Perens Rains on Novell's Parade

unum15 writes "This week is Novell's Brainshare conference. They are touting the Microsoft covenant not to sue as 'good for consumers'. However, Bruce Perens decided to take this opportunity to 'rain on Novell's parade'. Perens read a statement from RMS affirming the GPLv3 would not allow companies to enter deals like this and continue to offer GPLv3 software. Perens even goes as far as to suggest this move is an exit strategy by Novell. There are also audio and pictures of the event available."

Comments

On Novell being obtuse

[AKAImBatman]

I have a feeling that he'll be commenting here soon, so "Hi Bruce!" :-)

What Novell did is not illegal but it is a matter of bad faith, Perens contended. The result could doom Novell to becoming a Microsoft subsidiary, he said, because Novell does not write its own software but gets it instead from those small independents.

Hovsepian scoffed at that scenario. "Them [Microsoft] buying us? I think that's deep in the conspiracy theory bucket."

Is it just me, or did Hovsepian intentionally misunderstand that statement? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I read your statement to mean that Novell would effectively become a subsidiary to Microsoft without actually being bought out. Much in the same way that Microsoft "Partners" tend to exist only so long as it amuses Microsoft. When Microsoft grows tired of them, they do something that completely undermines the trust and business model of those partners. (See: PlaysForSure, OS/2, Sybase, Spyglass, Citrix, etc.)

It amazes me that companies still fall for that trick, but there you go. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Bye Novell, it was nice knowing you. :-/

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[CRiMSON]

What amazes me is the fact that this will be the second time Microsoft will have done it to Novell. You'd have thought they would of learned something.

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[theshowmecanuck]

It's typical modern American capitalism. Short term gains don't necessarily mean long term pains... at least not for the CEO involved. Take the million+ dollar bonus, cash out stock options, run/quit/get fired, and who cares if the company dies later.

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[iPaul]

Simple, if you don't want to answer the other person's point, simply concoct a straw-man argument to respond to. I'm sure he understood the comment quite clearly and probably accepted the situation in the back of his mind. I expect this is the role he's sized up for his company, to be Microsoft's "loyal opposition." I wonder, to what extent, Microsoft leaned on Novell by suggesting a list of possible infringing software and let Novell do the math?

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[robyannetta]

Every day that goes by, I keep thinking that this Microsoft/Novell deal is nothing more than a prelude to Microsoft outright buying Novell who will then offer some cheap-ass Linux desktop solution.

With Novell owning the original Unix IP, Microsoft may then eventually have the upper hand. That's a SCARY thing...

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd have thought they would of learned something.
Would've or would have, but never would of. Jesus.

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[sumdumass]

What amazes me is the fact that nothing in the current draft of the GPLv3 forbids novell-microsoft deal. This means they are intending to insert something that doesn't exist or are actualy trying to keep people on microsoft's products. I'm willing to bet that if pushed, this will be shown in court and the GPLv3 will end up destroying/fracturing yet another portion of the FOSS comunity.

I guess to some, it doesn't matter as long as they get their 15 minutes of fame!

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[Citizen of Earth]

What amazes me is the fact that this will be the second time Microsoft will have done it to Novell. You'd have thought they would of learned something.

Maybe Novell is looking for a $10-billion pay-day ten years down the line when they eventually sue Microsoft for breach of contract or anti-trust violations.

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[HomelessInLaJolla]

Is it just me, or did Hovsepian intentionally misunderstand that statement? Not that you would know anything about intentional misunderstandings.

It amazes me that companies still fall for that trick It's deplorable that people still pull it. The explanation is all about creating debt.

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[sumdumass]

Here

It would only prohibit them from conveying something they owned a right to this way. When you download a distro, you have to pass the rights they gave you along with the right you have to the code/software with it. The novell-microsoft deal doesn't count unless the covers pattented work is submited by Novell. The microsoft-novell deal doesn't give novell the rights that microsoft owns. Otherwise, you are giving all the rights you hold over it.

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[kripkenstein]

Every day that goes by, I keep thinking that this Microsoft/Novell deal is nothing more than a prelude to Microsoft outright buying Novell who will then offer some cheap-ass Linux desktop solution.

With Novell owning the original Unix IP, Microsoft may then eventually have the upper hand. That's a SCARY thing...

1. If Novell's Unix IP had much leverage against Linux, then Microsoft buying Novell would be almost certainly very problematic, antitrust-wise.

2. But, the Unix IP in fact doesn't bear much upon Linux, as the SCO case has shown. Even Unix code donated under the GPL to Linux (if any such actually exists) would not be a problem.

3. However, that said, I have a suspicion you may be right. Novell is actually the perfect "Linux branch" of Microsoft. They produce Mono which complements .Net perfectly. They develop code for OpenOffice.org that improves MS Office compatibility. They used to - before many of them left following the Microsoft-Novell deal - develop Samba, which allows interoperability with MS Exchange. In that sense, if Microsoft was going to enter the Linux market, buying Novell would be the perfect move.

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[mabhatter654]

There's almost nothing Microsoft has that Novell didn't have first other than media stuff. Microsoft's stuff of importance like file sharing, word processors, file servers.. is all pale imitation of stuff Novell was doing 10 years sooner. If Novell truly wanted to hurt Microsoft, they'd use their knowladge of Windows internals to build a free adapter for Microsoft computers to some new OSS variant of Novell's Groupwise products. That would wipe Microsoft out if we could stop having to share to the "lowest common denominator". i.e. windows that nobody can make work with anything but SMB. (except Novell!)

In that respect I'd almost agree that Novell is giving up (again) and not wanting to stick out the fight. Like they did with Groupwise.. they beat out Window enterprise server and email hands down for literally an entire DECADE!!! but because they didn't want to rock the boat like Netscape did they choose to wither into obscurity... They won't put up a fight to be better than Microsoft, so while they were for a very long time everybody forgot about them while Microsoft was advertising the heck out of IT media. I'd think somebody in the company got the bright idea to "try out" that "linux thing" so they ran out and bought a company. I think Microsoft swooped in and told the if they wanted Groupwise (Directory, file server, email) to run on vista/Office 2007 AT ALL they'd "get in line" or Microsoft would break compatibility like a twig and not let Novell "in on it". Note they've already openly done this to Symantec and Mcaffee... M$ seems to be flush with cash and burning bridges this round of upgrades. No company will sacrifice the only remaining profit center to pick a fight with competition.

Unfortunately, NOW is the time to FIGHT. Novell should have turned to Apple or something to gain some ground... but that's the problem. They're too big to be bought, and too small to be an equal merger with the likes of Apple, Red Hat, or Dell, etc. I think they're taking Apple's place as Microsoft's "sanctioned competitor" as Apple starts getting teeth to bite Microsoft with.

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[rickb928]

Well, other than being obtuse, Novell has survived Microsoft, sort of, before.

I'm not so pessimistic about them surviving this as well.

And I still think Novell is the Rodney Dangerfield of the IT landscape. Remember when they were chastised for not getting the Internet? I'm reading that article, taking a break from learning CSS and Java on my Apache/PHP/mySQL server - NetWare 5.1. And letting BorderManager proxy my Internet, enhancing my experience by filtering out banners and other ads, and being my thoroughly competent firewall to my cable connection. When I moved past the cable, I reconfigured it to dial-on-demand into my lame dialup provider. And it needed to be rebooted every year or so unless I made major changes.

Down from the soap box for a moment, Novell might extract some value out of this relationship with Microsoft, and come out of it just fine. Thing is, Microsoft rarely does well picking on companies anywhere near their own size. And Novell is smaller, but not so small it can't get off the porch and run with the big dog.

There's that SCO/Unixware thing too. Novell could yet get more cash from Microsoft. That's a victory of sorts.

Ok, I'm a Novell cheerleader. I don't work for them, and right now don't even run any Novell software. But I made lot of money off of their stuff for a long time, and I'd do it again.

-rick

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[Zeinfeld]

What amazes me is the fact that nothing in the current draft of the GPLv3 forbids novell-microsoft deal. This means they are intending to insert something that doesn't exist or are actualy trying to keep people on microsoft's products. I'm willing to bet that if pushed, this will be shown in court and the GPLv3 will end up destroying/fracturing yet another portion of the FOSS comunity.

RMS can play his silly games but at this point the constituency for GPL3 is simply not large enough to be worth worrying about. He is trying to exert leverage that he simply does not have.

The Microsoft promise was a pretty significant piece of legal work. The fact is that the legal issues concerning intellectual property are both complex and unpredictable. Nobody can predict with certainty how a court will react to any extended license scheme. The traditional reciprocal license terms offered in the IETF turned out to be quite likely unenforceable.

If RMS thinks he can get the standards community to click its heels and jump to attention here he is very much mistaken. He is not the decider here, the W3C, OASIS and IETF are the deciders here and quite frankly I don't think that the 'open source' community in those institutions automatically falls into lockstep behind RMS any more.

Open source is important in those institutions, I would certainly never make a proposal if I didn't have at least a scheme to create some open source reference code somehow or expect some to be written by others. But the people who carry weight in the open source movement are people who write code, not the ones who vent on slashdot and like forums.

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[Chandon Seldon]

You don't think that "would" can be validly followed by "of" in an English sentence? It would, of course, be valid in this sentence.

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[Thomas the Doubter]

(PlaysForSure, OS/2, Sybase, Spyglass, Citrix, etc.)

It would be interesting to compile a list of the companies that M$ has done-in though "questionable" buisness practices (i.e. outside of normal competition). To the above I would add Bristol Technologies and Borland. Many others maybe more indirectly, such as DEC.

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[Bruce Perens]

Hi. What I meant was that Novell's Linux business is going to be hurt by what they've done, long term, because technical people won't be recommending them. And their Linux business has not reached the point of viability anyway, so I don't see how they plan to go forward rather than take as much money as possible before getting out of the business. Look at the customers they've listed of late (only four) and then ask them why they bought. The HSBC guy called the MS agreement FUD in the press, one of the others told me privately they'd rather be rid of Microsoft.

Will MS buy them? MS tends to work through proxies these days. Is 330 Million a good starting investment? Sure.

Bruce

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[Bruce Perens]

The new GPL3 provision says that if you arrange to protect any party from patents regarding the software, that protection has to apply to everyone. We might have the final language to see on Saturday, for the FSF annual meeting, I've not been told but that's what I'd guess.

Forget about GPL3 introducing major forks. There will be a few small spats. The license is in the interest of the Open Source developers who would use it, and that's all of the developers who want a share-and-share-alike form of licensing rather than an outright gift as in BSD. The folks who mainly would be opposed to it are those who want to benefit without sharing, and to say the community doesn't need them would be an understatement.

If you believed that GPL3 would prohibit Linux from being used in a system with DRM, you can stop now. There are four places where you can put DRM in a system with a GPL3 kernel and have it work well and not have to give away your keys: in hardware as in a chip that mediates access to the display or audio output, in a coprocessor as with the separate chip that runs the GSM stack in cell phones, in a kernel under the kernel as with Microsoft's "nib", and in a user mode program. Those are also the best places to put the DRM from a technical standpoint. I am currently working on a paper on this, maybe I'll have it out tomorrow evening.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[sumdumass]

The new GPL3 provision says that if you arrange to protect any party from patents regarding the software, that protection has to apply to everyone. We might have the final language to see on Saturday, for the FSF annual meeting, I've not been told but that's what I'd guess.

I will be interested in seeing this. I am more against the current assertion that there is language in the GPLv3 second draft forbidding this. Most of my objections could easily be removed if the language fits right. However this wouldn't address the fact I don't agree with using the GPL in ways like this.

Forget about GPL3 introducing major forks. There will be a few small spats. The license is in the interest of the Open Source developers who would use it, and that's all of the developers who want a share-and-share-alike form of licensing rather than an outright gift as in BSD. The folks who mainly would be opposed to it are those who want to benefit without sharing, and to say the community doesn't need them would be an understatement.

Your forgetting that without users the developers are just jerking themselves off. You can write all the free code you want but if no one takes it and uses it, then what good have you done? I agree that the developer's and copyright holders need their wishes and interest to be satisfied but they have to weight these interests with their intended goals and the expectations of users.

I personally will be sticking with GPLv2 as long as possible. And I welcome any forks that help me do so. One thing about free software that IS free is that I or Novell, even Microsoft can take a GPLed program and change it to work the way they need to when they find the developers and copyright holders aren't working in our interest. Now, Don't take my mentioning Microsoft as a sign of support for them. I just wanted to show how extreme this context can be taken.

If you believed that GPL3 would prohibit Linux from being used in a system with DRM, you can stop now. There are four places where you can put DRM in a system with a GPL3 kernel and have it work well and not have to give away your keys: in hardware as in a chip that mediates access to the display or audio output, in a coprocessor as with the separate chip that runs the GSM stack in cell phones, in a kernel under the kernel as with Microsoft's "nib", and in a user mode program. Those are also the best places to put the DRM from a technical standpoint. I am currently working on a paper on this, maybe I'll have it out tomorrow evening.

I'm glad your of this opinion. However most everyone else isn't. The common assertion is that even keys in hardware need to be released along with the code in firmware to make it work. Maybe this is a result from the definition of source code that says However, the fact that a key is generated based on the object code of the work or is present in hardware that limits its use does not alter the requirement to include it in the Corresponding Source. and the section titled: 3. No Denying Users' Rights through Technical Measures. Maybe something addressing this confusion and clarifying it should be placed in the GPLv3

I understand the intended goal is to not have open source products be only partially usefully to others. But the user needs the assurance that they can meet certain obligations. And I would count Tivo as a user when considering the license ramifications of the GPL.

So, lets get clear on this to make sure I understand it correctly. You and the GPLv3 are perfectly ok with Tivo implementing DRM in firmware and hardware that stops the player from booting if certain controlled measures aren't present? But we aren't OK with these measures being the checksum of a signed binary released under the GPL. So if Tivo changed their implementation to something that they put in place in addition/instead of the GPLed software, they could get around all this fus? Now I have to ask the

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[Mr. Slippery]

quite frankly I don't think that the 'open source' community in those institutions automatically falls into lockstep behind RMS any more.

Well, no, since RMS has never been part of the "open source" community. He is a leader in the "free software" community.

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[Bruce Perens]

So, lets get clear on this to make sure I understand it correctly. You and the GPLv3 are perfectly ok with Tivo implementing DRM in firmware and hardware that stops the player from booting if certain controlled measures aren't present?

No, it wouldn't work this way. In a compliant system, you'd be able to change the kernel as you liked, the system would still boot, but the DRM would still decrypt and play media correctly without offering access to the unencrypted data stream. The key is that the GPL3 DRM terms mean that the DRM must not lock down the GPL program, and the DRM functionality of playing the media must keep working if you change the GPL program. GPL3 does not say that you have to be able to break the DRM, it only restricts what the DRM can break.

This isn't going to keep users away from the program. Users don't generally care about licensing as long as they have a clear right to run the program, and they do. Look at the nasty EULAs they sign from MS, much worse than ours. It may keep certain developers away, but historically the GPL share-and-share-alike terms have helped, rather than hurt, to build a large developer community.

Bruce

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[Bruce Perens]

Hey guys, what's taking so long? Go ahead and mod this up to +5 Interesting. This is Bruce Perens speaking, you know.

When the story is about me and my comments get lost in the noise, I really get to think that Slashdot might not value information right from the horse's mouth as much as that from the other end of the horse :-)

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[sumdumass]

No, it wouldn't work this way. In a compliant system, you'd be able to change the kernel as you liked, the system would still boot, but the DRM would still decrypt and play media correctly without offering access to the unencrypted data stream. The key is that the GPL3 DRM terms mean that the DRM must not lock down the GPL program, and the DRM functionality of playing the media must keep working if you change the GPL program. GPL3 does not say that you have to be able to break the DRM, it only restricts what the DRM can break.

Well, this is so much more clear then the way the GPLv3 presents it and probably the most clear way of explaining it that I have ever seen.

This isn't going to keep users away from the program. Users don't generally care about licensing as long as they have a clear right to run the program, and they do. Look at the nasty EULAs they sign from MS, much worse than ours. It may keep certain developers away, but historically the GPL share-and-share-alike terms have helped, rather than hurt, to build a large developer community.

The FUD surrounding it could be enough to Keep users away. As I said, I believe the entire FUD and Misconception ordeal is more or less a Microsoft "stick with Vista" marketing campaign.

The issues surrounding keeping user away will be two fold. First, it may cause existing users to look for a new license. Next it might causes companies including resellers to not take up the burden of complying with it. And at this point, there will be a big burden. Somehow, you have developed an understanding of the GPL past what normal people can by simply reading it.

