More likely; MS could help Novell fork the code significantly and develop programs (such as office for Linux) that would only run on the forked code; since the changes would be under a V2 they could preclude them from being incorporated in any v3 licensed versions, marginalizing v3.
While I understand the FSF wants to avoid such a scenario, picking a fight with MS/Novell is probably not the way to do it.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
In a way this is a very bad reaction, a very immature knee-jerk reaction from the fsf. Chances are, Microsoft wants this kind of reaction and were expecting it. Basically the FSF is about to get trolled by microsoft. I guess they hired some GNAA goons to strategize against opensource.
In all seriousness, This kind of reaction is what can and will kill opensource if this keeps up. I know this is to protect free software developers from getting taken advantage of, but now it seems more or less a bid for power. If the FSF can do this, what's stopping them from pulling a decease and desist on a programmer who makes a project that isnt 100% kosher to what the FSF deems acceptable?
This is why people like Linus Torvalds see the gplv3 as a threat to free software. It's going to give the FSF more say and control over anyone who accepts the license.
I dont know about the bulk of OSS advocates, but I want all this political crap out of free software because it's going to destroy it.
Is this a measured response, or an over-reaction to the Novell/Microsoft arrangement?
No, it's a wannabe-journalist asking suggestive questions.
umm.. does copy-paste count?
A license holder has the right to revoke anothers right to use that license. I don't think it matters if it's GPL2 or 3. They are copyright holders of the technology in question, and can simply refuse to let Novell distribute their stuff any more.
/. I'll shut up now...
However, this could kill SUSE, thus hurting a lot of blameless businesses that use it, no doubt pissing them off considerably, and costing a lot of money. Microsoft would love that, they can charge to the rescue amid the confusion, offer cheap license deals with great support packages. Kind of like they did in the 1980s in the Unix wars.
It's a dumb move, and contrary to the very essense of Open Source. Good stuff survives, bad stuff dies, no direct intervention is required. This is no more than politicking of the very kind that got Stallman excluded from the conference where they decided on the new name Open Source (to differentiate from free software). They run the risk of marginalising themselves if they do this. It's in no-ones interest to intervene and damage *any* linux distro.
I could go on for hours, but in defference to the fact thast this is
...But software which Linux uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia.
What are the FSF doing? it must be free for all, doing anything which limits the complete freedom of anyone to use the software harms the community. It is one thing to take some steps to stop them from screwing us over (which there isn't really that much proof of them doing anyway), but this goes against the fundamental beliefs of a large section of the FREE software movement.
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
While the deal between Microsoft and Novell isn't good, Novell has plenty of patents and Unix rights which could make the life of the Linux community rather hard.
They could become another SCO.
if there is all proper with the GPL and the community behind it, this could be the best proof, then the deal should not harm anyone other that brakes the license (doesn't mean sit back and wait)
i hope for all OSS users and contributors this will only proof GPL is able to protect the exploit of OSS even if such big players are involved
there might be all right with the deal, but I'd rather check twice before I believe in that. MS tactics are rather too good known
And Linux-heads wonder why Linux will never be a main-stream OS. They're quite silly!
First off, unless GPL 3 gets off the ground that specifically bans the actions that Novell and Microsoft have done, nobody can "ban" Novell from distributing Linux, as they have not violated the GPL as it stands (I think, see below).
Secondly, John Dragoon doesn't get it. He honestly thought that this was a Good Idea and we parted ways agreeing to disagree. He's a PHB sales-type. He's not "one of us."
I have ranted here and vehemently castigated Novell (see sig) for the stupid move, but I'm not sure that they should be "kicked out of linux" yet. They should be given the chance to redeem themselves or at least clear the air on what they really signed. But I have yet to hear anyone from Novell explain exactly what was in that contract. I've waited and waited for a clear explanation, and it has not been forthcoming from what I can see. So all I've had to base my opinion on is a smattering of articles and analysis on Groklaw of generalities taken from press releases. For all I can tell, it's a lot of hot air.
I am more of the opinion that we don't need a "Novell Clause." Instead I think that Linux market forces will relegate Novell's brands of Linux to the dustbin if they don't get their act together and get right with the community.
--
BMO
"I have never come upon a post which makes its point so excellently, and also contains so many F-words." - Bruce Perens
They should extend the ban. Novell isn't the only company that has dealings with Microsoft, lots of companies do. To complicate the matter further, there are also lots of individuals who have dealings with Microsoft or support Microsoft by buying their products.
Every company and every person should be banned from using Linux.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
Why? Because it's just the thing PHBs need to justify fears about it. One of the points that people like to sell Linux on is that because of it's license you can't be screwed over like you potentially could with a commercial OS. They can't just take it away from you. Well, regardless of the actual details, any ban against Novell would be interpreted as precisely that. The Evil Linux Overloards(tm) screwing over a company.
A big part of selling Linux's freedom is letting people do things that you may not like, or that aren't in the best interests of Linux overall. People need to see that it really is freedom, the only restriction is that if you distribute binaries, source has to come with. Other than that, go wild. If you start saying "You are free to do whatever you want with Linux so long as you support our ideals, but if you play nice with MS or other companies we don't like we'll take it away form you," well hell, you end up looking more restrictive than MS.
That's about it : #!/bin/bash for i in $(cat Distribution_List); do if [ $i -eq "Novell" ]; then echo "Invalid Distribution"; exit 1; else continue; fi I treat Novell like M$ at the moment... may god save their soul :]
lol.
In the words of a great man:
-- Winston ChurchillNow you know that freedom according to FSF is just a matter of dictatorship. They just want to enforce their view of the world on others. Think twice before following those mad activists too closely... :-/
Willy
Novell recently stroke a deal with , so I think this is total and utter FUD, spelled out by some Microsoft funded journalist, who also is in Reuters (which wouldn't surprise me at all).
So, Microsoft sees that Novell gets it's deal (20 000 workstations and 5000 servers, come on, if it is not serious, then what is), goes in panic mode and starts to create FUD. FSF could be overreacting on all stuff what happens around Novell and Microsoft deal, but there is no WAY they could stop Novell to distribute GPL code so easily - they don't have SUCH power. Only with release of GPLv3, it COULD be possible, and then only with very big shred of doubt.
So, it is FUD. It always have been. But for now, Microsoft uses it against us. So those who opposed this deal - take this into your little minds - Microsoft plays evil games and tries to destroy us by seperate us. Yes, Novell did wrong thing, but it doesn't matter when bigger things are at stake. What I would like to see is keep our tone down about Novell, and keep pushing our agendas about software patents and Microsoft monopoly abuse. THESE are things we should really talk about.
p.s. this post of mine is only mine speculation and opinion.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
There will soon be a time when the enemies of Microsoft have gained enough market share to force the empire to adapt to their concerns. At what point will they be satisfied with those changes and consider the empire no longer a concern? When will there be compromise and a handshake between MS and the community? It sounds unthinkable, but we've just witnessed the rough beginning. Vista mimics MacOSX UI and deals with Novell.. Can this ever be settled if Windows is not open source? Can anyone imagine the next version of Windows being built upon a linux distribution? What prevents that from happening? Could that bridge the gap? Will that be the inevitable end of Windows?
An eweek article clarifies the situation. Eben Moglen was quoted out of context; he was talking about writing GPLv3
"According to a recent Reuters report, the FSF's (Free Software Foundation) board was going to be looking into Novell Inc.'s rights to continue selling its version of the Linux operating system. That's not actually what's will be happening.
Eben Moglen, the Software Freedom Law Center executive director and FSF board member, explained: "This is a story being hyped by the Reuters guy who wrote it."
The Reuters quote was: "The community of people wants to do anything they can to interfere with this deal and all deals like it. They have every reason to be deeply concerned that this is the beginning of a significant patent aggression by Microsoft."
"What he actually asked me," said Moglen in an e-mail interview, "was 'Is it true that some members of the community want GPLv3 to keep Novell from distributing future versions of GPL'd software?' I said, 'Yes, the Free Software Foundation is opposed to the deal, and is thinking about what to do; there will be a new draft soon [of the GPLv3 (Gnu General Public License Version 3).]"
See Special Report: Novell's Linux Facelift
Therefore, "The actual quote he prints is entirely accurate, but his lede destroys the context and is making unnecessary waves."
The FSF, which governs the GPL (GNU General Public License), has long been concerned about Novell recent patent deal with Microsoft Corp. The Samba Group has stated that it wants Novell to abandon the deal. Open-source figure Bruce Perens started a petition that accused Novell of betraying the free software community. And, one group of free software supporters launched a Web site with a self-explanatory name, Boycott Novell. "
As far as I know, the FSF doesn't have any Linux code. Therefore the FSF doesn't have any right to ban Novell from distributing Linux. Now if Finkle was referring to the FSF's right to the GNU part of the GNU/Linux distribution, then this would be a more acceptable statement.
I believe this misunderstanding is further vindication of Stallman's issue about the GNU/Linux name. Linux is not an operating system and GNU does not yet have a fully functional kernel.
Also, when considering the term 'operating system', remember that 'operating system software' is not necessarily the same as 'user software'. Both these terms are subsets under the set of 'computer system software'. I consider some parts of X to fall under the term 'operating system software'. Not all of it does so I won't call it operating system software. Also, not all of GNU software falls under the term 'operating system software'. I consider tools like mv, and dd and init to be 'user software' and not part of the operating system.
