Novell Won't Lose Right To Sell Linux

BinnyVA writes "You know the story about Novell losing the right to distribute Linux? Well, the Free Software Foundation has absolutely no control over Novell's distribution of Linux. A zealous Reuters reporter apparently conflated the FSF with the open source community in general, took some quotes out of context, and ended up with a sensational headline that fooled a number of people. The Novell deal is completely within the bounds of the GPL, GPLv3 isn't even done yet, and even when it is the Linux kernel is unlikely to be covered by it." Linux.com and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.

Comments

Well, duh.

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Anyone who read the comments section of that story would know this.

Re:Well, duh.

[Voicesinyourhead]

I usually read every page of comments on every story, because my time is worth nothing.

Re:Well, duh.

[Elektroschock]

Exactly. Even before you read it you'd know.

Premise is counterintuitive

[Salvance]

Isn't the whole point of open-source software free distribution, repackaging, use, modification, etc.? Unless there are non-OSS components that Novell is distrubting, I don't see how the FSF or anyone else would ever have any control over their "distribution rights", unless Novell tried to close the source and violate the license agreements.

Re:Premise is counterintuitive

[jimstapleton]

and even then it would probably be unlikely. I mean, aren't their Linux distros with the Intel 3945ABG driver in them? That's not OSS (not completely anyway).

I think the FSF is probably more interested in keep peoples rights from being abused when it comes to existing OSS applications, or large-scale/severe infractions.

I think they aren't an evil organization, they are willing to overlook minor infractions.

Re:Premise is counterintuitive

[at2000]

GPLv2:

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. [...]

FSF can allege Novell, on that they distribute the program not as expressly provided under the License. If this is proven in court, they automatically lose the right to distribute the program.

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. [...]

FSF can also ask for an order from the court to refrain them from distributing any more copies. This order will precede the rights granted by the license.

Re:Premise is counterintuitive

[hendersj]

Stallman has said unequivocally that Novell has not violated GPLv2. He's said there should be something in GPLv3 to prevent this sort of thing from happening, but very clearly has said that there is no Section 7 violation.

Re:Premise is counterintuitive

[greginnj]

Let's not forget that while Stallman can opine authoritatively on his intent when writing the GPLv2, his intent or his current interpretation thereof is not binding on a civil court. The GPLv2 exists independent of Stallman's interpretation, and anybody who holds copyright on software distributed by Novell would have standing to challenge them in court if that copyright holder feels that Novell infringed. Stallman's opinion would serve as a possible interpretation offered by the defense, nothing more.

Re:Premise is counterintuitive

[Anonymous Coward]

"FSF can allege Novell, on that they distribute the program not as expressly provided under the License. If this is proven in court, they automatically lose the right to distribute the program."

As I understand it violating the GPL means you no longer have the protection of the license and the fall-back position is standard copyright law. So by losing the right to distribute under the GPL the original copyright holders on the code would gain the right to sue the infringer if the so wish. It doesn't mean that such lawsuits are automatically going to happen, though.

Re:Premise is counterintuitive

[TheRaven64]

This is why it's important to say GNU/Linux. Sure, they can keep distributing Linux, but Linux is a trivial and completely replaceable part of a Free *NIX system. The FSF is the sole copyright holder of a huge amount of other parts, such as the compiler, the C standard library, the loader, even the shell. Basically, everything above the kernel and below the GUI in the stack, plus a load of userland utilities (command line and GUI). When GPLv3 comes out, every single GNU package will move to 'GPL Version 3 or later,' and this is likely to explicitly ban the kind of deal that Novell have made with Microsoft. If it does, then Novell will still be able to distribute the last v2 versions of all of the GNU utilities, but nothing newer. They could try forking the entire GNU project, but that will be hugely expensive to do.

Re:Premise is counterintuitive

[sumdumass]

This whole anti novel sentiment highly depends on Novell violating the GPL in some way. They havn't and even under GPLv3 they still havn't.

Lets stop putting the cart before the horse. Nothing Novel has done to date would stop them from using or distributing linux under any of the GPL licenses. Why are we so upset over some suture incedent that has yet to happen when there is no indecation of it happening?

Show me one thing they are doing that Violate either GPLv2 or the new and underimproved GPLv3 and I will most likley show you the misinterpretation of the license as it is writen. AndI thougt the purpose was to clearify the license. Guess we got this wrong too.

Re:Premise is counterintuitive

[Master of Transhuman]

BULLCRAP!

Most users today are interacting with a DESKTOP.

Does that mean we have to call Linux "KDE/Linux" or "GNOME/Linux"?

This destroys the argument utterly.

The FSF utilities are no more important to the overall name of the SYSTEM than the desktops.

EVERY SINGLE UTILITY EVER WRITTEN FOR UNIX IS A SIMPLE AND REPLACEABLE PART OF THE SYSTEM - BY DESIGN!

Period.

Goddamn FSF fanatics are becoming a pain in the ass.

You LOST the name argument. Get over it.

Re:Premise is counterintuitive

[theLOUDroom]

Stallman has said unequivocally that Novell has not violated GPLv2.

Got a link to back that statement up?

Stallman seems to be a pretty careful guy. I'm not sure that hearsay from a stranger on the internet is enough to convince me he did say exactly this.

There seems to be an obvious case to be made that this agreement violated the spirt of the GPL, and a pretty good case to be made that this agreement violated the letter of the GPL v2 as well.

The relevant text would be:
"For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."

If you buy a CD from Novell and then burn me a copy, I've just indirectly reveived a copy from Novell, but I have NOT been transferred all the patent licenses that you have.

It's also worth noting that RMS can issue whatever statement he wants, but if someone else doesn't like Novell distributing their GPLv2 software in this manner, Novell could still be on the receiving end of a lawsuit.

Re:Premise is counterintuitive

[hendersj]

Stallman has said unequivocally that Novell has not violated GPLv2.

Got a link to back that statement up? Yes. Link.

They can distribute linux

[at2000]

They can distribute linux, but can they distribute glibc, coreutils, gcc, gdb, bash, tar, gzip, gpg, grep, gettext, readline, troff, ...?

Re:They can distribute linux

[LurkerXXX]

Anything under a BSD or GPL license, yes, they can distribute (as long as they provide source for the GPL stuff). They didn't violate the GPL, so they don't lose the license. If GPL3 is ugly, they will probably simply keep using the regular GPL version.

Re:They can distribute linux

[drinkypoo]

If GPL3 is ugly, they will probably simply keep using the regular GPL version.

Or in other words, we will end up with a Novell-only GPL2 fork of the GNU toolchain, and everyone else will use the GPL3 version? That is quite frankly an utterly untenable position, especially since they wouldn't be able to backport GPL3 code back into their GPL2 programs, meaning that they would have to independently re-engineer every fix or upgrade, or be left in an incompatible state.

Let's think about this from another angle for a second, though; do you really want to do business with a company in bed with Microsoft? Me neither, which is why I also won't give Sun a dime.

Microsoft is the devil (at least in computer-land) and anyone who does business with them is tainted, to say the least, regardless of licensing issues.

Re:They can distribute linux

[kleinerfreak]

But doesn't that mean that they just can't update their distribution when all these projects change their license to the new GPL?

Re:They can distribute linux

[at2000]

For sure we are talking about new version of the said programs/libraries.

The parent article said:

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.

Replace "Linux" with any program in the list, and this is what they can do.

If everyone else is using the GPL3 version, sooner or later what distributed by Novell will be obsolete.

Re:They can distribute linux

[mr_mischief]

It'd be a mess, but they wouldn't be the only ones refusing to move to GPLv3. All the people refusing to move to 3 could still share each other's GPLv2-only code.

Also, any code that still says GPLv2 or later, or whose author expressly puts it under GPLv2 for Novell and GPLv3 for the FSF they could use.

Likewise, BTW, no contributions that are licensed GPLv2-only can be used in GPLv3 projects.

How many people that would be I don't know. It'd still be worse than everyone sticking with the same GPL. If GPLv3 drives a bunch of people to stick with v2, this is the kind of thing we'll all need to worry about.

Re:They can distribute linux

[drinkypoo]

It'd be a mess, but they wouldn't be the only ones refusing to move to GPLv3. All the people refusing to move to 3 could still share each other's GPLv2-only code.

Frankly I think those people will not be around long. It would be a horrible nightmare. And I think that now that the GPLv3 hysteria has died down a bit, I think people are becoming more accepting.

Re:They can distribute linux

[theshowmecanuck]

Maybe... but a lot of people don't seem to like the nature of GPL v3 as it has been previewed so far, otherwise we wouldn't have seen so much debate on it. I'm not saying it will, but if something like this did happen (a Novell GPLv2 branch), could we see a split in the open source community along GPVv2 versus GPLv3 lines? Just a thought. If someone doesn't like something in a software program, they usually don't use it. Maybe the same could happen with a license. If I recall correctly, Linus Torvalds has said he doesn't agree with GPLv3 and will continue releasing the kernel under GPLv2, so already there is a split. Having Stallman make it even more restrictive might encourage more.

Re:They can distribute linux

[drinkypoo]

If I recall correctly, Linus Torvalds has said he doesn't agree with GPLv3 and will continue releasing the kernel under GPLv2, so already there is a split. Having Stallman make it even more restrictive might encourage more.

Nothing in GPLv3 or GPLv2 prohibits the distribution of GPLv3 and GPLv2 packages together, so this in itself does not cause a problem. With the second part, I doubt that GPLv3 will be made more restrictive, although I am open to the possibility. I think that it will either remain equally restrictive, or it will become less restrictive. As an effort to improve software Freedom it will achieve nothing if no one uses it. Then again, Stallman has been unreasonable on occasion. I will attempt to reserve judgement but I think that given the lack of continued enthusiasm for pogroms against the GPLv3, it might as well be a done deal already.

Re:They can distribute linux

[nadamsieee]

If GPL3 is ugly, they will probably simply keep using the regular GPL version.

If the FSF decides to only distribute future versions of its software under the GPLv3+, then Novell may be stuck with 2007 versions of GNU. That won't sit well with customers.

Re:They can distribute linux

[LurkerXXX]

There is nothing that says Novell can't fork off the 2007 version and keep making it better. OpenBSD has done it with lots of apps that changed to unfriendly licenses.

Re:They can distribute linux

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

Anything under a BSD or GPL license, yes, they can distribute (as long as they provide source for the GPL stuff). They didn't violate the GPL, so they don't lose the license. If GPL3 is ugly, they will probably simply keep using the regular GPL version.

That may or may not be exactly true. I believe the Microsoft/Novell deal covers the cross licensing of various patented technologies. If Novell implements one of Microsoft's patents in a piece of software, and then tries to distribute it as GPL'd software covered by version 2, they would still be in violation.

From the GPL:

Preamble

...
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

Terms and Conditions

7. ... If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

The only way for Novell to actually benefit from this deal would be for them to implement Microsoft's patents in new pieces of software that they (Novell) owns outright and distributes under a license other than the GPL. This software would also have to be sufficiently untangled from other GPL software. They could not take a current project covered by the GPL and implement one of Microsoft's patents in it. Or the deal between Microsoft and Novell would have to be such that every patent implemented by Novell, and distributed as part of a software package covered by the GPL, would have to be transferable to (or at least free to use for) every person who receives a copy of said software package.

What's more likely is that Novell is just using this as a marketing technique where they can say, "Other Linux distributions are probably infringing on lots of Microsoft's patents, we have the only distribution safe from a lawsuit from Microsoft." Either way, I don't like the way Novell is heading, but Stallman was smart enough to foresee this possibility when he wrote the GPL and I think he should get more credit than he does.

Re:They can distribute linux

[LurkerXXX]

Not if Novell forks the current GPL versions of the apps and continue to develop them. It's been done before. Lots.

Re:They can distribute linux

[LurkerXXX]

As I replied to others in the thread, it's been done before by other OS's/distros. For example, OpenBSD has forked or re-written a lot of apps that initially started as open, but changed to more restrictive licenses. It can be done. Besides, not everyone is in love with GPL3 and will move to it. Plus others might like to, but can't because they can't track down all the authors to get them to agree to the change. My personal prediction is GPL3 is going to be a bust as far as moving most current GPL stuff over to it. I don't think Novell has that much to worry about. Some things will move to it, but nothing (really desired/necessary) that won't be maintainable as a fork under the old license.

Re:They can distribute linux

[ConceptJunkie]

And I think that now that the GPLv3 hysteria has died down a bit, I think people are becoming more accepting.

No, I just think they are waiting for the next draft.

Re:They can distribute linux

[LurkerXXX]

What's more likely is that Novell is just using this as a marketing technique where they can say, "Other Linux distributions are probably infringing on lots of Microsoft's patents, we have the only distribution safe from a lawsuit from Microsoft."

I think this is exactly what is going on, and your other argument isn't what is happening at all. This is a typical 'don't use your patents against us, and we won't use ours against you' business deal. It's very common. You can give Stallman all the credit you want. Personally I like the BSD license instead.

Re:They can distribute linux

[ConceptJunkie]

I think that it will either remain equally restrictive, or it will become less restrictive.

Not if they don't remove that silly DRM clause. The very fact that Stallman et al are willing to use the GPLv3 as a bully pulpit for their political views (with which I happen to agree vis-a-vis DRM, BTW) compromises some of the legitimacy of the license and will make it look to many people like some kind of stand in favor of piracy.

You know it isn't and I know it isn't, but CEOs and lawmakers are not likely to see it that way. And we all know the Microsoft FUD machine is rooting for that clause to be included. IMO, Stallman is marginalizing himself unnecessarily (again), but in this case, there's a danger it will adversely affect the perception of the GPL by a lot of people. Recall the whole point of the article is that a reporter totally misunderstood what the GPL and the FSF are all about.

Re:They can distribute linux

[omeg]

You're correct. They'd have to start maintaining their own GPLv2 fork of the GNU toolchain, as they wouldn't be able to use any GPLv3 code. Any code that Novell would want in the GPLv3 versions of the software would be rejected. Afterall, it seems that Novell is exempt from patent infringement litigation, which means that there's the possibility of patented code being inserted into GPL programs if they're allowed to edit it, and that would be a serious problem. Because they've made this dodgy deal with Microsoft, I actually wouldn't be very surprised if they tried using this loophole to get Microsoft to be able to sue other major Linux vendors.

Re:They can distribute linux

[TheRaven64]

Everything owned by the FSF (gcc, coreutils, bash, etc) will move over to version 3. How many developers do you think are going to want to fork a GPLv2 version? I would imagine that most of those who are willing to assign copyright to the Free Software Foundation agree with their objectives, and GPLv3 does nothing to contradict those.

Re:They can distribute linux

[Greyzone]

If subsequent versions of GNU code move to GPL V3, then Novell cannot use those versions. Nor can they just backport changes from GPLV3 packages into GPLV2 code forks without permission of the original authors. Further, if GPLV3 versions undergo significant rewrites, then the problem of backporting becomes even larger. Nor can you just take the V3 code and fork it under a V2 license. That would be like taking V2 code and forking it under a BSD license - not legal at all. This means that Novell would have to hire hundreds of programmers (or find their entire own open source support community) to replicate the FSF work to date and then to maintain it ever after. If FSF code moves to GPL V3, then Novell is done, end of story, unless they can get Microsoft levels of funding to support their own fork to the OS. I do not believe that Novell can get that sort of funding. Do you? Where will those maintenance dollars come from, pray tell?

Re:They can distribute linux

[TheRaven64]

Much as I like OpenBSD, how many of those forked apps are actually better, in the marketing check-box sense of the word? If you did a feature comparison of OpenBSD's Apache 1 fork against Apache 2 (for example), which would have more features? The OpenBSD version has two things going for it; it's more stable, and more secure. Having seen some of the code that's come out of Novell recently, I don't think they can claim even that...

Re:They can distribute linux

[drinkypoo]

How dare anyone tell me what I can and cannot do with my own hardware. I am looking forward to the GPL2 / GPL3 fork so we can get that nut Richards Stallman out of our business.

Well, I do think you have a point, but the whole point of the free software movement is that the software is Free. I don't see a problem or a disconnect here. Well, okay, I see a problem, largely that those who are in favor of DRM being used to lock down the computer so that you cannot modify it will not be able to use the code in a product which does that. Here is the "objectionable" part of the license:

The Corresponding Source also includes any encryption or authorization keys necessary to install and/or execute modified versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of use, such that they can implement all the same functionality in the same range of circumstances.

So the only form of DRM that the GPLv3 seeks to prohibit (by castration) is that which prevents you from modifying any GPL-licensed code on your device. Let's take a close look at what this actually means. If your box (like a Tivo) is only able to run signed code, then you must give people the means to sign that code. Otherwise, that code cannot be licensed under the GPL.

Well, if you don't believe this, why would you use the GPL anyway? The whole point of the GPL is Software Freedom. It's not about your freedom precisely; as the developer of new software, you already have freedom because you hold the copyright. If you want to license it both under the GPL and to a company under a proprietary license, you have the right to do that provided your licenses do not conflict.

Put another way, people who release code under the GPL want that code to be editable. That's why they use the GPL. Otherwise they could use the BSD license, or just release it into the public domain. But instead, they have chosen the GPL. For their code to wind up in a product where it cannot be modified and run is a serious perversion of their wishes. I think that Tivo was probably the biggest reason that this clause ended up in the GPLv3 draft. I think a lot of people who worked on the Linux kernel were pretty upset when their code was used in such a way that the ability to modify it, the whole reason it's GPL-licensed, was utterly nullified.

Put simply, if you want to be able to use GPL code, you have to be willing to comply with the author's wishes. If you're the type that would follow the letter of their wishes, but not the spirit, then frankly, we don't need you in the Free Software community anyway.

Re:They can distribute linux

[Greg_D]

More likely that any business that gives a damn about its own bottom line will toss the GPL 3 toolchain out the window like a hot grenade and continue to collaborate along with the rest of the community on a fork of the software licensed under GPL 2, which will continue to be the standard.