I'm not exactly as my "nick" implies, a dumbass. However, I am about average intelligence so I would say that something does needs to be done so us "dumasses" can understand the intent and purpose by reading the license itself instead of having to goto an attorney or complain about it enough that you finally get a understandable answer from a Committee A Member. Of course reading statements about provisions not yet included in the public version of the GPL draft adds to this confusion. I read the article that was linked in this story submission and saw no mention to you actually saying " the GPLv3 would not allow companies to enter deals like this and continue to offer GPLv3 software." Yet the slashdot story submision says this exactly. Also, nowhere except from you personally have I seen anything regarding or suggesting the purposed change that is going to make the difference. This only adds to the confusion.

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[avanaardt]

Hi Bruce. First of all, thanks for all the hard work you guys are putting in -- we appreciate it. Secondly: the whole purpose of the GPL version X is ensure the Four Freedoms. Question: is it not possible to put a clause in the GPL v3 to make tis quite clear? Something along the lines of "Any funny tricks to circumvent the SPIRIT of the GPL will make it automatically void and the offending entity will be sued for copyright infringement" (I'm sure Eben can put it in the right legalese.) The point is that M$ and Novell got terribly cute with their concoction, basically skating on semantics. Can we not plug that hole?

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[Bruce Perens]

Question: is it not possible to put a clause in the GPL v3 to make tis quite clear? Something along the lines of "Any funny tricks to circumvent the SPIRIT of the GPL will make it automatically void and the offending entity will be sued for copyright infringement"

Of course. Here's the legal language you're asking for: "Do what I mean, not what I say." :-)

So, this illustrates the fundamental problem in law. Law does not require ethical behavior. This is because there is no canonical definition of ethical behavior in all of its details that we could get everyone to agree on, and thus instead law defines particular kinds of behavior in specific terms and prohbits them, setting fines and penalties.

So, we can point out what seems to us to be unethical. We can convince lots of you, possibly even a fair majority, of our argument. We can ask you to take action to retaliate, like not recommending Novell again. But we can't get them in court, this time. We'll be ready next time.

I don't see a short-term solution for this. Perhaps further human evolution is necessary.

Thanks

Bruce

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[avanaardt]

[Sigh....] If only we could do it Boolean, hey? :-) But do tell Eben and Richard that, despite all the dust and noise, we do appreciate what you guys are doing. We will prevail, even if we have to code by flashlight. (On a positive note: I have demonstrated to our CFO that our organisation of 500+ employees can save a bundle by moving certain apps over to Linux. Feasibility study starting in 2 months, but the PHB's are VERY impressed... I think we're going to win this one! :-)

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[sepreece]

"This isn't going to keep users away from the program."

Well, I agree with you on that, but isn't it beside the point? I don't think any of the discussion about the anti-TiVo-ization clauses has been on the lines of scaring device manufacturers away.

I don't think that's all that likely, since I think that, as you say, there are plenty of ways to design systems so that the important trust boundaries are outside the GPLed code, and since it appears Linux itself will remain GPLv2.

I go back and forth on this. If there are developers who find these restrictions important to them, it's good that they will have the option to use a license that makes them feel more secure in the post-release life of their work. On the other hand, I don't find such clauses important myself and think that increased adoption is more important and GPLv2 is quite sufficient.

Since both licenses will be available to developers, it's nice that people will have the freedom to choose, but there undoubtedly will be some fragmentation and that fragmentation will reduce the total uptake of FOSS software, even if only a little.

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[renegadesx]

I don't think Linus would put a DRM system in the kernel anyways, despite what license he chooses to use (or not use), DRM systems don't belong in an OS kernel, even if they were righteous and everything the RIAA wants you to think it just doesn't make sense.

Re:On Novell being obtuse

[mdhoover]

Indeed, prior to the Microsoft Novell deal SuSE was always my first recommendation for clients when asked what linux flavour to use, specifically because Red Hat is just too non-standard (/me dons asbestos underpants as he calls Red Hat "Linux-like"). Now I tend to push Ubuntu/Debian, or due to support requirements for commercial apps like oracle, Red Hat, though I have never been much of a fan of any of the above... Due to Novell's deal I, like a hell of a lot of other SuSE advocates/fans, felt cheated by Novell and could no longer in good faith support the product. I hate to admit it, but frankly nowadays when asked what distro to run I tell clients to install Solaris 10...

I'm out

[truthsearch]

I'm glad I sold my Novell stock soon after their parnership with Microsoft. Statements like Perens' nail the lid on the coffin for me. Novell had such potential with their government contracts, name recognition, and experience. But their management's been hurting the company for years. It's all downhill now.

Re:I'm out

[truthsearch]

Well that's very obtuse. I didn't tell you the price or time at which I bought it. Only when I sold it. I sold it at $7 for a profit.

Re:I'm out

[twistedcubic]

Duh? Isn't it reasonable to think that the stock price will be going down? Selling at the peak is good advice. If Microsoft buys Novell, this isn't the peak, but since Microsoft won't buy Novell, selling is a highly reasonable thing to do. If you think otherwise, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and buy, say, a thousand shares. You have nothing to lose, right, since selling Novell stock is such bad advice.

"Rain on the parade" ??

[Anonymous Coward]

Only a handful of reporters attended Perens' briefing, whereas nearly 6,000 people from 83 countries packed a Salt Palace ballroom to hear Novell President Ron Hovsepian and other executives describe the company's newest technological offerings. [from the linked Salt Lake Tribune article]

Sounds to me that Perens showed up at the parade under bright, sunny skies and attempted to use a half-broken toy squirt gun. "No, really, its rain, trust me!"

Re:"Rain on the parade" ??

[Yoooder]

To keep the analogy up, he's just the first sprinkle. Once core components of Linux are released as GPL 3 Novell will get wet awful fast, as they'll either lose their deal with Microsoft to maintain SuSE, or be forced to start maintaining those components themselves.

People hold high expectations on Novell

[vivaoporto]

People hold high expectations on Novell, and I really don't know why. Of course they "bought" Suse in 2003, the Mono project, and some other free software projects. but Novell was, is and will always be a proprietary software company. They don't care about Free Software, they are not into it for the ideals. Back them they saw an opportunity to make money off free software, so they invested, made some money but, in the end, they would dump everything in a heartbeat and partner with Microsoft if it is more profitable for them.

And that's the beauty of Free Software. They can dump Linux and Free Software all they want, if they do, as fast as it takes, a fork for all projects that they are personally involved (Suse, Gnome, Mono, from the top of my head) will pop up and continue almost as nothing has happened.

And I really wish that happens. I don't like the way they are handling Gnome, ignoring completely the community in order to satisfy Novell's aims and goals (mostly, appease to Windows "converted" users. The recent created Gnome Control Panel is a copy of Windows Control Panel, except that it is slow and cluttered like Win 3.11 Program Manager). That, and things like bundling Mono, pfff. But that's another subject, that doesn't belong here.

Just a heads up. Novell has done nothing to deserve your trust. Don't look surprised when they finally misbehave.

Re:People hold high expectations on Novell

[iPaul]

I agree completely. Their first interst is making money. However, they've built their brand in recent years as being friendly to open-source developers. I would like to see their reputation as an "open-source friendly" company evaporate as a result of this deal. I would like to see projects notify Novell to stop shipping their code in the Novell distro - because they're violating GPLv3. I don't want to other vendors to cave to Microsoft. Part of it is ignorance and people confuse GPL with "giving it away," and consequently have little respect for something for which they did not pay money. I would like people in the industry to understand that GPL is a choice of license, but just as important and valid as a closed source license. As far as cow-towing to the preceived need to make it all "Window friendly," I agree. Who's interested in a clone of what you already have?

Re:People hold high expectations on Novell

[bigredradio]

I have to disagree with ya there. Sure, they are a commercial company and their goal is to make money. Big Surprise! However, in this effort, they have contributed a substantial amount of code to the kernel, gnome, and numerous other projects. I'm as uneasy about a deal with MS as anyone, but to start bashing them because they are a commercial company and they contribute to Linux is a bit short sighted.

I don't like the way they are handling Gnome

If you do not like, what they have done with gnome, then you can contribute or use KDE, XFCE, twm, etc.

appease to Windows "converted" users

Are you kidding me? Softening the transition (which is an option btw, you can change this), would be a smart move for all linux developers. If we create a completely foreign system, then it is that much harder to get people to use, promote and contribute to linux. Otherwise we are left with a select few and linux stays in the basement.

bundling Mono, pfff

I hate to break it to you, but there are a lot of users that are locked in because they rely on .NET apps. If you supply mono, then there is a better opportunity they can transition their current custom apps and use linux.

Novell may not be my favorite Linux company, but you can't discount the contribution because of unfounded "fears" about "some day they will ruin linux". If they walked away today, I would at least say "Thank you for all that you had contributed". Without companies like, IBM, Novell, RedHat, Canonical and others, linux would still be where it was at 5-6 years ago. Today it is a viable alternative to MS Windows for the desktop, and is replacing Solaris, AIX and HP-UX in record numbers.

Re:People hold high expectations on Novell

[przemekklosowski]

I don't like the way they are handling Gnome, ignoring completely the community in order to satisfy Novell's aims and goals (mostly, appease to Windows "converted" users. Pardon me but compared to what? to KDE, whose entire raison d'etre was better Windows compatibility? I for one welcome my Gnome overlords. I got RAM and MHz to run Gnome, and it is usable and good looking. When constraints preclude Gnome, I use XFCE, but boy it's hard to go back to pre-Gnome stuff.

Please report what IS your favorite desktop, and what specifically bothers you in Gnome. Linus also dislikes it, but he can explain why, and back it up with patches that address his concerns. I respect that.

Re:People hold high expectations on Novell

[vivaoporto]

Are you kidding me? Softening the transition (which is an option btw, you can change this), would be a smart move for all linux developers. If we create a completely foreign system, then it is that much harder to get people to use, promote and contribute to linux. Otherwise we are left with a select few and linux stays in the basement.

One of my pet peeves, regardless of distro, application, whatever, is when a decision is made to ease the transition of "foreign" users in detriment of the already faithful contributing userbase. People seem to forget that, after the learning curve is past, the new user becomes the old user, and nowadays it takes what, 4, 5 months tops for that to happen. Then, when he is used to the system, free from Windows, another change is made that completely break what he is used to in order to accommodate a new batch of users. That's very frustrating because it seems like the goal is not to provide an usable, stable and free system for whoever wants it, but to "steal" as many users as possible from the rivals.

I hate to break it to you, but there are a lot of users that are locked in because they rely on .NET apps. If you supply mono, then there is a better opportunity they can transition their current custom apps and use linux.

Except for custom applications, I cannot think on a single ubiquitous application that relies on .NET. Anyway, as I pointed above, it is frustrating when changes that are at least not beneficial to the current faithful userbase (not to say dangerous, when it concerns to the intelectual property minefield) in order to accommodate switchers. That is a selfish opinion of mine, and as every opinion, people can agree or disagree.

As for thanking the companies for Linux support, I think you are right. But if Novell actively try to ruin Linux, every good deed of them will be easily forgotten.

Re:People hold high expectations on Novell

[Bri3D]

Mono, believe it or not, is actually being used (especially at Novell) to create applications in C# *designed to run on Linux* (see Beagle, which I'm fairly certain is now included in Novell's Linux distributions).

While I think .NET and Mono are annoying (I hate all memory-managed languages, though, so that's not saying much), I see nothing to "pff" at including a dependancy for increasingly-common applications.

Re:War is peace

[iPaul]

GPL =/= do whatever you like. The GPL is actually a restrictive licensing agreement. It governs how you use the product, how you can realease something based on that product, what you can incorporate that product into, and in some cases how you release what you create with that product. People confuse GPL == Free as in beer == Do as you will. GPL has built in protections to ensure that anything derived from the GPL is also encumbered the same way as the GPL. Note that *I like the restrictions* GPL puts on code, derivative works, and how it can be used. I'm not an expert, but if you want complete freedom, I think the BSD license is actually a more liberal license than GPL. If Novell is doing something that violates the GPLv3 license, they are welcome to switch to software licensed under different, less restrictive licenses. However, until then, if I release something under GPL I want it to stay under GPL in every sense of the word. That includes vendors falsley claiming customers need to buy a license in order to use my code or use something that uses my code.

That's the problem with Novell.

[khasim]

They did not understand Free / Open Source software.

They paid $210 million for SuSE. Why?

The more intelligent approach would be to hire developers who would submit patches that you wanted to the various projects that you're interested in.

Then you Open the protocols that you control that you want to see more widely adopted. And pay developers to incorporate those protocols.

Novell had the idea that it can acquire Linux by buying Linux distributions and projects. When this didn't pay out, Novell decided to "partner" with Microsoft in search of some more money.

Re:That's the problem with Novell.

[vivaoporto]

Here is a possible answer, in an article from 2003, the time of the announcement of the buyout:

Investors seem to think Novell (NOVL) was wise to buy SuSE. Novell stock spiked to $8.80 soon after the purchase announcement hit the wires, and closed the day at $7.33, up 21.16% from the previous day's $6.05 close.

Not that different than when AOL and Time Warner merged. Company makes a risky move, investors like, shares go up, someone sells and profits, company sinks, board changes, company makes a risky move ...

Re:That's the problem with Novell.

[killjoe]

"They paid $210 million for SuSE. Why?"

If you look at it's history it has a spectacularly bad record of buying software and technologies for no apparent reason and then selling them at a loss when they don't know what to do with them.

It's really one of the most badly managed companies around.

Obligatory Groklaw Link

[giafly]

With so much FUD in the air, I am glad we get our own reports like this, with audio, so we can reach our own conclusions [... Anonymous:] The biggest mistake SCOG has made, and MS is continuing to make from the very begining of targeting Open Source: It's a community the likes of which has never formed before. It's a community without Country borders. A community that chooses to communicate and protect itself the world-wide.

Groklaw

Re:Obligatory Groklaw Link

[Jherek Carnelian]

The biggest mistake SCOG has made, and MS is continuing to make from the very begining of targeting Open Source: It's a community the likes of which has never formed before. It's a community without Country borders. A community that chooses to communicate and protect itself the world-wide.

Coders Sans Frontieres!

Is anything Novell offers under GPL3?

[Cr0w T. Trollbot]

Yeah, Microsoft is evil, Novell stupid, etc. etc., yadda yadda, but is anything Novell offers actually released under GPL3? Linus has stated he intends to keep the Linux under GPL2. If Novell isn't offering anything released under GPL3, why should they care?

- Crow T. trollbot

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3?

[hansonc]

Oh crap I agree with Cr0w T Trollbot. What's this world coming to when a troll makes sense?

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3?

[Alioth]

Because all the GNU tools that Linux depends upon (most significantly the entire toolchain they rely on to build the software) _will_ be GPL3 when GPL3 comes out. This means they either have to spend money to maintain the old GPL2 tools themselves or find alternates. No alternative currently exists for gcc which is free software.

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3?

[pembo13]

You say that as if Novel is offering much at all. Others are, Novel is mostly packaging them.

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3?

[Doctor Memory]

No alternative currently exists for gcc which is free software. I find it hard to believe there are no other OSS/free C/C++ compilers. Yes, I know GCC does more than C/C++, but what more would you need to build the kernel and userland? If the hammer came down, I'm sure it wouldn't be too much trouble to pick up some other compiler and put the work into it to get it to fit in the spot GCC left behind. I mean, GCC's an impressive piece of software, sure, but it's not like you couldn't get another compiler if you had to.

Actually, now that I think about it, why even worry? What improvements are they going to put into GCC anyway? Additional back-ends for new architectures, some bug fixes, but it's not like C or C++ are going to undergo any radical evolution that'll require massive changes.

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but you forget about all the tools that make a kernel useable. There's at last count 5.316 GNU packages - all moving to GPK 3. And the vast majority of them are included in most every Linux distro - including SuSE. It's not just GCC. It's make. configure. bash. gpg. parted. awk. autoconf. binutils, coreutils, fileutils - you know - all the stuff that operates in userspace outside the kernel?

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3?

[sumdumass]

Ahh.. but if the GPLv3 packages place further restrictions on the GPLv2 licensed software it is being included with, you will find 5.316 GNU packages without a kernel to operate on.

It isn't a matter of what the GPLv3 says, it is a matter of what the current GPLv2 says. They cannot exempt around this with wording in a new license!

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3?

[ville]

C++ is likely to get quite a few things in 2009:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers / // ville

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3?

[Jherek Carnelian]

Ahh.. but if the GPLv3 packages place further restrictions on the GPLv2 licensed software it is being included with, you will find 5.316 GNU packages without a kernel to operate on.

Right! Because the linux kernel license prevents all non-GPLv2 software from running on it!

