Slashdot Mirror
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.
Anyone who read the comments section of that story would know this.
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.
try this on a debian/ubuntu system:
apt-get remove libc6
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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.
Insanity is a gradual process; don't rush it.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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?