Actually, "Linux" just refers to the GNU/Linux system's kernel.
As far as I know, Linux is a registered trademark by Linus Torvalds. And I suppose he is still the owner of much of the kernel's code.
The fact that a piece of software is distributed under a certain license (GPL in this case), does not mean that its author cannot change the license for future versions of that software. In addition to this, changing the license terms would affect to software licensed under that new license version, not to software already distributed (at least it is this way in my country).
I say all this because I've read some time ago (and I think it was also related to the new GPL version) Torvalds is not much in favour of limiting the distribution of Linux.
Anyway, I think the essential nature of open software is not being limited (while users respect some reasonable terms).
The FSF is shooting itself in the foot big time. They're handing Microsoft a huge victory on a platter.
Consider how this ban will affect those customers of Novell who use Linux. And consider the kind of reputation that this will give the open-source community.
One reason companies pay for expensive proprietary software is that the companies that write proprietary software are considered reliable. They won't suddenly throw a tantrum and refuse to deliver.
If the open-source community is seen as throwing a tantrum and refusing to deliver, then good-bye credibility. Companies just won't dare use open-source software.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
That's about it :
:]
#!/bin/bash
for i in $(cat Distribution_List); do
if [ $i -eq "Novell" ]; then
echo "Invalid Distribution";
exit 1;
else
continue;
fi
I treat Novell like M$ at the moment... may god save their soul
lol.
Linux is pretty unconcerned about the whole patent thing. Novell can continue to use the kenrel. This is all most people care about.
Virtually all the FSF owned stuff has an alternative. Either commercial, or under a different licence (or possibly simply forked from their current version, if this is a GPL2/3 difference). Novell can use that instead. They also have the resources to develop alternatives. Most of the rest of the distributers really aren't as fanatical about this issue as the FSF. They have other concerns. What if they see it as more convenient to use the same version as Novell? It would make the FSF pretty much redundant. And I suggest that the distributors prefer GPL2. It offers more freedom for them.
They might be able to do this, but it would be something of an own goal.
You mean, therefor Novell CUSTOMERS can now develop software that violates Microsoft's "Intellectual Property.
Quite Honestly it makes little difference what these customers develop in the first place because their are not redistributing this software.
Now when a customer using Windows and Linux needs to copy a feature used by MS to get proprietary application X to run on Linux they have an agreement that MS will not sue them for it.
All code being distributed by Novell was and still is bound by the terms of the GPL.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Linus became upset about FSF encouraging use of the name "GNU/Linux." The article and summary comply with Linus's preference, and refer to the whole OS as Linux, even though Linux (the kernel) is not a subject of this.
Does Linus approve of this action done in the name of the Linux operating system?
Or does he now think everyone needs to call it GNU/Linux so that it sounds less like he is responsible for it?
An overraction of fundamentalists who will ultimately harm the success of Linux with this and similar actions.
/. who, for instance, totally suppressed any news about the release of OpenSuse 10.2.
Similar to the fundamentalist idiots here on
In any case, it is amazing to watch the stupidity being at work here. And it is sad, because, as somebody who has been using *NIX for more than 10 years now, I would like to see a usable alternative to Windows and Mac continue to be available in the coming decades.
I am afraid, the fundamentalists of "everything must be free in all senses of free" and "we change the capitalist world by not letting them do anything a user could need under Linux" religion will spoil it.
I'd really hate to see Linux disappear in the outer spaces of irrelevancy, but at the moment, the "community" is fighting hard to make some real bad strategic decisions.
US patent laws will not disappear by doing this. The need of users for licensed and legal software like encoders/decoders or certain drivers will not disappear by doing this. The need of content providers to protect their investment on Linux will not disappear by doing this. The forseeable need of users to play back HD or Blueray discs, or any HDTV content will not disappear by doing this.
I'd like to hear that something constructive is finally happen to strategically make these and other things possible on Linux so that it really can become a usable alternative to Windows.
I am curious who long I will actually be able to avoid Windows on my computer in the future. Seeing how "divide et impera" is working to weaken the Linux camp, I am quite pessimistic about that.
Microsoft agrees not to sue Novell knowing full well the existing license terms that apply to Linux.
Hey Buzz, You know me, every time I get my hands on some reefer, I share it with the...like the whole 2nd shift.
Sure Elmo and now you know that from henceforth and on, anytime you want a smoke, you're free to access my stash.
What's the difference between the whole 2nd shift smoking up my stash or smoking up the stash that MS shares with Novell?
Do not look into LASER with remaining eye!
Actually, it's a measured big stick that should make Novell behave.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Tortious interference with contract rights can occur where the tortfeasor convinces a party to breach the contract against the plaintiff, or where the tortfeasor disrupts the ability of one party to perform his obligations under the contract, thereby preventing the plaintiff from receiving the performance promised.
Tortious interference with business relationships occurs where the tortfeasor acts to prevent the plaintiff from successfully establishing or maintaining business relationships.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
It's only the NEW GPL that applies. Novell is just fine under the OLD GPL.
Under COMMON LAW interpretation of the GPL, Microsoft KNOWS what it's getting into on this deal and really got FSCKED because they tacitly agreed to the terms of Novells CURRENT GPL terms. Without reading the contract, I'm SURE that Novell was smart enough to restrict the agreement to the current GPL. Either way, MS pays Novell $348 million. FOr those parts pof the world where common law applies....well MS gets ROYALLY EFFED because anything they pass to Novell passes to 'the community' under common law.
IMO this whole mess is a ruse to see how smart the FSF lawyers are... Intel for a later FSCKING!!! MS is liek the effing middle east. One day you're all blown up. Up in heaven you learn that 47 generations back you had an imbecilic cousin who fscked someones goat producing a chimeric offspring(hey it worked back then) and you were just suicide bomb owned by descendants of the goats family.
Do not look into LASER with remaining eye!
Not only is the "Free Software Foundation" over-reacting, they're displaying an unbalanced reaction compared to how they deal with other Linux distributions. For instance, there's a hardly known company that goes by the name "SCO" which distributes Caldera Linux. This "SCO" is zelously suing Linux in general, claiming they own all code in the universe. Yet, this "Free Software Foundation" is saying jack-squat about Caldera and "SCO".
... and in the DRM, bind them.
I don't have a soul.
Novell has not, AFAIK, agreed that Microsoft is right. The basic conversation sounds like it was:
MS: I'll sue you
Novell: We'll fight you and win
MS: No you won't
Novell: Yes we will and you'll get lots more bad press
MS: What would it take to have us make nice in the market place, as our business users need/use Novell sw?
Novell: $$, lots, and an agreement not to sue us or our users. In return we'll make nice-nice.
No agreement on Novell's part that patent claim is valid, or precedent. As I see it this may actually be a win for the good guys. Now I suspect I'll be called a moron like other posters have. Don't really care, since I know I'm not one. That said, here's my opinion on the GPL (you may want to stop reading if you are really in love with the GPL/FSF beyond reason):
GPL is a similar concept to unions. GPL served its purpose at one time, but now that open source (GASP..not captialized version) software is mainstream GPL is not needed, and is in fact harmful. How many companies do you think will now have second thoughts about basing their products on Linux after this stunt by the FSF? How far do you think open source would have gotten without the support of companies like Novell, IBM, and others? What do you think would happen to open source software if companies started categorically disallowing its use in any aspect of work?
You want free software? Let the authors make it free, which most if not all the other open source licenses out there do (I personally prefer Apache for its freedom and for its recognition within the commercial environment). OMG, someone could re-sell my software: well, yeah..it's free to everyone, not just academics. If someone wants to packages my sw up, maybe add value or bug fixes, and sell it, and I've released it as open source, more power to them. They could even make modifications and sell those without contributing them back to the world at large. Again, yeah..the company wrote their software and added it to yours, just because yours is free shouldn't mean mine has to be free, unless you plan on paying my grocery bill.
The idea that only certain licenses are allowed to call themselves open source, that the term Open Source actually has a definition that lawsuits have been threatened if it's not used correctly (rumour, I've not seen the threats myself), and that the FSF can do what they are talking about doing, are all signs of software that is under dictatorial control, not sw that is free. Interesting point to make here: dictatorial control is usuually established or maintained in order to either keep from losing something of value or to gain something of value. My first thought is always to ask how much money is involved: i.e. how much does the FSF make every year from fees, or how much do the leaders make from speaking engagements, books, etc, that are the result of them being at the ehad of the FSF? How much of that is donated to open source projects, and is it only donated to projects that toe the party line?
Please don't take that as an accusation, but rather a question. Blind faith is never good, and if we cannot question the FSF and their motives, and get answers that make us warm and fuzzy inside, then why are we following them?
I'd love to give you details on how I personally have helped the open source movement, but it would involve giving details on the practices of past and present employers. which I won't do. So feel free to assume I am a MS wonk and rabidly anti-open-source, you'll be very wrong on both counts, but isn't that freedom what it's all about anyway?
I hate Microsoft as much as anyone else, but this strikes me as be very hypocritical.
"The foundation controls intellectual property rights to key parts of the open-source Linux operating system."
So, in other words, Richard Stallman's "Four Freedoms" should be re-written to include "these freedoms do not apply if we don't like you or disagree with you".
This would be an overreaction by some zealots, nothing more.
Ahhh, another AC spreading FUD...