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3?

[dbIII]

Not necessarily - RMS does not run gcc anymore and has clashed with the developers before by attempting counterproductive political instead of technical moves. The new licence is still a draft anyway, and I find the sugestion to move to it before it is finalised because some great American Hero in his own mind says so to be disgusting. Finish the licence, and then convince developers to move to it on merit. I also suggest direct lobbying against silly use IP laws is a better action other than making it inconvenient for the converted and invisible to all else by putting clauses against these laws in the licence.

In my opinion the GPL should be more about rights for the developer and end user instead of a blunt instrument to draw attention to some stupid US law.

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3?

[cswiger]

There's always pcc, the original "portable C compiler", which shipped with the various BSDs through 4.3:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_C_Compiler

It doesn't seem to do C++. Some people probably consider this a feature...

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3?

[petrus4]

Not necessarily - RMS does not run gcc anymore and has clashed with the developers before by attempting counterproductive political instead of technical moves.

I'm guessing you mean that Stallman has clashed with some developers...I'd bet that a fair number of the faithful are still there.

Although that doesn't matter a whit anywayz; anything that is part of the GNU project, Stallman (via the FSF) owns the copyright to. If anyone who's developing the project tries to resist GCC being moved to the GPL v3, Stallman *could* spuriously claim that they are violating the existing version 2 in some manner, have their rights under the GPL v2 revoked as a supposed consequence of that, and subsequently have them removed from the project. Lather, rinse, repeat until all opposition to the move to v3 has been removed, at which point he could then do so easily...with the added bonus that even if GCC hadn't been entirely under his control before that point, it then would be again entirely.

Game, set, and match. You can sing along...

"One Ring to bring them all.
One Ring to find them.
One Ring to rule them all,
and in the darkness, bind them."

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3?

[Doctor Memory]

!!!!! C++ doesn't have thread-local storage — JFC! I knew I was right to steer clear of that miserable hodgepodge.

I swear to $DIETY, reading about C++ is like hearing your best friend's kid is in jail. What went wrong? And the parent is so nice, too...

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3?

[sumdumass]

Right! Because the linux kernel license prevents all non-GPLv2 software from running on it!

LoL, Yes, IT does to a certain extent. Looki to the LGPL and why it is important and included in the software. But the GPLv2 says that you cannot place further restrictions on it. IT this is your intent of the included software, then it is a violation of it. Think about this, If you have some software that is GPLv3 and it is neccesary for the GPLv2 licensed kernel to run or be installed or pratical to be used, then there is a conflict and it can't be used. No kernel!

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3?

[cycoj]

You really don't know what you're talking about do you?!

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3?

[dbIII]

Hmm, after a rant about how good it is for authors to turn copyright over to someone else you reassured me that I'm in the right webspace with a LOTR quote. Is is possible to have any sort of serious discussion on this?

Please don't answer with something about Klingons. Copyright stuff is boring enough as it is.

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3?

[sumdumass]

I know exactly what I'm talking about. But more importantly, When this is final, everyone reads the two licenses, and someone tries to use the GPLv3 to subvert the freedoms of GPLv2 code, a court and judge will most likely look at it and determine the validity of that.

So, saying that the GCC is going to GPLv3 and that somehow places restrictions on a GPLv2 code base, it is defeating the purpose of the GPLv2 license and will cause conflict without regard to any exceptions it tries to make. There will be someone who is threatened by this and their will be at least one court case involving it. Some changes to the GPLv3 could probably fix it to some extent, but it isn't here now and we haven't seen the possible changes of them.

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3?

[init100]

If you have some software that is GPLv3 and it is neccesary for the GPLv2 licensed kernel to run or be installed or pratical to be used, then there is a conflict and it can't be used. No kernel!

May I ask you how, if what you said would be true, it can be legal to run proprietary software on the GPLv2 kernel, but illegal to run GPLv3 software on the GPLv2 kernel?

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3?

[init100]

So, saying that the GCC is going to GPLv3 and that somehow places restrictions on a GPLv2 code base

Why would that be? GCC does not apply its own license to its output, and proprietary software can be compiled with it. Why would there be a conflict when a GPLv3 GCC is used to compile a GPLv2 package?

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3?

[sumdumass]

If the license of a product places a restriction on the GPLed software it isn't compatible with the GPLed software. Take a distro, add your favorite program to it, then have the license of your favorite program restrict the rights of the GPLed code. In other words, I can wrap a license around redhat v7 and say because of this license, you cannot have the source of anything contained in this distro.

The GPLv3 will have somewhat of that same effect if used in the way some are wanting. Even with all the exceptions and everything. It will places restrictions on the entire work as a whole and thereby be placing further restrictions on the GPLv2 code. This cannot be allowed to happen.

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3?

[init100]

The GPLv3 will have somewhat of that same effect if used in the way some are wanting. Even with all the exceptions and everything. It will places restrictions on the entire work as a whole and thereby be placing further restrictions on the GPLv2 code.

I think you are wrong. The whole work does not include the operating system, only the package itself. I cannot see why the GPLv3 would suddenly require the whole operating system to be GPLv3.

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3?

[Jherek Carnelian]

Right! Because the linux kernel license prevents all non-GPLv2 software from running on it!

LoL, Yes, IT does to a certain extent.

Then explain away the existence of Oracle on Linux or DB2 on Linux, or any of the hundreds of other prorprietary-licensed software that people run on Linux every day.

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3?

[sumdumass]

So, you see no problem with me linking a piece of firmware that checks for a signed kernel binary with a GPLv2 and then stops the system from booting to a useful state if it isn't present? This act that is totally fine in GPLv2,but with GPLv3 code means I cannot use any GPLv3 code with it. If it is that incompatible, it causes restrictions that aren't there. It means I cannot take a compiled work or distro and change the GPLv2 items and still have a working system.

This is were the problem is. The protections in the GPLv3 software are counting stuff that is allowed in the GPLv2 as their violations. Or that is the intent. This makes the GPLv3 attempt to cover GPLv2 with further restrictions. They are either compatible and I can do whatever i want within the lines of the GPLv2 or I cannot. If the GPLv3 attempts to monitor what I can legaly do in GPLv2 code, it is placing further restrictions. The further restrictions are the use of GPLv3 code.

You can sugar coat it all you want. But If i cannot use the GPLv3 software and still have all my rights to a GPLv2 code, then it is placing further restrictions and violates the terms of the GPLv2. It doesn't matter what exceptions it tries to put in place, if it doesn't except what I do with the GPLv2 code, then it is attempting to cover it.

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3?

[sumdumass]

The proprietary software doesn't limit what you can do with GPLv2 code. If it did, it would be removed/forbidden. It is incompatible. The GPLv3 specifically attempts to monitor what you do with GPLv2 code and punish you for it if it doesn't agree with GPLv3 license terms. This places restrictions on it.

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3?

[init100]

The GPLv3 specifically attempts to monitor what you do with GPLv2 code and punish you for it if it doesn't agree with GPLv3 license terms.

In the context of GPLv3 applications with a GPLv2 kernel, I think you are wrong, plain and simply wrong.

Re:Is anything Novell offers under GPL3?

[init100]

So, you see no problem with me linking a piece of firmware that checks for a signed kernel binary with a GPLv2 and then stops the system from booting to a useful state if it isn't present? This act that is totally fine in GPLv2,but with GPLv3 code means I cannot use any GPLv3 code with it. If it is that incompatible, it causes restrictions that aren't there. It means I cannot take a compiled work or distro and change the GPLv2 items and still have a working system.

Ahh, I see what you mean. But the solution is simple, remove the code licensed under the GPLv3, and the restriction is gone. This is not about the GPLv3 software trying to restrict what you can do with the kernel, it's rather about restricting you from adding restrictions to GPLv3 software.

GPL 3

[hansonc]

Why am I starting to get the feeling that outside of the FSF no one is going to adopt v3?

So what? Novell just goes ahead and forks all the FSF stuff now and leaves the licensing as GPL 2 they're well within their rights not to accept a more restrictive (to them) license.

Re:GPL 3

[Alioth]

That will put them at a significant competitive disadvantage to the likes of RedHat. They will be saddled with maintaining old versions of very complex software (like the entire gcc toolchain, plus binutils and the like) - whereas companies who are not pariahs will just continue using the latest GPLv3 versions of this software. Novell's costs will therefore be significantly higher since they can no longer benefit from the work of the actual package maintainers themselves.

Re:GPL 3

[Znork]

"Why am I starting to get the feeling"

Because you're not looking close enough?

Samba seems like they'll be moving and even Sun has sounded positive. Most anyone who's made an informed decision to use the GPLv2 is likely to move as v3 is merely a continuation of the exact same policy, updated to handle new issues.

The linux kernel is an exception; not particularly surprising as Linus has never been particularly aligned with the FSF ideas (witness the former choice of a non-free versioning system...).

Novell is free to fork. But that'd basically mean they'd be maintaining on a one-way street; anything they update on v2 forks can be adopted by v3 projects, while they could use nothing of the v3 licensed code.

In a way Novell and MS has done the FSF a favour by pointing out this particular loophole before GPLv3 was released.

Re:GPL 3

[sumdumass]

Why is it that people think Novel will be the only ones maintianing a fork? It sounds reasonable to belive that other companies like Tivo and such would be just as interested.

So, lets say we have a GPLv2 comercial fork. Is that bad? I mean competition is good right?

This doesn't even goto mention that the GPLv3 doesn't ocme close as it is currently writen to doing this. Novell has nothing to worry about useing the GPLv3 software. Likewise the FSF and anyone who uses the GPLv3 have more to worry about the GPLv3 than Novell, Tivo or even me.

Re:GPL 3

[ciggieposeur]

Why am I starting to get the feeling that outside of the FSF no one is going to adopt v3?

It's far more than FSF, it is everyone who has seriously considered the GPL and found that it is appropriate for their needs. For me, I chose GPL because I want to retain the option to get paid for closed-source forks of my work. (No takers yet. :) )

All it takes is ONE GPL "V3 or later" userland program to be essential and the whole house of cards falls down. C++ is gaining new language features soon. Samba will need to be updated to the next release of Windows networking. Wine will need to support Vista features. I'm sure with a few minutes I could make this list run to several dozen critical apps whose developers chose (L)GPL and will move to V3.

Re:GPL 3

[Simon]

So, lets say we have a GPLv2 comercial fork. Is that bad?

I'm pretty sure that FSF's software is distributed under the "GPL v2 or later". Which means that any commercial fork would have to keep using "GPL v2 or later". FSF would then be free to take any changes to the commercial fork, apply them to the FSF version and then release it under the GPL v3.

I mean competition is good right?

Especially when your competition can take your changes and incorporate them into their version, but not the other way around...

This doesn't even goto mention that the GPLv3 doesn't ocme close as it is currently writen to doing this.

Don't worry Eben Moglen has assured us that it will.

--
Simon

Re:GPL 3

[MMC Monster]

Except that the GNU programmers will release the updates to the GNU toolchain in GPL v3 or later. They can then take updates from anyone writing software in "v2 or later" with impunity.

Re:GPL 3

[Simon]

That is basically what I was getting at.

--
Simon

Re:GPL 3

[dbIII]

It will hurt Redhat too - if you can't reliably distribute binaries over the net without being able to authenticate them we could end up with a malware situation similar to what only exists on MS Windows. Look at the first comments from Linus about this and then consider the attitude of RMS on any sort of authentication as to why he has not addressed the issue. It needs to be sorted out before GPLv3 is finalised because such a requirement in unacceptable and hurts everything other than hard core Gentoo.

Re:GPL 3

[dbIII]

I'm pretty sure that FSF's software is distributed under the "GPL v2 or later"

A retrospective licence? How free is that? Would that even be legal in most countries? Personally as I see it the developer chooses a licence to avoid the hassle of working out what rights they hand out - but it is THEIR work and does not belong to whatever faction has started playing games in the FSF recently. I suggest the FSF go back to being serious, stop screeching at the converted and stop trying to do a sacrifice throw by hampering free software to protest about some silly US laws.

Re:GPL 3

[petrus4]

Samba seems like they'll be moving and even Sun has sounded positive.

Sun are the proverbial populist whores. The only direction they ever move in is where they think the wind is blowing. They've been like that for as long as I can remember. The only reason why they adopted GPL v2 is because they were trying to curry favour. They'll make approving noises about the GPL v3 for exactly as long as they think large numbers of other people are going to migrate to it first. The moment it starts to look as though the license will be unpopular, they'll about-face so fast that you could end up with whiplash if you watch it.

Their endorsement of GPL v3 means less than nothing.

Re:GPL 3

[analog_line]

That will put them at a significant competitive disadvantage to the likes of RedHat.

More like RedHat being at a competitive disadvantage when Apple, IBM, and every other commercial vendor that uses the currently LGPLed gcc toolchain ignores GPLv3 versions and sets up a working group to continue to maintain the GPLv2 versions, while the GPL3 version of gcc languishes in obscurity along with its friend, HURD.

Re:GPL 3

[Ambassador Kosh]

It doesn't hurt redhat at all. You need to read more stuff on the actual GPLv3 and not just those weirdo places. The requirements are that if you require digital signatures to make software work with your device that you must also give users the ability to sign their own code. With redhat and the other linux dists that use digital signatures you can install any software even without a valid signature so that clause does not even apply. You can also sign your own packages and tell the system to trust your signature.

In debian based systems this is done by

sudo apt-key add key.gpg

You can do the same on redhat systems just different syntax. So either way it does not effect those systems. RMS has no problem with authentication and even encourages it. All he is saying is that you can't give someone the code without giving them the keys to use the code as the license allows if keys are required. Look at tivo, it is under the gpl but you can't modify the code and run it on YOUR tivo with the gpl licensed code that you have because you don't have the digital signatures. You own the device, you have the code and they have implemented a feature to nullify your rights under the gpl. That is what the provision is designed to protect.

Re:GPL 3

[ciggieposeur]

Personally as I see it the developer chooses a licence to avoid the hassle of working out what rights they hand out - but it is THEIR work and does not belong to whatever faction has started playing games in the FSF recently.

The copyrights to the gcc toolchain belong to the FSF -- they ARE the owners of the work! It has long been a condition to work on the official fork: if you want your patches to go everywhere, you assign copyright. Developers that don't like that are free to make their own forks (as with Emacs vs. XEmacs), but FSF has had enough developers who are OK with it to now have the definitive version of gcc.

And if you think GPLv3 is a recent "game" from a "faction" in the FSF, you haven't been paying attention for about 20 years. FSF has ALWAYS been about copyleft. They predate the OSS movement by a decade and Usenet is littered with the ashes of long flamewars about the GPL license.

Re:GPL 3

[dbIII]

The recent moves diverge somewhat from previous ones - and I really do not see how you can say they predate themselves!

Re:GPL 3

[dbIII]

Look at tivo, it is under the gpl but you can't modify the code and run it on YOUR tivo with the gpl licensed code

Here we get to the centre of the matter - offence has been taken about people making money out of GPL licenced code and the actual copyright owners, the developers, do not care so the writers of the licence are making a stink. The embedded systems makers are making real contributions and deliberately making their lives difficult becuase one manufacture is disliked is just yelling at the converted to go away and stop contributing. You can get the source code they write for everything but the pretty menus and other stuff we shouldn't care about - it should not matter that we cannot make our own identical unit from parts.

Re:GPL 3

[ciggieposeur]

and I really do not see how you can say they predate themselves!

Then you don't know the difference between OSS and Free Software.

RMS started the Free Software movement. Others (notably Eric Raymond) decided to start a competing movement called Open Source Software. These are not the same thing at all. Though technically a Free Software license like the GPL is also an Open Source license (OSS is a superset of Free Software), the purposes of the two movements are entirely different.

Re:GPL 3

[Courageous]

I'm pretty sure that FSF's software is distributed under the "GPL v2 or later". Which means that any commercial fork would have to keep using "GPL v2 or later". FSF would then be free to take any changes to the commercial fork, apply them to the FSF version and then release it under the GPL v3.

Certainly. But this is only bad to the collective maintaining of the v2 fork insofar as they cannot integrate code into the v2 code that comes from a v3 provenance.

C//

Re:GPL 3

[sumdumass]

If I write a patch, I can place that patch as GPLv2 only and still have it used in GPLv2 or later licensed software. I own the code to that patch and unless I give it's copyright to someone else, they canniot change it. Of course I would probably have to fork the program becuase the FSF makes you give up all you claims to your work to them.

But this is pointless, If the tools went GPLv3, Novell wouldn't be hte only person maintaining a fork. There would be others doing it too. Some by neccesity and some by desire. And weather or not the GPLv3 version wants to swipe code from the GPLv2 fork is irrelevent to this.