Novell is by no means alone here. If the FSF "attacks" them with unreasonable terms, they won't be the only company to pull the rug out from under the FSF and its relevance in terms of the marketplace.

Re:They can distribute linux

[F452]

And while it sounds like you understand better, this:

Not if they don't remove that silly DRM clause. The very fact that Stallman et al are willing to use the GPLv3 as a bully pulpit for their political views (with which I happen to agree vis-a-vis DRM, BTW) compromises some of the legitimacy of the license and will make it look to many people like some kind of stand in favor of piracy.

suggests you're missing something. Stallman and the FSF are pressing forward with the same vision and agenda as they always have. Now that free software has achieved some mainstream acceptance -- despite being quite radical already -- you seem to be afraid of pushing the original goals of the project for fear of what short-sighted corporations might think. I'd rather see the goal of freedom be preserved, as I think you do also. Let's not worry about popularity contests. Stick with principal, and let the chips fall where they will. The original license was all about politics, as are all our decisions about how to conduct a free (or closed, or somewhere in between) society.

Re:They can distribute linux

[CoughDropAddict]

I don't know about anyone elses, but IMHO GPL3 is as invasive a liscense agreement as the one in Windows Vista. How dare anyone tell me what I can and cannot do with my own hardware.

Huh? How does GPLv3 tell you what you can and cannot do with your own hardware?

Or is your real beef that you cannot tell your customers what they can and cannot do with their own hardware after they buy it?

Re:They can distribute linux

[Mandrake]

The hysteria has died down a bit, but that doesn't mean it's accepted. I won't release any code under GPLv3 - but then I haven't wanted to release code under the GPL since 98, when I actually started listening to what RMS was saying instead of what we all thought RMS was trying to say. The man's a lunatic.

Re:They can distribute linux

[drinkypoo]

I haven't wanted to release code under the GPL since 98, when I actually started listening to what RMS was saying instead of what we all thought RMS was trying to say. The man's a lunatic.

Well, I agree that RMS has an image problem. He's a scruffy bearded guy talking about freedom. The former makes you sort of persona non grata in most social circles, because most people care very much about appearances. And let's face it, he would be more effective if he didn't look like he lived under a bridge, or smell like stale cheetos.

But that doesn't make him wrong. Users want freedom. They do not want to be locked in. The only way we can provide freedom to users is to have freedom of software, because software is how users actually use the computers. It's what actually makes you a user, and not just a person sitting in front of a collection of inert boxes.

I don't see what's so crazy about trying to ensure that we can actually use the hardware we paid for.

Re:They can distribute linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux (which is the Kernel not the OS) will remain forever Version2. Torvalds doesn't grant the ability for others to move derivative works to future versions of the license (like most people do), so no one change it to version3 unless Torvalds and all the other Kernel developers decide to make the switch. Torvalds, however, is rather vocal about his wish not to move to the next version of the GPL.

Your logic does work for the GNU tools because to be an offical GNU project all copyright are signed over to the FSF, and thus stallman can release them as GPL v3.

Re:They can distribute linux

[growse]

The only way for Novell to actually benefit from this deal would be for them to implement Microsoft's patents in new pieces of software that they (Novell) owns outright and distributes under a license other than the GPL. This software would also have to be sufficiently untangled from other GPL software. They could not take a current project covered by the GPL and implement one of Microsoft's patents in it. Or the deal between Microsoft and Novell would have to be such that every patent implemented by Novell, and distributed as part of a software package covered by the GPL, would have to be transferable to (or at least free to use for) every person who receives a copy of said software package.

This is exactly what they're doing. Think about where Novell are coming from - they want to sell to big business. Currently, big business uses solaris, windows, AIUX, HP-UX, allsorts. If Novell want to sell these people support contracts for SLES, they need a way to make their product as attractive as possible. One of the big attractions to corporations is if your software you're trying to sell them can interact seamlessly with whatever they already have. Novell are building commercial tools that allow interoperability with platforms like windows, and their deal with microsoft allows them to build those tools. They know they may infringe on MS's patents somewhere, just as MS knows that they probably infringe on parts of Netware somewhere along the line. Novell aren't stupid. They know what the GPL means - they know they can't roll proprietary code with GPL code and distribute it. They'll either take guidance on microsoft on how to code interoperability with windows to write GPL code that sits inside, say, openoffice, or they'll use MS ideas to write their own proprietary tools from scratch and then sell them. The non-sue part of the Novell/MS agreement is that they won't sue their respective customers, not that they won't sue each other. This means if you obtain GPL code with a MS patent in it from Novell, MS won't sue you. Twisted, a bit, I think.

Re:They can distribute linux

[Master of Transhuman]

The only issue with a Novell fork would be the cost to them, and whether they could find enough external developers who would prefer to keep the two versions in sync to assist them in reverse-engineering the GPLv3 utilities.

The other question would be could they reverse engineer the GPLv3 utilities and provide equivalent functionality without bringing their GPLv2 utilities as "derivative works" under the GPLv3.

It's not certain that either situation would be a fatal problem for Novell. It's all speculation.

And it's STUPID speculation because Novell hasn't done anything significant to OSS by their deal. The WORST anybody can claim about the deal is that Novell got a lot of money for ALLEGEDLY allowing Microsoft to POSSIBLY say in some FUTURE patent court case that the Novell deal SUPPORTS their contention that Linux infringes their IP.

This is hardly an earth-shaking disaster for OSS.

I'm really getting tired of hearing about this crap from FSF fanatics.

Sure, Novell maybe did a stupid deal. I don't approve of EVER dealing with Microsoft EITHER. But Novell got a ton of money from Microsoft and we have the ridiculous spectacle of Microsoft selling LINUX licenses to people.

It's a sideshow, nothing more. Linus is correct to ignore it.

The FSF people need to grow up.

Re:They can distribute linux

[zorro6]

I don't think "users" give a crap about "freedom". What they care about is that the software meets their needs, is reasonably priced and has good support. Developers may care about freedom to a certain extent but for many, many users it is a non-issue. In almost every application space there are multiple vendors so there are ample opportunities for "freedom".

Re:They can distribute linux

[Mandrake]

This has nothing to do with his looks, this has everything to do with his words. I know I've already been marked as 'flamebait' by someone who apparrently didn't realize I've been writing free software and contributing for the last 15 years or so - that being said, RMS is a lunatic, and clearly does not speak for all of us who do actually care about writing free software.

Re:They can distribute linux

[zorro6]

Tivo doesn't prohibit you from modifying the software. They prevent you from running the modified software on their hardware. This seems perfectly reasonable. You can modify their software and run it on any other device.

Re:They can distribute linux

[Master of Transhuman]

Nobody's arguing that software shouldn't be "free" as in OSS, or even "free as in beer".

Where Stallman and the FSF fanatics go wrong is in presenting themselves as "the Messiah" in "saving the world" from ANY violation of their notions of "the way things MUST be done."

This whole bru-ha-ha over Novell is an example. Nothing Novell did was particularly damaging to OSS. Even if Microsoft TRIES to make the deal useful to them in some future patent court case, they aren't going to win it on the basis of the Novell deal.

But the FSF fanatics make every minor incident sound like "the sky is falling."

Nobody likes morally self-righteous assholes.

And morally self-righteous assholes are rarely right to boot.

It may be reasonable to produce a GPLv3 that prevents any future company from doing what Novell has explicitly denied doing, which is admit patent violations of GPL software, but it has little to do with the Novell deal and will have little or no effect on the future success of OSS in any event.

OSS software cannot be restrained by legal decisions - if for no other reason than that it can be developed in countries where such laws do not apply. As long as people need OSS software - and they do - OSS software cannot be derailed by Microsoft or any other company by legal means.

Look, ultimately, the goal of all this copyright/patent crap is that the state wants to make EVERYONE a criminal OR extort money from everyone who is too scared to be a criminal. That is the DEFINITION of the state. The only result is that everybody eventually BECOMES a "criminal" and eventually the state is overthrown by said "criminals".

So bring it on!

People need to stop panicking over every little thing.

Chimpanzees.

Re:They can distribute linux

[Mandrake]

unfortunately - its a lot of the AUTHORS that don't like the license, not just the users.

Re:They can distribute linux

[Master of Transhuman]

As somebody pointed out, you can distribute GPLv3 and GPLv2 together. So ninety percent of the distros aren't going to care if the utilities are under GPLv3.

So the ONLY people concerned about the issue will be those that violate GPLv3 - which at the moment is ONLY Novell (supposedly, depending on how the GPLv3 ends up being worded) - and they could probably go to court and prove they didn't violate even GPLv3 - again depending on how that ends up being worded.

What are the FSF fanatics going to do if GPLv3 goes to court and LOSES? Make GPLv4? GPLv5 if that loses?

Nobody else is going to care except some company that MIGHT try to admit patent violations for some reason.

This is bullshit. Nothing is going to happen except that the FSF fanatics are going to be exposed (again) as just that.

And if they become TOO fanatical, they will suddenly find they have no developers working on their utilities - and yes, they will be forked and adopted by those who aren't so fanatical.

GPLv2 has done very well. There may be a need for GPLv3 to avoid some possible problems, but the Novell deal is not a particularly good example.

Re:They can distribute linux

[Master of Transhuman]

"If you're the type that would follow the letter of their wishes, but not the spirit, then frankly, we don't need you in the Free Software community anyway."

This is where the fanaticism shows.

Let's turn it around. Why would anyone wanting to DRM a piece of code write it under the GPL in the first place?

If they aren't going to OSS that code, why would the GPL even be considered as the license for that code?

In other words, the whole anti-DRM provision is irrelevant, because nobody considering using DRM would be GPLing their code in the first place.

It's pointless. Even the DRM developers apparently don't understand this. You are correct that DRM and OSS are mutually contradictory - which makes both sides "wrong" in any attempt to mix the two.

As for the notion that OSS code will "wind up" in a product that is DRM'd so the code cannot be edited, this is mostly speculative. That it "violates their wishes" is mostly irrelevant. Since the DRM'd product is most likely NOT going to be OSS in the first place, any product that uses that code is a "derivative work" which - by not being OSS - is already in violation of GPLv2, let alone GPLv3.

The whole discussion seems pointless and speculative to me in the absence of a specific case.

And how anybody can conflate this with some wholesale attack on OSS that has even a slight probability of being successful is just rampant paranoia.

In other words, FSF fanaticism again.

Re:They can distribute linux

[drinkypoo]

The only issue with a Novell fork would be the cost to them, and whether they could find enough external developers who would prefer to keep the two versions in sync to assist them in reverse-engineering the GPLv3 utilities.

That's like saying the only problem with moving the earth is finding a fulcrum and a sufficiently long lever. The cost would be substantial, and the odds of finding enough external developers are not very good.

The other question would be could they reverse engineer the GPLv3 utilities and provide equivalent functionality without bringing their GPLv2 utilities as "derivative works" under the GPLv3.

It's probable that they could. The DMCA explicitly protects the right to reverse-engineer for the purposes of interoperability. But a more important question is whether or not they could do it in a timely fashion. And actually that's not necessary either. Because gcc is not patent-protected, in fact it's the opposite or at least will be under GPLv3, they can simply read descriptions of what was done, and then implement the same idea with different code.

It's not certain that either situation would be a fatal problem for Novell. It's all speculation.

I think it's pretty certain that they would not be able to carry it off well and people would avoid them in droves. Do you want the best and brightest, or something trying to follow in its footsteps?

And it's STUPID speculation because Novell hasn't done anything significant to OSS by their deal. The WORST anybody can claim about the deal is that Novell got a lot of money for ALLEGEDLY allowing Microsoft to POSSIBLY say in some FUTURE patent court case that the Novell deal SUPPORTS their contention that Linux infringes their IP. This is hardly an earth-shaking disaster for OSS.

Disaster? No. Betrayal? Absolutely. If someone points a gun at me, I don't relax because they might or might not pull the trigger.

I'm really getting tired of hearing about this crap from FSF fanatics.

Am I a fanatic because I don't like being dicked around?

Sure, Novell maybe did a stupid deal. I don't approve of EVER dealing with Microsoft EITHER. But Novell got a ton of money from Microsoft and we have the ridiculous spectacle of Microsoft selling LINUX licenses to people.

And this makes you happy? It doesn't me. Can you imagine a situation in which Microsoft would get involved with something like this if they didn't have some angle? Free Software is their sworn enemy. The minute you forget that, you've lost all relevance.

It's a sideshow, nothing more. Linus is correct to ignore it. The FSF people need to grow up.

Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not after you. And Microsoft is DEFINITELY on the offensive against Free Software. The very concept is a threat to their business model of embrace and extend.

Re:They can distribute linux

[91degrees]

Well, there are other suppliers for libc, other maintainers for gcc. The other utils are mature enough that nobody cares if you use an out of date version, and the older version is still licenced under GPL2. And there are alternatives for most of these.

Re:They can distribute linux

[init100]

Users want freedom. They do not want to be locked in.

That's users who know about the issue. A great manu users (I'm really tempted to say lusers) could not care less about their software freedom or about avoiding lock-in. They don't know the difference between the computer and Windows, and have painfully leared to do the necessary tasks step by step. All they care about is that the interface is pretty with a lot of bells and whistles, so that they can be "Wow:ed".

Re:They can distribute linux

[notwrong]

Tivo doesn't prohibit you from modifying the software. They prevent you from running the modified software on their hardware. This seems perfectly reasonable. You can modify their software and run it on any other device.

But it's not their hardware. If I bought a Tivo, it's my hardware, and I should be able to do whatever I like with it. Your argument seems to be saying that the wishes of Tivo - who made something physical, that they then sold to me - outweigh the wishes of the authors of the code they used. I think if someone releases software with the explicit desire that people who use it be able to modify it (provided they preserve this ability for others) then that condition should be respected.

The design of the hardware belongs to Tivo, yes, but as long as it isn't duplicated, I don't see how this could matter.

Re:They can distribute linux

[init100]

will make it look to many people like some kind of stand in favor of piracy

Sure, since as everyone knows, the only reason to dislike DRM is because you want to pirate software/movies/music/etc.</sarcasm>

Re:They can distribute linux

[init100]

If you want to license it both under the GPL and to a company under a proprietary license, you have the right to do that provided your licenses do not conflict.

Could you elaborate on what would constitute such a conflict? The only problem with dual-licensing that I see is if you accept contributions without requesting copyright assignment. The problems has already been solved in some way, e.g. by MySQL, although I don't know which method they use.

Re:They can distribute linux

[init100]

Or is your real beef that you cannot tell your customers what they can and cannot do with their own hardware after they buy it?

I guess that's where his problem is. It is possible that he views the hardware as his hardware even after it has been sold to the consumer.

Re:They can distribute linux

[init100]

The WORST anybody can claim about the deal is that Novell got a lot of money for ALLEGEDLY allowing Microsoft to POSSIBLY say in some FUTURE patent court case that the Novell deal SUPPORTS their contention that Linux infringes their IP.

Did you miss that Steve Ballmer essentially said exactly that just a few days after the agreement was signed, and that the SUSE distribution is the only distribution safe from Microsoft litigation, as it does not have the "undisclosed balance sheet liability" that the rest of the distributions have? This could be considered an unfair advantage in the marketplace for Novell-supplied distributions of Linux, and could drive a lot of businesses over to Novell from the other distributions.

Re:They can distribute linux

[init100]

What number of applications do you consider "lots of apps"? Is it at all comparable to the entire suite of GNU software?

Re:They can distribute linux

[init100]

Or the deal between Microsoft and Novell would have to be such that every patent implemented by Novell, and distributed as part of a software package covered by the GPL, would have to be transferable to (or at least free to use for) every person who receives a copy of said software package. If the italicized part means that every user would be required to ask Microsoft for a free license, then the software cannot be distributed under the GPL (as far as I have understood it). Licensing software under the GPL requires that any patent license is redistributable to subsequent recipients of the software, without asking the patent holder.

Re:They can distribute linux

[LurkerXXX]

That's like saying the only problem with moving the earth is finding a fulcrum and a sufficiently long lever. The cost would be substantial, and the odds of finding enough external developers are not very good.

Wow, you are some FSF fanatic if you think the difficulty in finding some developers to create some forks of apps is as difficult as moving the earth with a lever. Seriously, get a grip. Believe it or not, many companies/groups have created entire OS's from scratch before. All we are talking about here is forking some apps. BSD folks will very likely jump on the bandwagon to fork or rewrite lots of needed ones so that they don't have to deal with even more restrictive GPL3 license. It's very doable.

The best and the brightest work other places besides FSF only. Get a grip, the FSF isn't all that.

Re:They can distribute linux

[LurkerXXX]

No, but then again I and many others don't want or need the entire suite of GNU software. There's no need to rewrite or fork anything you don't want to use.

Re:They can distribute linux

[drinkypoo]

Wow, you are some FSF fanatic if you think the difficulty in finding some developers to create some forks of apps is as difficult as moving the earth with a lever.

Dude, we're talking about the entire gnu toolchain here. This isn't just some gnuchess front end or something.

Re:They can distribute linux

[LurkerXXX]

Oh, of course, that makes it as hard as moving the earth with a lever. Once again, you are a gripless fanboy.

Re:They can distribute linux

[CrkHead]

They won't be able to distribute them once release under GPL 3, but _nothing_ will keep them from forking.

Re:They can distribute linux

[Anonymous Coward]

And let's face it, he would be more effective if he didn't look like he lived under a bridge, or smell like stale cheetos.

Having personally sat six feet away from the man I have to disagree with you. He may have long hair, but there was no odor of which to speak.

Maybe I caught him on a good day, or maybe you're just perpetuating a nasty internet rumor.

Re:They can distribute linux

[cycoj]

OK so TIVO just never happened... right!

Re:They can distribute linux

[DjangoShagnasty]

We are implementing a groupwise mail solution to replace MS exchange. We had a one-on-one meeting with the Novell Canada CTO to discuss the whole MS/Novell deal, so we could clear up exactly what is going on.

The start and finish of the agreement is to allow better virtualization of each others server products and to not sue each others clients.

That's it.