The whole Reuters article is FUD. Novell has not crossed any license, nor anybody at FSF thinks they can ban Novell from anything. What they are thinking about, is including something in GPLv3 to forbid wording that may suggest OSS breaking patents in those public deals. They even already posted a clarification!
Always put off dealing with time-wasting morons. If you would like to know how... I'll get back to you
Microsoft-SCO-Novell-IBM..
Begun, the holy wars have!
Eiher the guys over at FSF are smoking crack or slahsdot is posting rubbish again. ... Hummm, gee, I wonder which is more likely ....
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
If I understand correctly, the issue is that Novell could now create code that uses untoucheable MS intellectual property, but they would be working on GPL code, meaning they have to distribute it as GPL, which would be in violation of MS intellectual property, which would be in violation of the GPL.
Okay, *if* I got that right, then I think the FSF should wait to do something about it until they have a real, honest-to-goodness GPL violations on their hands. Something they can really sink their teeth into. It seems to me that starting a pre-emptive strike like this may only backfire. But then, I'm not a lawyer.
Anyways, you really have to hand it to MS on this one. They finally found a way to hit free software where it hurts. But I'm sure we can pull through, as always.
So if I understand, the "open" part of open source means "free to anyone...except you. Because, well, we don't like that jerk you hang around with."
(?)
-Styopa
So much for the idea of "free" software.
Why is the FSF trying to force Novell into a position of being the next SCO?
Novell holds the copyrights to UNIX and still contributes GPL code. Novell is an OK company.
It is becoming apparent that FSF has been corrupted by lawyer scum that desire to destroy open-source from within.
It is open-source minded comercial companies like RedHat, Novell, Mandriva, and Sun that produce working operating systems. FSF has made contributions to open-source, but as Caldera/SCO did, FSF is destroying its own contributions with lawyerisms.
The FSF is making the best argument for using BSD instead of any code they hold copyright on that I've ever seen...
0 1 - just my two bits
Red Hat sells Linux. Oh wait...so does Mandriva, Asianux, Turbo Linux, etc. etc. This isn't about selling Linux. It is about an organization (the FSF) crying foul because they are no longer relevant. That is ALL this is about, pure and simple. If they do this, it WILL permanently damage Linux in the data center, because nobody will want to work with a bunch of people that act like children. This is about Microsoft working with Linux...not about someone selling Linux.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
> that write proprietary software are considered reliable.
Oh yeahhhh. Microsoft can be relied on alright; relied on to fuck you over at the first opportunity.
Moglen was being quoted out of context in this article. Steve Ballmer was not being quoted out of context when he accused linux users of having an "undisclosed balance sheet liability" or threatening Asian governments. As usual it's Microsoft that is the aggressor... and this bit is hilarious....
> If the open-source community is seen as throwing a tantrum and
> refusing to deliver, then good-bye credibility. Companies just
> won't dare use open-source software.
O RLY?
/Me thinks you missed your calling as a professional comedy writer.
Welcome to Advanced RMS Is an Asshole class. This year we are going to show you the most exposing actions of the Free Software Foundation, founded by Richard M. Stallman, and his attempt to purport a broken and socialist-communist-marxist system in the realm of software development.
For our primary example, we have the FSF's recent movement against Novel: a serious consideration to prevent the company from selling Linux by restricting key GNU tools from being distributed in an Open Source way. This goes against the fifth principle of the Open Source Definition, as maintained by the independent Open Source Initiative:
The GNU General Public License v2.0 as well as the GNU Lesser (originally, Library) General Public License adhere to all points of the Open Source Definition, including the clause above. Here we see the Free Software Foundation changing its direction entirely; as its stripes are exposed, they show that their benevolence ends when you stop playing within their ideals.
In our next session, class, we will discuss possible ways to combat the tyranny of the FSF. Their major attack point may include, for example, a motion to de-GPL the GNU Compiler Collection; our best defense is the Open Source Software community's capacity to split the current version off from GNU and maintain it in the same way XFree86 was ripped away from its maintainers and continued as Xorg.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Sounds like a contradiction in terms, but reality has a way of playing cruel jokes like this. Maybe it's for the best...maybe it's just confirming the free-market capitalist hard-liner's worst fears... Who knows...I just think it's painfully funny.
... and even took out a billboard in an attempt to warn Novell. But did Novell listen?2 9
http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/104
History shows unfortunately that idealists, especially fundamentalist idealists, nearly always did much more harm than good, even though their ideals might look quite good, theoretically.
I cannot comment on *SD as an alternative, but I guess there is still a lot that would have to be invested in order for it to become an alternative even to Linux at the moment.
Branching Linux itself and changing Licenses afterwards is not possible without the consent of thousands of (partially unknown or antraceable) contributors, so that is unfortunately not an option.
The FSF can't stop anyone using it or selling it. What they can do is take steps against entities that viotate the GPL - which is something different.
...while I go buy the latest desktop offering from Novell - and I don't even like SUSE. Honest to God, the FSF has gone too far this time. I shook my head over their PETA-like "demonstrations", but this reaches new levels of idiocy - even for them. Who died and named Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen God? How dare you attempt to dictate to me what I can and can't run on my computer? "We defend your freedom...so long as it's what we define as freedom." If the FSF owns the GNU software stack, it's obviously time for me to find other choices. I swear, if I didn't dislike Windows so much (from a usage POV, it's got nothing to do with ideology), I'd be going to buy a copy of Vista along with SLED. If you couldn't tell, I'm really upset about this. I've been using Linux for the last 10+ years and I've always been able to shrug off the fringe element, the zealots. Unfortunately, it now appears that the inmates are running the asylum...
Yes, yes, indeed!
No, that would, actually, be a great thing — they should've started with a better OS to begin with (ha-ha). But it would not help the problem, which is largely with applications — Evolution, Samba, et al. are licensed the same way, independently of the underlying OS' license.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Credible or not, stories like this represent one big reason why many organizations don't want to invest in Linux or a lot of other open source products. Who wants to risk going with a vendor who's at risk of being tied up by a bunch of lawyers they've never heard of?
Nor does the fact that when open source hits the non-techie media, the story is usually about geeks and lawyers fighting about byzantine licensing issues that only they care about. If open source delivers better technology, why isn't open source making sure people read about it? (To that, I'm sure, some will blame the Great Evil Mainstream Media Conspiracy. Nonsense, Play the media game as others play it, and the coverage wil be there. If you think that means abandoning your principles, sorry. Convincing all the other players to change the rules is the wrong way to win the game.)
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I.e. distribute the source, create copies and derivative works.
Being able to run the copy given isn't copyright controlled, so I don't mention it (though EULA's say they do, I will not give them credence by including that limitation as being COPYRIGHT exercise) and for Novell, how can the continue as a Linux business if all they can do is run the code themselves? Do they have to buy the companies of their customers?
From Novell's POV, they can't use the code. Novell can't run the code, people IN Novell can run the code, but Novell cannot.
Perhaps you should ponder the possibility that the success and growth of Linux is precisely because of the idealistic licensing.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
It's more than an patent escape clause for Novell to beat down other distros. Their people have actively been complaining to support MS technologies and making MS technologies a standard at the expense of open source alternatives. This is what MS means by interoperabilitiy (everyone adapts to us on our terms and we don't do a thing to adapt to anyone else).
Here's a typical example of the shift:
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2007/Jan-30.html
Previous to the agreement Miguel said XAML was a very bad idea that solved no problem and Mono would never support it officially. He also said OOXML was a sham, and took pride in all the work he put into making OpenOffice and it's format integral to the desktop (check the logs, Ximian did do a lot of work). His focus was also on getting C# for use on GNOME because he liked the language and thought that the vast pool of books on C# would bring an army of Windows programmers to Linux, in much the same way that the universal adoption of C++ brought Windows C++ programmers to Unix. His only goal at supporting Windows-specific technologies like Winforms was to help with porting to more portable technologies (like GNOME# and Gtk#) or for use in abstraction layers (i.e. use Cocoa for Mac, Gtk# for Linux/Unix, Winforms for Windows).
After the agreement, it's been a nonstop promotion of OOXML, XAML, and other MS technologies as the primary choice for Linux.
Well, whether FSF sues Novell for their so called unethical tie-up with MS or Novell neglects the community interests by the suspected idea of achieving monopoly in Linux, or even if it is suspected that MS is playing double game!! the community cannot be taken for granted. There is a wisdom in the crowd, if not in a single geek. The community itself takes various forms; as developers, as testers and as end-users too. Any of the organization taking such a huge Linux community for granted would definitely be a foolish mistake. I hope FSF treads carefully in this regard, so does Novell, not loosing out its strong Linux user base just because of a DRP agreement with a monopolized company.
In the interest of GNU/Linux, CrazyGenie
First, this just screws customers of Novell - typically big organizations which can afford Windows licenses, but have been starting to implement Linux (from Novell, among others) on the basis of Linux's merits (instead of just it's cost). If you're a customer of Novell, you can read this as:
FSF is looking at making you change all of your systems relatively shortly because FSF doesn't agree with Novell's business model. You're going to have to find a new vendor.
That new vendor is going to be Microsoft. They are going to say, "Why should some long hairs from Massachussets be able to disrupt my data center? I rely on my service contract with Novell. Well, I'm done with them. I'm going to go with a product where there are market forces in place to give me some stability." They aren't going to see this as a Novell issue, they are going to see this as a LINUX and FSF issue.