What I see happening is that everything switched to GPLv3 would be forked, Something will be done to make codebase incompaitble with newly GPLed stuff, the license for the code changes will be GPLv2 only which is consistant with the GPL, Some labeling scheme will be incorperated that signifies this code, That scheme will be copywriten outside the GPL and possibly tradmarked so it can only be used by the forked software, You will end up with a XGPLv2 product that companies and some oldschoolers will use and the open versions others use. Then there will be a big FUD/marketing campain letting everybusiness now what the XGPL does and how it protect thier products from crazed activism the the GPLv3 showed, and businesses will be encouraged to make sure their OSS used this protection. Now there will be to main trunks of GPLed OSS software, One for the hacker/activist and one for the business side of things. The large distributions will have to spend money corecting these statments or suffer the expense of their effects on industries looking at it. Eventualy Redhat and others will have to face the issue and probably be forced to take the comercial approach because of all the fud. And yes, It would be viral in that same sence an add campain can be.

Re:GPL 3

[Courageous]

A retrospective licence? How free is that?

I don't think you understand. They're not saying that if they (the FSF) later to decide to switch to a modified license, you must use this license, rather they are saying that if they make the switch to a later version, you may use that license. I believe this is legal, unlike the opposite, which is most often illegal in English Common Law countries.

C//

Re:GPL 3

[Courageous]

I would have to agree. As an author of (small) GPL'd works, I'd certainly update. I can see some of the virtue of the spirited discussions around certain DRM terms in the GPL v3 and what not, but when the dust settles, I'll be swinging v3, without a doubt. The GPL is the community nuclear weapon used in opposition of some of the most important intellectual problems of today (in particular, our currently utterly broken patent system here in the US, which is utterly rife with abuse, particularly in the software space, but not to forget the current usurpation of fair use provisions of copyright law, so and so forth).

C//

Re:GPL 3

[dbIII]

The second movement is barely relevant and is really factionalism. Most of it was arguments about silly redefinitions of existing english words. The FSF in various forms (earlier GNU) has been around for a while, which is why I said they cannot predate themselves.

Re:GPL 3

[init100]

Then there will be a big FUD/marketing campain letting everybusiness now what the XGPL does and how it protect thier products from crazed activism the the GPLv3 showed, and businesses will be encouraged to make sure their OSS used this protection.

And I'm sure you'll help them.

By the way, you could have gotten a username that does not sound suspiciously like dumbass.

Re:GPL 3

[sumdumass]

The problem is that the new license says if you do this in your GPLv2 code, you suffer these consequences. It is extending further restrictions to the GPL 2 code. That would make it retrospect. It is attempting to enforce restriction on other code. It might be different if the new license was from another company. But it is from the same company and that is it's intended goal.

Re:GPL 3

[sepreece]

So, how much maintaining does the gcc toolchain need? C isn't changing and the definition of the libc functions isn't changing, so major functionality changes would mostly be for things like new hardware, which might well be done for the hardware vendor or a major customer under contract stipulating GPLv2, for instance. I think there are other issues bigger than maintaining a fork of gcc.

And, of course, if a bunch of device manufacturers are concerned about GPLv3, somebody maintaining such a fork would have a good market for it.

Re:GPL 3

[Courageous]

I don't think so. Wherein the v3 license does it attempt to make assertions about agreements made under terms of the v2 license?

C//

Re:War is peace

[Intron]

and exactly what are "deals like this"? An agreement between two companies not to sue each other's customers -- at least that's what has been made public so far. Is the hidden "all your base" clause not revealed until you buy Suse? Since the deal, so far as I know, does not inhibit or put additional restrictions on Linux, I don't see how GPLv3 gets involved. Can anyone tell me?

GPLv3

[Mateo_LeFou]

I've heard about how linux, the kernel, won't be licensed under version 3, so it wouldn't matter. But I'm really skeptical.

If the software owned by the FSF moves to GPLv3, will *any distributor of a complete OS be able to enter into a deal like the Novell/MS one? Does it really matter whether linuz remains v2 when so many critical components will be v3?

Re:GPLv3

[hansonc]

Like I said below. All novel has to do is fork all the FSF projects now while the licensing says GPL Version 2 or later. It's not like 'ls' or 'cd' changes all that often.

Re:GPLv3

[Score Whore]

Right now Novell has a complete OS and it's licensed entirely under GPL v2 and other open licenses. That will continue to be true after the FSF finally finishes writing the holy scripture, err, GPL v3. The odds that Novell would be unable to keep up after a required fork are pretty high. Every major OSS app has been funded and managed, or written in it's entirety, by a private enterprise.

Re:GPLv3

[Orange Crush]

linux, the kernel, won't be licensed under version 3, so it wouldn't matter.

Yes it will. As pieces outside of the kernel migrate to GPLv3 Novell will hit a roadblock having to rely on GPLv2 branches. Someone might still maintain those, but maybe not, making that much more work for Novell. Novell will still have to share its code with the community, but the community won't have to share their code with Novell. Which makes me happy a little.

Re:GPLv3

[Martin Blank]

Linus has very clearly stated that the kernel is licensed under GPLv2 (not 'GPLv2 or later,' as many programs are), and that he has no intentions of moving the kernel to GPLv3.

Re:GPLv3

[shaitand]

'If this is true, Microsoft could simply wait for the FSF to change over to the GPLv3 license with this restriction and then issue a blanket exemption to lawsuits to anyone who got their code directly form the FSF but not allow it to follow to downstream providers'

If you can't pass on the right then the CURRENT GPL short circuits and you lose your own right to distribute. Let alone v3. You have to be able to pass the same terms and the rights to exercise them to distribute under the GPL.

'If the GPLv3 code places any further restrictions on GPLv2 code, it is incompatible with the GPLv2 license and cannot be used. The GPLv2 license has been around first so it will take supreamecy.'

You wouldn't be able to mix GPLv2 only code and GPLv3 code but very little code is licensed only under GPLv2, most is licensed under 'GPLv2 or later'. This means you can take any of that GPLv2 code and distribute it and derivatives under GPLv3 without even needing to ask the author. As the for the GPLv2 coming first thing, that is nonsense that you made up.

'This will make the FSF lose it's right to use GPLed software.'

The author can license under any license they choose. They hold the copyright and aren't bound by the terms of the GPL. Furthermore, the GPL does not cover usage of software. It covers distribution.

Re:GPLv3

[Thomas the Doubter]

It's not the kernel that defines linux, more importantly it is the compilers and development tool chain. Secondarily it is the packaging mechanisms, such as apt, rpm, etc. We may see the day (not neccessarily what I wish) when most popular distributions of linux no longer use the Torvalds kernel. There are already options such as the FreeBSD kernel, a Solaris kernel, and ... HURD.

Re:GPLv3

[sumdumass]

If you can't pass on the right then the CURRENT GPL short circuits and you lose your own right to distribute. Let alone v3. You have to be able to pass the same terms and the rights to exercise them to distribute under the GPL.

Corect. But currently, the rights are to use the software in a way consistant with the GPL. A promise not to suit can only be considered a right of the owner of the material in question. So in the Novell case, If they change anything and pass it on, the deal with microsoft which promises not to sue their customers has nothing to do with it. And the only way it could would be if Novell placed the offending part into the GPLed program. As long as they don't do something like that, there is nothing to worry about.

You wouldn't be able to mix GPLv2 only code and GPLv3 code but very little code is licensed only under GPLv2, most is licensed under 'GPLv2 or later'. This means you can take any of that GPLv2 code and distribute it and derivatives under GPLv3 without even needing to ask the author. As the for the GPLv2 coming first thing, that is nonsense that you made up.

Only if the GPL2 "or later" code is forked to GPLv3. And then you have to watch the license of the program to make sure the "or later version" remains in it for the changes someone makes to the program. But I don't think the majority of code means the significant programs. As we are aware, the linux Kernel will stay GPLv2 for the most part. What good is a program if it doesn't have a kernel to run in/on?

Do you remeber when X had the license change that made it more or less comercial/non-free? It was easier to fork hte project and maintian it than it was to bend the licensing to fit. It is likly this will happen when Most of the GPLv2 or later software gets taken to GPLv3 and isn't compatible with the licensing of the vast amounts of other supporting software wich may or may not be more critical to running the software.

The author can license under any license they choose. They hold the copyright and aren't bound by the terms of the GPL. Furthermore, the GPL does not cover usage of software. It covers distribution.

I don't think you understand the gravity of the situation. Novell Not being able to use opensource licensing because the GPLv3 forbids microsoft promising not to suit novells customers has nothing to do with paasing the authors wishes on. The Idea that Novell has to somehow pass on microsoft's agreement no to suit novells customers as some right to the software novell holds isn't consistant with what the GPL requires.

Currently, The GPL requires you to pass the rights given to you onto other and any rights you have. Some other company not sueing becuase of something they might own, isn't a right of novel, it is the right of the company who expresses ownership of that property. Now, if because someone makes a blanket protection to novell's customer, novell isn't able to use the GPLv3 software due to restrictions in the GPL, then doing the same to the FSF will cause the same action. Futhermore, I could simply say that i like red socks, I promise not to suit anyone wearing red socks on tuesday that uses the GPL, but not downstream of their customers, I would have effectivly done the same thing to anyone wearing red socks on tuesday. If the GPLv3 is in play, they lost their rights on the same level novell has!

Now, either the GPLv3 forbids it or it doesn't. But I don't see how it can force a company to ensure rights that belong to another company are not used to everyone outside thier direct influence. Unless and only specificly when that first company is the people who include the offending code. But that isn't the case in Microsoft-Novell, NOR ME-redsocks on tuesday.

Re:GPLv3

[Brandybuck]

If this is true, Microsoft could simply wait for the FSF to change over to the GPLv3 license with this restriction and then issue a blanket exemption to lawsuits to anyone who got their code directly form the FSF but not allow it to follow to downstream providers.

Precisely. The GNU community has been so blinded by their ideology (politics) that they seem unable to grasp the reality of the world around them.

What did Novell do wrong? They got a promise from Micrsoft not to sue. That's it. Nothing else changed, nothing at all. No new restrictions, no new conditions, not even new dots over the I's. While this moves says a lot of bad things about *Microsoft*, it actually says something good about Novell: they're interested in protecting their customers from specious lawsuits. If the FSF's argument is that a promise by a third party not to sue would be a violation of the GPLv3, then the fate of any GPLv3 project is in Microsoft's hands!

Frankly, the only reason I'm not worried about that happening, is that such a clause would not be legal. This is all bluster by the FSF meant to intimidate.

Re:GPLv3

[shaitand]

'But I don't think the majority of code means the significant programs. As we are aware, the linux Kernel will stay GPLv2 for the most part. What good is a program if it doesn't have a kernel to run in/on?'

'Do you remeber when X had the license change that made it more or less comercial/non-free? It was easier to fork hte project and maintian it than it was to bend the licensing to fit. It is likly this will happen when Most of the GPLv2 or later software gets taken to GPLv3 and isn't compatible with the licensing of the vast amounts of other supporting software wich may or may not be more critical to running the software.'

Yes but your point implies that software would need to be GPLv2 to interact with GPLv2 only code. You don't need a GPL compatible license to run your program on top of a GPL kernel. Only to integrate your code into the kernel.

'I don't think you understand the gravity of the situation. Novell Not being able to use opensource licensing because the GPLv3 forbids microsoft promising not to suit novells customers has nothing to do with paasing the authors wishes on. The Idea that Novell has to somehow pass on microsoft's agreement no to suit novells customers as some right to the software novell holds isn't consistant with what the GPL requires.'

There is a point you seem to be missing. If Novell is not adding patent encumbered code then there isn't anything to discuss and the agreement with Microsoft doesn't matter. Novell would be free to distribute code with or without an agreement under GPLv2 or v3. If Novell is adding patent encumbered code and Novell does not have permission and the right to pass that permission (along with the right to pass the permission) down the chain then the GPL short circuits and Novell can not distribute their patent encumbered derivative. The GPL already works this way in v2.

The danger is that because of this agreement Novell will contribute patented implementations into open source software in order to have their products better interoperate with windows. Under GPLv2 the GPL would already short circuit and Novell would be guilty of patent infringment if they did this since they can't pass the rights downstream. GPLv3 is the same except that it specifically spells out the requirement to pass the patent rights in addition to copyrights.

Even if Novell could make the argument that only the copyright rights to distribute must be passed under the current GPL it would be bogus of Novell for adding patent encumbered code and I fail to see a problem with spelling out that Novell can't add patent encumbered code.

'Now, if because someone makes a blanket protection to novell's customer, novell isn't able to use the GPLv3 software due to restrictions in the GPL, then doing the same to the FSF will cause the same action.'

No it wouldn't. Novell is taking GPL'd software and making a derivative. They don't own the rights to the software and only terms of the GPL grant them permission to distribute their derivative. The FSF is distributing their own software, not modifying someone elses software. The FSF is not bound by the terms of the GPL (or any other license they distribute under), they don't need permission to distribute their own software. Because the FSF distributes it under the GPL anyone downstream of them are bound by the GPL but not the author of the software is never so bound. It doesn't matter what the license terms are, they do not apply to the author of the software. For instance, the FSF could puzzlingly decide tomorrow that they will distribute all their software under the GPL but will no longer include source with the binaries and be on perfectly solid legal ground.

That aside, I think you are reading something into this that simply isn't there. Nobody is saying that GPLv3 will outright ban any company that has any blanket agreement of any sort from distributing GPL'd software. That would be ridiculous. What is being said is that GPLv3 will prevent a company from distributing a derivative of GPL'd software

Re:GPLv3

[sumdumass]

Yes but your point implies that software would need to be GPLv2 to interact with GPLv2 only code. You don't need a GPL compatible license to run your program on top of a GPL kernel. Only to integrate your code into the kernel.No, It implies that when a program riding in user-space attempts to restrict what can be done on kernel space, those restriction have to be in compliance with the kernel-space license. I cannot create a license that says if you use this program you cannot run drivers for competing hardware and then include it in a GPLed program/distribution. This is not different when the GPLv3 attempts to restrict what a person does inside GPLv2 code.

There is a point you seem to be missing. If Novell is not adding patent encumbered code then there isn't anything to discuss and the agreement with Microsoft doesn't matter. Novell would be free to distribute code with or without an agreement under GPLv2 or v3. If Novell is adding patent encumbered code and Novell does not have permission and the right to pass that permission (along with the right to pass the permission) down the chain then the GPL short circuits and Novell can not distribute their patent encumbered derivative. The GPL already works this way in v2.

I'm not missing this point at all. Novell to date hasn't included any Microsoft's code into thier distribution and hasn't shown any intention of doing so. Yet people are claiming the deal will violate the GPLv3 when released. I would like to think this is all it is about but it isn't what is being argued by those who think it is bad for the MS-Novell deal. I have made the same statment you just did many times to constantly be refuted by something in the GPL I cannot find. I have also been told the GPLv3 draft is being revised to directly stop deals like Microsoft and Novell's.

The danger is that because of this agreement Novell will contribute patented implementations into open source software in order to have their products better interoperate with windows. Under GPLv2 the GPL would already short circuit and Novell would be guilty of patent infringment if they did this since they can't pass the rights downstream. GPLv3 is the same except that it specifically spells out the requirement to pass the patent rights in addition to copyrights.

Will? When did they say they will start giving microsoft's ip out as GPLed code? They haven't as far as i am aware. So the argument needs to be IF and not WILL. That being said, If Novell does take someone elses property and place it in the GPL without granting everyone downstream the same rights, they will be violating the GPL. This has little to do with the Microsoft deal outside that Novell wouldn't be sued by Microsoft if it happened.

Even if Novell could make the argument that only the copyright rights to distribute must be passed under the current GPL it would be bogus of Novell for adding patent encumbered code and I fail to see a problem with spelling out that Novell can't add patent encumbered code.

Again, this is my interpretation. The problem is that we are seeing people make the argument that the GPLv3 would forbid the deal with MS not Novell erroneously adding patent laden material to GPLed code while not extending the right to use it to others downstream.

No it wouldn't. Novell is taking GPL'd software and making a derivative. They don't own the rights to the software and only terms of the GPL grant them permission to distribute their derivative. The FSF is distributing their own software, not modifying someone elses software. The FSF is not bound by the terms of the GPL (or any other license they distribute under), they don't need permission to distribute their own software. Because the FSF distributes it under the GPL anyone downstream of them are bound by the GPL but not the author of the software is never so bound. It doesn't matter what the license terms are,

Re:GPLv3

[Mr. Slippery]

It's not the kernel that defines linux, more importantly it is the compilers and development tool chain. Secondarily it is the packaging mechanisms, such as apt, rpm, etc. We may see the day (not neccessarily what I wish) when most popular distributions of linux no longer use the Torvalds kernel.