All this talk of patenting linux is pure FUD.

If businesses cannot use FOSS as part of their operating model, the open source community is shooting itself in the foot.

Re:They can distribute linux

[Master of Transhuman]

I'm perfectly well aware of Ballmers pointless comments. It doesn't change the situation. They need to go to court and prove something first.

As for the effect of driving corporate users to Novell, I assume that's one reason Novell made the deal. While that isn't particularly endearing - in fact, one could correctly call it slimy - it's no threat to Linux or OSS in general.

Re:They can distribute linux

[Master of Transhuman]

I never followed the whole TIVO thing, but fine - that's a specific case.

And what happened then?

Here's a quote from an article about the GPLv3:

The DRM provisions are designed to go after companies like TiVo, which uses Linux but collects information on consumers' actions. While TiVo complies with GPL 2.0, it may have more difficulty complying with GPLv3's anti-DRM provisions.

Asked if TiVo could avoid using GPL 3.0 when that license is released next year, Moglen said, "Once a GPL'd work has been relicensed under GPLv3, although a party having a copy under GPLv2 could continue to distribute it under that license, any further maintenance from upstream would force the license upgrade."

TiVo could avoid using GPL 3.0 even if, say, the Linux kernel were to change licenses, but only by freezing itself at the last version of the kernel that was licensed under GPL 2. "That will prove to be impracticable in almost every real commercial setting," Moglen said.

In other words, Moglen asserts that if Linux itself went to GPLv3, TIVO would be in trouble. That's obviously true. It is not so obviously true about the GNU utilities. Also kindly note that TIVO is considered to be in compliance with GPLv2 - evidently after they got jumped on for not being in compliance.

clarifies the issues - including Linus's disagreement with Stallman.

So where's the proof that any of this is going to destroy Linux or OSS if some other such cases arise?

There is none. It's FSF fanaticism and Stallman paranoia.

Again, having a GPLv3 that does make some efforts to refine GPLv2 to prevent companies from circumventing the point of the GPL license may well be a good idea. It's not clear that the Novell deal is entirely relevant to that purpose.

And being fanatical about it doesn't help the cause.

Re:They can distribute linux

[Master of Transhuman]

Sorry - botched my address tag. The highlighted part goes to the Wikipedia article on "Tivoization' which clarifies the issues.

Not Linux, no...

[morgan_greywolf]

Linux, as in referring to the Linux kernel? Not likely, of course, for reasons TFA states.

But to new versions of the GNU toolchain (gcc, gdb, gas, automake etc.)? To new versions of binutils? To new versions of coreutils? Maybe, yes, if GPLV3 looks anything like the current drafts.

Re:Not Linux, no...

[Anonymous Coward]

But to new versions of the GNU toolchain (gcc, gdb, gas, automake etc.)? To new versions of binutils? To new versions of coreutils? Maybe, yes, if GPLV3 looks anything like the current drafts.


If this is true (and from my understanding, it is) the application of GPL v3 will be known in the future as "The Great Fork" which will set Open Source back 5 years.

Re:Not Linux, no...

[spun]

That was my first thought, as well. "Linux" as people know it is not just the kernel. It is the toolchain, the desktop environment, and the applications as well, much of which could easily be released under GPLv3. And GPLv3 could easily contain provisions prohibiting this kind of deal. That's more than likely many years down the road, but it could have an impact. My question is, would it only impact SLES and SLED, or would the restrictions apply to OpenSUSE as well? We use all three where I work...

Re:Not Linux, no...

[idontgno]

And that's a damn good point. The FSF is not copyright holder (and therefore doesn't have any practical leverage) over the Linux kernel. However, the toolchain, the libraries, and most of the command line utilities are from our friends at GNU. So there's a hook. I just don't know if it practically matters.

Assume the following:

• The kernel continues to be GPL2.
• Everything from the FSF gets licensed under the most aggressive form of GPL3
• ???

Can Novell profit? Can the FSF assert some prohibition that guts Novell's distro?

I don't know. IANAL. If Novell distributes the FSF goodies verbatim, and doesn't tailor them at all to accomodate the distro... the only thing I hook I can see is linking to FSF libraries in software which incorporates protected IP that Novell gains access to via this Novell/Microsoft deal. That, I could imagine. Other than that... What's Novell's risk?

Re:Not Linux, no...

[ray-auch]

will be known in the future as "The Great Fork" which will set Open Source back 5 years.


More likely the opposite.

A few people sem to be forgetting that large parts of the toolchain (compiler, libc, emacs) were previously forked away from the FSF. What happened then was the forks away form the FSF did much better. Eventually things merged back in (except in emacs / xemacs case).

We'll see what will happen this time, but I wouldn't bet against the non-FSF forks being successful.

Free Software Idealists vs. Open Source pragmatists. Wonder who will produce more code...

The whole point of GPL v3 ...

[Anonymous Coward]

is to make sure people cannot distribute FOSS in an 'encumbered' manner.

In other words, if you distribute GPL v3 code, you wouldn't be able to attach conditions, like patent licenses for instance. Free means free and any attempt to circumvent this goes counter to the spirit of the GPL.

Re:The whole point of GPL v3 ...

[nuzak]

> In other words, if you distribute GPL v3 code, you wouldn't be able to attach conditions, like patent licenses for instance.

I fail to see how they can keep Novell from distributing gcc, binutils, and so forth if they don't even modify them. Or is the "mere aggregation" clause completely out now. Libraries might have some leverage, but the only one that links to more or less everything is glibc, which is under the LGPL. I sure wouldn't mind concerted efforts to kill glibc, but for purely technical reasons only.

Re:The whole point of GPL v3 ...

[TheRaven64]

I fail to see how they can keep Novell from distributing gcc, binutils, and so forth if they don't even modify them. All of these packages are copyrighted. The copyright is owned by the FSF. You may not distribute copyright works unless you have the permission of the copyright holder. The copyright holder (the FSF) grants a non-discriminatoy licence for free to anyone who is willing to abide by a set of conditions preventing them from limiting the freedoms of other software users (the GPL). If Novell do not act in accordance with the GPL (version 3, at some hypothetical point in the future) then they are not going to be able to distribute any of the code.

Try removing glibc some time

[myowntrueself]

try this on a debian/ubuntu system:

apt-get remove libc6

Re:Try removing glibc some time

[friedman101]

okay, i did it. now wh

Re:Try removing glibc some time

[Raul654]

I remember I nearly fell out out of my chair when I found out Ubuntu Dapper didn't come with gcc by default. The idea that Linux would (nay, could) be shipped without gcc was quite shocking. IMHO, where usability is concerned, it's a huge a step in the right direction (by not requiring the end user to compile his own code) but it was shocking nonetheless.

Re:Try removing glibc some time

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the above a troll? It's true. Ubuntu *doesn't* come with GCC pre-installed and it *was* a surprise to many people that you'd have to go through the extra effort of apt-getting "build-essentials" to get a decent GCC environment.

As he stated, it *was* a huge step in the right direction since it forced Ubuntu developers to find alternative ways to do things that were pretty common place via compiliation (e.g. most distros at the time encouraged you to compile the kernel). This became a boon for neophyte users since they were no longer forced to learn the "geeky details", but it was unsettling for the old guard (at least until we got used to the idea).

Re:Try removing glibc some time

[Anonymous Coward]

okay, i did it. now what?

Re:Try removing glibc some time

[alphamugwump]

It is a step in the right direction to not REQUIRE a compiler, but the arrogance of supposing that your distro is complete enough to do without one is mind-boggling.

Re:Try removing glibc some time

[Cow Jones]

> try this on a debian/ubuntu system:
>
> apt-get remove libc6

Just in case anyone's curious, this is what happens in Kububtu/Dapper:

root@[mybox]:/ # apt-get remove libc6
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
or been moved out of Incoming.

Since you only requested a single operation it is extremely likely that
the package is simply not installable and a bug report against
that package should be filed.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
    openoffice.org-l10n-en-gb:
        Depends: openoffice.org-common (>= 2.0.2) but it is not going to be installed or
            language-support-en but it is not going to be installed
        Depends: openoffice.org-common (< 2.0.3) but it is not going to be installed or
            language-support-en but it is not going to be installed
    openoffice.org-l10n-en-us:
        Depends: openoffice.org-common (>= 2.0.2) but it is not going to be installed or
            language-support-en but it is not going to be installed
        Depends: openoffice.org-common (< 2.0.3) but it is not going to be installed or
            language-support-en but it is not going to be installed
    openoffice.org-l10n-en-za:
        Depends: openoffice.org-common (>= 2.0.2) but it is not going to be installed or
            language-support-en but it is not going to be installed
        Depends: openoffice.org-common (< 2.0.3) but it is not going to be installed or
            language-support-en but it is not going to be installed
E: Broken packages

I obviously didn't try to force the issue.

Re:Try removing glibc some time

[myowntrueself]

I am extremely surprised that only openoffice packages were listed, or did you trim that down?

Its not clear from the output you posted whats going on.

The objective of my post is to illustrate the fact that when glibc goes under GPLv3 and when software begins to utilise the features of the new version of glibc, the amount of work required to produce a *pure* GPLv2 Linux distribution will explode with backporting and clean-room re-implementations and reverse-engineering. Indeed it seems plausible that a distribution going down this path (as Novell seem to be set on) would fall far short of what Linux users have come to expect of a distribution; it would barely deserve the title 'distribution'. The Novell Linux offerings have already got a pretty darn sparse list of available packages.

In Debian I get a few *pages* of packages which would be ripped out... I am certain that the list would be almost as long on a Suse Linux Enterprise Server box (aside from the rather impoverished list of packages available to SLES).

root@somehost:~# apt-get remove libc6
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following packages will be REMOVED:
    a2ps aalib1 adduser agsync akode amanda-client amanda-common amanda-server amor apache apache-common apache2-utils apcupsd
    apcupsd-cgi apt apt-utils aptitude ark arts artsbuilder at atftpd atlantik atlantikdesigner base-config base-files
    base-passwd bash bc bin86 bind9-host binutils bison bittornado bittornado-gui bittorrent blackbox bluefish bsdmainutils
[a few pages later]
WARNING: The following essential packages will be removed
This should NOT be done unless you know exactly what you are doing!
    apt libc6 (due to apt) libgcc1 (due to apt) libstdc++5 (due to apt) base-files base-passwd (due to base-files) bash passwd
    (due to bash) libncurses5 (due to bash) bsdutils coreutils libacl1 (due to coreutils) debianutils diff dpkg dselect (due
    to dpkg) e2fsprogs e2fslibs (due to e2fsprogs) libblkid1 (due to e2fsprogs) libcomerr2 (due to e2fsprogs) libss2 (due to
    e2fsprogs) libuuid1 (due to e2fsprogs) findutils grep gzip hostname login libpam-modules (due to login) libpam0g (due to
    login) mount ncurses-bin perl-base sed sysvinit initscripts (due to sysvinit) tar util-linux slang1a-utf8 (due to
    util-linux) zlib1g (due to util-linux)
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1114 to remove and 3 not upgraded.
Need to get 0B of archives.
After unpacking 1957MB disk space will be freed.
You are about to do something potentially harmful
To continue type in the phrase 'Yes, do as I say!'

Re:Try removing glibc some time

[Cow Jones]

I am extremely surprised that only openoffice packages were listed, or did you trim that down?

This is exactly what I get here with an up-to-date Kubuntu/Dapper version.
May have to do with me using Automatix and a lot of Multiverse packages.

In Debian I get a few *pages* of packages which would be ripped out... I am certain that the list would be almost as long on a Suse Linux Enterprise Server box (aside from the rather impoverished list of packages available to SLES).

... and from the fact that SLES usually doesn't use apt (AFAIK). Yeah, the list you posted is more like what I expected to happen too, but I'm content with running into an error before apt actually lets me remove the libc, and the 'Yes, do as I say!' part is really reassuring :-)

Re:Try removing glibc some time

[Raul654]

If you ship the distro with a compiler, people will continue to require it. The only way to 'get them off the drug', so to speak, is to *force* them to find alternatives, and shipping the distro without a compiler built in (although easily installable with apt-get) is a nice way to do this.

Borg implant

[len_p]

So, when will the Novell logo receive the borg implant here on /. ? Len

What about GNU projects moving to GPL 3?

[the_womble]

Its true that the FSF does not have the power to move the Linux Kernel to GPL version 3.

However, the FSF is the principal sponsor of the GNU project, and run by the same people.

So, we can expect most GNU stuff to move to GPL 3. If GPL 3 mucks up the Novel deal, I do not see that Novel is going to find it very useful to be able to distribute the Linux kernel without all the GNU stuff.

Re:What about GNU projects moving to GPL 3?

[FishWithAHammer]

Except for all the GPL2 software that's already out there.

Re:What about GNU projects moving to GPL 3?

[Andy Dodd]

And in the case of that software, the question will be, while GNU owns the copyright, they don't necessarily own the developers, and they essentially can't "revoke" the GPL2 license for existing software, they can only "upgrade" future releases to the GPLv3 as I understand it.

Nothing is preventing the last v2 codebase from being forked. Once that happens, the question will be how many of the developers are loyal to the FSF/GPLv3, and how many would rather stick with GPLv2? The answer to that question will determine just how badly the fork hurts the open-source community. There's a pretty good chance it would wind up like Xorg, with the majority of the developers moving to the fork and the community as a whole benefiting significantly in the long run.

Re:What about GNU projects moving to GPL 3?

[sago007]

Of course all changes to the GPLv2 programs can be moved to GPLv3 but not the other way.

The GPLv2 version will soon be outdated and Suse would look old if they don't move to GPLv3.

But lets see if it is actually going to be a problem. Nothing is illegal until the court way so.

Re:What about GNU projects moving to GPL 3?

[Slithe]

Of course all changes to the GPLv2 programs can be moved to GPLv3 but not the other way. No they can't. The GPLv3 places additional restrictions on the code, so the GPLv2 is incompatible with the GPLv3. The GNU project circumvents this issue by having the copyright to their entire code base. If outside parties grab the GPLv2 source, make changes to it, and do not give the FSF copyright, then the FSF cannot distribute the changes with the GPLv3 code base.

Re:What about GNU projects moving to GPL 3?

[init100]

Of course all changes to the GPLv2 programs can be moved to GPLv3 but not the other way.

Good point. AFAIK, all GNU software is licensed with the "GPLv2 or any later version" clause. Would it be possible for contributors to a GPLv2 fork to license contributions under a "GPLv2 only" license? If possible, such a migration of all changes could be hindered, but if not, the GPLv3 version can (as you said) always have all changes to the GPLv2 fork, but not the other way around. I'd say this almost ensures that the GPLv3 version can stay current with or even ahead of a GPLv2 fork.

Re:What about GNU projects moving to GPL 3?

[edschurr]

Can't they release old software under GPL3 instead of GPL2? They can't change the license on software already in the hands of users, but I would expect they can change it on what they distribute.

Re:What about GNU projects moving to GPL 3?

[edschurr]

To clarify, if I was to release version 1.0 of Foo under GPL, then all the people who downloaded it as GPL would always have it under that license. They could distribute it under GPL as well. But if I change my mind about the GPL, I ought to be able to change the license of Foo 1.0 to MIT, because it's my copyright. Licensing to users shouldn't take away my right to do with my copyright as I please (barring the licensed code already out there). I guess the exception would be if you gave your copyright away to the FSF, as per their suggestion.

Re:What about GNU projects moving to GPL 3?

[Jason Earl]

Sure, Novell could simply fork every project that decides to switch to the GPLv3. Of course that isn't likely to help Novell in its effort to compete with Red Hat. At the very least the GNU projects are going to switch, and Samba is likely to switch as well. In fact, it might be easier for Novell to simply go back to peddling Netware.

The fact of the matter is that Novell needs the code that the FSF controls, and the folks at the FSF are going to cut Novell off from being able to use future versions unless Novell changes its deal with Microsoft. Novell also needs the money that Microsoft paid for its Linux deal. Without that money Novell's investors are going to be screaming for blood.

Once again we are reminded how signing a deal with Microsoft is rarely an intelligent move.

Re:What about GNU projects moving to GPL 3?

[FishWithAHammer]

Ah, but Samba suddenly doesn't matter. One, Microsoft's shared system isn't going to change much further. Two, if it does--Novell's got Microsoft already on their side. They'll presumably know the changes.

Also--what, these days, is really improved by enhancing the GNU tools? A better

ls

? About the only thing I can think of is improvements to

gcc

that might matter to a distro.

Re:What about GNU projects moving to GPL 3?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but Samba suddenly doesn't matter. One, Microsoft's shared system isn't going to change much further. Two, if it does--Novell's got Microsoft already on their side. They'll presumably know the changes.

Ah, but Samba's license is the GPL, which means all Microsoft secrets embedded into Novell's version of Samba will instantly not be secret, because the GPL requires this. So Novell can't steal a march on the competition by making proprietary changes to Samba.

Re:What about GNU projects moving to GPL 3?

[Andy Dodd]

"Of course all changes to the GPLv2 programs can be moved to GPLv3 but not the other way."
No they can't. As another person has said, the GPLv3 is inherently incompatible (at least in all released forms) with the GPLv2.

The "way out" for the FSF in this regard is that most GPLv2 software has the "GPLv2 or later" clause in it, allowing for a more restrictive license ONLY if that license is a later revision of the GPL. Not all GPLv2 software has that "or later" clause attached - it's optional.

Re:What about GNU projects moving to GPL 3?

[Andy Dodd]

That's my point. They can re-release code under the V3 all they want, but they cannot revoke the existing V2 licenses already out there in the wild. Those already existing V2 branches can form the basis for new V2-only forks, in a similar manner to how the last revision of XFree86 released under the old license became the basis for the (now dominant) X.org fork.

Nothing other than developer interest/feelings is preventing the same thing happening if the FSF forces a V3 upgrade for future releases.

Re:What about GNU projects moving to GPL 3?

