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.

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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

Try removing glibc some time

[myowntrueself]

try this on a debian/ubuntu system:

apt-get remove libc6

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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.