No.

Linux is the kernel. The typical system that sits on top of a Linux kernel is GNU.

That's why RMS makes a big point of the "GNU/Linux" thing: a GNU system can sit on top of a BSD kernel, or the HURD, as well as a Linux kernel.

Certain in common an informal useage, "Linux" has come to be used as a short form of "GNU/Linux". But if it's not sitting on top of the Torvalds kernel, it's completely inaccurate to call it "Linux".

Re:GPLv3

[shaitand]

'But no, they could not distribute the code under the GPL and then not make the source available. If they picked the code license that they didn't intend to follow, they would be committing fraud. Plain and simple as that. So if they all the sudden decided not to release any source, they would have to change the license to one that allowed it or change the GPL to exclude the owner of the code from having to make the source available..'

You still seem to be missing the core concept here. If I write a piece of software I can do anything I like with it since I hold the copyright. I don't have to agree to any terms or conditions to grant myself the right to distribute my own software. The same is true of the FSF. I can grant YOU or someone else permission to distribute my software provided you follow certain provisions but that only means you have to follow those provisions, not me. In fact, I can give you a copy under the GPLv2, another guy a copy under GPLv3, a third guy a copy under the BSD license, and yet a fourth guy a copy with a MS type EULA agreement and at the end of the day I am not bound or restricted by the terms of any of those agreements.

If I give you a copy of software I wrote under the terms of the GPL, that binds YOU to follow the terms of the GPL and provide source to any you distribute to not me. It doesn't somehow magically remove my right to give the software to anyone under any condition with or without source.

Now, if I incorporate someone elses GPL'd code into my software the story changes because they own the copyright on that code and I am bound by the terms of their license. As far as I know the FSF does not incorporate your GPL'd code into their projects though, I think they make you transfer the copyright for your contributions to them.

Re:GPLv3

[Mateo_LeFou]

"currently, the rights are to use the software in a way consistant with the GPL"

Sorry, I didn't get past this. Freedom 0 is "to run the program, for any purpose". It is utterly unambiguous.

Re:GPLv3

[rifter]

Like I said below. All novel has to do is fork all the FSF projects now while the licensing says GPL Version 2 or later. It's not like 'ls' or 'cd' changes all that often.

GPLv2 or later means that once GPLv3 is available those packages will be under GPLv3 automagically. The only hope would be to fork projects that do not include the "or later" clause. In any case, it would be madness because they would have to maintain the GPLv2 code without allowing any GPLv3 code to come in and contaminate the system. They'd end up rewriting everything and gaining nothing from the free software model. History has proven that for the most part it's a matter of what most of the developmet community working on a particular project wants; if Novell forks just to keep patents and the ability to sue Linux developers that will not attract many developers.

Re:GPLv3

[sumdumass]

You still seem to be missing the core concept here. If I write a piece of software I can do anything I like with it since I hold the copyright. I don't have to agree to any terms or conditions to grant myself the right to distribute my own software. The same is true of the FSF. I can grant YOU or someone else permission to distribute my software provided you follow certain provisions but that only means you have to follow those provisions, not me. In fact, I can give you a copy under the GPLv2, another guy a copy under GPLv3, a third guy a copy under the BSD license, and yet a fourth guy a copy with a MS type EULA agreement and at the end of the day I am not bound or restricted by the terms of any of those agreements.

lol.. Well I have been told the whole problem with the Novell deal is that Novell could include something Microsoft owns and the protection from lawsuit is only extended to Novell direct customers. But if Novell writes a patch, and places this patch into the software they distribute, then they themselves own the code in question. SO why doesn't the same rights apply to them? Why cannot they write the patch using Microsoft's property and distribute it anyway they want? Without the GPL stopping it or interfering with it?

Ahh, catch 22 hear. Anything you say about the FSF writing code that they own and using it however they want applies to Novell and likewise the restriction in the GPL that are designed to cover it will too!

If I give you a copy of software I wrote under the terms of the GPL, that binds YOU to follow the terms of the GPL and provide source to any you distribute to not me. It doesn't somehow magically remove my right to give the software to anyone under any condition with or without source.

Then were is the problem with Novell. Any patches they include with Microsoft's IP in it will be their code. They will own it. There isn't anything forcing them to sign the rights over to someone else. Answer this, and you will see why you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Now, if I incorporate someone elses GPL'd code into my software the story changes because they own the copyright on that code and I am bound by the terms of their license. As far as I know the FSF does not incorporate your GPL'd code into their projects though, I think they make you transfer the copyright for your contributions to them.

Thats what I have heard too. They take ownership of it for some reason. But using someone else's code or your own, it makes no difference if there is a blanket statement on not being able to shield parts of your customers.

What would happen, Is because of the language in the GPL when ever it arrives, the minute they distribute GPLv3 code with this provision in the license, the license becomes void because of the direct violation of it's terms. So, if i was Tivo, and I didn't like the way the GPLv3 does something, I could makes a blanket statement of promise like Microsoft did in the Novell deal. Then when they code is distributed, I could file a legal challenge to it over the terms of the code. Now the interesting part is, Seeing how the FSF owns the GPL license, and they chose to distribute it in violation of it's own license terms, I'm betting a judge would say you cannot enforce it.

I'm also willing to bet that if they don't word this specifically to avoid this, it will be one of the first challenges within weeks after the first violation is made public.

So your correct, they can do anything they want. But there are ramifications to certain things when they do it.

Re:GPLv3

[shaitand]

'But if Novell writes a patch, and places this patch into the software they distribute, then they themselves own the code in question.'

You just hit the nail on the head. Novell did not write the program, they are modifying a program for which someone else owns the copyright. That means they can only distribute that modified program with a license. If they distribute the patch they wrote by itself then yes they own the copyright and everything I said about the FSF would apply to them.

'Then were is the problem with Novell. Any patches they include with Microsoft's IP in it will be their code. They will own it. There isn't anything forcing them to sign the rights over to someone else.'

The thing that forces them to sign rights over to those they distribute to is that they only wrote a patch for a program that someone else owns the copyright to. That means their work is a derivative and they need a license from the copyright owner to distribute that derivative work legally. They own the lines of code they wrote, not the program they want to patch those lines into. The FSF is a different story because they are writing the entire programs not making changes to a program that someone else wrote.

'Is because of the language in the GPL when ever it arrives, the minute they distribute GPLv3 code with this provision in the license, the license becomes void because of the direct violation of it's terms.'

The license would only be void if they included functionality that violates someone elses patent. The FSF would be then free to distribute but those they distribute to would not be able to redistribute. But the control still lies with the FSF, Microsoft could grant a blanket offer like this but the FSF still has the choice of whether or not they incorporate any patent laden code. No patent laden code, no GPL violation.

And, in case anyone isn't familiar with it. When we refer to patent laden code, the code could have been designed without any insider knowledge and written from scratch. It doesn't matter, Microsoft owns a patent on what the software does, not the specific code.

Re:GPLv3

[sumdumass]

You just hit the nail on the head. Novell did not write the program, they are modifying a program for which someone else owns the copyright. That means they can only distribute that modified program with a license. If they distribute the patch they wrote by itself then yes they own the copyright and everything I said about the FSF would apply to them.

So if novel releases patches to everything without including it into the code then it would somehow alleviate all the can't use the GPLv3 stuff? So lets say Tivo or microsoft makes the blanket statement of promising not to sue redhat's immediate customers but not extend that to anyone downstream? Would they lose the ability to use the code? So if what you are saying is true, the FSF will be protected but any Linux distro that gains popularity could easily be shut down in this way. So when this is put in place and the new GPL becomes available and everything switches, Microsoft could say fuck you and do a Novell like protection claim on redhat, Debian, Ubuntu, Mandriva, knoppix, Slackware, mempis and any other popular distro. This would have the same effect as on novell and boom damage is done!

The thing that forces them to sign rights over to those they distribute to is that they only wrote a patch for a program that someone else owns the copyright to. That means their work is a derivative and they need a license from the copyright owner to distribute that derivative work legally. They own the lines of code they wrote, not the program they want to patch those lines into. The FSF is a different story because they are writing the entire programs not making changes to a program that someone else wrote.

I'm not understanding were your going with this in relation to what we are talking about. I don't disagree with anything except maybe the term forces. If they chose a GPL license product and modify it acording to the license then it would be forcing but an agreement. Non the less, there seems to be a disconnect between who owns the program and who owns modifications to it. Novell owns SuSe and Ximian and has released several other products to the open source community. Even if they keep all their changes to these products and keep these products as GPLv2, are somehow saying that they don't own the code now? Or is it that we are saying the GPLv2 looks at what they do with GPLv2 code and punishes them for not following the terms of the GPLv3 while working with the GPLv2 code. This is after all what is happening and I believe an infraction on the GPLv2 license. Even with all the exceptions in allowing the two licenses to be distributed together, it places restrictions on the GPLv2 code because it offers punishments for using the GPLv2 code in ways consistent with it's license.

The license would only be void if they included functionality that violates someone elses patent. The FSF would be then free to distribute but those they distribute to would not be able to redistribute. But the control still lies with the FSF, Microsoft could grant a blanket offer like this but the FSF still has the choice of whether or not they incorporate any patent laden code. No patent laden code, no GPL violation.

And Novell doesn't have to include IP that violates someone else's patent to be in violation of the GPLv3? That is what I'm being told. Of course, now I'm wondering if we are talking about the same thing or if we are attacking two different subject at the same time and going in circles trying to play catchup with each other.

And, in case anyone isn't familiar with it. When we refer to patent laden code, the code could have been designed without any insider knowledge and written from scratch. It doesn't matter, Microsoft owns a patent on what the software does, not the specific code.

Yes, Thats my understanding too. That why I think if microsoft says, your protected and your customers aren't without naming the o

Re:GPLv3

[shaitand]

'Microsoft could say fuck you and do a Novell like protection claim on redhat, Debian, Ubuntu, Mandriva, knoppix, Slackware, mempis and any other popular distro. This would have the same effect as on novell and boom damage is done!'

No Microsoft could not. Microsoft doing a Novell like protection does not automatically make anyone incompatible with the license. Whoever Microsoft extended the blanket protection to would also need to include code that implements a function Microsoft has patented. In fact, the blanket protection has nothing to do with it. If someone included code that is covered by a software patent (held by Microsfot or anyone else) it would short circuit the GPL whether there is a blanket protection or not.

'Novell owns SuSe and Ximian and has released several other products to the open source community. Even if they keep all their changes to these products and keep these products as GPLv2, are somehow saying that they don't own the code now?'

Novell owns lots of code. There is no blanket statement I could make that covers every Novell product. For instance, Novell owns the company SuSe but the distribution is composed almost of entirely of code that Novell does NOT own. Novell has to distribute the programs in SuSe they don't own according to the license the author gives. If that license requires they pass the same terms on for modifications (like the GPL) then Novell either accepts those terms or does not distribute the modified program in SuSe. The Ximian connector is different, Novell owns it entirely. If there is something in the connector covered by a Microsoft patent then Ximian can distribute it with any license at will. They can even distribute it with a GPLv3. There wouldn't be much point to doing so though because the only ones who could legally excercise the terms of the GPLv3 would be Microsoft. I don't own the patent therefore the GPL would short circuit and even one step away from Novell distribution would stop. More likely they would just choose a different license.

Forget Novell. The example is clearer if I say 'you', 'me', bob.

If I write a program and you write a patch for that program. I can distribute my program any way I choose under any terms I choose. If I am really generous I can give you a license that under certain circumstances would let you do things copyright law forbids you. I am a swell guy so I choose to distribute a copy of my program to you under the terms of the GPLv3. Note, YOU can distribute if YOU follow the terms of the GPLv3. As the owner the program isn't GPL for me, it is just mine and I don't have to follow any conditions. YOU need to follow the terms of the license to copy, modify, or distribute but I don't need a license I am the one who grants the terms.

Now, you take that program that you received from me with a GPLv3 license. You write a patch. You own your patch and have all the same rights for your patch that I had for my program. But you don't own my program and you can't integrate your patch into my program and distribute the result without permission. Fortunately you have permission already, I gave you permission in the form of the GPLv3 license. That permission is conditional, one of the conditions is that you need to pass on the same terms and conditions to those you distribute to along with the code. The terms, conditions, and code must apply to both my original program and your included patch otherwise you can't distribute my part. Furthermore, you have to have all the legal rights that are required to grant the terms of the GPLv3 to those you distribute to. This means that your patch can't be an implementation of something that someone else owns a software patent for.

Now lets say your patch implements a right-click context menu and bob owns a patent on that. You wrote the patch and never consulted bob, it is entirely your work so you own the code. But that doesn't matter for patents, it still implements a function that only bob is allowed to write code for. Now, you and bob can make agreements abou

Re:GPLv3

[sumdumass]

No Microsoft could not. Microsoft doing a Novell like protection does not automatically make anyone incompatible with the license. Whoever Microsoft extended the blanket protection to would also need to include code that implements a function Microsoft has patented. In fact, the blanket protection has nothing to do with it. If someone included code that is covered by a software patent (held by Microsfot or anyone else) it would short circuit the GPL whether there is a blanket protection or not.

That is my understanding of the situation. But, I am constantly told the GPLv3 is being modified as we speak to expressly forbid deals like the Microsoft-Novell one. I got this idea from Bruce Perens himself. We should be able to expect to see something soon.

I do see that we are going in circles and chasing the ends of two separate scenarios though. To date, Novell hasn't implied it has or is going to include Microsoft's IP into anything it contributes. Just like Redhat, and everyone else, Novell hasn't done anything to violate the GPL as it is currently written yet all the talk is about how they cannot use the GPLv3 because the deal violates the terms.

Snip

Now lets say your patch implements a right-click context menu and bob owns a patent on that. You wrote the patch and never consulted bob, it is entirely your work so you own the code. But that doesn't matter for patents, it still implements a function that only bob is allowed to write code for. Now, you and bob can make agreements about those patents all day long or not. But unless you gain the legal right to distribute that code AND the ability to pass that right downstream you can't include the patch in the program I wrote and distribute it as a derivative. I never gave you permission to do that and copyright law says that you can't modify a work and distribute it unless you own the copyright or have permission from the owner.

I'm in agreement with everything so far, but I feel it is necessary to clarify the fact that to date, Novell has been just as consistent and co-operative about this. The Deal doesn't suggest that anyone under microsoft's protection umbrella is going to include any of the code.

n short, it is a very important difference. The author distributes a program and kindly grants a GPLv3 license to the one they distribute to. A 2nd or 3rd party distributes the program UNDER the terms of the GPLv3.

Still in agreement and Novell Is still in compliance yet for some reason not allowed to use the GPLv2 stuff.

It really wouldn't make a difference. If the program performs a patented function and you distribute it then it doesn't matter whether or not you have a valid license from the copyright owner, you can still be sued by the patent holder. It is probably more likely they would go after the author in most cases. Microsoft is the exception, they see the distribution vendors as their competition so would choose to sue them instead. If emailed you a copy of Samba right now with the source code and in proper accordance with the terms of the license Microsoft could still sue me for violating their patent.

Well, I see a problem here. The problem is that the owner or non owner if it is a GPLv3 or better who places it into the GPLv3 with the patent restrictions is in essecne saying I have a right to use the patented software. If they did so and don't have the ability to do this, then they have cross some liability lines. The first my be that the GPLv3 certifies the code to be patent free or you have the right to use it so my entire violations that I could be sued on are directly related to being falsely told I had that right to use the item in question. If you ceetify that the bridge is safe to cross on, I then fall through it, I have cause for suit against you. Now think about this as if you were microsoft or some IP troll. If you cannot see it now, Then you deserve anything going that way.

Sadly, We will see stuff like this in the courts.

Re:War is peace

[vivaoporto]

GPL doesn't restrict anything. Copyright laws do. GPL, as the L in the initials says, is a license that exempt you from the no-distribution no-derivative-work limitations that is the core of the copyright concept, as long as you agree with the GPL conditions. How can people distort that simple reality and say GPL restricts freedom is a mystery to me.

It is simple as that. Without GPL, fair use aside, you cannot (legally) use, you cannot derive, you cannot distribute. With GPL, as long as you grant the same rights when you distribute, you can. Now tell me again, how GPL restricts any freedom? How can a license to restrict a freedom that you didn't have in the first place?

