Slashdot Mirror
What the GPLv3 Means for MS-Novell Agreement
eldavojohn writes to mention IT Business Edge has a dry but interesting interview with a lawyer (Antoinette Tease) on the effects the GPLv3 on the Microsoft & Novell alliance. From her answers: "Unlike prior versions of the GNU General Public License (GPL), which did not address patent rights, the current draft of the GPL version 3 has several provisions that address patent rights. Section 2 states that the license to use the open source code 'terminates if you bring suit against anyone for patent infringement of any of your essential patent claims' based on any version of the open source program." She goes on to say "the GPLv3 as currently drafted would impose an obligation on Novell to somehow 'shield' its customers from patent lawsuits brought by Microsoft, or, alternatively, to make the source code publicly available..."
Use your dick, it's probably small enough.
What is microsoft doing? Are they trying to get into the Linux market or are they just playing patent games?
Can't they do both?
FUD and misdirection I should think.
The more we can bandy about the claim that only people who get indemnity from MS/Novell can be free of all of the (alleged) patent infringement which is (allegedly) peppered throughout the Linux codebase, the more people might actually believe it.
They want to be able to spread the perception that Linux is tainted by their IP, and that running it if it isn't the 'blessed' system is done at your own peril. If they 'embrace' Novell, then they can extinguish all of the other ones by freezing them out. Then, they extinguish Novell over time.
Of course, that's just what I think. I've been known to be wrong before.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Er, GPLv2 does address patent rights. It's just that GPLv3 overhauls how they're handled.
The correct language in GPL v3 would be something like, "This agreement is void in its entirety if the covered software is found to implement a current, valid patent whose owner has not offered the patent for use for free in any manner comperable to how it is used in the covered software." They keep trying to skirt the issue, which is that you can't have free, open-source software if it implements non-free patents or if the patent license materially impacts what you would otherwise be able to do with the software or change the software in to.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Remember, when the (false) news came out, that OSF/GNU/whatever is going to sue Novell over their deal with Microsoft?
First, when the news was still hot, a number of (Insightful) comments were posted, explaining the issue along the lines of Ms. Tease's argument.
Then, the next day, it was announced, that there are no such plans (for litigation) and the author of the original article was criticized for pulling something out of you-know-where.
Some of the comments (including mine) then reminded, that the "GPL is da bomb", much to the annoyance of GPL fan-boys, who claimed, there is absolutely no danger for a business in mixing it with their own wares.
Here we go the third time around, and GPL really is "da bomb" (no litigation today does not mean, no litigation tomorrow)... Its fans may argue, that it is a weapon in good hands, guarding freedom against proprietary evils — may be. But there is no denying, that it is a weapon (bomb), and that businesses may want to give the idea another thought — or opt for BSD-licensed software instead.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
For background, some links:
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
As far as I know, the Linux kernel will remain with GPLv2. Right now, nothing is covered by GPLv3, so it means nothing. It should get interesting if some open source component used in Suse goes with GPLv3, though.
That thinks Antoinette Tease sounds like a porn star name...
Shinma
If their goal was to avoid accidentally using a software patent, that would be correct.
But if their goal is to instead set up a state of (some degree of) mutually assured lawsuits, then what they are doing is the correct choice. If Microsoft (or any other software vendor, for that matter) takes a single piece of GPL v3 code that wasn't previously released as GPL v2 code, any software patent lawsuit will trigger a response of copyright infrigement lawsuits.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
I think it more likely that MS is trying to kill the *nix world through their deal with Novell - how much longer before software that was Open Source/GPLd becomes MS' property and whole sections of *nix need to be re-written? MS can either put pressure on Novell to copyright or patent the code, or put pressure on Novell to allow MS to patent or copyright the code.
Keep in mind, MS doesnt need to have the code copyrighted - they can patent the "idea" that the code implements, allowing no one else to write replacement code that MS wont consider a violation of their patent.
It cant be as simple as MS trying to get into the Linux market - with what products? They dont have a *nix OS or a *nix app to make money off of in that arena. Anyone remember Connectix? Remember MS' promise to keep support for running on other OS's? Then the OS/2 and Mac clients were dropped... Buy (or buy your way into) anything that they see as a threat and corrupt it from the inside out...
Just my thoughts...
-Robert
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
The reason the GPL is so successful is that it is very simple. That makes it very hard to pick holes in. The more bits they tack onto it, the more likely it can be overturned in court. It's darn hard to write something simple, elegant, comprehensive and bullet proof.
> FUD and misdirection I should think.