[Jason Earl]

The Samba folks are already previewing Samba 4 which allows you to replace Windows AD Domain controllers with a Samba box. Whatever Microsoft might give Novell it isn't likely to be nearly as cool as that. Besides which, it isn't coincidence that Novell, which basically started life as a company devoted to filesharing uses Samba instead of creating its own SMB fileserver. Creating an SMB server as compatible as Samba is very difficult. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Samba's amassed SMB documentation is better than anything that Microsoft has on the protocol. Not only is Samba solid, but it consistently outperforms Microsoft's SMB server in real world tests. On the flip side anything Microsoft writes to replace Samba on Linux is likely to be more like its horrible frontpage extensions for UNIX.

As for the GNU userspace there are a lot of GNU tools that are basically essential to the working of the operating system. Take bash, for example, I imagine that lots of SuSE customers have shell scripts that haven't ever been tested in anything but bash. Replacing bash with another version of sh would almost certainly cause some pain. SuSE customers also almost certainly use gcc and the rest of the GNU toolchain, and chances are good that switching from a GNU userspace to a BSD userspace would break all sorts of things.

And that's just the obvious stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if SuSE's installer uses GNU parted under the covers, and it basically goes without saying that SuSE uses GNU ghostscript. A lot of documentation uses GNU info formats and tools. Tons of utilities link against readline (which is GPLed), or use aspell. I know of at least one systems administrator that uses nano instead of vi, etc. Don't even get me started about a Linux distribution that didn't include Emacs.

This is a huge problem for Novell. It will be very interesting to see what happens when the GPLv3 is complete and starts being applied to software packages.

Re:What about GNU projects moving to GPL 3?

[FishWithAHammer]

The Samba folks are already previewing Samba 4 which allows you to replace Windows AD Domain controllers with a Samba box. Whatever Microsoft might give Novell it isn't likely to be nearly as cool as that.

I wonder about that. Novell is obviously targeting customers who already have Microsoft AD controllers.

As for the GNU userspace there are a lot of GNU tools that are basically essential to the working of the operating system. Take bash, for example, I imagine that lots of SuSE customers have shell scripts that haven't ever been tested in anything but bash. Replacing bash with another version of sh would almost certainly cause some pain. SuSE customers also almost certainly use gcc and the rest of the GNU toolchain, and chances are good that switching from a GNU userspace to a BSD userspace would break all sorts of things.

SuSE customers wouldn't lose any of these things. They'd be able to use the last GPLv2 version of the software. How have the GNU userspace tools really improved in the last...hell, five years? gcc is the only one I can think of that I use every day that has had a Big Shiny Version Number Change in recent memory, and at this point I don't think there's a lot to do to improve it.

And that's just the obvious stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if SuSE's installer uses GNU parted under the covers, and it basically goes without saying that SuSE uses GNU ghostscript. A lot of documentation uses GNU info formats and tools. Tons of utilities link against readline (which is GPLed), or use aspell. I know of at least one systems administrator that uses nano instead of vi, etc. Don't even get me started about a Linux distribution that didn't include Emacs.

And Novell doesn't lose rights to using any of these--they lose rights to using new versions of these. Which of those have been improved noticeably in recent memory? Parted, maybe, but extending parted on their own couldn't be too hard.

What would be interesting from my point of view (as a Debian/Ubuntu guy, but one who loathes the way the FSF throws its weight around) is a system that would run based on GPLv2, and then, as part of the install process, download individual GPLv3 applications and install them independent of the rest of the system. Might be interesting to see whether that would be legal.

Re:What about GNU projects moving to GPL 3?

[Jason Earl]

I think that you would be surprised by how much the various GNU utilities change. Even if they didn't change much at all Novell would suddenly be on its own when it came to security patches, and it would definitely have to track any changes to the GNU utilities so that its packages didn't become incompatible. That would like add up to a whole lot of extra work that would not help SuSE Linux compete with Red Hat. Novell is already at a disadvantage when it comes to competing with Red Hat because it has to pay for development of its declining Netware software. The last thing that Novell needs is another codebase that it has to maintain, especially a codebase that doesn't have a lick of strategic value.

Now, Novell could try and get tricky about how it installed the GNU utilities, but that's precisely the sort of step that is likely to alienate customers. No one wants to purchase expensive Linux support contracts from a distributor that doesn't even have the legal ability to distribute newest versions of major parts of its software package. Besides, what would Novell do if the GNU admins decided to block their separate download tool or sabotage its efforts in some other way.

Quite frankly, that's no way to run a business.

Besides, while I agree that the DRM issues of the GPLv3 are high handed, the patent issues are spot on. The last thing the Free Software world needs is to see patents replace copyright as the de-facto way to control use and distribution of software. Free Software that I have to purchase patent rights to be able to use is not Free. I actually see the DRM stuff as a bit of a red herring. It really only would effect the kernel, and Linux isn't moving to the GPLv3 any time soon.

There's really no way to sugar coat the FSF. They are zealots. No one but a zealot would go through all of the trouble to write UNIX from scratch. To a certain extent the FSF is even a zealot with a thermonuclear device. Everyone wants to be able to distribute their GNU software, and so to a certain extent folks have to listen to what the FSF says. However, as zealots go the FSF is pretty darn benign. They just want to make sure that the ability of end users to hack software remains forever. What's more the FSF has been pretty prescient about the issues that are likely to come up in the future. Heck, the Novell/Microsoft deal shows that RMS was right to worry about patent covenants that only cover certain "blessed" parties, and it is hard to argue that RMS' The Right to Read essay wasn't prophetic.

Sure, sometimes I wish that RMS and co. would borrow some tact, but it is hard to argue with the FSF's results. Thanks to them we all have a lot of Free Software to play with.

Re:What about GNU projects moving to GPL 3?

[Rich0]

Actually, all FSF projects use the or-later clause to my knowledge. And even if they don't the FSF requires copyright attribution by all contributors, which gives them the right to relicense all GNU code to anything they want. In some sense it is actually a dangerous thing, but people trust that the FSF won't abuse this power. Additionally if they did the GPL v2+ code could be forked (even without copyright).

Re:What about GNU projects moving to GPL 3?

[Rich0]

I wonder about that. Novell is obviously targeting customers who already have Microsoft AD controllers.

I'd think that domain controllers (and file servers in general) would be prime candidates for linux migration, assuming samba were completely compatible. Administrators could still use the same tools to administer the domains/systems from windows PCs, but the backend server would be running linux. I imagine that in many companies nobody actually logs into the domain controllers themselves - they use various client/server or web front-ends to maintain it. So, as long as the linux box looks like a Windows 2K3 box to the outside world, there is almost no learning curve.

What there would be is a complete elimination of all client-license costs. Those servers cost a fortune in licensing - not just the OS but a fee for each concurrent user that can connect at any given time (on top of the windows XP pro/whatever licenses for the workstations themselves). You can get rid of all of that with Samba, and not have to worry about license capacity, keyservers, or any of that stuff.

Now, I'm not saying samba is there yet - I can't say I've personally used half of its domain-oriented functions - just enough for around the house. But, if it DID get there why wouldn't companies use it? To the end users there is no difference, and to all but the most closely involved IT folks there would also be no difference. The biggest difference would be in the finanace department...

Re:What about GNU projects moving to GPL 3?

[FishWithAHammer]

Now, I'm not saying samba is there yet - I can't say I've personally used half of its domain-oriented functions - just enough for around the house. But, if it DID get there why wouldn't companies use it? To the end users there is no difference, and to all but the most closely involved IT folks there would also be no difference. The biggest difference would be in the finanace department...

Never underestimate moron management with a hard-on for Microsoft.

Why I read Slashdot

[flynt]

A zealous Reuters reporter apparently conflated the FSF with the open source community in general, took some quotes out of context, and ended up with a sensational headline that fooled a number of people.

This just reinforces why I read Slashdot instead of other news, there's no chance of something like this happening here.

Re:Why I read Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

>This just reinforces why I read Slashdot instead of other news, there's no chance of something like this happening here.

In addition the /. mod system is perfect.

How did this get modded insightful? Parent was obviously joking!

Re:Why I read Slashdot

[kclittle]

Jokes (indeed, humor in general) can be the most insightful form of human thought there is.

Not That Simple

[John Hasler]

> Well, the Free Software Foundation has absolutely no control over Novell's
> distribution of Linux.

The FSF owns significant copyrights in the Linux kernel as well as in many utilities and applications.

> The Novell deal is completely within the bounds of the GPL...

While I agree that this is probably true, it is a legal opinion. I am not a lawyer. Are you?

> GPLv3 isn't even done yet, and even when it is the Linux kernel is unlikely
> to be covered by it.

True, but irrelevant.

I agree that the Reuters reporter is an ignorant doofus, but this is no reason to follow him off the deep end.

Re:Not That Simple

[AlienCZAR]

>> The Novell deal is completely within the bounds of the GPL...

> While I agree that this is probably true, it is a legal opinion. I am not a lawyer. Are you?

Richard Stallman has publicly stated that the deal is within the bounds of the GPL, so I think it is fair and reasonable to state it as a fact and not an opinion.

Re:Not That Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree that this is probably true, it is a legal opinion. I am not a lawyer. Are you? I am not sure how a lawyer would be sure to clear this up. It seems that I have heard of cases where lawyers have actually been known to have different opinions and even *gasp* get into disagreements and arguments with each other. In fact, I am told there have even been cases of these disputes being so contentious that only a judge in a court of law could resolve it.

Re:Not That Simple

[John Hasler]

> Richard Stallman has publicly stated that the deal is within the bounds of the
> GPL [linux-watch.com], so I think it is fair and reasonable to state it as a
> fact and not an opinion.

Richard Stallman is also not a lawyer (nor a judge) and neither he nor his organization own most of the copyrights in question. While his opinion carries a lot of weight I give it a great deal of respect, it remains an opinion.

To repeat (this _is_ Slashdot), In my opinion Novell is in full compliance with the GPL. However, one of the thousands of copyright owners could sue and surprise us all.

Gnu tools

[flaming-opus]

But the current versions of those tools are all licensed under GPLv2. If the FSF wants to play hardball, and releases future versions under GPLv3, Novell, or anyone else for that matter, can fork the GPLv2 version and continue developments from that base. The FSF would have to count on the community adopting the v3 versions, rather than the v2 versions. Since the number of FSF developers is small, relative to the number of other contributors, it's a fight the FSF may not want to start.

Re:Gnu tools

[clacke]

This is exactly the fight they want to start. And the draft process is open exactly because they don't want people to jump ship once they switch. I highly doubt that any Debian developers will do that, and I don't think that any of the commercial entities will fork it for Novell's sake.

Maybe the number of FSF developers is small, but managing your own fork would still force you to remove resources from maintenance and development on other projects, so unless you have a strong motivation to cut of your upstream, you won't. The community will take what GNU gives them.

Re:Gnu tools

[seandiggity]

...not to mention that the developers who are most involved with GNU projects wouldn't want to work on Novell's forked projects A) because many share RMS's ideology and B) because they have no incentive to jump ship on the project they've been working on for Novell's version (in fact, the corporate oversight is a turn-off).

Does anyone really believe that Novell will update/develop/maintain the GPLv2 versions of ALL of the packages in SuSE that will likely be GPLv3'ed? Recreating GNOME as NOME-vell isn't gonna be easy, even if you can port BSD-licensed replacements for some of the core utilities.

...I didn't mean to leave out KDE but I couldn't do the "clever" wordplay.

Re:Gnu tools

[flaming-opus]

They might not fork it for Novell's sake, but how about their own? How many gcc contributors are gplv3 zealots, and how many are compiler zealots? I bet more of the latter. I imagine the pragmatists winning out more often that not.

Once the fsf lays down the gauntlet, how many foss developers are going to do a doubletake, and get really nervous about getting tied up in a mess.

Re:Gnu tools

[alphamugwump]

You probably meant, the Klever wordplay.

Re:Gnu tools

[SL Baur]

How many gcc contributors are gplv3 zealots, and how many are compiler zealots? I bet more of the latter. I imagine the pragmatists winning out more often that not. That's a good example. Gcc has forked before and wasn't particularly hurt by it. The FSF branch withered away and the EGCS fork became the main branch. Emacs was forked too and I certainly don't view that as a negative thing either.

Re:Gnu tools

[init100]

How many gcc contributors are gplv3 zealots, and how many are compiler zealots? I bet more of the latter.

I agree, but you forgot one question: How many are anti-GPLv3-zealots? That is: How many will care about staying with GPLv2 so much as to support a fork if/when the gcc project is moved to GPLv3? As you said, which I agree with, most are probably compiler zealots (if there is such a thing, compiler nuts would possibly be a better phrase).

furthermore...

[oohshiny]

even with the GPLv3, the way it looks now, there is no reason that Novell would have to stop distributing the code. The GPLv3 mainly just takes away the incentive for such deals.

It could become expensive for Novell long term

[Anonymous Coward]

All the GNU utilities look likely to be relicensed under the GPL v3, which could make it very difficult for Novell to construct an operating system from only GPL v2 components. They may have to fork and maintain gcc, binutils, coreutils etc. This could become very expensive for Novell if no one else decided to follow suit. While what they are doing is technically not a violation of the license, it is certainly against the spirit and original intention of it, and will only be detrimental to their own success as a Linux packager, distributor, and provider of support contracts (which are actually very good in my experience). Maybe GPL 3 will not stop distribution of a product that consists of both GPL 2 and 3 components, and Novell's dubious 'agreement' with Microsoft can remain for the GPL2 components. Personally, I hope that the GPL v3 does forbid distribution with any product that is subject to dubious 'agreements' of this type, as it is the only way that we can assure long term that greedy commercial interests will not hijack the hard work of others. I don't want my software plagued by vehicles of commercial profit, and unnecessary restrictions. If you can accept anti-user technologies like DRM, there are commercial alternatives, and you can have to choice to go and use them. Open Source should guarantee our freedom not to have to endure restrictions imposed any greedy criminal mafioso.

Re:It could become expensive for Novell long term

[JohnnyDoh]

"Personally, I hope that the GPL v3 does forbid distribution with any product that is subject to dubious 'agreements' of this type, as it is the only way that we can assure long term that greedy commercial interests will not hijack the hard work of others."

"I don't want my software plagued by vehicles of commercial profit, and unnecessary restrictions."

Then patent it! Jeez, all this hand wringing and moaning and wailing about a company making a profit from a Linux Distro. Honestly, I've read just as many posts that seemingly decry the fact that Novell is making money than ones that criticize the actual MS deal itself. Sometimes I wonder if the whole FOSS movement should be considered a new religion. There's enough uber-zealot honks out there to qualify as one. The only question left is Church of emacs or Cult of vi?

Can't be

[sycodon]

A reporter misunderstanding and taking statements out of context? Never happen.

Next thing ya know, they'll be making things up and calling them fake but accurate.

Re:Can't be

[Anonymous Coward]

This type of stuff just pisses my off. In just about every occupation, people are responsible for thier actions, yet reporters can irresponsibly overstate the facts and be legally covered under the umbrella of the 1st amendment. Statements like this can cause sometimes irreversible damage to any company if the readers don't exercise diligence to find the facts for themselves.

FSF creating EULA for lawyers' benefit only

[Carlaann]

I'm not sure who to believe here. And that doesn't really matter. What I do feel, however, is that for the working schlep like myself, who makes a living in hetero environments, the FSF is starting to push my patience. The DRM aspect, the patent tightening, the Novell Deal-Killer clause (which I understand only "Committee B" has seen) in GPL3 - this stuff seems to me to be straying from the 4 freedoms, looking more like a EULA that needs lawyers to interpret it. It certainly doesn't free me up any when I go outside with a distro.

I Told You So In the Earlier Story: +1, Helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply read the GNU GPL.

Thanks in advance,
Kilgore Trout.

P.S. Patriots don't let patriots support theworld's most dangerous person.

GPL is'da bomb

[mi]

and even then it would probably be unlikely. I mean, aren't their Linux distros with the Intel 3945ABG driver in them? That's not OSS (not completely anyway).

Drivers are part of the kernel, which is not under GPL.

I think the FSF is probably more interested in keep peoples rights from being abused when it comes to existing OSS applications, or large-scale/severe infractions. I think they aren't an evil organization, they are willing to overlook minor infractions.

It seems rather foolish for serious business to bet the very legality of their major product on the benevolence of some outside organization. They may not be "evil" today, but there is no telling, what kind of zealot may come to the helm 5 years from now.

I'm sorry to repeat this flame-bait, but GPL is a "bomb". Not a "time bomb" (for the explosion is not certain), but a remotely activated one — whether or not you trust the people, who hold the activator, you'd be comfortable without the bomb entirely.

Novell gained a lot of good publicity and good will by getting entangled with Linux. I hope, they'll never regret it, but I think, they should've picked a BSD-licensed OS instead... Applications (like Evolution or Samba) would've been licensed the same way, of course, but, at least, there would've been no problems with the core.

Re:GPL is'da bomb

[sconeu]

Drivers are part of the kernel, which is not under GPL.

WTF are you talking about? The kernel is GPL, specifically V2 only - as opposed to "V2 or later". Linus doesn't like GPL3, so the kernel will likely remain under V2 for some time to come.

Re:GPL is'da bomb

[EsbenMoseHansen]

but GPL is a "bomb". Not a "time bomb" (for the explosion is not certain), but a remotely activated one whether or not you trust the people, who hold the activator, you'd be comfortable without the bomb entirely.

The problem with the above is that it is untrue. Nothing anyone does can prevent me from using & distributing any OSS software, as long as I don't distribute binaries without the source, suitably licensed. So please, tell us what this bomb is? At worst, the software could be abandoned or closed, which is always the risk with any software --- no matter the license. At least, with OSS, you have the source.

Re:GPL is'da bomb

[Andy Dodd]

I think what he meant (and he completely botched his attempt to say it) is that seperately distributed drivers are not considered part of the kernel, and hence do not have to be GPL. I am not sure, but I believe that the GPL applied to the Linux kernel has been specifically modified to allow this, either that or the way the driver interface behaves permits for linking in non-GPL kernel modules at runtime.