Re:War is peace

[B2382F29]

It governs how you use the product,

No it does NOT. Go read the GPL. It governs distribution, you can use it any way you like as long as you don't distribute it. (Contrary to e.g. an EULA)

Re:War is peace

[quarrelinastraw]

I think you're confusing freedom with not having rules. Being free doesn't mean being able to do whatever you want, that's called anarchy. Freedom always has "restrictive" like the GPL for software, the Bill of Rights for political rights. It would be foolish to argue that we aren't free politically because there are restrictions on, say, whether the government can force us to quarter soldiers. So yes the GPL has restrictions, but that's WHY it's free, since all of those rules are to ensure the freedom of the sourcecode. The BSD has fewer restrictions, which makes it less free.

nothing good?

[nanosquid]

The conclusion of the meeting? Nothing good is coming from this deal between Microsoft and Novell.

My understanding is that, as part of the deal, Microsoft is actually distributing SuSE Linux.

Doesn't this mean that they themselves are distributing the software they might be claiming patents on? And doesn't that mean that, for practical purposes, have given up their right to assert the patents against any GPL'ed software that is part of SuSE Linux?

I'm sure this wasn't Microsoft's intention, but it looks to me like it's a result of this deal.

Re:nothing good?

[rongage]

No - you don't "give up the right to assert a patent" through inaction. You are thinking of trademark where if you don't vigorously defend your trademark, you can and often will loose it.

A patent can only become unenforceable by either reexamination from the USPTO, federal court decision, or definitive action from the patent holder itself (like a covenant not to enforce or a donation to a third party, etc).

You can hold a patent and do nothing with it for years, then all of a sudden decide to enforce it. Perfectly legal - think UniSys and the LZW patent covering the GIF format.

Re:nothing good?

[ArsonSmith]

But by distributing a patent implementation under the GPL then allows for further distribution under the same terms of the GPL.

Re:nothing good?

[nanosquid]

No - you don't "give up the right to assert a patent" through inaction.

That's correct. The point you're missing is that Microsoft has actually acted: they have distributed the software under the GPL themselves (that's part of the Novell/Microsoft agreement, and Microsoft is actually required to distribute the software). It looks like Microsoft therefore has granted transferable rights to all applicable intellectual property to the recipients of the software.

Re:nothing good?

[Pollardito]

It looks like Microsoft therefore has granted transferable rights to all applicable intellectual property to the recipients of the software. i think they acknowledge that the recipients of the software from MS and Novell have rights to it. the question is if MS distributing SuSE has impact on MS's claims against people using a version of Linux that they haven't indemnified

Re:nothing good?

[nanosquid]

the question is if MS distributing SuSE has impact on MS's claims against people using a version of Linux that they haven't indemnified

Yes. The question is whether that works. The GPL is pretty clear about the fact that the rights are transferable, so if Microsoft is considered to have "distributed" the software in some form, then the recipients will have the necessary rights (and, thereby, effectively, the whole community). The question is whether Microsoft can successfully argue that they aren't really "distributing" the software. I'm saying it's not at all clear that they can get away with that argument.

Re:War is peace

[iPaul]

Sorry, I was being a little loose with my English. This is what I mean, by example:

If you use a GPL product as part of a wireless router product, for example, and make changes to the source support your wireless router, and you do not release those changes you can be in violation of the GPL.

Sorry for the confusion.

Re:War is peace

[radarjd]

Freedom always has "restrictive" like the GPL for software, the Bill of Rights for political rights. It would be foolish to argue that we aren't free politically because there are restrictions on, say, whether the government can force us to quarter soldiers

I don't think that's an appropriate analogy. The Bill of Rights restricts the government, not me. The Bill of Rights prevents the [federal] government from passing laws on certain things. The GPL, on the other hand, most certainly does restrict the individual who wants to further distribute the software.

So yes the GPL has restrictions, but that's WHY it's free, since all of those rules are to ensure the freedom of the sourcecode. The BSD has fewer restrictions, which makes it less free.

Curious. Does that mean that items in the public domain are _not_ free? And by further implication, would you argue that some copyright law is better than no copyright law?

rain???

[Sfing_ter]

Rain??? It's more like a long deserved vitamin and asparagus saturated PISS!

Re:War is peace

[_Sprocket_]

The code is free as in beer, and free as in speech, but you can't do *that* with it, or *that*, or *that over there*.

Even free speech involves responsibilities.

right on.

[Deadbolt]

Fight the good fight, brother. This deal stinks, and we need to let people know how much it stinks.

Re:War is peace

[B2382F29]

Then you are distributing the binary inside the router. That is distribution. You can modify it without releasing the sources as long as you only use it in-house. Microsoft could run Linksys Routers with a heavily modified Linux firmware and would not be required to release the source as long as they don't sell/distribute it.

Re:War is peace

[unum15]

In his speech Peren compares the deal to a protection racket. Novell has hired MS(yes I know the money goes the other way around) to be their goon. MS is going around telling people, "pay Novell or something bad may happen to you".

unum

Re:War is peace

[iPaul]

As a license, the GPL uses copyright law so that it can be enforced. Copyright law allows authors who publish software under the GPL to enforce their rights against companies that steal their code by incorporating the code into products or derived works without making the source available, publishing their patches, etc. You own the copyright on your work unless you assign it to someone else. The GPL is a tool that allows you to license your work for use by other parties. I think the notion of the GPL being a free license and an unencumbered license is the confusion. I look at the GPL as a license the same way I look at other licensing tools. If Novell is violating the GPL in their licensing arrangement with MS, there is open source software available under other licensing regimes.

You could put your work under a different license that allowed users to modify and re-distribute the software in any manner they would like, with or without source code, having to release their changes, etc. That are less encumbered licensing options than releasing it under the GPL, which prevents the licensee from engaging in certain behaviors. The GPL is a great license. I would like to see people treat it just as seriously as they do the license they received for buying Windows or Oracle. Just because they did not pay a dime to acquire the source code, should not mean they can disregard the GPL and claim end users need to purchase additional licenses to use the software.

But does the GPL3 really prevent these deals?

[91degrees]

As far as I understand, Novell hasn't licenced or acknowledged any Microsoft patent regarding Linux. It was just an agreement not to sue. Novell still doesn't have any explicit right to distribute infringing code. Strictly speaking, if Novell were aware of a patent, they wouldn't be legally permitted to distribute under the patent terms. However, Microsoft would be powerless to stop them through legal means.

The current GPL3 draft doesn't seem to prevent this type of agreement.

Re:But does the GPL3 really prevent these deals?

[sumdumass]

lol.. Thank you for a voice of reason. For some reason, i can't help but feel a sigh of relief when reading someone's post who has actualy read the GPL draft and understand what is says.

Re:But does the GPL3 really prevent these deals?

[init100]

Sigh! One GPLv3-hating troll surely understands another.

Re:But does the GPL3 really prevent these deals?

[sumdumass]

GPLv3-hating troll has nothing to do with it. I would say the trolls if any are the ones making statment before they can be supported. And since when Is disliking the GPLv3 considered to be a troll? There are lots of developers who dislike it. Two of the main ones are the people maintaining the linux Kernel and in charge of it.

Re:But does the GPL3 really prevent these deals?

[Brandybuck]

How typical. Someone disagrees with you, and so you call them names. It's like your beliefs are so fragile they can't exist in a world where someone else might doubt them.

Re:But does the GPL3 really prevent these deals?

[Fred_A]

That's indeed what the deal is meant to be but it doesn't explain satisfactorily why MS went and give Novell a bunch of money though. It might be because Ballmer was in a good mood on that day, or there might be more to it.

You can't blame people for thinking there's something fishy. Especially given the track record of MS. Beyond that, there isn't much data to go on, so while I wouldn't trust Novell too much these days, just in case. However I don't expect them to be able to hurt Linux by themselves.

At the worst, they might hurt newcomers who came to them in good faith, which would still be bad though.

Re:But does the GPL3 really prevent these deals?

[petrus4]

And since when Is disliking the GPLv3 considered to be a troll? There are lots of developers who dislike it.

You misunderstand, comrade. "Freedom" in GNUspeak means solely and exclusively the freedom to agree with the enlightened law and way of thinking that Comrade Stallman has handed down to us. Any thought that exists outside of this threatens the good of the people, and must be ruthlessly expunged, and the voices of those who utter it muted.

Re:War is peace

[bnenning]

GPL doesn't restrict anything. Copyright laws do. GPL, as the L in the initials says, is a license that exempt you from the no-distribution no-derivative-work limitations that is the core of the copyright concept, as long as you agree with the GPL conditions. How can people distort that simple reality and say GPL restricts freedom is a mystery to me.

Well said.

It is simple as that. Without GPL, fair use aside, you cannot (legally) use, you cannot derive, you cannot distribute.

Actually, you don't need a license to merely run software you've legally acquired. See 17 USC 117. That's why the copyright lobbies keep making the inane argument that when you walk into a store and exchange money for a product, you don't actually own anything.

Re:War is peace

[spun]

...I don't see how GPLv3 gets involved. Can anyone tell me?

Of course not. Well, someone might, but no one here. First of all, perhaps 1/10% of all slashdotters understand the ramifications of GPLV2, let alone V3. Second, mentioning that Microsoft will be involved with Linux in some way creates such overpowering waves of cognitive dissonance in most slashdotter's minds that all reason is overwhelmed and the mind is reduced to repeating a mantra of "bad...bad...bad..."

Is the hidden "all your base" clause not revealed until you buy Suse?

We use Novell and Suse here where I work, and although the EULA says that I will have to give up my firstborn for telling you this, the kid's a brat so here goes: Bill Gates doesn't get all your base, only half.

Re:War is peace

[bnenning]

If you use a GPL product as part of a wireless router product, for example, and make changes to the source support your wireless router, and you do not release those changes you can be in violation of the GPL.

No, you're in violation of copyright, and you can't invoke the GPL as a defense. If the product was released under standard copyright without the GPL, you'd still be in violation and you wouldn't have the option to comply by releasing your code.

Re:War is peace

[NickFortune]

GPL doesn't restrict anything. Copyright laws do.

A lot of people would disagree with that. Hell, the GPL disagrees with that:

To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

See? "restrictions". Just because they are lesser restrictions than the default case of "no rights at all", that doesn't mean they ain't restrictive.

I'm a big fan of the GPL myself, but let's try not to sacrifice accuracy to zealotry here.

Software Patents in US are the problem

[schwaang]

Finally this thread is getting somewhere.

Copyright law is the mechanism by which GPL works, but SOFTWARE PATENTS are the real issue here, as Bruce explains very well in his talk.

The "protection racket" is about the patents that MS implies Linux infringes on. And as Bruce points out, pretty much any non-trivial software probably infringes on someone else's software patents.

That's because software patents in the USA have been doled out too easily. They are absurd.

What's worse, Bruce explains, there is actually a _penalty_ for trying to figure out if your own software infringes. Because if you can be shown to have infringed on a patent you actually know about, the damages are tripled.

Small companies and individual software developers are at the biggest risk. Because big companies have portfolios of patents that they routinely cross-license, thereby protecting themselves from each other. The small guys are locked out. And of course, little guys don't have the money to maintain a legal defense even when they are totally in the right, forcing them to settle.

Software patents in the US are the problem.

Re:War is peace

[utlemming]

The FSS's problem with the deal is that it means that Novell is saying that Linux is not free.

Forgive my obvious stupidity, but doesn't putting any restriction, including the GPL make the software not free?

And no, I am not trying to troll. I just can't figure out why this is such a hot issue.

Microsoft and archair attorneys

[DogDude]

In case anybody has somehow forgotten... Microsoft went from not existing, to becoming the #1 software producer in the world inside of 25 years. They're one of the smartest, largest, and most profitable companies in the world. Call me crazy, but I'd bet that they have a pretty damn good team of lawyers that had this whole situation figured out a long time before anybody in the public ever caught wind of the MS/Novell deal. You guys can debate about what you think that the law says all you want, and even "PR whore" Bruce Perens can wave his hands around and predict the demise of Microsoft, but I find it very, very hard to believe that Microsoft would make as large a mistake as Bruce and his GPL buddies seem to think that they did.

Re:Microsoft and archair attorneys

[JonJ]

This isn't Microsofts problem, it's Novells. If they don't comply with the GPLv3, then they will not be able to distribute SUSE. Microsoft won't care, they sell Windows.

Re:Bruce WHO?

[unum15]

He didn't have a very big room. Barely enough for the reporters who showed up. Bruce's "PR Team" consisted of four volunteers. One of which read about it on Technocratti the other three of which were contacted by a Debian Developer at Bruce's request. I at first thought he wanted more people, but when I found out he didn't I waited to contact SLLUG(marc is a novell employee btw), PLUG, OALUG, and FSLC. (I didn't bother with utaug, uphp, or up because I figured most of them would be on atleast one of the LUG lists). If he ever comes to town to stage a protest we'll get the message out before hand. unum

It's all about .NET, C# and the CLR

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

People hold high expectations on Novell, and I really don't know why. Of course they "bought" Suse in 2003, the Mono project, and some other free software projects. but Novell was, is and will always be a proprietary software company.

It's all about Mono.

While C# certainly doesn't have nearly the installed code base that Java has, ".NET" is pulling even with [and might even have surpassed] "J2EE":

J2EE, 8244 jobs

.NET, 9384 jobs

As much as everybody loves to hate the guy, Ballmer was 100% correct when he said that it's all about "developers, developers, developers", and if you think ".NET" isn't the hottest thing in the programming market right now, then, well, you've been asleep at the wheel for the last five years.

Mono is the ace up Novell's sleeve; with the Microsoft agreement, they are assured that they've got something that Red Hat doesn't have, that Oracle won't have [with the upcoming "Oracle" Linux], and that even IBM or Sun wouldn't have, if they were to roll their own Linuxes, which is to say: An ironclad guarantee that their flavor of Linux will play nice with .NET.

Re:It's all about .NET, C# and the CLR

[fatphil]

"J2EE, 8244 jobs"

Java, 16395 jobs

You're a worm.

Anyone wondering if Novell is..

[lordmage]

Going to do a reverse and say they did give all licensing to SCO?

Microsoft lackey Novell Exec "My bad, Here is the papers that say we did give them all UNIX licenses"

Re:Anyone wondering if Novell is..

[killjoe]

It doesn't matter. They already reversed themselves on their most important pledge and that is to leverage their patents against anybody who sues an open source project for patent violation.

They will no longer come to the defense of open source projects if MS sues them and that's what MS was after all along. MS has already gotten the same kind of deal from Sun. If they can get IBM they will be done.

Re:War is peace

[NickFortune]

and exactly what are "deals like this"?

The GPL says you can't distribute anything covered by its terms unless the people you distribute to have the rights to distribute passing on all the rights you passed on to them. So whatever benefits I confer when I give you a GPL program, they have to also apply when you give a copy to someone else. It's to stop some sneaky tricks that could otherwise be used to effectively take a project proprietary.

So, under this clause, Novell couldn't buy a licence from MS (assuming there is in fact any basis for a licence) that would benefit their customers unless the same licence also applied to recipients further downstream. Or at least they could - but that would contravene the terms of the GPL, which would mean Novell had no licence to distribute at all.

So, instead of MS giving Novell the rights directly, they've made a deal where they grant them to Novell customers, rather than Novell making the grant. It's a technicality used to evade the intent of the licence. If that doesn't sound so bad, imagine (as Jeremy Allison pointed out) Microsoft's likely response if someone found a clever loophole and used it do distribute MS Office without paying MS for the privilege.

The reason they went to all this trouble is so that Novell can try and pressure people into buying only from them, and so MS can get a cut of the income from Linux. Basically Novell is the skinny kid standing by the school gate saying "see my big friend over there? Well he promises not to beat you up, but only if you give me all your lunch money" Except that Microsoft is muttering under its breath "unless I really feel like it"

So that's what they're going to stop when they say "deals like this"

HTH

Re:War is peace

[Locklin]

Real freedom always has one restriction -you are not free to infringe on other people's freedom.

Thats the only restriction the GPL(v2 or v3) sets out to enforce.

Distribuiting Coupons

[Mariner28]

Doesn't the agreement call for Microsoft to distribute coupons redeemable for SuSE licenses? If so, then they're legally not distributing GPL software.

IANAL, etc...

Re:War is peace

[vivaoporto]

See? "restrictions". Just because they are lesser restrictions than the default case of "no rights at all", that doesn't mean they ain't restrictive.

That's semantics. GPL doesn't restrict anything that you would be able to do with standard copyright law. Copyright law says you can't do A, B, C, D and E. GPL says you can now do A, B, C. How is that restricting?

Notice, I'm not denying GPL has more conditions than BSD or Public Domain. All I'm saying is that has one goal, to make sure any software and all its derivatives under that license will be able to be freely run, studied, derived and distributed. They never hid that goal, it is the GNU manifesto, for god sake. If they could simply say that, in a clear and unambiguously way, such confusions would never exist in the first place. But because of the likes of Tivo, Novell and others, that will try to find a loophole and release derivative works without granting those rights, FSF has to created this tangled network of legalese, to close as many holes as they can.

