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?
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).
Statements like that make lawyers see dollar signs. Nice move, idiots.
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.
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.
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!"
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
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
Novell will just stop using GPL products and do something else. Closely followed by just about every other business, under fear of litigation from the FSF.
It could well be the turning point where linux itself gets killed. Which is what MS wanted all along, really. Way to play into their hands, stallman.
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. "
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.
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.
What we see is a problem I noticed a while ago. There are TWO main groups in the Linux community: the pragmatists and the idealists.
The pragmatists want a Windows alternative. They want Linux to be this alternative. License issues are secondary. This group well accepts closed-source software and -drivers. Their primary goal is to push Desktop Linux so that MS is no longer the hyperpowerful monopoly.
The idealists want everything to be free. They couldn't care less about Linux being popular, they want a 100% free system, even if it means that only 5 people in the world use it.
The FSF belongs to the latter group. However, one argument the pragmatists definitely have is by not pushing Linux the idealists ultimately give MS carte blanche to redesign the IT sector to their liking. This can't happen if there is a real competitor. In the end, Linux may not run at all on *any* PC because of this.
This is why I wonder why BSD wasn't pushed. It does not have any license worries, and could work just as well on a desktop.
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
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
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
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"
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).
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.
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
"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.
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! $-)
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.
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.
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
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 ]