Either way, non-GPL kernel modules are allowed. They are frowned upon by the kernel developer community, but allowed.

Re:GPL is'da bomb

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, no. Non-GPL kernel modules are a violation. It's just that the most egregrious offenders find various ways to skirt (having the user build the module, seperating the module into two parts, etc).

Re:GPL is'da bomb

[Master of Transhuman]

A driver implemented as a module is NOT part of the kernel, any more than the desktop on TOP of the kernel is part of the kernel.

The fact that the GPL kernel calls a non-GPL piece of software does not make the non-GPL software a violation of the GPL on the part of the kernel.

Whole thing is nonsense, except to FSF fanatics.

Re:GPL is'da bomb

[Anonymous Coward]

The kernel may not ever move to GPL V3, but the kernel is only once piece of a Linux system.

You can probably safely assume that all the development tools and libraries which are owned by the FSF (ie, gcc, gdb, binutils, glibc) will move to the GPL V3.

So Novell may still be able to distribute a kernel, but they will be stuck with old development tools and libraries.

Re:GPL is'da bomb

[init100]

A driver implemented as a module is NOT part of the kernel

I think you are wrong, since a module becomes part of the kernel when loaded. If you were right, why would the kernel complain that a non-GPL module taints the kernel?

Re:GPL is'da bomb

[Andy Dodd]

Because while the modules are officially legal, the kernel devs and some users (such as Stallman I'm sure) really don't like them.

So while the kernel does not make any attempt to prevent loading such modules (if they were illegal, don't you think that the kernel would forbid loading non-GPL modules and/or the module writer would not explicitly advertise to the kernel that they were using a license other than GPL?), it does complain because some idealists want to know that their system isn't "pure".

Re:GPL is'da bomb

[Intron]

If that were true, then I could distribute GPL libraries (not LGPL, which is allowed) with proprietary software. Nope. Sorry. Can't. However, I'm free to use them for any purpose on my own computer.

What violates the GPL is distributing a kernel that has non-open pieces. Doesn't matter whether they are built-in, a module, or in a secret decoder ring. For this reason, nobody distibutes a kernel with NVidia's driver. You can download and use the closed-source driver in your Linux kernel. You cannot distribute the kernel that you build after it is tainted with the NVidia driver.

Re:GPL is'da bomb

[mi]

So please, tell us what this bomb is?

Right here. See the 4 Insightful and subsequent discussion.

Re:GPL is'da bomb

[Master of Transhuman]

NOBODY distributes a kernel with NVidia's driver? Are you sure about that?

I just did a quick Google. Sabayon Linux includes both the ATI and NVidia drivers for their implementation of AIGLX.

While most distros prefer to use OSS drivers, not all apparently consider them a violation of the GPL - which is the point under discussion here.

We also are not talking about libraries, but drivers, which are not the same thing at all. In fact, it's the opposite situation. A proprietary software using GPL libraries would be in obvious violation. A GPL kernel loading a non-GPL driver is entirely different as even if the driver is loaded in kernel space, it is NOT actually PART of the kernel. In fact, you could avoid that issue entirely, as Linus says below, merely by moving the driver into user space - destroying your argument.

If it were part of the kernel, doesn't anybody think Linus would bitch?

Here is a quote from an article last year on this topic:

Characterizing the entire idea as "shortsighted" and "stupid," Linus Torvalds responded with relatively well-reasoned (and characteristically acerbic) criticisms, pointing out that an outright ban on binary drivers would simply compel companies to move their binary driver code into userspace where it isn't subject to the limitation. Torvalds also compares a binary driver ban to DRM, arguing that it would constitute an unreasonable limitation on what people can do with the Linux kernel. "I happen to believe that there shouldn't be technical measures that keep me from watching my DVD or listening to my music on whatever device I damn well please. Fair use, man," wrote Torvalds. "But it should go the other way too: we should not try to assert our copyright rules on other peoples (sic) code that wasn't derived from ours, or assert our technical measures that keep people from combining things their way."

Although Torvalds refused to be the one to merge the code into the kernel, he suggests that the developers "use somebody else ... to push [their] political agendas," and has indicated that he will not prevent the binary module ban if the other kernel developers can build a consensus on the issue amongst major Linux distributors. If that condition has to be met, it means that the ban probably won't be imposed any time in the near future. It is highly unlikely that all the major Linux distributors are going to be willing to agree to an outright ban on binary modules in light of Ubuntu's recent decision to include proprietary drivers in the default Ubuntu installation. The Ubuntu developers behind the controversial decision are quick to point out that users overwhelmingly support the inclusion and availability of binary drivers. If instated, a ban on proprietary drivers would massively stifle adoption of the operating system and lead some users to switch to a different platform.

Re:GPL is'da bomb

[EsbenMoseHansen]

The patent bomb? True, but that applies to all software (and hardware for that matter) and is thus irrelevant when it comes to the GPL. Sure, some malicious person could add patented code to the some existing GPL project and try to use this for some quick get-rich-scheme, but this is entirely possible for an employee at Microsoft or whatever, too. In fact, this might well be what have happened in a few of those cases.

Also, most free countries don't have software patents, and for those it doesn't matter at all.

So in conclusion: That problem is no more relevant for OSS than for proprietary software, except that someone might actually have a chance to spot the problem before the court case arrives, and if it happens, a quick patch can tear out the problematic code, disable that subset of functionality and have you up and running in a few days. For proprietary software... it would take weeks, if not more.

Re:GPL is'da bomb

[mi]

Sure, some malicious person could add patented code to the some existing GPL project and try to use this for some quick get-rich-scheme.

You got it backwards. The problem is that a non-malicious business (Novell in this case) can not safely add a patented algorithm to a GPL-ed piece of software (even as part of its own open-source product)...

If the business owns the patent, then the GPL is doing (kind of), what it was meant to — forces the patent-owner to give it up (sort of, GPL was meant to force giving up source, not patents, but it similar in spirit here).

But if the business merely has a license to use the algorithm, it can not mix it into GPLed software.

Whether one approves or disapproves of the former aspect of GPL is another story. But as for the latter, FSF seems willing to ignore it — for now. The "bomb" is in the fact, FSF may have a change of heart in a few years...

Re:GPL is'da bomb

[cuantar]

I have a question: the kernel is GPL, so what's stopping distros from asserting their rights and distributing kernels that don't contain the limitation? All they have to do is make the source available, which is something they have to do anyway if they're using a patched kernel (and most are).

Re:GPL is'da bomb

[Intron]

I concede the point that proprietary kernel modules don't prevent distribution. I found some of Linus' writing to the effect that a driver ported from another OS is OK to include as a module because it is not a derived work and the module interface should be treated like LGPL. So you're right, nVidia and ATI drivers are probably in the clear.

At issue would be closed source drivers written specifically for Linux that made use of kernel internals. Linus explicitly mentions those as being "derived works" and not distributable under the GPL.

The big winner will be Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

Because once GPL 3 is out, chances are pretty good they will go whole hog everything they can to GPL3 and Solaris and variants will pick up huge mindshare and a lot more people using it. I know I would switch to the better license and product, and probably so would millions of people who really understand what this whole open and free software deal is all about for the long term. We already have a "major fork" between linux land and BSD land, and surprise, the GPL side has a lot larger usage base. The same thing will and can happen again with a better quality GPL license, which version 3 promises to be.

People who don't like it, or even the notion of it-why are you even bothering with an open sourced anything, any version? Just go closed source completely, patent the crap out of every one of your keystrokes, and be done with it, go sell it or whatever else you want to do with it.

Half assed efforts never work in the long run. Either go completely totally closed, or go open, one or the other. GPL3 is needed to help insure no more "workarounds" like Novell and MS are bragging on. And they *did* brag about it, it *was* a sleazy work around, it technically doesn't volate anything yet but you can sure see they wanted to.

    If Sun picks up the flag and goes forward, good on them!

You got it backwards

[Anonymous Coward]

Or in other words, we will end up with a Novell-only GPL2 fork of the GNU toolchain, and everyone else will use the GPL3 version?


Ummm, no.

We will end up with a Debian-only GPL3 fork of the GNU toolchain, and everyone else will use the GPL2 version.

RMS has a gun pointed at the head of open source. Will he pull the trigger?

Novell isn't in the clear yet

[noldrin]

it's premature to say. GPLv3 could affect Novell's ability redistribute a bunch of code in Linux. But right now it's all in the air. No story here yet.

Way to shoot F/OSS in the foot

[Moraelin]

Well, now that would be a great way for OSS to shoot itself in the foot. "Here, we'll give you some ideological crusade disguised as a license, and we can revoke it at any time for as little as making a deal with a corporation we don't like, or having more patents than we like, or also distributing some closed source programs we don't like, or simply because we've had a bad day and don't like you any more." Dunno about Novell, but I'm willing to bet that a lot of companies would drop Linux like a hot potato. Heck, I would, and I'm writing this in Linux.

The thing is, the whole thing doesn't even have a moral high ground any more if it tries to rule with an iron fist over anything else you might do, including business relations, deals, IP, God-knows-what-else. I mean, wth, if MS even hinted at including a "we can revoke your license if you make deals with companies we don't personally approve of" clause in their EULA, everyone would be screaming bloody murder. Yet here we are talking about, basically, "let's change the GPL so we can punish Novel for making a deal with MS", as if it was some righteous thing to do. WTF?

The very idea of sneaking in some sort of "thou shalt not make deals with MS" or generally "though shalt toe the party line" in the name of "freedom of speech" rethoric is... bizarre, to say the least. If ESR and RMS have freedom so dear (and you'd think so given all the rants about how the GPL is all about your freedom), then the advice that comes to mind is to actually respect it, and I don't mean just for code. Freedom means just that: being free to do whatever the heck you like. Including dealing with MS, writing/installing/distributing a binary-only module, or whatever. As long as I'm _not_ in fact suppressing your coding freedoms, have the decency to not try to suppress my (other) freedoms either.

Honestly, the whole idea is reminiscent of some of the worst crops of banana-republic dictatorships. Start by fighting some colonial/imperialist/whatever oppressor, and end up with less freedoms than you had under the old colonial oppressors.

Re:Way to shoot F/OSS in the foot

[cparker15]

Well, now that would be a great way for OSS to shoot itself in the foot. "Here, we'll give you some ideological crusade disguised as a license, and we can revoke it at any time for as little as making a deal with a corporation we don't like, or having more patents than we like, or also distributing some closed source programs we don't like, or simply because we've had a bad day and don't like you any more." Dunno about Novell, but I'm willing to bet that a lot of companies would drop Linux like a hot potato. Heck, I would, and I'm writing this in Linux.

No, you wrote your tirade in a Web browser, which displays with the aid of a graphics toolkit, which runs on top of your window manager, which runs on top of X, which runs on top of the kernel called "Linux". You can't write things "in Linux". People need to understand the distinction between a kernel and some programs run on top of an operating system, which runs on top of a kernel.

This "idealogical crusade", as you put it, is what gave developers the freedoms necessary for creating Linux and all of the other free components of your operating system.

There's also a fundamental difference between free/proprietary and open source/closed source. They may look similar on the outside, but in actuality, they are very different. Generally, a person who uses free software shuns proprietary software because they understand the dangers that come coupled with it. Conversely, a person who uses open source software typically doesn't have a problem with using closed source software and often uses both in parallel without making an effort to replace the closed source software with an open source software alternative.

Free is a matter of principals and ethics. Open source is a matter of convenience and cost.

If you want to abandon the freedoms that free software affords you and lock yourself into a proprietary system where its creators have complete control over what you can and cannot do with your computer, by all means, go right on ahead. But don't come crying back to the community when Microsoft or Apple have implemented a feature in their operating system that prevents you from being able to run your open source software in conjunction with their closed source software*, because you've been warned well in advance.

* See also Trusted Computing.

Re:Way to shoot F/OSS in the foot

[houghi]

Mod parent up.

Re:Way to shoot F/OSS in the foot

[Kjella]

The thing is, the whole thing doesn't even have a moral high ground any more if it tries to rule with an iron fist over anything else you might do, including business relations, deals, IP, God-knows-what-else. I mean, wth, if MS even hinted at including a "we can revoke your license if you make deals with companies we don't personally approve of" clause in their EULA, everyone would be screaming bloody murder. Yet here we are talking about, basically, "let's change the GPL so we can punish Novel for making a deal with MS", as if it was some righteous thing to do. WTF?

Before you make it sound like a vandetta against Novell, RMS has been in favor of putting some patent clauses into GPLv3 long before the Novell deal was announced. Nobody can revoke any GPL licensed code as long as you comply with the license. If you don't comply, your license may be (or is automatically) terminated. That's standard legalese in every EULA. And changing the license for new versions of your software is hardly unheard of...

Freedom means just that: being free to do whatever the heck you like.

No, that's anarchy. Nobody is forcing you to use GPL code. RMS may stuipulate that you must wear a pink bunny suit when distributing GPLv3 code, and those would be the terms. Now, I hardly agree with everything they say, but they believe patents and DRM are going to cut your freedoms off at the knees. If you want a good example of freedoms locked up, look at fair use locked in a DMCA cage. You can easily have code that you can modify - except it will be a patent violation, DMCA violation, won't function anymore or it might not even run. Then some people go "well, I can always run it on a PC". And when the PC is a TCPA sandbox, and your modified code doesn't function there either, then what?

If you'd read up just a little bit on freedom, you'd see that granting freedoms means placing restrictions on someone else - the "Bill of rights" is nothing but a list of restrictions on the government. Protecting the "coding freedoms" means placing restrictions on companies ability to lock up or otherwise incapacitate your own modifications. BSD code is free, but it fails to preserve any of your coding freedoms. You release it, they take it, kthxbye. The GPLv2 at least ensures that the code is available. The GPLv3 aims to protect that the code is available and usable. Yes, that is at the expense of those who would make it unusable. Somehow I'm not too sad about that.

Re:Way to shoot F/OSS in the foot

[Citizen of Earth]

You don't seem to get it. The core of the GPL is the protection that you cannot take GPLed code, modify it, and redistribute it with your own imposed restrictions. This prevents unscrupulous characters from taking the code that other people have contributed and co-opting it in a way that benefits only the unscrupulous characters. I.e., it prevents this code from being "embraced and extended". Copyright law gives most of the power to accomplish this, but there is a particular weakness when it comes to patents.

An unscrupulous character could take GPLed code and add his own code to it which implements a patented method and release it under the GPL license with a promise to sue anyone who uses it without paying him patent royalties. This is a couple steps removed from what Novell has done (since they are Microsoft patents, it hasn't released code, and it hasn't identified any patents). These unscrupulous characters harm those who have contributed GPLed code in good faith.

Re:Way to shoot F/OSS in the foot

[zotz]

"Honestly, the whole idea is reminiscent of some of the worst crops of banana-republic dictatorships."

Please. Be honest now. The problem isn't that they made a deal with MS. The problem is that they deal they made was crafted specifically to get around the clear intention of the GPL and many of those that release their software under the GPL. Intentionally or unintentionally on their part.

They either violated the license or found a loophole that many want fixed in the next version.

There is some problem with trying to fix your wording when you find it doesn't do exactly what you wanted in a certain circumstance and needs to be amended so that your intentions are clearly represented?

all the best,

drew

Re:Way to shoot F/OSS in the foot

[arevos]

Well, now that would be a great way for OSS to shoot itself in the foot. "Here, we'll give you some ideological crusade disguised as a license, and we can revoke it at any time for as little as making a deal with a corporation we don't like, or having more patents than we like, or also distributing some closed source programs we don't like, or simply because we've had a bad day and don't like you any more." Dunno about Novell, but I'm willing to bet that a lot of companies would drop Linux like a hot potato. Heck, I would, and I'm writing this in Linux. I think you've entirely misunderstand the issue. First, a quote of the original Novell press release:

Under the patent agreement, both companies will make up-front payments in exchange for a release from any potential liability for use of each others patented intellectual property, with a net balancing payment from Microsoft to Novell reflecting the larger applicable volume of Microsoft's product shipments. Novell will also make running royalty payments based on a percentage of its revenues from open source products. And now section 7 of the GPL (version 2):

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. You don't have to be a lawyer to realise that Novell are, at the very least, treading close to the line here. The Novell-Microsoft deal implies that there are patent issues with GPLed software Novell sells, and that royalties are being paid by Novell to avoid litigation. The GPL says that software distributed under the license must incur no additional conditions on anyone who receives a copy. Novell isn't on very solid ground, though it seems like they might just make it through.

Now, even if Novell isn't quite violating the actual wording of the GPL, it's hard to argue they're not going counter to the spirit of the license. If the FSF wants to ensure that the GPL3 draws the line a little more clearly in this area, then its up to them. But they're not doing it just because Novell's getting close to Microsoft; they're doing it to clarify the legal issues surrounding vague patent deals.

And if Novell gets burned by that, well, they've got enough lawyers to have known what they were doing. They took a risk, and it may yet pay off, but if it all goes pear shaped, they've only got themselves to blame.

Re:Way to shoot F/OSS in the foot

[init100]

The very idea of sneaking in some sort of "thou shalt not make deals with MS" or generally "though shalt toe the party line"

I don't think that the FSF would have cared about the Novell-MS deal if it hadn't included the "we will not sue each others' customers" part, as that could empower Microsoft to claim with some credibility that Novell-supplied free software the only "safe" free software. The problem is that this software would hardly be free anymore.

Re:Way to shoot F/OSS in the foot

[JoshJ]

+5, wtf are people smoking?

This isn't a "revocation" of the current license. As people have said probably 100+ times in this thread, Novell has the right to continue releasing SUSE/SLED under GPL2. They just simply won't be able to use anything NEW under GPL3.

Seriously.

Oh, they'll start it alright.

[Slithe]

If there is one thing I have learned about rms, it is that he cares far more about ideology than popularity or practicality. To him and the FSF, "freeing" software from the evils of DRM, etc. MUST be done even if it sets FLOSS back 5-10 years (which it almost certainly will). I wonder if the BSD toolset will now be ported to Linux?