Surely, but I think there's more to it.
One goal is to divide the free software community. With the Novell deal, Novell no longer has an interest in helping the community to fight MS's patents. Worse, Novell now benefits from Microsoft's patents getting more and more dangerous. To fight the patent problem, we can't afford to lose any friends. ...not the Novell was much of a friend in the anti-swpat campaign, but if MS is allowed to buy on free software distributor, they can buy others.
And another motivation a little more base: extortion. Microsoft has been in stagnation for a long time and it now scrambling to slow everyone down to prevent their demise. It would be a clever long term strategy to find a way to profit from the free software operating system that will probably replace theirs.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
The GPLv3 doesn't exist yet. It's still being drafted. Any complaints about the GPLv3 are thus actually complaints about a possible, future GPLv3, and can still be addressed.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
As much as I like the idea of protective clauses in the GPL3 license, I have a feeling that the people inclined to make trouble for free software with patent cases are unlikely to be in a position where the GPL would stop them. They will be competing with GPL software, not using it - being forbidden to use it won't stop them at all.
The conflict is fundamental - patents stop people from doing things with software, and open source programmers want to do those things. The law is a tool towards those ends, which both sides will employ. The stark fact seems to be that the law supports patents, and so does the political establishment and commercial support which funds said establishment.
There are two things stopping a WW3 style patent nuke war, as far as I can tell - one is the MAD assurances provided by the larger open source companies and/or supporters, and the other is the cost/benefit analysis of launching an attack on an open source author/project is not so good. Attacking the project means lots of legal fees if the case is fought, very bad press among the tech community, and the distinct chance the software you are attacking will be reborn, rewritten, or even replaced by something better as thousands of irate geeks seek a technical solution to the legal action. If by some chance the patent being used has covered all possible useful methods of doing something, the community simply waits until it expires and THEN proceeds. Yes 20 years is a long time, but it is not forever. The GIF patents eventually expired, and I would be very surprised if the cost/benefit analysis of those patents was a net plus. Apple has not gone after the freetype project, for example (although they did contact them).
However, these mechanisms cannot be entirely relied upon. JMRI is certainly an example: http://jmri.sourceforge.net/k/index.html So long as patents can be filed on software, there is the potential for a slaugher among free projects. I can't think of any license change JMRI might have made that would avoid their current situation. Patents will always pose a serious threat to free sofware, as the representative of commerical control interests. Indeed, I would expect that if patents are abolished some other method would be found, but at least it would be more difficult.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Using GPLv2 is not an option for Novell because they don't own the software they package and redistribute.
When developers switch future versions of their software to GPLv3, Novell will not be able to incorporate the changes in those new versions.
So if Novell wants to avoid GPLv3, they will have to forever stay with Glibc 2.5, GCC 4.1, coreutils 6.7, and old versions of GIMP, emacs, bash, gdb, etc. etc.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
I think its less likely that this specific initiative is designed to kill the *nix world. I think that they're trying to pay lip-service to interoperability in a way that doesn't give people an easy path to migrate completely to FOSS/OSS. After all, they're being sued a lot in the European union over interop issues. This way they can say "Hey, we interop, look at our deal with Novell! Its not our fault that those other guys don't want to work with us." The FUD aspect is likely just some extra icing on the cake.
The point you make in the first paragraph is correct. Stallman points this out:
Quoted from here (scroll to the audience member's 2nd intervention): Stallman speaking in Bangalore
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Did the person interviewed for this article actually read the draft?
"This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program." (emphasis added) "This License permits you to make and run privately modified versions of the Program, or have others make and run them on your behalf." It is only this permission to make and run privately modified versions that terminates if the licensor sues for infringement. This is a far cry from what the article suggests, which is that the license "to use the open source code" terminates when the licensor brings a patent claim.
I hope the article is a distortion of what this attorney said. If it isn't, then anybody who has hired this lawyer for anything software-related should get another lawyer, pronto.
Penny - plain text accounting
All of the GNU project will move to GPLv3. That's glibc, gcc, gdb, binutils, coreutils, bash, grub, grep, cpio, readline, make, gettext, GIMP, aspell, parted, parts of GNOME, etc. etc. etc.