But FSF has different goals than most of the Linux community. FSF's goal is that no one sells code. Most of the Linux community want to see their software running as many places as possible. Often these goals are compatible (free of cost means it is easier to get people to install!), but sometimes they are not. This is an example of "not".
But I've never thought GPL was "free". If your software is free, let me do whatever I want with it. Seriously. Don't tie in clauses preventing certain uses that go against your morals. If it's free, let it be free. Otherwise call it what it is, but don't use the word "free" to do that, since it's clearly not free in a "free to use however you want" way. I think the BSD (especially new form of the license) is an example of a truly free license. It's also possible for mere mortals to understand the BSD license (that's another part of being "free" - I have to know what rights I have and don't have).
Furthermore, the license is a mix of 'only GPL-2' and 'any later version'. I ran this on my linux source tree:
This is significant chunk of the kernel.
No one except Novell and Microsoft know what is in the agreement. That is a problem. There are thousands of copyright holders involved in Linux. Novell has no right to alter the agreement between the copyright holder and the end user. Novell has no right to enter into an agreement that either provides or denies rights to the end user that the copyright holder has not endorsed.
Linux is a collaborative work, it does not belong to Novell. Novell gets to use it as long as it abides by the wishes, as embodied by the GPL, of the copyright owners.
Every viable free environment has practical limits on freedom that prevents one from using their freedom to usurp the freedom of another.
If Novell has entered into an agreement that means that "non-Novell" Linux is less "free" than a Novell version of Linux, then Novell has violated the GPL and should not be allowed to distribute Linux.
How Ironic. The group / organization which wants software to be FREE as in LIBERTY -- i.e., you can do anything you want with it -- has now threatened to RESTRICT the FREEDOM of a company to distribute that FREE software.
So, if this "threat" by the FSF is true, the organization needs to change its name. Maybe it should be the FUD Software Foundation or the Fraudulent Software Foundation. The truth of the matter is that, while the FSF may be able to release new versions of its GNU software under the new GPL/v3, which may have some restrictions in it, they cannot prevent Novell from continuing to distribute and improve the versions that were released under GPL/v2.
If true, this has done nothing but harm the FSF's "cred." Nothing more need be said.
I think the article is poorly written, and as such leads to confusion rather than clarification. Looking over the comments seems to support this interpretation - they're all over the map. At the same time, it does capture the essence of community concern over this deal, and raised some interesting (at least to me) questions.
.ogg and in it Eben intimates that the GPLv3 is required in order to fight the Microsoft/Novell deal. Again, The inference here is that the GPLv2 is not being violated by the Novell/Microsoft agreement. There is really no other readily accessible info regarding this deal that I can find on fsf.org; there appears to be some activity in the discussion forums, but these require registration for access (there's a bit of irony for ya!). So I don't have access to the deal itself, and I really don't seem to have access to a thoughtful interpretation of the deal. If anyone knows where to find some well thought out material on the deal, please post.
"The community of people wants to do anything they can to interfere with this deal and all deals like it.
Well, don't speak for me on this. I still don't understand what is going on enough to say that the deal should be interfered with. That being said, I'm concerned by the lack of clarification and speaking to concerns on the part of Novell, so I understand where the suspicion is coming from; along the lines of 'if they're not looking to clarify, then what are they hiding?'.
They have every reason to be deeply concerned that this is the beginning of a significant patent aggression by Microsoft," Eben Moglen, the Foundation's general counsel, said on Friday.
And when I start thinking about possible outcomes of the agreement, this is what makes me paranoid. Why was Microsoft motivated to make this deal? So that Microsoft could deliver SUSE subscription licenses to Walmart? I don't think so.
As I understand it, the deal indemnifies Novell against patent violation accusations from Micrsoft. As such, all future Novell contributions to GPL's software must be viewed with a jaundiced eye, since it appears that Novell need not worry about patent violation action against their contribution, while any other developer who derives from the new Novell code has no such luxury.
Okay, so how does all this lead to "Critics called on the board to punish Novell by banning it from distributing new versions of Linux software, said Moglen."? Note IANAL - please comment if I am wrong here. I think that the term 'banning' is a bit of a misnomer here, isn't it? The FSF has the right to enforce the GPL as it sees fit, and as such any move to stop Novell from distributing GPL'd code would require court action on the FSF's part looking for an injunction against Novell distributing GPL'd code, wouldn't it? If the answer to this question is substantively 'yes', then the FSF would not be so much 'banning' Novell from doing anything as enforcing the GPL.
TFA also muddies the waters by slipping in the GPLv3 without explicitly saying so; at least that's how I am interpreting it: "If the foundation decides to take action, the ban would apply to new versions of Linux covered under a licensing agreement due to take effect in March.
The inference here is that the GPLv2 is not being violated by the Novell/Microsoft agreement. As several posters have noted, it appears that the GPLv2 is being violated (e.g. section 7). so either the community doesn't have all the information, or we don't know how to interpret/apply the GPL. I either case, it shows that we really need a cogent source of information and summary regarding this deal. I've watched Eben Moglen's ogg (jeez folks, can't you get your hands on a better microphone, this is barely listenable!) video http://gplv3.fsf.org/static/FSF_Eben_Moglen_Appeal
If the GPLv3 really is required to fight the possible evil implications of the dea
[17] Leary, T., White, C., Wood, P. R., Bhabha, W. D., and Wirth, N. Lambda calculus considered harmful. In Proceedings
You say Novell buried the war ax, however, most people's perception is that they have tried to bury it in their Linux competitors' backs. Furthermore, whatever patent protection they bought for themselves and maybe for their customers expires when the agreement expires, which is five years after it was inked. anyone using their products then is naked, and those who got their copy of SuSE from Microsoft will be a target that MS knows exactly where to find to serve legal papers on... If MS is not planning on suing anyone, it should stop saber-rattling... even MS must know that it is insane to make threats it is not willing to execute.
That said, whoever modded your comment as a troll is an asshole. I agree with none of your points, but they are legitimate opinions, not trolling.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
This is just a case of people having an irrational hatred for Microsoft. As long as Novell complies with the GPL which governs the code, the FSF and others should back off. Remember that real freedom includes the right to do things that others don't lim, as long as you comply wi th the rules. If not, then we will have to add another "free as in..." to our discussions. GPL and FF will be using "free" to mean "Free as in North Korea"!
Of course Novell could be in serious trouble here if they alter GPL code and then license it as something else. Or they could use all there developers and create a whole new software suite that they could license and distribute how ever they wanted to. They could call it MS/Novell compatibilty suit. This software package could include everything needed to use Windows or Novell Linux software for either platform. Or it could just be a software sweet like (insert name) office were you will have no compatibilty issues with either OS. This package could include who knows what maybe AD compatibilty for Novell Linux or full NTFS support. Hopefully you get the idea here that Novell just doesn't have to use other peoples open source software to work with MS on this deal they can simply create there own.
As I understand it, M$ and Novell have signed a sort of IP non-agression treaty, but that although this has enormous FUD value it does not specifically identify any M$ IP present in any specific GPL software. If it did Novell would be in fairly clear breach of GPL2 - no improvements needed - but it doesn't, so they aren't (IANAL of course).
The problem with trying to "fix" this and other "spirit of the agreement" annoyances is the risk of unintended consequences.
In particular, many of the companies currently investing in Free/OS software inevitably have various cross-licensing agreements with other companies - not a problem as long as none of the licensed IP fetches up in GPL code they distribute. How are these distinct from the Novell/M$ deal - apart from the allegation that the latter was part of an anti-Linux FUD campaign - and how do you incorporate that distinction in a license?
What would the future of FOSS be if no entity holding any sort of license for IP that could even arguably find its way into GPL could contribute?
I'm worried that the outcome of this might be to goad the FSF into inserting all sorts of new self-destructive micro-management clauses into the GPL3, making it too complex, open-to-interpretation and risky for anybody to get past their (already skeptical) legal department. I'm worried that the Novell deal - although a serious concern - is being used as a bogeyman for "selling" GPL3 to its critics.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
can be found here.
This is why god created the BSD license. It avoids all this nonsense.
( and no, i wasn't trying to start a discussion if which is *better*, only wanted to point out that with a BSD license these sorts of issues wouldnt be )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Here is one:
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Bash-Prog-Intro-HOWTO.html
Your script is broken in many ways. In fact if your goal was to provide the worst bash script example possible then you've done well.
The Microsoft agreement was a bone-headed move on Novell's part, but they've been on the right side more often than not. They've worked to protect the Linux community from SCO by asserting their rights to UNIX. If the FSF tries to cut them off from Linux, their fiduciary responsibility will force them to defend themselves and create a new SCO-like action.
Is it pragmatic to take that risk?
> I think it is purely common sense for the community
> to reject patches supplied by Novell
It's more than sensible, it's now a necessity. Legitimate GPL'd software distributors should consider certifying their code to be *not from Novell*.
You are misreading the parent. It's not selling the GPL software that is prohibited; it's selling (or giving away) the GPL software in violation of the license agreement that is prohibited. Nobody is concerned about Novell making money; people are instead concerned about Novell sort of acknowledging that Microsoft may have patent claims as to what they are selling (which is software not produced by Microsoft, but produced by programmers who dislike being branded as plagiarists).
ive heard of chain letters, and chain email, and even more recently chain im's and text messages, but chain slashdot comments, well i guess it goes with the maturity level of the community, but i personally would be to scared to post one for fear one of the zealots would look up my ip, hack my isp, get my address and rape and kill me for being so stupid....