Re:Oh, they'll start it alright.

[squiggleslash]

Available options:

1. Attack DRM. Consequences for FOSS? Slithe says it'll set it back 5-10 years (probably hyperbole. What is the basis of the logic? I've yet to see any.)
2. Don't attack DRM. Consequences for FOSS? Effectively made impractical. Sets it back permanently.

Here's the thing: most people don't realise that the practical option is usually the one that protects the ideology. Linus "learned" (actually, he didn't, he acts like a whining two year old about it to this day) this lesson with the BitKeeper fiasco. Most of us have learned this at some point in our lives. But there are still people, yourself included, who use the word "practical" as if it contradicts "ideological", as if the ideology has no basis in reason to begin with.

You can't make more free software by making it less free.

Re:Oh, they'll start it alright.

[Slithe]

1. Attack DRM. Consequences for FOSS? Slithe says it'll set it back 5-10 years (probably hyperbole. What is the basis of the logic? I've yet to see any.) The reason the switch is a problem is that the GPL is now a victim of its own success. There is quite a bit of code out there that has been licensed under the GPLv2. Since the GPLv3 adds additional restrictions, GPLv2 code is incompatible with GPLv3 code. If the GNU project licenses future versions of the GNU tool-chain under the GPLv3, and several major projects remain under the GPLv2, this could either seriously hamper adoption of GPLv3 or it could cause a lot of chaos as distros have to maintain two different versions of the programs. Major companies (such as RedHat) like to remain in strict compliance with contracts/licenses/etc., and if the licenses of several major projects are incompatible with the (L)GPLv3, but several other major projects license their work under the GPLv3, it will be hell to maintain who links to what, etc. If there is enough desire to remain with the GPLv2, all GNU code will be forked, and the bargaining power of the FSF will be greatly reduced (which is bad for Free Software). If some distros use GPLv3 code, and some do not, then it could be hell writing an application that would work across Linux distros (if the libraries are incompatible). Also, all this infighting between various factions of the FLOSS world tarnishes the reputation of FLOSS, and interested parties could be dissuaded from using it, which destroys the momentum of the movement. Linux and open-source in general have built up a lot of momentum, and if that momentum is destroyed now, I do not know when (if ever) it will be built up again. If this happens, FLOSS will almost certainly be "made impractical" for the next generation of digital activities.

Linus "learned" this lesson with the BitKeeper fiasco. Did he? I think he began using BitKeeper because it was the code-management software that best fitted his needs, and it had a free-to-use version. When the free-to-use version was pulled, because the creator was an overbearing, whiny bitch, Linus sucked it up and wrote a code-management program that suited his needs as well as Bitkeeper did (bringing with him years of experience managing an EXTREMELY complex software project). I am not sure if he had that experience when he first began using BitKeeper. To summarize, Linus first used a tool that both existed and worked for him; when it stopped working, he could not find a suitable replacement, so he created one. To me, that does not sound like a criticism of proprietary.

Most of us have learned this at some point in our lives. But there are still people, yourself included, who use the word "practical" as if it contradicts "ideological", as if the ideology has no basis in reason to begin with. I thought OSS already had a good antidote against DRM: open disclosure. Most DRM tactics I have seen rely on obfuscation of deciphering information, and requiring source code effectively nullifies that problem. If you are talking about TCPA, then I guess that some people fear that one day, OMG, M$ wi11 0wn j00r b0xor!!!1!!!1!!! All j00r ba$3 ar3 b310ng 70 Micr0$047!!!111!! Color me unimpressed, but I don't think that is a serious threat. Some of us have learned that it is stupid to restrict a certain form of use based on a boogey-man threat of TCPA. But there are still people, yourself included, who use the word "DRM" as if it meant the end of OSS as we know it.

You can't make more free software by making it less free. I agree wholeheartedly. THAT is why I oppose the GPLv3.

Re:Oh, they'll start it alright.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't make more free software by making it less free.

I agree wholeheartedly. THAT is why I oppose the GPLv3.

Wow, a freedom vs. power debate over the GPL... I haven't seen this before.

Re:Oh, they'll start it alright.

[init100]

If you are talking about TCPA, then I guess that some people fear that one day

A TCPA-like system that only allows certain approved versions of software already exist in the embedded space. The TiVo is the prime example, as it is one of the main reasons for including the DRM clauses at all. It refuses to run versions of the (free) software that is not signed (approved) by TiVo. This way of locking up free software so that it cannot be modified and made to run on the same device, is what the FSF primarily wants to stop.

Haha mod parent up +1 Funny.

[electrosoccertux]

Very clever.

Only because no known patent is in FOSS code

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as MS sue someone for code and avow Novell are OK with distribution because of a license, THEN Novell have no right to copy GPL2 code.

IF MS sues for code and sues Novell, then that isn't Novell's problem.

IF MS don't sue anyone, then there is no known issue and nothing can be taken to court.

GPL3 changes is so that this agreement isn't acceptable for GPL licensees, so we don't have the FUD vector we currently have (Ballmer warning about undisclosed liabilities unless you get Novell's distribution).

The story submitter is also dead wrong. There is plenty "right" to deny Novell linux distribution rights. They only come in to effect when Novell include patented stuff that they don't grant (or cannot grant) license to ALL GPL licensees.

Re:Only because no known patent is in FOSS code

[sumdumass]

GPL3 changes is so that this agreement isn't acceptable for GPL licensees, so we don't have the FUD vector we currently have (Ballmer warning about undisclosed liabilities unless you get Novell's distribution).

No it doesn't. It changes it so If novel specificly adds something, it is in violation. Even with this deal, I could add something, microsoft could claim it as theirs, and sue everyone but novel's customers and novell still won't be in violation.

Can't people read? If they could they would see that the GPLv3 is actualy worse then v2. And all this "i'm pissed because novell made friends with microsoft" shit would stop. My god, we are not in gradeschool. Maybe the FOSS movement just hasn't grown up; literaly! There has been too much reading into the GPL of things that aren't there in an attempt to demonize someone or something for totaly unrelated problems.

Re:Only because no known patent is in FOSS code

[sumdumass]

GPL3 changes is so that this agreement isn't acceptable for GPL licensees, so we don't have the FUD vector we currently have (Ballmer warning about undisclosed liabilities unless you get Novell's distribution).

What specificly is in the GPLv3 that stops those deals? Nothing, And actualy read it and look for the part, don't repeat what someone has incorectly stated to you.

That fact is there there isn't anything. Unless novel opensources something under the GPL and doesn't allow the rights to be perpetuated. But then that would just negate the license for those parts, right? It still wouldn't stop them from using the GPLv3 at all. lets stop repeating something that is only true if something happenes that hasn't happened. Some are trying to convict someone else based on a future crim that they have never hinted at commiting just because they don't like who they're friendly with. You would find it absurd to think a social worker who helps poor people are automaticl guilty of some crime that poor people often commit because of the association and not because of any evidence pointing to them doing so. If anything, this is the scary part. All it is doing is letting every other company out there that is faced with a choice about using opensource software or paying the Vista tax chose vista!

Yes, I'm going to say it, this entire anti novell campain is fud designed to market Vista to companies thinking of the possiblity of switching. And we have been roped into it hook line and sinker. Can we give microsoft a "hell yea"? Because we are doing more to steer people to a vista upgrade then Microsoft could. And don't you think this is the entire reason for the deal and steves statment? Sometimes you need to look at the source and all the codes to see the light!

Re:Only because no known patent is in FOSS code

[init100]

Are you a lawyer? Because the FSF has lawyers, e.g. Eben Moglen, to make sure that its intentions are correctly spelled out. And that includes spoiling the Novell-Microsoft agreement. If you are not a lawyer, I cannot see how you could assert anything about the yet unpublished GPLv3. The section about spoiling the Novell-Microsoft agreement isn't even in the draft yet.

Re:Only because no known patent is in FOSS code

[sumdumass]

Ok, they have lawers, those lawers are supposed to have claimed the novel microsoft agreement goes against the GPL. Show me were they have said this and point to me what in particular is supposed to violate the terms of the GPL.

I bet you can't. If you even come close, it will be were they are looking into it.

I don't have to ba a lawer to read the GPLv3 draft. Guess what, you don't either. So were is it? Ahh, the part about giving rights. Well lets have a look at the GPLv3. It says that other have given you rights and you must pass them downstream. It says _IF_YOU_ADD_SOMETHING_ you have to let the full rights be passed down too. So, if novel doesn't place anything into the GPLed products that is patented, they don't come down this line. Also, this agreement doesn't effect any parts you put in it iif microsoft lays a claim on it. Why, because they are passing down the rights passed to them when they recieved the code. The Microsoft deal doesn't even come into play in this case unless you're a Novel customer. If microsoft aserts a claim, on code you wrote, then that part of the code is void/violating of the GPL and needs to be removed.

So acording to the plain english the GPL is writen in, Nothing has happened yet to bring novell into default. As long as they follow the GPL, the microsoft deal doesn't even matter. I ask you to show me anyone who can find the statment by the FSF's lawer who makes this claim. Don't point me to some misguided fanboy who is neither a lawer or on the FSF board, point me to an actual statment of novel being in violation if the v3 of the gpl were in effect today.

If you are not a lawyer, I cannot see how you could assert anything about the yet unpublished GPLv3.

You can read the current draft of the GPLv3. It is on thier website. Look for your self. If no one changes anything, this is what will be the GPLv3. Look for your self and tell me were the deal places them in violation of anything. You don't need to be a lawer to read and understand it. Jesus, just look before setting your self up for slander, liable or whatever by blindly repeating something you obviously havn't even bother to look at.

And if you need to be a lawer to interpret the GPL draft, then I'm betting "I didn't know" will be an afirmitive defense in any actions on violators. Especialy if the wording doesn't imply it in any way, shape, or form. I mean, how free can you be when you need a team of lawers interpreting the GPL just to use the so caled free software. lol, this is insane.

Re:Only because no known patent is in FOSS code

[hendersj]

As soon as MS *successfully* sue someone. Which would mean there was patent-encumbered code in Linux.

How likely is that, really?

Re:Only because no known patent is in FOSS code

[Anonymous Coward]

I have used Suse for work last year ... Novel will have to hire a few testers more, use more than one testing scenario, and document better their customizations, otherwise they will have trouble distributing Linux at all, and not for legal reasons.

Re:Only because no known patent is in FOSS code

[init100]

You can read the current draft of the GPLv3. It is on thier website [fsf.org]. Look for your self. If no one changes anything, this is what will be the GPLv3. Look for your self and tell me were the deal places them in violation of anything.

We can read it and make up our mind about what is probably meant. But since court decisions do not always fit into common sense, we can have no certainty that a court will interpret the license the same way that we do. A lawyer usually have court experience, and can with some credibility, at least more than you or me, assert how a court will probably interpret this. Still lawyers are not guaranteed to read it the same way as a court, it is just that the lawyer has a larger probability of understanding it the same way a court would.

And if you need to be a lawer to interpret the GPL draft, then I'm betting "I didn't know" will be an afirmitive defense in any actions on violators. Especialy if the wording doesn't imply it in any way, shape, or form. I mean, how free can you be when you need a team of lawers interpreting the GPL just to use the so caled free software. lol, this is insane.

Why would this be insane for the GPL when this is the case for the law? "I didn't know" isn't an affirmative defense in any country I know of. You are required to know the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, why would it be an excuse when dealing with software licenses.

Re:Only because no known patent is in FOSS code

[sumdumass]

We can read it and make up our mind about what is probably meant. But since court decisions do not always fit into common sense, we can have no certainty that a court will interpret the license the same way that we do. A lawyer usually have court experience, and can with some credibility, at least more than you or me, assert how a court will probably interpret this. Still lawyers are not guaranteed to read it the same way as a court, it is just that the lawyer has a larger probability of understanding it the same way a court would.

Sure, a lawer and a court could read it and say it doesn't cover this or that. But it never would deny something that it says in plain english. Usualy looking at it in the light or context of some law would cause the issue too. If a contract/license said you can't use this program on tuesday then that is what it intends to prohitbit.

But I see that there isn't a link to any statments by the FSF or ther lawers claiming novel would be in violation. Nor is there Any public statment from either saying that the deal on it's own stop novel from using GPLv3. All the links I can find say someone is liikong into it but never any claims.

Why would this be insane for the GPL when this is the case for the law? "I didn't know" isn't an affirmative defense in any country I know of. You are required to know the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, why would it be an excuse when dealing with software licenses.

Because the license is for the end user of free software who ay wish to modify it and/redistribute it. This is a license that is supposed to relay a set of rules for doing so. If that license doesn't specificly state something then not knowing it was supposed to cover that something would make a defense. And to this date, anyone aserting claims not specificly writen in a contract has little chance of enforcing though that contract. So "I didn't know" that i couldn't do something that wasn't even writen in law or the contract is the same defense as the contract doesn't say that. And because no other situation lets you claim ignorance, this would be ground breaking in the least.

The fact is, if the FSF or the GPL wanted to stop people from making deals with micrsoft it would have placed that in writing. Notice how novel isn't scared? Notice how only the zealots with something against microsoft are the only one claiming they cannot use the GPLv3 stuff? And to do so they are attempting to read something that isn't even there into the GPL? Notice that this happens to coincide with Vista's release and some companies are considered to be thinking of replacing microsoft altogether. Notice how this comes up and from the outside it look like some socialist agenda trying to viraly strong arm the way a business operates?

That right, this has been turned inot a tool to self implode and make looking to linux as Scary as possible. To any company looking to switch instead of paying microsoft again, this assertion of somethig that isn't even there seems reason enough to stay away from GPLed products. Novell was a tool used by microsoft. They didn't see it comming. You and everyone repeating this horseshit are tools used by microsoft and in hte end we can sit back an lok at the house vista built! Surprisingly, all these tools wern't even willing participants.

And to tell you the truth, politics work this way too. A candidate usualy makes a claim about someone or something that is obsurd and paple blindily follow them if it sounds good enough to percievably be true. Microsoft didn't have to set some grand stratigy, they just had to watch the other areana and draw up a simple three step or four process.

Re:Only because no known patent is in FOSS code

[init100]

The fact is, if the FSF or the GPL wanted to stop people from making deals with micrsoft it would have placed that in writing.

This isn't about stopping people from making deals with Microsoft. If the patent agreement hadn't been a part of the deal, I would be much less concerned about it. The patent agreement enables them to claim that Novell recognizes that Linux infringes Microsoft patents, and it enables Novell to say that Novell-supplied F/OSS is the only F/OSS safe from Microsoft litigation. That is not in the interest of the F/OSS community, and that is why the deal is so heavily critisized.

And to do so they are attempting to read something that isn't even there into the GPL?

It isn't there because that part hasn't been included in the GPLv3 draft yet. Yet, the FSF has claimed it is working on including such a clause that forbids vendors with this or similar agreements from distributing programs licensed under the GPLv3. We can't analyze it yet, 'cause it isn't there.

Notice how this comes up and from the outside it look like some socialist agenda trying to viraly strong arm the way a business operates?

Your bias is quite clear from this statement.

If a business would violate a license outright, would you disagree that some strongarming by the licensor would be in place? Or are businesses untouchable entities that can do what they want, and nobody can tell them what to do?

To any company looking to switch instead of paying microsoft again, this assertion of somethig that isn't even there seems reason enough to stay away from GPLed products.

If they could end up distributing software, this might be an issue. If they are only considering it for inhouse use, they can always do what they want with it, and would not have to be worried at all. After all, use of the software is one of the four freedoms, and nobody have to be worried that this freedom would evaporate.

Re:Only because no known patent is in FOSS code

[sumdumass]

This isn't about stopping people from making deals with Microsoft. If the patent agreement hadn't been a part of the deal, I would be much less concerned about it. The patent agreement enables them to claim that Novell recognizes that Linux infringes Microsoft patents, and it enables Novell to say that Novell-supplied F/OSS is the only F/OSS safe from Microsoft litigation. That is not in the interest of the F/OSS community, and that is why the deal is so heavily critisized.

lol.. This just gets better and better, And when I read the part about it not even being in the GPL yet I cannot help but laugh. You see, nothing is stopping Novell from claiming linux infringes on a pattent now, even without the microsoft deal. Nothing is stopping anyone from making the claim. I'm not sure that Novell has even made the claim or hinted that it would. But what the pattent deal does is let Novell include in it's distro, some pattented software from microsoft to work wih microsoft's products better. And including this is acceptable under both GPL version as they are currently writen. But more importantly, the pattent deal could have nothing to do with Novell's venture with linux. They produce other NonGPLed products that work well with windows too.

I'm left wondering if Novel isn't second guessing their decision to get invovled with linux now. I mean we are treating them as if they are criminals based on what we think they could do and nothing on what they have done. This must be a healthy additude towards a relationship with anyone. I mean, If i started treating you like a criminal because you have access to a car and you could use it to get away from a crime sceene, you would be perfectly fine with it right?

Listen, It isn't in the interest of the GPL or the free software movment to do anything because some one could. It is in thier interest to spell out their objectives in the license and expect people who use that license to follow them. Microsoft could even use a GPLed piece of software and distribute it in windows if they followed the GPL that it covers. Trying to mandate how a company functions or run their operation is only counter productive. I personaly think the GPLv3 as it currently sits is to intrusive and beyond what the scope of the GPLv2 ever intended.

It isn't there because that part hasn't been included in the GPLv3 draft yet. Yet, the FSF has claimed it is working on including such a clause that forbids vendors with this or similar agreements from distributing programs licensed under the GPLv3. We can't analyze it yet, 'cause it isn't there.

So, not only are we pissed at a company because it could do something that it shows no signs of wanting to do, we are claiming they can't use a GPL license or products using the GPLv3 license because of provisions not even writen or made public yet. Isn't that getting the cart before the horse a bit too much? I do know it definatly doesn't mean the "Novell cannot use the GPLv3 so they will have to fork" argument hasn't any truth to it. It is completly false until something shows up. And I also know that it will make it very easy to destroy the FSF movment if the provisions doesn't specifcly say "Novell cannot do this".