Also, SAMBA said they'll be moving to it, and MySQL said they expect to move to it. Sun might, or might not, use it too.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Ok so someone creates a version of linux, I get that version of linux under the GPL (v1 v2 or v3). The next day the author decides that they want to use the next version of linux. They can redistribute it under the GPL v2 but unless there's a provision that says the creator can change the terms of the license at a moment's notice. Last I heard (or didn't hear) no such provision is made, and no one would accept it if it was. If I got the GPL v2 version of the software then I'm required to only use it as specified in GPL v2. If GPL v2 said I can share that code as long as I share it's source and the license then anyone can take it from me. So from that perspective the version of software Novell and Microsoft are discussing is theirs they have no fear from GPLv3.
On the other hand if they are going to incorporate new parts there's a problem, however just from the last 6 months, I've heard numerous people who will flat out not support GPLv3, which tells me that GPLv3 is going to have issues if not be down right thrown out. Unless everyone supports it (namely the people coding the kernel of linux is going to be a big factor) then it's going to screw everything up.
This is part of the problem with the FSF, they want their license to succeed but to do so they kinda steamroll over problems like this and the semi viral nature of GPL (if you use our code your code must be GPL). GPL has issues and the solution isn't a new version that creates new problems, if anything a lot of these problems make me want to avoid GPL more than try to embrace it.
Mutually Assured Destruction through mutually assured lawsuits?
Development notes at http://devscribbles.blogspot.com
Why is Microsoft trying to make it impossible for Novell to use GPLv3 components?
BSD will benefit. Will we see the GNU tools replaced by BSD based tools?
Is that even possible? (I'm asking a serious question, as opposed to the troll like nature of the rest of this post)
I see GPLv3 as being far too political a license.
Stallman has had his Shockley moment. After being surrounded by people telling them 'your poop don't stink' and how smart they are for a period of time lots of smart people 'Go Hollywood' and start to believe it. They then start talking out of their butts about shit they are unqualified to speak of (e.g. Shockley about eugenics, Pauling about vitamin-C, Stallman about economics and politics, Chomsky about economics and politics, the Pope about sex etc etc)
I'm coping to this being troll like. Only 'cause I understand the audience. It's an honestly held opinion. I'm consistently amazed I have any karma at all.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The whole GNU project will use it. That means Glibc, gcc, parted, GIMP, parts of GNOME, gdb, binutils, coreutils, bash, gettext, aspell, grep, gzip, findutils, cpio, make, grub, etc.
The SAMBA project have also said they'd be using it, and MySQL sound like they will be too. Sun might or mightn't. Some others will too, surely.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
I'm a Novell customer, and Novell makes a decent amount of money off us. If Novell gave Microsoft a reason to sue us, we'd drop Novell and become an all-Microsoft shop.
I don't understand why people think Novell wants to jeopardizes it's business.
There was speculation that the deal was designed to scare Red Hat customers over to Novell. But I don't see that as reasonable either. If Microsoft sues Red Hat customers, Red Hat, the FSF, and indeed Novell will sue Microsoft to show us the code.
I just don't get it. We had one Linux server going into 2006, and because of our Novell license agreement, at the end of 2006 we had twenty-two. (We're up to 25 now). Seven or so of those were migrations away from NetWare - which is the sensible path Novell is suggesting to it's customers. Why does Novell want to jeopardize that?
What does make sense to me is that Novell kept trying to sell Linux into big companies, and the Microsoft FUD was working. The only real way for Novell to counter that was the Novell-MS deal.
My CIO thinks better of Linux, now that Microsoft has acknowledged it. If Microsoft was trying to sow FUD in our shop, that certainly back-fired.
Although, if the FSF is successful in cutting Novell's Achilles Heel, then I suppose the Microsoft gamble will have been worth it (to Microsoft at least).
"The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
I never understood people complaining about GPL3 being a political license. Of course it is. GPL has always been political. The very reason for it existing is political. It was made to encourage the spread of Stallman's views concerning software, and to enforce the FSF's definition of Free software. And there's nothing wrong with that. You aren't being forced to use it.
No, Novell can't replace the GNU bits with BSD bits - even the BSDs don't do that!
Every BSD is GCC built and ships GCC to their developers.
Also, there's no BSD replacement for GIMP, and replacing Glibc and replacing it with a BSD libc would be very hard. An operating system's libc has to marshal between the kernel and the userspace - Glibc has been doing this for 15 years for Linux and the GNU userspace. A new libc would be a world of problems.
Anyway, other packages such as SAMBA would still be out of bounds (they've said they're moving to GPLv3 too).
Oh, and as for Stallman being surrounded by sycophants - his main job is travelling and giving speeches and answering emails - he hears criticism and questioning every day.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Novell benefits from Microsoft's patents becoming more dangerous because Novell is the only GNU+Linux distro that is protected from those patents, so if people are afraid of Microsoft's patents, they might run to Novell to benefit from the protection.