Noone writes jokes in base 13!
Why can't they.
I've been on both sides of a FSF legal threat, and I can tell you their bark is worse than their bite. The fact of the matter is that the FSF does the "right" thing, and licenses all of their software under the GPL. Thus they give up a lot of their ability to do anything about it when someone uses that code in a way the FSF doesn't like. They want their cake and to eat it too. I don't see the FSF being able to do a lot to stop Novell.
Furthermore, from a market perspective, Novell doesn't care if a bunch of slashdot readers get upset. Slashdot readers don't pay for Linux support services. They're not losing any sales by pissing off the slashdot crowd. They want to get into the corporate server-room, and that DOES mean playing well with Windows. Note, I did not say playing well with Microsoft. The technology, however, needs to provide services to predominantly Windows clients running CIFS, and IE. For good or ill, that's the reality of Novell's market, and they may have signed a pact with the devil to get there.
Eh, so much for free software. It's only free until the open-source zealots go nutty over any of their pet peeves, such as Microsoft.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
An Anonymous Coward wrote: ``All we ask is that you share with others as well.''
:-) GPL says: We like Freedom, and we wish we could force you to like exactly our brand of freedom. Sounds a bit like US foreign policy :-)
This is patently false.
The GPL is about restricting what you can do with software.
Public Domain is about not restricting what you can do with software.
A more accurate version of the Anonymous Coward's suggestion would be "All we ask is that you drink the Kool-Aid."
Public Domain is not the only way, but perhaps the oldest way among those typically discussed, to truly encourage Free (liberty) Software. BSD licenses and the LGPL are other ways that encourage freedom. GPL encourages restriction, but they are restrictions that lots of people (not me) happen to like. These people are not altruistically giving away the fruits of their labors to benefit humanity. Instead they want to give away the fruits of their labors to people who think like they do while making sure that no part of humanity benefits in a way that they don't approve of, like making money. Of course, this is totally fine for them, up to the point where they try to pretend with absurd statements like ``All we ask is that you share with others as well.''
At it's most basic, the GPL is about restricting what you are allowed to do with the software. GPL is why I can't use GDBM at work. LGPL would allow it, but GPL restricts my freedom beyond the point where I can use it without having to give away my company's software as well. This is where ``GPL is a virus'' comes from.
If you care about freedom, you should fight the GPL. Place your Free (liberty) Software in the Public Domain.
If you want something to be free, then don't add restrictions. Period.
Suse is worthless. I had to hunt down updates manually, and even then, I couldn't find them.
/etc/yum.conf to keep the cache, and hit "yum -y upgrade". Then I burn all those updates to DVD. If I need to install on another machine, I've got every single friggin' update .rpm. "rpm -Uvh --nodeps --force".
/etc/sysconfig/iptables without having to hunt down scripts in convoluted places. The only bad thing is the root path, because it's not linked to fucking /sbin, but that makes two necessary fixes counting yum. Not bad at all.
Load up Fedora Core 6, the yum updates from fedorafaq, change
1. Minimal work.
2. Minimal hassle.
3. Fedora doesn't hit the swap as quickly. Actually frees god damn physical memory when I start closing programs. I can edit
4. FUCK Suse. Fuck them right in the Microsoft, the M$, and the MSFT. One right after another with no consideration for yeast infection. It wasn't bad with 10.0, but it's gone to shit.
Woah, slow that thing down, here's the problem, If Novel can't sell Linux, it's because patent impairments exist, not because they ADMIT the impairment exist. So if Novel can't distribute, then NOBODY can distribute. Brighter minds than mine would have to figure out all the implications of distribution in countries that don't observe software patent vs. those that do.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
It is standard industry practice to enforce license conditions on code you supply. The Novell/MS deal is an obvious attempt to get around the GPL via a loophole. Closing the loophole is not an extraodinary action. Nobody would raise an eyebrow except that the FSF requires GPL compliance rather than license fees.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
I realize the article is probable FUD, but just in case that it's not...
If the FSF does block Novell from using GNU tools with GPLv3, Novell will use its UNIX license to trump the GPL. Novell will fork everything they care about and bring it all under its own license. FSF will die on the vine. Novell will prosper.
The FSF is no match for Novell--not in a lawyer to lawyer contest, and not in a developer to developer contest. I guess if Stallman wants his dream to die, he can choose to play with fire.
As written, this make it sound as if the FSF were conspiring to commit tortious interference with Novell's extant praxis... I suspect they're a bit too savvy for it to be this simple. There does not appear to be any GPLv2 7 problem, because there's no license, just a covenant not to sue. Novell could, at this point, hand-on-heart say they are unaware of any royalties due on the code they distribute ( 2(b)). This gives rise to an interesting situation -- given the Novell/uSoft covenant, Novell, were Microsoft to bring successful suit against another and be awarded royalties, would become the ONLY entity that COULD distribute these works. Something tells me that with the lawyer count at uSoft and Novell not being small, they're only too-well aware of the value of the agreement as written, save the bad press (and costing Novell the services of one Jeremy Allison).
"Ahhh, another AC spreading FUD..."
I don't see any FUD anywhere, at least not the D[oubt]. The FSF foundation is: "reviewing Novell Inc.'s right to sell new versions of Linux operating system software".
The FSF is doing a review of the matter to see if they can stop Novell (stop why? read below). Perhaps they can find a legal reason to stop Novell and perhaps they won't, but that the review is taking place isn't in [FU]Doubt.
What also isn't in doubt is that people (esp. the FSF, enough to do a review) are not impressed with Novell making back room deals with Microsoft in an apparent effort to circumvent the GNU GPL in playing patent agreement games.
The uncertainty is not really an issue, the FSF is making it clear that the will either restrict Novell now in using the FSF's software (if the review is successful), or they will be restricted (from using the latest FSF versions) later when the GNU GPLv3 comes out and the FSF moves all of its software over th the license which will prevent patent games.
As for Fear, I'd be afraid too if I was Novell going down the path it's on. They can remove any fear if they choose to back out of their Microsoft deal - the choice is theirs. What isn't their choice is to make use others' works without, at the very least, deference to the license it's under.
...in a e-mail interview with Eben Moglen at Linux Watch. The essence, as I understand it, is "Novell may not be able to distribute software released under GPL v3 because of the deal with Microsoft" wich is hardly any real news for us. Reuters is delivering business news and for them the reason is a little less important... what is important is the effect of a decision.
It's not really free. The whole point of free software is to allow people to do what they want with their machines. People may do unethical things with that software, and we may have a legitimate reason to stop that unethical behavior, but software's license should not be the tool to do that job. Software should just do it's job well, and allow us to modify it when we need to. It's like Stallman forgot why he got into this business in the first place.
"But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia." -- Theo de Raadt
This is further proof (as though more were needed) that the FSF and OSS advocates in general are a bunch of immature little babies. Novell can't be "banned" from distributing Linux. How do you stop someone from distributing a FREE operating system?
And Linux people wonder why nobody ever takes them seriously! This sort of political infighting is rampant in the OSS world, and it shows. Linux isn't going anywhere until the OSS "community" can stop stabbing each other in the back long enough to present a united front to the world. You bloody fools laugh and point fingers at Microsoft (making sure to slur the name somehow) for shipping as many as EIGHT versions of Windows Vista, but pray tell me, how many versions of Linux are there? And what are their differences? Hm? The fact that such schizophrenia exists at all tells me there are major, major problems with Linux. If the advocates can't even agree on a "distro" then how can I be sure ANYthing you say worth hearing?
Or is even this response less than the response that is deserved, despite being perhaps the extent of what the FSF is legally capable of doing?
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
If the businesses that are promoting free and open source software are entering into non-aggression agreeements, so what? Nothing is preventing the FSF in entering agreements of their own. For example, maybe they can enter into agreements with distributors to help the FSF with lobbying funds to address the patent issue. I do not see many news stories on that, do I FSF? Look at your campaigns page. Nothing about patents there, either. Even the high priority projects show nothing about this issue. In this old eWeek article, Lawyers Weigh In on Linux Patent Threat, shows that the FSF has at least acknowledged the issue:
If that is the case, then why isn't the actually fighting patents the top priority of the FSF? It is the biggest threat to use of free software, don't you think?
Coderz 4 Life
Since the patent license mentioned above is only given as an example of a GPL violation, I wonder why GPLv2 isn't considered sufficient to block the Novell-Microsoft deal, while GPLv3 will be. The essence of section 7 should be inferred from its first sentence: Can Novell distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously their obligations under the GPL and the deal with Microsoft? As I understand the GPL without having the actual text in front of me, Novell must not only give their own customers the freedom to copy, but they must extend this freedom also to their customers' customers, and in fact to anyone who happens to directly or indirectly obtain copies or modified versions of the software in question. This is implemented in the GPL as a requirement to redistribute under the GPL only, with no restrictions added or removed.
The deal with Microsoft removes a supposed restriction that is not part of the GPL, and there are doubts whether this restriction is even legally valid (i.e. whether there are any patents being violated). However, if this restriction is legally valid, then it has in fact first been added by someone, and the deal doesn't completely remove the restriction since the removal only applies to Novell's customers, but not to other recipients of the same code, nor even to Novell itself (if I have understood it correctly). Adding a restriction and then not removing it completely is the same as adding a restriction, and that is a GPL violation, regardless of when it was added or by whom. So, either Novell has added a restriction (by acknowledging the potential validity of Microsoft's patent claims), or Novell has received software which wasn't distributed in accordance with the GPL in the first place, even if the distributor said it was.