For one, All microsoft has to do is make a blanket deal/statment claiming the FSF and their direct customers are absolved from any of their pattent claims. Then the FSF cannot even use the GPLv3 if it contains any provision disalowing pattent claim exhonoration.

Next, It doesn't even have to be microsoft, it could be anyone wanting to compete with FOSS products. You could have a widget program that does foo and carries a GPLv3 license. With this provision, I could make a closed source competitor and claim that you and your direct customers won't be pursued by any patten or IP litigation and you and your direct customers are the only one who can use my ip that is in you product. I don't even have to list the ip either. But because you cannot use the

Re:Only because no known patent is in FOSS code

[init100]

Good, so you know I am biased toward free software

No, rather the opposite. Your use of the words socialist and virally in the context of the GPL make you sound like Steve Ballmer, who is hardly a friend of free software.

It is laughable that the Anti Tivo clause in the gplv3 as it is currently writen, doesn't even stop the tivo situation from happening.

Why not? And if you "know" that it won't, why not voice this concern with the FSF, I think they world be happy if you tell them this. Unless of course you really want the DRM clause to be taken out, or at least be non-effective.

You just claimed that FOSS supporters are trying to asert claims that don't even exist yet for actions that have never happened.

I don't know where I wrote that.

I will tell what I would do, go back to microsoft.

By all means, please do. And remember to bend over when Billy G comes over for some late night fun.

I have had to explain this several times as well as point them to other sites. explaining it.

Explanations does not seem to be one of your strong points.

Re:Only because no known patent is in FOSS code

[sumdumass]

No, rather the opposite. Your use of the words socialist and virally in the context of the GPL make you sound like Steve Ballmer, who is hardly a friend of free software.

lol.. Now I know why you are makingthe asertions you are. You cannot even follow a simple sentence and place it into the context it was said in. Let copy it here and see if you still don't get it.

The fact is, if the FSF or the GPL wanted to stop people from making deals with micrsoft it would have placed that in writing. Notice how novel isn't scared? Notice how only the zealots with something against microsoft are the only one claiming they cannot use the GPLv3 stuff? And to do so they are attempting to read something that isn't even there into the GPL? Notice that this happens to coincide with Vista's release and some companies are considered to be thinking of replacing microsoft altogether. Notice how this comes up and from the outside it look like some socialist agenda trying to viraly strong arm the way a business operates?

Hmm, Looks like I'm complaining about people people trying to asert claims over something and using parts of the software license that isn't even there. Looks like I'm complaining about how that looks to others, especialy when there is nothing to indecate any trueth to the claims. Hmm, You think the words Notice how this comes up and from the outside it looks like could mean that I think others are going to take what has already been said as true? And no, It doesn't make me look like Steve ballmer. In order for that to happen, I would have to indecate that i believed it to be true and about the actualy GPL license. I was pointing out what it looks like to others when claims are made that are both false, and never happend and those claims are backed up by some clause that hasn't ever been writen. And unless it was added today at some time, It still hasn't been writen!

Why not? And if you "know" that it won't, why not voice this concern with the FSF, I think they world be happy if you tell them this. Unless of course you really want the DRM clause to be taken out, or at least be non-effective.

Well, first, I think the Tivo clause is destructive and damaging to the free software cause. I have never hiden that fact. I think the GPLv3 as it is currently writen is bad news and for more reasons then the Anti Tivo stuff too. So lets make no bones about it, thats were I Stand.

Now, When ever interpreting a license or law, you look for the intent of the license of law alone with the letter of it. In the preamble it describes pattented part for general purpose computers then goes on to protect covered works from pattented stuff or DMR features. But the very definition of a covered work specifies a lot here.

First Tivo could argue that it doesn't supply a "general purpose computer" and it isn't intended to apply to their device. This could work or fail.

And second, seeing how the the FSF have attempted to have the GPLv3 co-exist peacfully with the GPLv2 in the kernel, All they have to do is include any DRM in the kernel only or as an "agregate program" and recieve the exeption. I belive the problem now is that the kernel won't run after being loaded if it isn't signed by Tivo. If some one can argue that the GPLv3 forbids that, then tivo claims the GPLv3 code then places further restrictions on the GPLv2 and those further restrictions cannot be applied. Any program they add to restrict the use of the tuner cards ect.., can be claimed as an agregate program also if it needs to be signed to run. So what we are left with is either a broken GPLv3 as it is currently writen or a fully functional GPLv3 that cannot be used at all with any GPLv2 products. This will have the most imdeiate impact on distribution who could be forced to no include any of the GPLv3 tools or programs in the distribution. But this hinges on the kernel staying GPLv2 as it is claimed to do for the imeadiet future and e

Re:Only because no known patent is in FOSS code

[init100]

to date novell never made this claim and has made no indecation that it would

I guess that you are referring to the "We supply the only safe F/OSS". No they never made the claim outright, but the patent agreement sends that message anyway. Their friend, Steve Ballmer, made the claim outright when he mentioned the "undisclosed balance-sheet liability" of all non-Novell F/OSS.

Or is this another one of those not following the dialog things?

Maybe, maybe not. To me, sometimes your sentences make no sense. That could be because I am not a native speaker of English, but it could also mean that you are second rate in your sentence construction (just like your spelling).

It is hurting all the people who believe the world would be a better place if more people used opensource stuff

Open source, or rather free software. is of little value if devices can only run versions of the software approved by the vendor. The value of free software is also decreased if one vendor is the "safe vendor" while the rest of the community is "unsafe".

If the police arested you tomarrow for a crime you didn't commit yet but because they saw you talking to someone who might let you do a crime, you would be outraged (and rightfully so). Now add to it the fact that the crime you commited isn't even a crime yet-someone is working on make it against the law. Tell me how rediculaous and outragous that sounds. Yet it is exactly what people are trying to do with novell.

No, nobody have done anything to Novell yet. We have simply been discussing what could happen to Novell if the anti-Novell clause is put into the GPLv3 and much free software, including all GNU software is relicensed under the GPLv3.

Yes, certain people have been investigating if Novell has violated the GPLv2, and concluded that they probably haven't. I really don't see where your crime analogy fits. Nobody have sued Novell for violating a clause in the GPLv3 (which would make your analogy correct), since it isn't published yet, and since no software is licensed under it yet.

The idea that a license in simular spirit can be so radicly different that it isn't compatible with the previous version

Actually, you are just plain wrong. The GPLv3 doesn't have to be radically different from the GPLv2 to be incompatible. Just the tinyest added restriction would make it incompatible, since the GPLv2 forbids that. The GPLv3 exists to close certain loopholes that people have used to violate the four freedoms while still complying with the letter of the license. Since closing these loopholes would mean adding certain restrictions, it was given that they would be incompatible. A license can only be compatible with GPLv2 if it contain the same restrictions or any subset of them (including none of them).

Re:Only because no known patent is in FOSS code

[sumdumass]

I guess that you are referring to the "We supply the only safe F/OSS". No they never made the claim outright, but the patent agreement sends that message anyway. Their friend, Steve Ballmer, made the claim outright when he mentioned the "undisclosed balance-sheet liability" of all non-Novell F/OSS.

Yes, Novel has never made this claim. And they cannot. Because anyone following the letter of the license cannot pass on microsoft's agreed exceptions. So if anything, they could get away with "we will shied our customers from IP claims on our products". And seeing how they control unix to some degree, that would be true. There is nothing wrong with that either. But for some reason the one company who embraced linux to the pont they puchased and decided to maintain a distibution is evil because they could say it.

Open source, or rather free software. is of little value if devices can only run versions of the software approved by the vendor.

I dissagree. It has the same value it has always had. But when you buy a Tivo, You have done just that, not puchase some general purpose computer. Defeat the device that stop your modifications from running or build a device capable of running them. You see, A Tivo is a specific device designed to do a specific thing in a specific way. When the software is altered, it is no longer that device. They didn't sell you some other device, they sold you a Tivo. If you want a different device, then buy or make one. Anyways, the free software movment is about to goto hell in a hand-basket because some feel there is a right to force a manufacturer to make a device the way they want it instead of the way the company does. A software license should never have this much control over some company. I would say this is about as bad as microsoft and the EULAs they pass on. Except this has the potential of being totaly inefective or ripping the Idea of the GPLv3 and the FOSS comunity apart. And the GPLv3 doesn't even seem to do a good job at stopping it.

The value of free software is also decreased if one vendor is the "safe vendor" while the rest of the community is "unsafe".

I disagree here too. And this has been happeneing for quite a while already before novell's microsoft agreement. Osrm (Open Source Risk Management)has been certifying versions of the linux kernel to be free of copyright infringments since 2004. Obviously these kernels are the safe ones. So any distro or vender using the "unsafe" ones are up for risk. And yet no one hase made any complaints about this? Maybe because microsoft isn't involved?

Yes, certain people have been investigating if Novell has violated the GPLv2, and concluded that they probably haven't. I really don't see where your crime analogy fits. Nobody have sued Novell for violating a clause in the GPLv3 (which would make your analogy correct), since it isn't published yet, and since no software is licensed under it yet.

You don't apear to see a lot of things. Maybe I could point to a few in this thread chain exactly.

1. Because the FSF has lawyers, e.g. Eben Moglen, to make sure that its intentions are correctly spelled out. And that includes spoiling the Novell-Microsoft agreement.
2. It can't retroactively affect existing source-code out in the wild, but Novell simply doesn't have the expertise or resources to fork every GNU project - in the case that the V3 license will prevent them from distributing new versions covered by it.
3. You're correct. They'd have to start maintaining their own GPLv2 fork of the GNU toolchain, as they wouldn't be able to use any GPLv3 code.

   This one is pa

counting noses

[stites]

Each Open Source project leader will determine whether or not his project will be released under GPL3. The FSF has said that their projects will move to GPL3. Linus Torvalds and Miguel de Icaza have said that their projects will not move to GPL3. Almost all of the other project leaders have either said nothing or indicated that they would move to GPL3 conditional on waiting to see the final form of GPL3.

The Microsoft-Novell agreement was met with widespread anger within the Open Source community. Many people look at the Microsoft-Novell agreement as a patent attack by Microsoft on Open Source. Part of the Open Source members' reaction was a renewed committment to using GPL3 to break the agreement. So it would be reasonable to predict that if the final wording of GPL3 is satisfactory that a large number of GPL project leaders will move to their projects to GPL3.

Novell and Microsoft can react to GPL3 by changing the Microsoft-Novell agreement to conform to GPL3. Or Novell can try to work around GPL3 by forking all GPL3 projects from a GPL2 base. The cost of doing so could be prohibitive depending on how many projects move to GPL3. Another problem is that some customers may be reluctant to buy a forked distribution.

Everybody seems to agree that whether or not Linus Torvalds moves Linux to GPL3 is extremely important to how strong the Open Source reaction to Microsoft's patent attack will be. Linus Torvalds is on record as disliking GPL3. But he has not said anything about GPL3 and/or the Microsoft-Novell agreement since the agreement was announced. Whether the Microsoft patent attack on Linux changed Linus Torvalds' thinking about GPL3 is unknown.

----------------------
Steve Stites

Re:counting noses

[seandiggity]

Thank you, thank you for summarizing the situation in an accurate way. You'd think more people on /. would have an understanding of what's going on (starting with NOT confusing a kernel with an operating system).

...btw I'm not sure how Novell could circumvent GPLv3, but I sure as hell hope they don't find a way.

can license be revoked?

[fair use]

Some entity owns the copyright to the linux kernel and associated utilities, and in the absence of a license, anyone who distributed or even installed the software would be violating the copyright. The copyright owners can, of course, GPL to allow widespread use. After granting the license to the whole world, could the owners, however, revoke Novell's license? I don't see why not. Licenses do get revoked. I don't believe that the GPL is irrevocable, although revoking the license is arguably counter to the spirit of the license. See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html.

Talk about irresponsible reporting!

[jgoemat]

1. The FSF has absolutely no control over Novell's distribution of Linux. None at all. Zero.

The first part is unconditionally, unequivocally untrue. As the copyright holders in part of the Linux kernel, Novell has the right to distribute it ONLY because the FSF (and other copyright holders) have licensed them to do so via the GPL. Therefore the FSF does in fact have a great deal of control over Novell's distribution of Linux. Novell must distribute under the GPL, or they must secure a separate license from all the copyright holders of Linux contributors. If he is saying that the FSF cannot stop Novell from distributing Linux as long as they abide by the GPL, that is true.

It doesn't matter a whit how much Stallman hates the Microsoft/Novell deal. It's legal. It's legit. It's in full compliance with the GPL.

That is the case, for now. As soon as Microsoft alleges patent infringement in Linux GPL code and sues someone, that ceases to be the case. The GPL specifically states that patents must be licensed for free use by everyone or not licensed at all. By sublicensing Microsoft's patents for their customers, Novell is violating that clause and risks having their rights under the GPL terminated. It is specifically because Novell is licensing those patents for their customers' use that is a problem, if the patents were licensed for Novell's internal use that wouldn't be an issue since USE of software covered by the GPL is unrestricted. And don't be fooled by the deal not being drawn up as a 'license'. A license is indeed what it is. License is a legal term for rights being given to another, calling it a 'covenant not to sue' does not change what it is.

Re:Talk about irresponsible reporting!

[PCM2]

The GPL specifically states that patents must be licensed for free use by everyone or not licensed at all. By sublicensing Microsoft's patents for their customers, Novell is violating that clause and risks having their rights under the GPL terminated.

And yet, Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen seem to agree that you are mistaken.

Re:Talk about irresponsible reporting!

[SL Baur]

As the copyright holders in part of the Linux kernel , Novell has the right to distribute it ONLY because the FSF (and other copyright holders) have licensed them to do so via the GPL. I do not believe any significant part of the Linux Kernel has been FSF copyright assigned. Can you name one part?
Most of the Hurd Mach kernel is not FSF copyright assigned either.

Tempest in a teapot.

[argent]

Jesus Christ on a bicycle, folks, Microsoft themselves has been distributing an operating system and other packages containing all kinds of open source code, including GCC, for years. If people aren't up in arms about BSD code in NT and GPL code in Interix then why the hell should they be upset about a company that's just made an agreement with Microsoft?

Re:Tempest in a teapot.

[Salsaman]

There is no problem with anybody distributing GPL code, provided they abide by the law and the spirit of the GPL.

The Novell deal, while legal, goes against the spirit of the GPL, because they have negotiated a patent deal with a third party, but only for only their own customers.

The GPL 3 will fix this problem by ensuring that any patent deals must be applied to anyone who receives the code (customers or not).

Give me a break

[inaneframe]

You all are speaking as though GNU tools will be the only projects placed under the new GPLv3 licensing.

I think that it is safe to assume that the GNU Desktop, Gnome, will be placed under the new licensing. GPLv3 is also designed to be compatible with Apache, can we expect Apache to be ported to GPLv3? Possibly but not likely. We know that Apache, in the very near future will be using GPLv3 libraries since many of these projects currently under the GPLv2 that are already being used by Apache will want to be compatible with the Apache licensing. Novel can do what they want with MONO, keep it GPLv2, but in the end, in order for them to use a GPLv3 Gnome or a GPLv3 library within Apache they must kill their agreement with Microsoft, create a new one that does not infringe, fork off a myriad of various Free Software applications, or risk being taken to court. Once in court, they will not last very long.

Regarding a Debian only GPLv3, whoever said this is a moron. It would be more expensive than maintaining a GPLv2 only SuSe distro and there is no need to make a GPLv3 only distro since GPLv3 is compatible with GPLv2.

Before I get flamed, let me say that, yes, I hate Novel and Microsoft, I hate NetWare and Windows and I love Free Software but that does not devoid these facts

Re:Give me a break

[cranos]

Regarding a Debian only GPLv3, whoever said this is a moron. It would be more expensive than maintaining a GPLv2 only SuSe distro and there is no need to make a GPLv3 only distro since GPLv3 is compatible with GPLv2.

Umm its actually my understanding that GPLv3 in its current unfinished form, is not compatible with GPLv2. The added restrictions sort of put the kybosh on that.

The other thing to consider is a massive community fork. Say Novell wants to stick with GPLv2, why would they not just fork those projects that decide to go with the finalised GPLv3? They wouldn't be the only people who have an issue with the new license.

Re:Give me a break

[petrus4]

fork off a myriad of various Free Software applications

The FSF overestimates its' current importance, as do you. As far as creating a new toolchain goes, the only truly major obstacle is a C compiler...and not only do alternatives to gcc exist, but it would be far easier to write a toolchain incorporating said alternatives from scratch than it would be to port the existing toolchain to use the alternatives. As far as OSS alternatives go, there is TenDRA, ten15, and Open Watcom. ICC is a closed alternative.

A C library isn't as difficult as most people think. At minimum, you need the standard C headers and an assembler interface to whichever kernel you're using. Aside from the facilities for library caching and so on, most of the extra material Glibc has is basically non-standard fluff, which is proven by said fluff's absence in some of the other entirely workable libc implementations in existence.

Virtually all of the core text utilities have either BSD equivalents, or have since had their source opened and been adopted by such projects as this. I'll also assume for the sake of argument that you're unaware that such GNU extensions as the grep -o switch are actually deviations from the Single UNIX Specification. Microsoft aren't the only people to have ever played the embrace and extend game. I keep wondering how many times the FSF are going to have to do the wrong thing before people finally wake up and realise that they're just as big a problem as Microsoft have ever been.

It is more than past time for a FOSS UNIX system to be created which is entirely independent of the GNU toolchain, if for no other reason than so that we no longer have to endure this crap.

To the Debian people, the FSF, and everyone else who *does* advocate Stallman, I make this request:- Go and work on your own system, and let the rest of the planet either make a fork or a re-implementation. That way, you can have whatever you want, and the rest of us won't have to put up with you.

Richard Stallman's bogus misdefinition of the word freedom is not something that all of us want. You might, and if you do, that's fine...but please get rid of the attitude that you're unwilling to allow the rest of us the right to exist. We've got just as much right to be here as you do.