Re:War is peace

[teh kurisu]

I think you're confusing freedom with not having rules. Being free doesn't mean being able to do whatever you want, that's called anarchy.

Assuming you're American (and my most humble apologies if you aren't), you've been brought up to believe that you have freedom, which is why I think you're making this statement. Anarchy is freedom, what you have is certain freedoms tempered by rules. I'm not saying this is a bad thing - one man's freedom is another man's oppression, so rules are necessary for the functioning of normal society. I suspect these are the kinds of rules you're talking about that are encapsulated in the GPL, and your use of the word 'freedom' is only the political definition of the word that you've grown up with.

Just to underline my point, you talk about fewer restrictions making the BSD [licence] less free. One of the definitions of the word 'freedom' in whatever dictionary Apple uses for its Dictionary.app is:

freedom

noun

• ...
• unrestricted use of something : the dog is happy having the freedom of the house when we are out.
• ...

Re:War is peace

[Chris Burke]

"Restrictive" is not the opposite of "free" though, which is what the GGP was implying.

I am not free to own slaves. Am I restricted, or is everyone else more free? The answer is everyone is more free because nobody can own slaves.

Similarly, the GPL only restricts your ability to restrict others. This means the fewest restrictions for all. Isn't that the most freedom possible? Free to do anything but take freedom from others.

The GPL's restrictions are only anti-free to those who think only of themselves. The GPL is not for them.

Re:War is peace

[sumdumass]

The GPL says you can't distribute anything covered by its terms unless the people you distribute to have the rights to distribute passing on all the rights you passed on to them. So whatever benefits I confer when I give you a GPL program, they have to also apply when you give a copy to someone else. It's to stop some sneaky tricks that could otherwise be used to effectively take a project proprietary.

corect nbut used entirly wrong in supporting the GPLv3 novell problem. You can only give rights you have to give. Novell doesn't have the right of microsoft not suiing their customers. Microsoft is the only who can have or give this right. Unless novell adds something that has the pattent to it, this doesn't even come into effect. But the license already has provisions about pattents and such. Novell has never shown they were intending to violate that.

Think about it this way. If the FSF switched everything to the GPLv3, All I would have to do is promise not to suit their customers but not extend the promise to downstream providers. Now under your interpretation of the GPLv3, the FSF has lost their right to distribute GPLv3 code. This isn't or at least shouldn't be the intent of the GPLv3. The only way it can be enforced is if you, hold the patten rights or whatever and then give the promise not to suit. Novel doesn't own the rights to microsoft's pattent so them not giving the right is perfectly expectable.

Something else would be the GPLv2 code it is distributed with. If it places further restrictions on current GPLv2 code, as this interpretation would, It cannot be distributed together. Exceptions aside or not, the new GPLv3 cannot wrangle something into the system by claiming an exception but then enforce the restriction without triguring the GPLv2 clause of no further restrictions! The Two licenses are incompatible and will creat some expensive legal challenges. Besides fracturing the compunity even more, It is likely to drain some distro's into recievership to their craditers. This too, i don't belive is an indended result of the GPLv3 or this interpretation.

Re:War is peace, Novell is Minitrue

[david_thornley]

Complete freedom is impossible. If you have free speech, I can't have the freedom to duct-tape your mouth closed and break your typing fingers just because I don't like what you're saying.

Just like the US Constitution, as amended, enshrines some rights (like freedom of speech) and bars others (arbitrarily duct-taping mouths shut), the GPL enshrines some rights and not others. The freedoms the FSF are interested in are the freedoms to use and modify software, and redistribute as you like. If you receive GPLed software, you are granted these freedoms, and denied the ability to restrict these freedoms for others. (You also have all the freedom granted by copyright law; the GPL allows you to do things copyright law would normally forbid, rather than forbidding things copyright would normally allow.)

The FSF objects to Novell claiming by implication that Linux is encumbered by Microsoft's patents, meaning that nobody has the right to modify or redistribute Linux without Microsoft's permission, meaning that Linux is not Free Software by their definition.

^ Why is parent modded flamebait? ^

[Anti-Trend]

Even free speech involves responsibilities.
Why is the parent modded flamebait? This seems pretty reasonable to me. When the constructors of the US Constitution drafted the first amendment, I'm sure that yelling "fire!" maliciously in a crowded public building wasn't what they had in mind. Instead, it's a specific type of freedom which has a few limitations. However, these limitations are important to preserve the function and spirit of said rights. The same goes for the GPL.

By releasing code under the GPL, I'm saying effectively, "you can have my code for free, and even change whatever you want, provided you don't restrict anyone else from doing the same." The BSD license allows the author to say, "use whatever you like, and you can close up my source code and not share with anybody if you want to." If that license is more attractive to you, than by all means, release your code under the BSD license instead of GPL. But like me, many people want the guarantee of the continuing freedom of the code they release. For those of us who feel that way, the GPL is exactly the right license.

Re:War is peace

[Intron]

My copy of GPLv2 says: "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope." So my reading would have been that patent infringement lawsuits were not covered. As for whether Novell can buy a license which protects their customers from infringement lawsuits, that's one for the lawyers.

My copy of the GPLv2 says nothing about "passing on" rights. In fact, it says that the people who get a copy from you get their license to distribute from the original copyright holder and not from you. In fact, once they have a copy, you aren't involved anymore, so any deal that you make with some third party can't affect their use of the software.

The section I think you are referring to is: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." I don't see anything in the Novell deal that is imposing furhter restrictions.

You say "The reason they went to all this trouble is so that Novell can try and pressure people into buying only from them" Wow. I'm glad you know all the details of the deal, the intent of the two companies and the legal rules that apply. Thanks for sharing that.

Re:Bruce WHO?

[andyr0ck]

and to prove your commitment to your views you couldn't be arsed putting your name with that comment then? nice. :-)

Re:War is peace

[ciggieposeur]

The Two licenses are incompatible and will creat some expensive legal challenges.

The two licenses are incompatible, but that will not create problems for any projects except the Linux kernel. Most GPL code out there is licensed under "V2 or later", meaning with each additional version of the GPL released by the FSF the code can automatically be released under the new license.

When GPLv3 is ready, the FSF is going to fork all of the code they have copyright to and make the fork "V3 or later". Since "V3 or later" is included within the set "V2 or later", this is OK. However, people who want the "V2 or later" version are going to have to use a separate fork. Since the FSF has no plans to maintain both forks, this will force people wanting to do "V2 or later" to do their own work. Also, they cannot take "V3 or later" code and bring back to their "V2 or later" branch, since that would violate the copyright terms on the "V3 or later" fork.

The Linux kernel is a special case. Parts of the code are "V2 only" and parts are "V2 or later". This combination is OK. However, it would essentially be impossible to move the Linux kernel to "V3 only" or "V3 and later" because EVERY contributor with "V2 only" code in the kernel must agree to this change, and several of them have died and their estates own the copyright on their contributions.

Get it now?

Re:Microsoft "Big Mike"

[ciggieposeur]

In Orwellian terms: Indemnification, good. Covenant not to sue, bad. Ridiculous.

Doesn't seem so ridiculous to me.

Indemnification: "If the bully tries to beat my friends up I will come to their defense."

Covenant: "If you become my friend the bully promises not to beat you up."

Re:War is peace

[NickFortune]

That's semantics.

Yes, of course. The law is semantics. Programming is semantics. Semantics are important.

How is that restricting?

It's restricting because the concept of restriction is an analogue value, and it's possible for something to be more restrictive than one thing, and at the same time less so than some other thing. For example, GPLv2 is less restrictive that a Microsoft EULA, but more so than the BSD licence. As you point out yourself.

They never hid that goal, it is the GNU manifesto, for god sake.

This is only a problem if you assume that a restriction is automatically a bad thing. There's certainly a lot of room for philosophical debate on the idea of restricting your freedom to preserve that of others, and the GPLv3 inevitably raises questions about how much freedom we want to let it restrict, and where the sweet spot lies between restriction and enablement. But to my programmer's mind at least, the GPLv2 passes the test of pragmatism: has been shown to work, and work very well.

But because of the likes of Tivo, Novell and others, that will try to find a loophole and release derivative works without granting those rights, FSF has to created this tangled network of legalese, to close as many holes as they can.

I'm not arguing with you there. I had serious reservations about GPLv3; they went away when Novell started these shenanigans. I think they've made the case for GPLv3 quite nicely.

However, I also think that there is already enough confusion over the GPL, and over how it works, and I don't think that adding to the confusion (even with the best intentions) is ultimately going to help matters.

Hence: semantics are important.

Re:War is peace

[Athenais]

Basically it depends on what you're comparing the GPL to:

Compared to standard copyright law, the GPL gives you more freedom.

Compared to something in the public domain, the GPL gives you less freedom.

People who say the GPL introduces restrictions are looking at it from the latter perspective, and people who say the GPL gives you freedom are looking at it from the former perspective; it's as simple as that. If a piece of software would be public domain if there were no GPL, then yes, it restricts your freedom, but I don't think that is the case for most GPLed software out there.

Re:GPL3 won't fly in the real world

[MSG]

(And of course, some companies try to get away with using the software withouth regard for the terms of the GPL, but that's another matter.)

You mean distributing the software. The GPL's terms don't govern use.

It is explicitly and methodically being written to be as anti-business as possible.

Multiple assertions without any supporting evidence... Can you provide any foundation for your argument, at all? It seems to me that Linus one of the few voices really opposed to the changes in the third revision of the GPL, and most other currently GPLed software is likely to adopt the new license.

It's easy to understand why they would, too. It is precisely because some companies are trying to find loopholes in GPL2 such that they need not abide by its terms, which you pointed out in your opening paragraph.

Re:War is peace

[NickFortune]

My copy of the GPLv2 says nothing about "passing on" rights.

mmm... my mistake. I got that from Stallman's address to the 5th international GPLv3 conference. Sadly, he's talking about phraseology already in the GPLv3 draft at the time of the Novell-MS announcement, and not how v2 works as I had originally thought. So my bad.

On the other hand, it's not a million miles away from this:

To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.

You just have to look at it from the other perspective.

Wow. I'm glad you know all the details of the deal, the intent of the two companies and the legal rules that apply. Thanks for sharing that.

IMHO, obviously. I take it from the sarcasm (was I rude to you?) that you might have a different theory on their motivation? Perhaps I could encourage you to share it. I'll be interested to see if you have any better support for your view than I have for mine.

If Sun goes GPLv3 I'm there

[Anonymous Coward]

If Linus stays with GPLv2, and Sun goes with GPLv3 on Solaris, I'm dropping Linux like a hot potato.

I've worked with GPL'd code since the early 90's, have made contributions to the kernel (and other projects). My problem is that I'm currently in an area where Software Patents (and patent trolls) are a serious concern.

I know I'm not the only one either.

Sun could make serious inroads in a lot of places if they went the GPLv3 route with Solaris. And I'd be delighted to help get them there ASAP.

Try substituting "Rome" for "Microsoft"

[patiodragon]

You might be able to imagine it a little better.

Re:War is peace

[init100]

Where are my mod points when I need them? Well said!

so?

[alizard]

A kernel is about 30 megs or so out of the several hundred megs to several gigs you'll find in any Linux distro. If the collection of core utilities *nix depends on is GPLv3, the options Novell have are writing reverse-engineered versions of those utilities or stop selling products based on them.

Re:so?

[Martin Blank]

Orange Crush was replying to the following comment (emphasis added):

linux, the kernel, won't be licensed under version 3, so it wouldn't matter.

I was correcting that, and only that.

Re:so?

[Spliffster]

Or novell/SuSE could migrate to the BSD equivalents, which would make many gnu diehards pretty unhappy.

Re:so?

[alizard]

It would make a lot more than just diehards unhappy. Ever migrated from one distro to another on one's primary workstation? Just going from FC6 to Debian Etch was painful. I'd rather not think of going from Linux to *BSD.

Re:so?

[Spliffster]

"Ever migrated from one distro to another on one's primary workstation?"

Yes I did many times and you are right. I considered myself a gnudiehard because I spend most of my time in gnu environments and, therefore, never really liked the bsd userspace tools (although I spent many years on Open/FreeBSD). But maybe I am not and am just a Linux user.

Re:War is peace

[NickFortune]

I am not free to own slaves. Am I restricted, or is everyone else more free?

It's not an either/or proposition. Total freedom means I can rape murder and enslave to the limits of my capability. Total restriction means I have to seek permission in order to breathe. Clearly neither extreme is desirable.

And just because some tossers are making the argument that "less than perfect freedom" implies "absolute restriction", that doesn't mean we should play into their hands by arguing the opposite extreme when both are demonstrably ludicrous.

The answer is everyone is more free because nobody can own slaves.

Yes. The overall level of freedom in society increases because of certain carefully crafted restrictions upon that freedom. But the fact that the purposes of freedom are served does not make the restrictions other than restrictions.

Re:War is peace

[Chris Burke]

But the fact that the purposes of freedom are served does not make the restrictions other than restrictions.

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's orthogonal, and that maximum freedom requires certain restrictions, namely the restriction that you can't take freedom.

Don't know what extreme you thought I was arguing (total absence of restriction? definitely not in my post), but I'm not.

Re:War is peace

[Chris Burke]

Yes, and I realize now that sentence was poorly worded.

My whole point is that "restriction" is NOT the opposite of "freedom". "Oppression" is the opposite of "freedom", and to be free of oppression would-be oppressors -- which includes you and me -- must be restricted.

I should have said "I am not free to own slaves. Am I less free because of this, or is everyone more free? The answer is everyone is more free because nobody can own slaves."

Re:War is peace

[NickFortune]

The Linux kernel is a special case. Parts of the code are "V2 only" and parts are "V2 or later". This combination is OK. However, it would essentially be impossible to move the Linux kernel to "V3 only" or "V3 and later" because EVERY contributor with "V2 only" code in the kernel must agree to this change, and several of them have died and their estates own the copyright on their contributions.

Not disagreeing as such, but you could probably find some substantial portions of the code where the ownership was not in doubt, and where the contributor was willing to relicence under V3. In combination with the existing "or later" code, that would probably make it possible to recode from scratch for the remaining code. It would still be a hell of aa job, but I think it's far from impossible.

Whether the will to do so exists, that's another question. I think will depend on how the Microvell pact plays out.

Re:War is peace

[Chris Burke]

"I am not free to own slaves. Am I restricted, or is everyone else more free?"

It's not an either/or proposition. Total freedom means I can rape murder and enslave to the limits of my capability.

I realized my error. I meant to say "Am I less free, or is everyone else more free?" It was not my intent to create a dichotomy between restriction/freedom, since that is what I'm arguing against.

Total freedom does not mean you can rape and murder. Total freedom means everyone is free from rape and murder. To achieve this state, restrictions are necessary. They are not opposites.

Re:War is peace

[shaitand]

'It governs how you use the product'

That part is false. The GPL does not add any restrictions those are specified in copyright law. It relaxes copyright restrictions under certain conditions.

Re:War is peace

[shaitand]

'you cannot (legally) use'

That part is false, at least in the end user sense. Copyright law does not restrict use. So long as the person I obtained the software had the right to distribute it (under any license) I don't even need a license to use the software at all. You can use any copyrighted material so long as you obtained it legally. Similarly, there is no license agreement on a printed book but I don't need permission to read it as long as it wasn't stolen.

Re:GPL3 won't fly in the real world

[Fyzzler]

Call me crazy, but the FSF is going to have to fork their software when they go to GPL 3 anyway. Since they own the copywrite, they are free to move it all to GPL 3, but according to the terms of the GPL 2 they will have to take a snapshot of the code right before the upgrade and keep that available to anybody who wants the static GPL 2 source at the time of the upgrade for quite some time to come.

The GPL 2 clause about distributing the programs and then not adding any further restrictions is why they will have to keep the 2.0 code available for anybody to whom they have distributed it to as GPL 3 does add further restrictions.

Could be better but best fit in some cases

[dbIII]

Slow, configuration is horrible, very poor documentation, abandoned projects, handles networked applications very badly (an unresponsive window from anyother machine locks up the entire window manager which should never happen with X) - but it is improving all of the time, looks good and various applications are designed to work directly with it. The old version with RHEL3 (legacy commercial application on those machines) is not usable for more than brief periods of time so I have KDE there but people like the newer version and cope with the occasional lockups. Slow behaviour is dealt with by having more memory and faster processors. There is actually ongoing work on gconf now and activity on the development mailing list so the configuration mess and lack of portability will most likely be sorted out at some point. Abandoned projects such as gdm (yes I am on the mailing list, nothing has been going on for years) will eventually be replaced. The idealogical aversion to documentation that originally was info instead of man and then no documentation at all is another problem. Speed is going to be a problem unless gnome is written to take advantage of the platform it is compiled for - for instance sockets on *nix instead of something that seemed trendy at the time.