Novell has "paid" for the patent license offered by Microsoft (to Novell's customers) already by entering the deal, regardless of the direction in which money has flowed. It doesn't matter that Microsoft ended up paying millions to Novell; Microsoft received something in return from Novell for their money and their covenant-not-to-sue, and that something was (in part) another covenant-not-to-sue. Maybe Novell's supposed patents were supposedly worth that much more than Microsoft's supposed patents? It's not very implicit really; the deal explicitely involves unspecified legal claims by Microsoft to rights in software sold by Novell, even as Microsoft has had no part in the creation of said software.
If Novell had merely issued a press release saying "yea, Microsoft may have rights to that software we sell, but we don't dispute that, as we don't care", things wouldn't have been half as bad. But Novell actually made a financial deal with Microsoft involving the transfer of money for effectively making that statement. How much more explicit can you get?
I hereby grant you an exclusive, non-transferrable right to free speech, in return for you granting me the same. Here, have some pocket money as well. Now, let's conquer the world together and sell free speech to anyone who can pay for it! $-)
Novell and Microsoft tried to find a way around the GPL, via a patent cross-licensing deal. This may backfire. "The stock is likely to trade down before the Foundation discloses its ruling as investors stay on the sidelines to avoid the worst-case scenario, analysts said."
What will probably happen is that Novell agrees not to use Microsoft patents in GPL code. Which is what should happen.
The FSF are not doing themselves any favours by making people nervous. They would be better off:
a) Demanding to know details on the MS-Novell contract/agreement, specifically in terms of possible litigation/GPL-violation possibilities.
b) Waiting for the some MS IP-restricted code to find its way into GPL code, and then demand that either MSs IP restrictions of that code are removed, or that it is removed.
c) Warning Novell QUIETLY not to try any funny business. (Probably not going to happen and not very effective)
As for the Open Source Community, they can simply ignore Novell and concentrate their efforts somewhere else. Projects like Samba, as quoted previously, aren't happy with Novell, they can simply forget about them and concentrate on writing good code instead.
All of this legal wrangling is pointless unless somebody has actually, obviously and blatantly broken a properly big and binding legal agreement, and the ton of legal bricks are poised to fall and deprive them of a dimension.
Ultimately, nitpicking over commas and implied subtleties in license agreements should be reserved for fat coorporations, who charge big money for bloated, expensive software. Not Linux. Not GPL. Not FOSS.
There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face - Ben Williams
Apparently, if you're a corporation despised by hippies, you don't have freedom.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
I'll freely admit that I have not paid much attention to the Novell/Microsoft agreement and what it means to the Free Software Movement in general or to Linux in particular. My observations here have less to do with the particulars of the agreement than they have to do with general observations about Open Source, Free Software, Novell and Microsoft.
First, we all love to hate Microsoft while many of us generally admire the direction that Novell has taken in the past several years. Remember several years ago that Novell was a has-been company that was seen as being on the verge of death's door. Rather than doing the SCO thing, they decided to jump in to Open Source in a big way. The Novell brand on open source products was generally seen as a good thing. While Novell did not have the mega-bucks of someone like IBM, it did have a solid reputation to lend to the industry.
Novell, as a company has profit as its motive, it has sharholders to satisfy and if it is to continue as an entity it has to find ways to position itself in the market in such a manner that it can make some money. Today very few companies in the computing industry can ignore Microsoft. At the very least they have to offer compatibility with the Microsoft products and at best, they want to offer true integration with Microsoft products while offering something that Microsoft itself isn't delivering. It is after all these niche markets where smaller companies can really deliver something of value to a market that will pay for it.
Novell's "deal with the devil" was probably something that they felt compelled to do. In their eyes, they probably felt that the "something" that they got out of the deal was much better than the "nothing" that they would have gotten without the deal. I would imagine that they also probably hoped that the deal would allow them to be able to escape some direct competition from Microsoft if and when they deliver the products born from this rather odd union.
Let us not forget that Microsoft itself has on occasion packaged open-source tools and utilities with their products and that the Open Source community has delevoped tools and utilities that have allowed Microsoft products to better integrate with things like Linux, Apache, and Samba.
If Microsoft's arrangment with Novell in some way actually affects free software, I would hope it would be in a good way. If Microsoft uses some of Novell's code that uses some open source code, then by virtue of the licenses, it would seem to me that Microsoft would either be required to eliminate the open source code or, be required to incorporate the requirements of the license into their product. In other words, Microsoft would have to play by the GPL rules.
While Linux and other open source operating systems pose a competitive risk to Microsoft's operating systems, it does not mean that it is always going to be in Microsoft's best interests to simply ignore the features the competition offers. Access to some of these features may very well be what Microsoft sees itself getting out of the Novell/Microsoft arrangment. I don't know, I have not paid that much attention but I would think that some tight closed-source Microsoft integration with things found in open source operating systems (and networking components) may prove to be a symbiotic benefit. How would it hurt Linux if Microsoft offered near-native access to the Riser file system or fully integrated with some other O/S and networking features? It seems to me that if they did this, it may make open-source more acceptable to a larger market.
Novell can still participate in the Open Source revolution.
They can start shipping the SuSE configs/software on top of FreeBSD.
Have you guys even looked at Solaris? I have (having worked at Sun), and most of the Linux kernel wouldn't be of interest. The main thing would be in the device driver area. Solaris x86 sucks badly in terms of supported hardware. It truly blows.
But it's not a simple issue of taking Linux drivers and dropping them in. Solaris has a specific well documented and adhered-to API for drivers - the DDI and DKI. So, all drivers of interest would have to be ported over to support this. It's straightforward, but non-trivial.
Anyway, the point here is that if work is going to be needed on the drivers, if the author withholds the relicensing it's not that big of a deal. Sure, it will save you some time. But it's not a show-stopper by any means. It's just a slight inconvenience. BFD.
In terms of the rest of the kernel, Sun has (for the most part) been ahead of Linux. It's only been recently that Linux has started getting closer, but the Linux kernel is still at least a few years behind Sun in the majority of things.
So, yes, Sun will have an advantage of a one-way street. They also have a lot of other advantages. Once they get the device driver support in, they will become a very serious contender for wide-spread O.S. adoption.
Of course these articles are always tagged with the "haha" in-joke, but in this case that's more than apropos. I really hope the FSF goes ahead with this, because that will be the end of whatever credibility it has left. "Free as in freedom", indeed.
Apart from the Linux kernel, most popular software under GPL 2 is multi-licensed under GPL >= 2.
It covers things a software license shouldn't cover, like what other software you use and th distribution of encryption and signing keys.If I want to develop bug fixes for the GNU software in my TiVo DVR, how do I test these bug fixes?
1. www.fsf.org:
Created by johns
Last modified 2007-01-16 12:43 PM
Why do we need read Reuters redacted newsfart instead of some hard information on their website? The whole website is pretty useless when it comes to finding out what current political affairs are hot within the scope of fsf's audience.
2. Eben Moglen
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/blog
Last entry 26 Sep 2006
Where is the place I can read his actual thoughts on this matter? Again, just Reuters?
Sheesh.
Our subtle plan is unfolding exactly as predicted, Baldrick.
You see, we join forces with the one who's done the most for the community, the community shuns them, and everything falls to pieces.
This, Baldrick, is how we will destroy Linux once and for all. By offering them the interoperability they've always demanded.
Muahahahahhahaa......
...I hope you're paying attention.
When what I've been saying about the FSF for years now is vindicated with them taking steps like this, I'm very interested in hearing how you claim that you were correct in telling me that contrary to my assertion, Stallman is in fact NOT a Stalinist megalomaniac.
If the FSF go ahead with this, and if it sticks, that will end for certain anything I for one have to do with Linux permanently. I also hope to God that Linus is watching this, and that this prompts him to finally seek a way to cut all ties with the FSF once and for all.
Everything that has been said...the account of Ulrich Drepper, the interview with Bradley Kuhn here...it has now been vindicated. The Free Software Foundation is finally laid bare as the genuinely evil, repressive organisation that I have long known it to be.
Richard Stallman, some of us know who and what you really are. Free as in Do As I Say.
I am as anti-Microsoft as anyone, but this seems like a ridiculous concept.
The whole point of Free Software is freedom - enforced by the GPL. Why would Novell not be able to distribute Linux software? Perhaps there may be trademark issues, but restricting someone from doing what they want with GPL software would make Stallman quite the hypocrite.
Obviously, the FSF doesn't care about the commercial viability of Linux. The FSF is doing more to harm the commercial viability of Linux than is the Novell / Microsoft deal. Balkanization is obviously a potential problem, and it is the FSF rather than Novell/Microsoft that is the biggest danger.
What is ethically wrong with a mutual agreement not to bring a lawsuit against each other's customers?
For instance, were I to start a company, and I enter into a legal agreement which says "I won't sue your customers", what is ethically wrong with that?
Somebody enlighten me please on the basis of a moral argument; that means without concrete reference to Novell or Microsoft.