So when Microsoft's patents are more dangerous, Novells advantage is more prominent.
So we've lost one ally (or should-be ally) in the long-term fight against software patents. What if we also lost Red Hat and Sun and the other companies that love our software because it lines their pockets? What would our chances look like then in the campaign against software patents? The campaign against DRM? The campaign against proprietary formats? etc. etc.
What Novell did was not bad for Novell's business (if we ignore what it did to their status in the community, and that GPLv3 is going to create big problems for Novell now). For a dog-eat-dog mindset, it was a smart move. But the relationship between the free software community and the companies that profit from free software is not meant to be dog-eat-dog - it's supposed to be solidarity. That's how we win, together.
So GPLv3 will say: "No giving in - no selling out". If some code violates a patent, we try to get the patent thrown out, or we ditch that piece of code. GPLv2 said that too, but Novell found a loophole. That will be closed.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
I realyu don't get it why people behind GPL3 are so much forcing to close and forbid things. And as far as I can see GPL3 is not so much for something as it is against something else.
I am not into Open Source because I am against something, it is becaue I am for openness. GPL3 takes that openess partly away. It sounds like Bush fighting for his country and taking many rights away in doing so.
I used to think it was nice, but I am much more drawn to the BSD licence, because it is much opener then GPL3.
(Either this will be +5 Insightfull, or -1 Trolling)
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I read the original article and it seems the meat of it's argument is that if A can be held responsible, then B should be too. Supporting the argument with a question of difference between A and B.
The difference is this. Profit.
Open Source doesn't stand to profit off of it's efforts. Never mind Red Hat, SuSE et al. My contributions are done with 100% generosity with no intention, expectation or hope of return of any kind other than the concept of personal acheivement or contibution to a greater good. The later is tricky, because Adam Smith in his published works imply that within Capitalism, that a person, regardless if he feels so, usually contributes to a greater good (society) far more than he realizes underneath a capitalistic society, with every ounze of incentive being from currency (or a pay check).
I argue that while a pay check might motivate some to get out of bed and "work", it's certainly not the only thing that might equally motivate someone. Because, "work" is only "work" if you are getting paid for it, otherwise, it's a "hobby"; and contrary to popular belief including the line from Office Space, yes there are people who do enjoy being janitors. Admittedly, likely not enough however, one does what one can and all that is needed is a desire to contribute and with enough those of lesser ability would feel proud to contribute anyway they can. "Tech Support", "Testing" are all Janitorial services within IT... and obviously, there are plenty that enjoy it.
It's odd, while we're talking about incentive and what motivates a man. A paycheck really is one of the weakest forces of all the Classical motives for extreme human effort; compare the motivation of vengance, retribution, survival, integrity, patriotism/nationalism (a broader sense of family bonding and sense of self, belonging and representation). Even Machievelli pointed out that the first to run from the battlefield will be the "mercenaries", and so true that infact is.
The major difference between Proprietary Software and Open Source Software, is the goal and intentions of each. Intention is a viable concept for precedence; no matter what the case might be. For example, Apple Corporation and the Beatles for example on how "intention" can turn the tides of otherwise blatant infringments (The Beatles did have a valid claim... if only considering the surface.)
The main goal of Proprietary Software, Personal Gain, usually in the form of capital, market dominance, or any perceived benefit that clearly identifies a positive benefit within a Capitalist ideology.
The main goal of Open Source Software, more or less, Communal Gain.
All other things, in my belief, are by products to propel an effort towards the main goal. Communal Gain can not be achieved if you leave anyone out, so, to ensure that everyone may benefit, there is less demand of return or, any quid pro quos, conditions, restrictions are such that, the end result is within reasonable reach of Everyone. To amplify an extreme for clearly showing "reasonable reach", it's simply best to make the product "free"; for which, there exists no retort as for it's availability. For Capitalism, you'll have everything geared towards protecting the flow of capital, make as many streams of capitals available as possible. As a result, patents, copyrights, controlled distribution channels, controlled substances (like certain chemicals etc. required for making anything really useful) making physical ability to reproduce much more difficult... all of this is in place to ensure that only certain people will ever be in a position to "provide" or "offer" a product to the consumer.
Because Patents and all are more geared towards protecting a Companies benefit, I have argued in past posts, that enforcement of legislation and consequences should only apply to Companies in violation of their own measures. The "guy in a garage" doesn't have the breadth and depth to really threaten Sony Entertainment's production line... so, he should be exempt