Re:Give me a break

[inaneframe]

Have fun with Microsoft owning a piece of your distribution then! I don't think that I am displaying an attitude. I think that these OSS people who call us, "you people" blame us for all of their problems. I believe that the Free Software/Open Source community need eachother to an extent. You have one group at one end and the other group at the other. I don't think that the FSF is extremist as much as I feel that Microsoft is extremist. The FSF's main concern is that this community does not get barraged by legal battles and, in the end, destroying any shred of credibility that this community has. You can wish all that you want for the FSF and "you people" to go away but there are licensees and copyright holders who do NOT want their IP to be freely available. Political intentions aside I think that the main role FSF are just trying to respect other people's properties and to stay away from them and to make sure that the OSS people respect that too. Apparently you are telling me that you would rather have Microsoft as a bedfellow than the FSF and if that is true I will call you a moron, and it would be true.

Re:Give me a break

[petrus4]

I believe that the Free Software/Open Source community need eachother to an extent. You have one group at one end and the other group at the other.

I used to think that myself, before the FSF started throwing its' weight around to the degree it does currently. If they stop trying to be so dominant, I might even go back to believing it.

Apparently you are telling me that you would rather have Microsoft as a bedfellow than the FSF

No, I'm not. I'm saying that I think they're both piloted by megalomaniacs, and that I don't want any association with either.

Re:Give me a break

[inaneframe]

Well you have to do deal with both for the moment so we need the so-called megalomaniac known as Stallman. If he just gave up we would be stuck with Microsoft and the other huge corporations that are identical alone.

Linux replaceable? Snicker!

[Jon Kay]

> Linux is a trivial and completely replaceable part of a Free *NIX system.

It is, huh? In fact, the FSF has been trying to develop their own kernel for about two decades. Still no luck. Because of their decision to go microkernel, The Hurd remains an expensive failure, run by maybe 10 people. So, no, Linux ISN'T replaceable.

You could go with BSD, but then you're talking - gasp! - that nasty free BSD license. Can't have that!

Bad reporting

[Anonymous Coward]

Send your complaints about bad reporting to: jim.finkle@reuters.com

No, seriously. All journalists should be held accountable for what they write. With freedom comes responsibility. If you can't act responsibly then you can have no reasonable expectation of rights.

Dern!

[DJ Wings]

Too bad... I was hoping the FSF would pwn Novell. Ah well... We can always daydream about a world without SLED... A post-apocalyptic world, probably.

what do you mean "if"?

[Anonymous Coward]

MS has already done that, for years. Maybe you missed the past deals they made where they threatened vendors if they included other OSes? How about hardware DRM and the new vista driver scheme? How about ballmers direct threats against Linux unless it is their pet linux Novell now?

please--go closed source, you don't understand open source at all. You don't need to beat yourself up over it either-just go full time with MS and be done with it.

Time to fork the GPL

[argent]

The Novell deal, while legal, goes against the spirit of the GPL, because they have negotiated a patent deal with a third party, but only for only their own customers.

Microsoft ships GPLed software alongside all KINDS of non-GPL-ed programs that are only available for their own customers, and Microsoft (obviously) also "protects" their customers from all those same patents.

Apple ships GPLed software alongside all KINDS of non-GPL-ed programs that are only available for their own customers, and Apple's APSL provides patent protection for Apple and Apple's customers that's not extended to third parties.

The GPL 3 will fix this problem by ensuring that any patent deals must be applied to anyone who receives the code (customers or not).

Will it also remove the "bundling" loophole that makes commercial software development alongside GPLed software possible in the first place? I hear they want to go after people who use GPLed software to provide services on the Internet, so I guess that'd be consistent with their aims. How about the loophole that lets Red Hat lock customers in to their pay updates? How about proprietary configuration tools for Linux? Are they going to try and kill binary drivers as well? What's so special about this supposed violation of the "spirit" of the GPL?

It's sounding more and more like it's time to fork the GPL.

Re:Time to fork the GPL

[Salsaman]

Microsoft ships GPLed software alongside all KINDS of non-GPL-ed programs that are only available for their own customers, and Microsoft (obviously) also "protects" their customers from all those same patents.

That's a different situation. If the entity that owns the patents is also the one distributing, then section 7 of the GPL already covers that, and the patent protection is passed on to whoever recievers the code, directly or indirectly.

The Novell case is different because Novell is distributing, and Microsoft owns (or possibly will own in the future) patents in that code. So while Novell are bound by the GPL in this particular case, Microsoft isn't.

Will it also remove the "bundling" loophole that makes commercial software development alongside GPLed software possible in the first place?

The GPL allows for "mere aggregation" of closed source and GPL software. What you can't do is link GPL'd software with closed source.

I hear they want to go after people who use GPLed software to provide services on the Internet, so I guess that'd be consistent with their aims.

Are you thinking of the "Affero Hack" ? That was a suggestion that if you provide a web service using GPL software, you should also provide the source code. AIUI, that will be an *optional* addition in the GPL 3.

How about the loophole that lets Red Hat lock customers in to their pay updates? How about proprietary configuration tools for Linux? Are they going to try and kill binary drivers as well?

All of that is fine, because those programs don't link with GPL code.

What's so special about this supposed violation of the "spirit" of the GPL?

Because many see it as a deliberate attempt to get around section 7 of the GPL, by having one group provide the patent "protection", and another group doing the actual distribution.

It's sounding more and more like it's time to fork the GPL.

The GPL *is* forking. There will be version 2 code, and version 3 code. But it sounds to me like you don't fully understand the GPL (any version). If you read the current version, and the proposed draft, then you will find that most of your questions have already been answered.

Re:Time to fork the GPL

[argent]

That's a different situation. If the entity that owns the patents is also the one distributing, then section 7 of the GPL already covers that, and the patent protection is passed on to whoever recievers the code, directly or indirectly.

I don't see that. All that means is that if Microsoft wants to go after GCC's use of some patented compiler technique, all they have to do is stop distributing GCC with Interix, and require people to use Visual Studio to build code for it. There's no GPLed software they're shipping they can't afford to turf if it's worth it. This isn't about anything but revenue for Microsoft, they're not stupid - they see the end of the Windows cash cow coming as well as anyone else - and they want to establish that their patent portfolio has value. They've got a trickle coming in from flash drive makers, now they're trying to strongarm a few more companies.

The GPL allows for "mere aggregation" of closed source and GPL software.

Yes, I know. That loophole is explicitly in the GPL because it wouldn't have been accepted without it. That doesn't mean that RMS approves of it, or sees it as anything but a tactical concession. I've heard him say as much, more than once.

That was a suggestion that if you provide a web service using GPL software, you should also provide the source code.

And there's also the argument that a web service with a published API makes programs that use that API a derived work. And that brings up the whole API copyright issue.

The GPL *is* forking.

The GPL *has* forked. There's the LGPL, and a variety of exceptions that various open source programs apply alongside the GPL that have similar effects. There's passive exceptions, too, where software creators simply decline to enforce aspects of the GPL they disagree with, and dual-licensed software. If the GPL3 explicitly closes more "loopholes", it's goingto fork more.

But it sounds to me like you don't fully understand the GPL

"I don't agree with the official narrative" doesn't mean "I don't understand it". :)

Re:Premise of article is counterintuitive

[NotZed]

Actually the owner of the software has COMPLETE CONTROL over the distribution rights. Thats what copyrights are ALL about. They don't really do anything else ...

It is only the rights given by the GPL that let Novell, or anyone else, distribute the code AT ALL in the first place - otherwise they would be 'stealing' the copyrighted work. When the GPL version changes on core components (e.g. the compiler, or say, GNU's C library) then the conditions on those distribution rights WILL change. Just what that change entails could have drastic effects on Novell because of its dealings.

It can't retroactively affect existing source-code out in the wild, but Novell simply doesn't have the expertise or resources to fork every GNU project - in the case that the V3 license will prevent them from distributing new versions covered by it.

No, you're missing the point

[Moraelin]

No, you're missing the point. Tirades about freedom are good and fine, but at some point "toe the party line and shut up" clauses are the exact opposite of freedom any way you want to slice it. Freedom is about people, not about code, not about computers. The moment you start restricting what whole businesses are supposed to do -- and not even with the code, but generally what deals they can make, what IP they can have, what software (even unrelated to your code) they're allowed to write -- you've lost the whole plot completely. You're proposing... what? That you can dictate what others can and can't do, in the name of _freedom_? Heh. Oh, the irony.

The comparison with banana republic dictatorships was there for a reason. Those people ended up losing their basic freedoms in the name of some supposed "workers' democracy" or "freedom" rhetoric too. You start by fighting some actual colonial oppressors, which has a moral and ethical justification all right. But then all of a sudden you're not allowed to even talk to anyone from outside anymore, (supposedly) just to be sure that noone betrays state secrets to the foreign colonialists and imperialists. Suddenly you need the Party's approval to even travel abroad, because you could be recruited by those hostile colonial/imperialist powers there. You need the Party's approval to even start or be a manager in a company, because it could cooperate with those hostile colonial/imperialist powers. Etc. In effect they just replaced one opressor with an even worse oppressor, and in the name of defeating one enemy just lost even more rights and freedoms.

But to return to the topic: if suddenly the GPL is about idealist crusades against the very notions of IP, closed source, etc, (as opposed to being just a license as to what can I do with the code, as is the case now) so my benefit from that crusade is... what, then? No, not generic "but your code/files/etc stay free!!!" ideology, but actual benefits. So I gain some great freedom for my code, at the expense that suddenly someone else is in charge of what business models I can use, what programs can I write, what can I patent, who can I make deals with, etc?

Sorry to break it to you, but Microsoft's gives me a better deal there, as freedoms go. Sure, I don't get their code, and supposedly some day they could even *gasp* change their XML formats so I need an XSLT to convert my Office files, etc. On the other hand, they never claimed any right to tell me what to do in any other aspect. So I lose some freedom of the code/data, but keep my basic rights as a human instead of being a slave to someone's crusader army. Sounds like a _great_ deal to me.

Also, here's an idea. You know, from a user of open source software, by your distinction. Instead of being on some black-and-white crusade about what _could_ happen in some alternate worst-case-scenario ultra-slippery-slope universe, maybe take the time to analyze what happens here and now. Some things are not actually the Antichrist and embodiment of ultimate evil. A lot of things are, at best, an inconvenience. Sure, it's nice to be able to avoid them, but I'm _not_ going to sell myself into indentured servitude to some rebel army just to avoid a milder inconvenience that _could_ happen sometime in the future.

E.g., maybe the OOo XML is a better XML format than Office's, for example, but in the end the worst that can happen is that I need to spend a couple of hours (heck, let's even say days, or even weeks) writing an XSLT to convert between them. Even with a binary format, heck, worst that can happen is that I need to buy a new Office version and write a small VB script that loads the old files and exports them to another format. It's not some great loss of liberties, it's an inconvenience. It would be nice to not have it, but it's not the end of the world. As I was saying, I'm _not_ going to give up other freedoms just to avoid _that_ kind of minor pain in the butt scenario. If the price to keep my files free of Microsoft's "tyrany" is to, basically,

Re:No, you're missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent genius? please? anyone?

God damn it...

Novell is just playing it safe

[Moraelin]

From what I can tell, Novell is just playing it safe.

The fact is: there's a lot of GPL-ed code out there that _is_, in fact, encumbered by IP problems as it is. If you want to be free of any patents or other IP issues, then for example I hope you're not using or distributing an MP3 player or DVD player.

And for a while that's just what Novell did. E.g., one of my annoyances with SuSE 10.0 (which is the one I'm using) is that they removed all MP3 codecs, all DVD decoding, etc. They actually crippled their version Xine to no longer play DVDs, and Kaffeine to display a message saying it won't play DVDs for legal reasons. They have an XMMS version that won't play MP3's. (How stupid is that?) Etc. I have a whole Multimedia group in the Applications menu that won't, in fact, play 90% of the media out there.

The problem is that such a system isn't very useful outside a small (compared to the OS market size) community of nerds. It's a great system for writing code on, but, well, you better be comfortable with downloading and compiling anything media related yourself if you want to actually have a usable home computer. You and I may be, but Joe Average isn't. And even I find it stupid. It's not just the extra inconvenience of having to download and compile that stuff myself, it also shifted a chunk of responsibility upon me for doing so. _If_ there's some actual IP problem there, I just lost that "your honour, I have no idea, it just came with the distro" excuse.

Now I don't know if there are actual legal problems there or Novell's managers are just paranoid. I'm not a lawyer. But I can't really blame them, because they are a big target. And have been under active underhanded attack from MS before, more than once. MS actively killed both DR DOS _and_ an attempt by Novell to offer their own alternative to using MS's servers for workstation logins. (Callous as it may sound, MS just informed Novell that if they ship something like that, MS _will_ break it. And they did. Repeatedly. MS just changed the undocumented APIs to keep making Novell's client no longer work.)

So as far as I can tell, they went and bought some patent protection at least from MS. Maybe they even signed off their soul, future and firstborn in the process. (Companies who make too tight deals with MS tend to end up dead in the long run, somehow.) But in the end it's just business as usual in corporate land. I find it hard to believe that they'd even bother with some anti-GPL conspiracy there. Most corporations don't fight crusades, anti-GPL or otherwise. Even MS wouldn't really give a damn if it wasn't a direct competition issue. Most other people don't really give a damn one way or another. They just cover their asses. Which includes that they also don't make grand last stand to make an anti-patent point. Not only they'd get buried in lawsuits, some from their own investors, they'd even lose other corporate clients who also don't want to be martyrs in an anti-patent crusade.

Re:Novell is just playing it safe

[arevos]

then for example I hope you're not using or distributing an MP3 player or DVD player. I feel I should point out that since this deal is between Novell and Microsoft, neither of who have patents on MP3 or DVD players, those aren't really good examples. Also, IIRC, the primary problem with DVD players under Linux is not patents, but the DMCA.

And for a while that's just what Novell did. E.g., one of my annoyances with SuSE 10.0 (which is the one I'm using) is that they removed all MP3 codecs, all DVD decoding, etc. They actually crippled their version Xine to no longer play DVDs, and Kaffeine to display a message saying it won't play DVDs for legal reasons. They have an XMMS version that won't play MP3's. (How stupid is that?) Etc. They are playing to the lowest common denominator. Perhaps they should have released a restricted version, for countries with software patents and DRM laws like the US, and an unrestricted version for the rest of the world. However, it's more likely that what they'd do is simply license the technology from the relevant parties and include all the relevant codecs in the version they sell. This would also have the benefit of encouraging people to actually buy their distribution, rather than download the entirely GPLed OpenSuSE version of it.

Funnily enough, that's just what they did. However, that has no connection whatsoever with the licensing deal Novell and Microsoft made, so I'm uncertain why you bring it up. The Novell-Microsoft deal was not about licensing a particular codec or technology, but general protection from vaguely worded patents that Microsoft has managed to slip past the US Patent Office.

But in the end it's just business as usual in corporate land. I find it hard to believe that they'd even bother with some anti-GPL conspiracy there. Most corporations don't fight crusades, anti-GPL or otherwise. Oh, obviously, and I didn't intend to imply anything of the sort. But regardless of Novell's intentions, they knew they were skirting close to the edge of the GPL in making the deal. They obviously decided that cutting a deal with Microsoft was worth the risk of testing the boundaries of the GPL. The FSF isn't out to wage a legal war on companies that consort with Microsoft, but it seems to me that, in the course of creatingthe GPL3, they would be interested in clarifying where the GPL stands on vague patent deals that might potentially infringe on the freedom of developers. If Novell finds that its crossed the boundaries of the GPL3, then that's entirely Novell's fault; it has enough lawyers to have known the risks involved.

fork and keep distributing?

[alizard]

EVERYTHING currently in SUSE?

Not impossible, but they're going to have to field a programming team comparable in size to the Open Source community to do it and pay for all of it.

Re:fork and keep distributing?

[LurkerXXX]

Guess what. They don't need EVERYTHING currently ins SUSE. Guess what else? Not EVERYTHING in SUSE is going to move the GPL3. Some will, some won't, including the kernel. They don't need a programming team anywhere comparable in size to the OS community. Plenty of folks will stay with GPL2. Oh, and you do realize some of us also write BSD code they can include, don't you?

English Style

[Anonymous Coward]

..of which to speak" LOL, why not speak English? "... no odor to speak of." And screw your English teacher and the broom on which in she rode.

You're right, he has no significant BO. Petulant and obstreperous, though.

They will if RMS gets his way

[swordgeek]

Here's a quote from Richard Stallman: "It turns out that perhaps it's a good thing that Microsoft did this now, because we discovered that the text we had written for GPL version 3 would not have blocked this, but it's not too late and we're going to make sure that when GPL version 3 really comes out it will block such deals."

Charming, I'm sure. Software wants to be free, and we'll bludgeon anyone who thinks otherwise.

Conflict of license

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at SCO for an example..!

But take this simpler one.

Release your code BSD and propriatory (where you say "you cannot show others the code and must buy a new license from me for each extra copy" or similar.

Then you have a conflict: when someone uses their code, you can accuse them of breaching their license, but they could respond with "But I used the BSD code which is identical".

I.e. you can't keep it "closed" and "open everywhere" at the same time: confusion is the result.

Kernel

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct, the Linux kernel will not be under GPLv3.

Novell customers might want to get ready for the Linux kernel, Vista userland, though. The kernel alone is not going to do them any good, and if they want to (or are forced to) avoid GPLv3 software, they'll soon be looking to replace a huge chunk of userland (Glibc, GCC, Gnome are probably the three biggest).

That could change

[jgoemat]

As of now, the agreement does not violate the GPL. That is because the specific patents and what are covered are not listed. Microsoft has not asserted patent claims against the Linux kernel yet. Since the license is so vague, it is either 1) FUD or 2) a license for patents in Mono or some other project that Novell is distributing.

If Microsoft sues someone over patents they claim in the Linux Kernel, and then Novell points to its patent protection as coverage, then it would be a violation.