If GPLv3 prevents me from promising not to sue, I guess I won't use any GPLv3-licensed software. Hopefully I won't have to move away from Linux, but if I do, hello Solaris and/or BSD. Hopefully Linus will stick to his guns and ensure that the Kernel continues to be GPLv2. Hopefully there will be high-quality distributions that are not GPLv3.
Floss advocates in general hate it when people raise legal uncertainty issues as an argument against Linux, saying it is just the product of anti-Linux fudsters.
Linux has continued to flourish despite the SCO legal challenge, largely due to the skillful defense mounted by IBM and the general environment of credibility that goes along with that. Guess what, I don't think IBM or any other Linux friendly company with pockets of similar depth will be able to save Linux from the FSF.
The largest impediment that exists right now to further adoption of Linux isn't a competing technology or a competing company, it is the legal issues surrounding Linux. The FSF will set Linux adoption in the enterprise back a long, long way, if not totally killing it, if they create major legal problems for a large and prominent Linux distributor. To bad the FSF creates legal problems rather than solves legal problems.
http://www.novell.com/company/blogs/cmo/ You don't have to be a carpenter to know that it's a lot harder to fix a mistake once the cut has been made. Hence true craftsman know all to well that proper due dilgence up front can save a lot of heartache down the road. And so it is with reacting - or over reacting - to every story, rumor, or misrepresentation about the direction of GPL3 - the work in process update to the GNU General Public License version 2 that governs the use and distribution of some open source software. As GPLv3 is a work in process, we don't speculate on its outcome. Others do, however, including a Reuters report yesterday that intimated dire consequences for Novell - citing Eben Moglen, the Free Softwware Foundation's general counsel as the source of this conclusion. Within hours, Mr. Moglen himself, in an email interview with Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols of Linux-Watch, clarified his position and the Reuter's story stating, "The actual quote he prints is entirely accurate, but his lede destroys the context and is making unnecessary waves." In fact Mr. Vaughan-Nichols has a number of balanced views and articles on this topic that provide a fuller context for many of us to "measure twice and cut once" on this issue. On his site you'll also find an interesting guest post by Bill Weinberg, a long time evangalist on open source licensing to business users, that's worth a read. On this issue as with so many others, it's a good idea to take out your tape measure and use a pencil. John Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments
If my neighbour were to pay protection money to the mafia, I would want no part of it; I'd require him to leave my neighbourhood for putting the rest of us in danger. We don't want Novell or anybody else to pay protection money on behalf of everyone to somebody who doesn't deserve it, much like we don't want the government to give in to some airplane hijacker's demands and give him a million dollars plus a refuel; that only results in more hijackings. The community doesn't need collective "protection" from perceived legal threats, when we can simply ask our legislature to remove the ground from under those threats. You take out insurances against things neither you nor the insurance agent can predict, not against frivolous demands made by the insurance agent or against well-known consequences of the law.
Who says "payment" has to be made in cash? Novell and Microsoft made a deal where both parties agreed to contribute. Among other things, Novell contributed a commitment not to sue Microsoft's customers, just as Microsoft promised not to sue Novell's. Why would those two commitments be valued to exactly the same price? Microsoft ended up giving Novell some change to cover the difference. If you return a malfunctioning TV set to the store within the warranty period, but agree to buy a cheaper model instead and receive the difference as a credit worth $20, would you say the "seller" pays you to accept the new TV?
And the mafia guy could very well grant a hefty "rebate" to the first buyer of his fire insurance, simply to be able to point at one happy "customer" when selling the same insurance to his neighbours (without the rebate).
Patents are like paper money, in that there is a potentially infinite supply of them. Where the Federal Reserve (or your corresponding national entity) could find reason to print more banknotes, the Patent Office issues new patents at the request of businesses. However, if the "currency" thus issued doesn't match up with something of value being held by either office, the result is inflation. If we engage in a virtual landgrab, trying to buy the "rights" to everything that is scribbled down on a piece of paper, there will be no shortage of scribblings covering gradually tinier portions of this virtual territory. Some critics of the patent system argue that this is what we are doing already today. Since free software is usually being distributed without demands for monetary compensation, where are we going to find the money to pay for all those patents? Do you expect us to outspend big business, like the USA outspent the USSR in much the same fashion during the cold war?
It wouldn't be sensible to allow them to continue. SCO isn't getting anywhere because they can't seem to find any of their code in Linux. But with Novell slipping Microsoft supplied IP into Linux little by little - when the next patsy sues the infringing code will be right there - right where they put it. They don't even need to insert the infringing code themselves; just roll out some useful / fancy bits of code (with undeclared Microsoft supplied IP inside) and let the community cross-pollinate them into multiple distributions.
Microsoft is still holding onto their monopoly position - but there are some very smart people working there and they can see the writing on the wall. It's getting harder and harder for them to create new Windows versions and Linux distributions keep getting better and better. As their sales decline, they'll need to increase prices to maintain their margins - and more and more people will find the low / no cost alternative more to their liking. In the long term, Windows will fade away. Microsoft sees this and they're scared. They'll do ANYTHING they can to derail Linux, legal or not.
They've tried FUD along with SCO and their ill-conceived lawsuits; it didn't work. This won't be the last attack against GPL software and they're watching and learning all the time. The next skirmish (Novell?) will pick up where SCO left off and they'll keep attacking until they win (highly unlikely) or die.
What Microsoft can't overcome is that the Linux distributions are a joint product of the IT community. Not one company or one person but hundreds or thousands of programmers who have donated their time to the project. Not only are they outnumbered, but their enemy is also the target market for their products. It's a lose-lose situation - but they'll create much noise and distraction as they try to rewrite reality...
Read the GPL, morons.
I can charge for the media in my distribution of ANY Linux as long as it has the GPL.
Please do some research before you post these crap stories.
Sincerely,
Kilgore Trout
...till Novell can't run.
Its a very long term plan to coral linux to just Novell, which will be bille as the "safe from IP violation verion of linux." Other distros/developers will be sued for patent violations, forcing large companies to adopt Novell. Once the dust settles, MS will turn on Novell and crush them, thereby eliminating linux from the market place.
Its free..... Until you use it!!
Under the GPL, if Novel releases MS IP, then Novel must Indemnify all recipients of that GPL'd code. This means that if MS takes you to court, Novel must defend you because if they don't, then you have the right to demand that Novel, the original violator, pay the settlement.
Of course, at this point, Novel will loose any right to use any GPL'd software as the FSF can and should revoke the license due to Novel's stupidity in violating a basic element of the GPL to begin with.
Note that there is no reason for Novel to release MS IP under anything except an MS Open Source License with the blessing of MS.
What would Solaris borrow from the Linux kernel?
IMHO, Linux would benefit more from borrowing,
from Solaris: genuine realtime scheduling, for
one thing; designed from the ground-up for SMP,
so scales well.
Novell is merely engaging in a quaint, pre-GPL business practice; indemnifying their customers against potential legal issues even when they consider the probabilities remote. Novell hasn't licensed any particular MS IP for the distro, and nobody has claimed to find a specific potentially infringing Novell contribution, have they? So the risk is hypothetical for the moment. Outside of explicit agreements such as this, MS could claim that any other new contribution to open source software infringes on one of their patents, they don't have to do a deal with a contributor first. GPL doesn't indemnify its users for such action. All GPL will do is allow FSF to gang up on the same alleged infringer along with MS: can't you see the headline now? All Novell has done by this deal is add a bit of reassurance for their customers, and more power to them if they can get customers to pay for it. So I think that this whole brouhaha is open source community mass hysteria. No one who suspects Novell's contributions might be tainted needs to pick up their contributions -- let the buyer beware! Or maybe it's simply an attempt by the zealots to goad the mob into shunning a company which has traded with the enemy. Or maybe here's a glimpse of the iron beneath the FSF's velvet glove, asserting a right to regulate the business practices of commercial software licensed under GPL. Funny, they're not a bank, a national government or even the better business bureau. I thought it was "free" software. But, of course, IANAL.
I think I might have to ignore any novel & microsoft stories. There is just so much bullSh*t about it flying around. Novell is not about to start putting in microsoft patents into its software. THEY cans still be sued by MS. Their customers can not. THe main point of the agreement from Novells perspective is the cooperation. MS has agreed to make its products more interopreable with novells. The current state of novell means that they can gpl these new interconectiosn to the Miscorsoft world. This whole deal will go down as MS biggest mistake. The new XML office version is the first product of this. think of it, an open standard that works with OO.org? I imagine the next step could very well be exchange. Exchange interaction would allow a company to slowly replace its Windows clients with linux. It would also make building a GPL exchange knockoff a lot easier. Too many people are hooked into this emotional pull of a potential MS lawsuit to see the real ramifications of this deal. MS cannot and will not sue anyone over linux. the EU still has them over a barrell and dems are comming back into power in the US. I'm sure the world governments would bring out the butcher knife if they attempted such a stunt. They have to play it safe. This is about the closest it can come to actually doing it.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
you are an complete imbecile(: a person affected with moderate mental retardation).
maybe you should learn to read(4th grade english)
Novell is merely engaging in a quaint, pre-GPL business practice; indemnifying their customers against potential legal issues even when they consider the probabilities remote.
Quaint?
One of the major reasons that Linux is being adopted at an increasing rate is that large vendors such as IBM, HP, and Sun are offering blanket IP indemnity on Linux. They're not making specific deals with Microsoft, however, so I suppose it's less of a news item.
-Stu
IBM, HP, Sun, etc. already offer broad IP indemnity for customers that use (vendor approved, often Redhat or Novell) Linux on their hardware. It wasn't news for them, and FSF isn't threatening them.
It's ludicrous to punish Novell for doing a service for their customers that is intended to make them feel *safe* using Linux. The fact is that many large companies are frightened that they will be sued for patent infringment if they use OSS, especially Linux. Yes, a massive cry of outrage will happen if something like that ever occurs, but a) cornered software companies can be vicious and have tremendous staying power if they feel they have nothing to lose, see SCO; b) the more risk averse companies may fire the people that chose Linux and jettison it ASAP, dealing a blow to FOSS adoption in the enterprise.
To mitigate their risks, some companies have very specific lists of approved OSS packages, vetted by lawyers for potential infringement claims. Open source Java toolkits may have less of a chance of patent infringement, so tend to be blessed more easily (and often are bundled with commercial app servers anyway, who may indemnify what's in the package, though only specific versions).
The problem is that Microsoft claims patents on absurdly broad things -- filesystems (since disproven), memory management, etc. Non-technical legal departments may or may not explore these in detail -- the quick thing to do would to tell the CIO: "no Linux". Or they may scratch the surface of these patents and see them for the joke that many of them are. We know that Microsoft has already threatened large IT shops with possible patent suits in the future (under NDA, no les), and likely offered them indemnity. Few have taken them up on this, though it seems Novell was gullible enough to bite.
-Stu
When was it that Novel's sole reason for existance was selling linux. While there maybe no value to microsofts grant of patent immunity for Novels linux distribution. There is a lot of value for that immunity so far as it may affect the rest of novell's product line.
Microsoft and Novell share a great deal of application space beyond base OS's.
Use can mean
1) running
2) incorporating in your work
EULAs claim they can restrict #1. GPL can't and says so explicitly. However, #2 is controlled by copyrights and if you lose your license you cannot do this. If you breech your EULA you may be able to get to court to get them to agree that #1 is not forbidden by copyright so is not controlled by the copyright holder. Nobody's managed to get that far yet. So we're only left (when concerning the breach of agreement) option 2.
Novell can't do that.
I don't see why you see a difference, though, once I explained that "running" isn't worth considering for two reasons: whether running code can be made illegal after purchase is undecided and for the purpose Novell need, running the code isn't what the want Linux for. Heck, they can use Windows Vista and STILL sell Linux. So that meaning of "use" isn't germane so saying they can still do this and are not bound to refrain is confusing the issue with irrelevancies.
Aye?
I think I'm beginning to understand the issue now, and with us not having access to the actual text of the Novell-Microsoft deal, it's quite difficult to see through that thick fog :-)
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
From the 2.6.15 source, file "COPYING":
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
"Aye?"
I know what you are saying, I can't agree with the wording and I think the three examples are different enough that you can object to the first two without objecting to the third.
Well, in a nutshell. If you violate the GPL with respect to some particular code under the GPL, you lose the rights to do the things with the code that copyright law forbids but the license permits with respect to that same code.
Is that clear enough and are we agreed on that?
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
The FSF released this as a total FUD publicity stunt. The entire article SCREAMS fud. They seem to have the general opinion that anything released under the GPL is owned by the FSF, which it isn't. Some of it is, sure, but it sure as hell isn't Linux.
If the foundation decides to take action, the ban would apply to new versions of Linux covered under a licensing agreement due to take effect in March.
SUPRISE! They already have a version of all of the FSF utilities they wish to use, and as they haven't violated the licence, you can't force feed them a change to the terms of the licence. Perfect way to setup the perfect fork situation.
And the BIGGEST pile of DUNG in this FUDFEST by the FSF is!!!!
There IS no version of Linux being released under the GPL3.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Has it occurred to anyone that a ban on Novell might be what MS wants: A weaker corporate Open Source alliance?
"Jefferies & Co. analyst Katherine Egbert said Novell's business was likely to suffer if it was banned from using the new versions of Linux."
Just a thought.
INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';
Linux just rolled a 6, but landed on a space that said take ten steps backwards!
Yes it can, per the mere aggregation clause of both licenses. You just can't run GPL v2 code and GPL v3+ code in the same process. From GPL v2:
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.See also the GPL and non-free software, clarification of "mere aggregation", and use of GPL software in a proprietary system from the GPL v2 FAQ. Likewise, from the latest draft of GPL v3:
A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.Furthermore, if you are referring to the combination of Linux with a GPL v3 application, then Linux itself is licensed under an explicit exception such that syscalls are not considered "combining" per the GPL. From the Linux license:
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".The GPL v3 application is licensed under the operating system exception, which is worded as follows in the current draft:
The "System Libraries" of an executable work include every subunit such that (a) the identical subunit is normally included as an adjunct in the distribution of either a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any) on which the object code runs, or a compiler used to produce the object code, or an object code interpreter used to run it, and (b) the subunit (aside from possible incidental extensions) serves only to enable use of the work with that system component or compiler or interpreter, or to implement a widely used or standard interface for which an implementation is available to the public in source code form.Go to http://fsf.org/, read the current event / news / etc... The words "Novel" "Stop" and "SuSE Linux" never occur in the same sentence. There are the BadVista campaign, events around the GPLv3, rants about iPhone, TiVo and other non-open platforms, news about openness in EU. Nothing about SuSE or Novell.
Jump to http://www.opensuse.org/. There are news about SuSE Linux 10.2, development of version future 10.3, announcements about FOSDEM. No "FSF is illegitimately calling us 'GPL traitors' without knowing the whole story".
You can even look on various websites which are usually well informed about background stories in the open-source world, like LinuxJournal, LinuxWorld, etc...
In short : the Reuters news isn't mentioned by any primary source. It's probably the wild guess and approximative interpretation of someone who isn't very well informed about the whole deal, who tries to make crazy guess about the new section of version 3 of GPL, and pull out of his ass some interpretation about the implication on the Microsoft-Novell deal.
In fact, the second half of the article is about various movement of Novell's shares, the amount of money in the deal and other similar information. Could almost be considered as stock dumping spam.
Conclusion : it's just some trader who pulls interpretations about GPLv3 and Novell out of his ass.
Don't trust me ?
You can just fucking google the quote.
You'll mostly find aggregators that just repeat Reuter's article.
Still not sure ?
Read the explanation from the one who said it himself : he was saying that the project is to make a GPLv3 that avoids patent trolls and patent deals similar to the Novell one. He was never talking about stoping Novell from selling SuSE right now. His words were put out of context to make the news sound more terrifying.
In the future, Novell could either sell it under GPLv2 (probably until 10.4 - until GPLv3 code appears in non-alpha code that is used in actual distribution), or renegotiate the deal with Microsoft (and loose all the money that MS has given in exchange) or prove that Novell doesn't violate GPLv3.
AND ABOVE ALL, it's not in FSF's and the open source world's interest to shut novell out from linux : Suse and Novell have been active in the development of a lot of different projects (I could cite ReiserFS and KDE for Suse and Evolution and Mono for Ximian branches of Novell). They should mostly try to be certain that open source code stay free for everyone to use and modify regardless of patents. The current fear is, although the code it-self is free, it couldn't be freely used by someone who hasn't signed a patent deal with MS like Novell did. That's something that GPLv3 wants to tackle. (And that's something that still has to be proven by MS - i'm still thinking that their whole point wasn't to sue everybody else apart Novell for patent infringement - which won't be efficient because their patents could be rejected because prior art, obvious, or clean-room RE, and because open-source community has proven to be incredibly fast at replacing patent-mined code -, but to create chaos in the open-source community between Novell and others - As Julius Caius Caesar put it : divide and conquer).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Because you use their software, and your distributor have creatively sidestepped the license that this code is released under.
I'm going to go with a product where there are market forces in place to give me some stability.Such as a monopoly. Fine, but don't come howling to me when Microsoft decides it is time for another round in the treadmill.
FSF's goal is that no one sells code.Did you even read the license? Selling GPL software is fine, you just have to provide the source, and the source has to be licensed under the GPL too.
But I've never thought GPL was "free". If your software is free, let me do whatever I want with it. Seriously. Don't tie in clauses preventing certain uses that go against your morals. If it's free, let it be free. Otherwise call it what it is, but don't use the word "free" to do that, since it's clearly not free in a "free to use however you want" way.And no country is free, because we are not free to kill other people. The GPL is free, in the sense that those restrictions it applies only serve to ensure the continued freedom of the program, including derivative works. The BSD is more free in that you can do almost anything you want with such code, but it is less free in that derivative works do not have to be free.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I want to know where those dicks at the FSF get off thinking they speak for the "community". Some of us in the community would like to see companies as well as individuals benefit from FOSS. Many of those companies invest a lot of resources back into the community, not only providing paid coders, but also a huge amount of marketting capital. Linux mind-share is an asset at much as code is. So Novell has a rather interesting new relationship with "the enemy" (which sounds very adolescent anyway). We have not seen any true evidence of negative impact nor does the agreement appear to go against the GPL. Stallman needs to chill the f*** out and stop thinking that the_community = RMS (assignment intentional). Sincerely, One of the Community
RedHat has been selling a "value added" version of Linux for several years. Just because Novell has partnered with what some persons would consider the enemy does not make Novell any different than RedHat. And, at the end of the day what we all really want is to see a significant number of Linux installations on the desktop. So, if that means Microvele, or Novasoft, is installed why do I care?