Gnome is good now, it is cross platform, it looks good, and it hasn't been something that does little more than stop gimp from compiling every two weeks for a very long time.

The above poster has missed the point about KDE - it was inspired by CDE and is not about better MS Windows compatibility - if you try too hard people wonder why "dir C:" doesn't work and you are always playing catchup. Personally I use an Enlightenment 0.16 theme I modified in 1999 and fluxbox when I need to do stuff with old applications that only work in 8 bit colour.

Re:War is peace

[NickFortune]

I meant to say "Am I less free, or is everyone else more free?" It was not my intent to create a dichotomy between restriction/freedom, since that is what I'm arguing against.

Got it. Certainly I don't think we disagree on anything important. On the other hand ...

Total freedom does not mean you can rape and murder. Total freedom means everyone is free from rape and murder.

You see, I'd say that was more "utopian" than "free". I don't have a problem with considering the greatest common weal as being my highest social priority; I just think that freedom is orthogonal to the common good.

Is it me, or is this drifting way off-topic? Which isn't to say I'm not interested in the subject we're drifting into...

Re:War is peace

[quarrelinastraw]

Yes it's true that we use free in that sense, but that's not what we mean by freedom in the political sense. In fact, I can't think of any seriously thought out political philosophy in which freedom meant anything close to anarchy. In the Western tradition, real political freedom (in the sense of rights) comes when you leave the state of nature, which of course is anarchy. This is true across the entire political spectrum.

For example, a world in which others can murder you for what you say (anarchy) is less free than a world in which you can say what you please.

Re:War is peace

[shaitand]

Technically you are still incorrect. There are a default set of restrictions put into place by copyright law that take effect when any copyrightable work is created. A Microsoft EULA adds additional restrictions on top of those. The GPL relaxes those restrictions under a certain set of conditions at no point does the GPL add any restrictions. The BSD license relaxes even more of those restrictions under certain conditions. Reverting the work to the public domain is the only way to entirely remove those restrictions.

When looking at the GPL(vANY), the BSD License, and a Microsoft EULA, the only one that adds restrictions that aren't already innate under US law is a Microsoft EULA. The rest merely partially relax restrictions placed by copyright law to differing degrees.

You can not name a single restriction in the GPL, only terms you must meet for the GPL to grant you an additional right.

Perhaps it helps to give another example. You have no PEZ (right to derive and distribute), I do have PEZ. I am willing to let you have some of my PEZ for a dollar. I am not restricting access to PEZ to those willing to give me a dollar, I am allowing those willing to give me a dollar to have some of my PEZ. In other words I am granting access to PEZ, not denying it. There might be those who want PEZ but aren't willing to give me a dollar but they have no justification for being angry with me. I am not stopping them from getting PEZ I am just providing my conditions for getting MY PEZ.

Re:GPL3 won't fly in the real world

[SETIGuy]

If widely used, the GPL3 will change that. It is explicitly and methodically being written to be as anti-business as possible. Software released under the GPL3 will be avoided by all companies for any purpose. FOSS will become a hobbiest ghetto, with no commercial potential even for commercially useful software.

... Realistically, MS will continue to fan the flames of confusion over the legal fuzziness of FOSS, slowing down the spread of good software. ...

Kind of like you did in the previous paragraph?

Re:War is peace

[quarrelinastraw]

I think the comparison is more apt than you believe. The Bill of Rights is meant to protect citizens and the GPL is meant to protect users. In both cases the thing they're protecting against is actions by a more powerful party (the government, or the companies with the license) from violating their rights.

And yes public domain is not free as GPL because the user has fewer rights. The developer can do a wider variety of things under public domain than under GPL, but most of those things are in conflict with the freedom of users. Similarly, the government in the Sudan can do a wider variety of things than the US government (such as take bribes for public service), but that does not make the Sudanese government style the source of more freedom.

I'm not a fan of copyright law. My claim is that freedom comes from enacting prosocial rules that ensure that rights are distributed fairly. In the absence of those rules, there is less freedom and more possibility for might-makes-right.

Re:War is peace

[NickFortune]

People who say the GPL introduces restrictions are looking at it from the latter perspective, and people who say the GPL gives you freedom are looking at it from the former perspective; it's as simple as that.

mmm... the point I've been trying to make is that both perspectives are intrinsically flawed. The GPL doesn't ust give you Freedom, and it doesn't just Restrict you; it aims at minimaxing freedom and restriction. It seeks to maximise what can be done with the software from the widest social perspective, while attempting to minimise the restrictions placed on the licensee. Hmm... put like that, it's the exact opposite of how commercial licences work. Fancy that :D

Anyway, the point is that it's not an either/or case. If someone says that the GPL is very restrictive licence, then the proper responses are "for whom?" (I'm sure Bill and Steve find it so) and "in comparison to what?" (because it comes out rather well in comparison to the average commercial EULA).

Otherwise, you're inviting the uncommitted reader to dismiss you as just another Linux zealot. And that doesn't help our case at all.

Re:War is peace

[NickFortune]

Technically you are still incorrect. There are a default set of restrictions put into place by copyright law that take effect when any copyrightable work is created. A Microsoft EULA adds additional restrictions on top of those. The GPL relaxes those restrictions under a certain set of conditions at no point does the GPL add any restrictions.

It's still a sliding scale; we're just quibbling now about where to put the zero point.

Why bother? It's like arguing that the freezing point of water is warmer in Celsius than it is in Kelvin

Re:Once again the fanatics take charge

[petrus4]

Third, WHATVER MIGHT happen in the future between Microsoft and the OSS movement, the odds of Microsoft being able to seriously damage the spread of Linux, let alone OSS in general, is virtually nil.

Precisely correct. Anyone with a brain knows that Microsoft are not going to exist for more than another 15 years, tops. Why?

1. No concrete long-term strategy after Windows NT 4, and no substantially new products since then. Windows 2000, XP, and Server 2003 are all incremental upgrades to NT 4. Vista is Microsoft's last release, and everyone knows it. After this, all they've got left is consumer inertia based on their *existing* software. They've hit a technological brick wall. Gates has said that Microsoft could run for years without making a single sale...but not many years. We may just get to see that claim verified.

2. Rabid (even fanatical in some places) consumer hatred of the company. You don't have people hating you the way people hate Microsoft and survive with it for long, especially when that is coupled with the above. Microsoft doing an IBM and surviving while becoming less important is not going to happen, simply because of the number of people who feel a passionate need to completely destroy the company. Machiavelli wrote about it...once you're hated as widely and with the degree of intensity that Steve Ballmer is, the show is over. People will band together and do whatever they have to in order to get rid of you...they will move heaven and earth to do it. If the first problem was all Microsoft had to worry about, it wouldn't be insurmountable...they could do what Apple did with OSX and probably survive. But when you've got this much ill will *on top of* needing to completely re-invent yourself, forget it.

The only reason why Stallman still thinks Microsoft are a genuine threat to anybody but themselves is because he has started to believe his own fearmongering.

Fourth, if Stallman and crew take the GNU utilities out of action because of GPLv3, the OSS community will simply reinvent them - or better ones - which is long overdue in many cases.

In the case of virtually all other elements of the POSIX toolchain, we have substitutes ready and waiting. The one area however where Stallman still has us over a barrel however just happens to also be the most important one:- GCC. When I pointed this out a week or so ago, someone gave me a link to something in progress, but what was linked to still uses GCC in part. Of the very few other remaining possibilities, neither TenDRA or ACK are technologically current, (with the latter's obsolescence being measured in *decades*) and the Intel C Compiler is not open source.

We *need* an alternative to GCC. If I had one, barring translation problems, I could put together a completely non-GNU/FSF toolchain in probably a week and a half or so, as could many other people. *All* of the other pieces are there. The problem is, we don't have an alternative to GCC, and it's far too complex a piece of software for most of us to apparently even know where to begin to write one.

If there is anyone reading this who *does* have even a vague idea of how to begin this, please seriously consider it...because you could provide exactly the kind of miracle that right now, a lot of us need.

Re:Microsoft "Big Mike"

[petrus4]

Hey, the "Big Mike" analogy is funny and everything, buts it's sad to see someone of Bruce's caliber and stature stooping to antics

Er, no. Bruce's fecal matter smells just as bad as the next human being's; of this I am entirely certain. Take him down off that huge marble pedestal in your mind. Once you start perceiving him as just another pathologically flawed human being like the rest of us, you then cease to be so amazed when he behaves accordingly.

SuSE goes Stable?

[myowntrueself]

They will be saddled with maintaining old versions of very complex software (like the entire gcc toolchain, plus binutils and the like)

Sounds just like Debian Stable to me...

Re:War is peace

[radarjd]

The developer can do a wider variety of things under public domain than under GPL, but most of those things are in conflict with the freedom of users.

I disagree with that statement. No one can remove something from the public domain. Once it is there, it is there. The developer can do what he likes, but he is unable to remove a work from the public domain.

Ultimately, I believe your argument is that RMS has drafted a superior copyright law, which should be perpetual.

Community

[petrus4]

The word "community," is a euphemism for the word "cult" to the same degree that the phrase "collateral damage," is a euphemism for the phrase "mass murder."

Re:Once again the fanatics take charge

[Master of Transhuman]

"it's far too complex a piece of software for most of us to apparently even know where to begin to write one."

Heh - this probably won't go over well - but...

Rewrite everything in Java...line for line, if necesssary...then compile it with whatever Java JIT compiler produces even semi-decent code.

I mean, do we REALLY want everything critical in OSS written in C and C++ forever?

A humongous project, I'm sure - but if we have to...

As for GCC being huge, well, it's STILL just a set of compilers. However complex it can be, if various projects can take on an OSS Java VM with class libraries as they have, I'm sure they can take on GCC. May take five years or more, but I'm sure it could be rewritten by somebody - especially if one of the big boys like IBM decided to sponsor the project. It would be peanuts for a big company to finance this sort of thing.

The bottom line: in software, NOBODY is indispensable forever, Lock-in only happens when you don't HAVE TO take the time to prevent it. In the corporate world, this is the preferred mode of operation. Not in OSS - where personal desires take priority.

If the OSS community sees OSS going down and they can't develop what they want because nobody will support it because of the effects of EITHER the license or patents, ALL this stuff will get reinvented and damn fast.

If necessary, it will be done in the rest of the world that doesn't adhere to US IP law. Software development will go back to being an underground hacker activity...

Personally I can't think of a better way to stimulate new development than to screw around with developers with new licenses and patents.

Bring it on!

The problem with Stallmand and the FSF is that they think EVERYBODY in OSS thinks like them - even while they continually separate themselves from "Open Source" by denigrating it over "free software".

Re:War is peace

[shaitand]

'Why bother?'

I can't speak for anyone else in the thread but the main reason I bother is because I am an anal prick. Not to mention the fact that its a slow Weds.

Re:War is peace

[Thomas the Doubter]

This is interesting. It is true that many people think that the BSD license is actually a more liberal licence than the GPL. Why is it, then, that there is much more software developed under the GPL? Could it be that the GPL is preferred because it is more restrictive?
The GPL Restrictive in a good way - in a way that allows the code to live a life of its own, independent of the person who happens to compile it into an executable object. This "independent life" of the code is also extremely favorable to the end-user, whether they know it or not. The code should always be available to be picked-up again if it is ever dropped by the original programmers. There is no doubt that the GPL will continue to win the Darwinian struggle for mind-share.

Re:Once again the fanatics take charge

[petrus4]

I've observed this before, but the cowardice shown by the pro-Stallmanite moderators on this site continues to be truly sickening to behold.

Don't ever try and actually refute opposing viewpoints with anything approaching logical argument, guys...because then you might be forced to confront the idea that raw mind control is the only thing supporting your own perspectives...and whatever else, we can't have that, can we?

When you do this, you do not only reveal your own nature...but you also again show us the real nature of he who you serve.

Windows is yesteryears product

[rainhill]

If we create a completely foreign system, then it is that much harder to get [Windows] people to use, promote and contribute to linux. Otherwise we are left with a select few and linux stays in the basement.

Come on now, I'd (and I bet most others too) rather be interested in a product that looks unlike Windows, that looks exotic, that looks exciting, that looks new and futuristic. Windows is yesteryears product, even worst, its yester century's.

Re:Windows is yesteryears product

[Degrees]

You've obviously never met my mom. Does she pay the Microsoft tax? Yes. Would I rather she didn't? Sure.

But trying to be different for the sake of difference isn't that great an idea. Unless that Dvorak keyboard is working out well for you... (and I can promise you, it wouldn't work out well for my mom). In my ideal world, some distribution of Linux would come with the "Redmond" window manager, that I could plop in front of my mom, and her 65+ year old brain would deal with just fine.

I don't want Novell to change Gnome to mimic Windows; but I wouldn't mind if they wrote an optional skin to ease the transition for people who would otherwise see the foreigness as a reason to tell their friends to stay away.

Re:Windows is yesteryears product

[rainhill]

while i agree with your mom's case, looking similar wont entice your mom to try Linux either, it wont.

See Apple & Macs for instance, nobody cared about them until one day they come in pink, purple, blue and orange. then people start talking how sexy they were, then some started trying. if not the success of imacs, Apple would have no $$$ to develop and market ipods. and would have been eaten alive late 90s.

Re:Windows is yesteryears product

[Degrees]

I think we can agree. I see your point about distinguishing features: people don't try something new if it is the same old boring thing. And I agree that the Gnome people should focus on innovation - not just copying the Microsoft interface. That being said, it doesn't help to scare off newbies. Maybe the Mandriva people should be the ones to work on an uber-friendly interface.

I'm just thinking that my mom has this group of laidies that play Majhong. If my mom started using Linux, and it worked for her, there would be at least a couple of the Majhong ladies that would be willing to try it. Honestly, all my mom does with her computer is email (which is really just a web app), photos, and surfing the web. Once a year, she needs to run a tax program.

There really ins't anything here that Linux couldn't do - so long as my mom and friends don't get into a situation where they have to open up a new terminal and type grep 'error' /var/log/message or something.

Novell owning the original Unix IP - not so sure

[walterbyrd]

As I understand it: much of the outcome of the ATT vs BSD trial was sealed. ATT sold novell whatever Unix rights ATT happend to own. But that might have been nothing, or next to nothing.

In all likelihood, much of the ATT code is now public domain. The public does not really know.

Re:War is peace

[iPaul]

I like the GPL and would only release software under the GPL. My point was that Novell bought into the GPL when it started releasing GPL licensed software. If the licensing arrangement with Microsoft violates the GPL there should be consequences. The person I was replying to seemed to think the GPL lets you do anything you want with the software. The GPL is as valid a license as the one that comes with any paid-for software product.

Re:Once again the fanatics take charge

[ciggieposeur]

We *need* an alternative to GCC.

Why?

Re:War is peace

[iPaul]

Your right. I was using sloppy phrasing. What I meant was you can't redistribute the binary as part of another product. However, you are correct that my internal use of the product is not restricted. What I'm sick and tired of is people treating the GPL like dirt because the software it ships with can be obtained for no cost. I believe telling people you can do anything you want with GPL software leads to the false impression that their rights to do "anything" extends to redistribution. Some people are under the mistaken impression that enforcing the GPL is hypocritical. For example, suing hadware vendors that include GPL software but fail to follow the GPL's requirements to release the software patches or changes. The original post I was responding to seemed to take this tack.

Re:War is peace

[iPaul]

I'm sorry, but why do you think I said the GPL was bad? The original poster I replied made a remark that seemed to think it was hypocritical for free software people to raise licensing concerns. I think it's very valid to raise licensing concerns because the GPL does have real licensing terms. You are allowed to do aything you want with that software as long as you follow those terms. The terms of the GPL are less restrictive than any commercial license I've ever seen, but they still put some limits on the licensee. I was pointing out there are less restrictive licenses than GPL.

Re:War is peace

[Courageous]

I am not free to own slaves. Am I restricted, or is everyone else more free?

Following this thread (and seeing the later rephrasing also), I would state that there are important definitional matters at hand here. I regard a theoretical someone complaining about not being able to own slaves as not speaking about any kind of "freedom" at all, because to me there is no real freedom that is at the expense of other human beings -- by definition. I should imagine there are cases where even this view breaks down and ceases to make sense, but I wouldn't say many.

In the few that I can think of, I'm reminded of an old quote that said something like "all government is evil, but sometimes some evil is necessary." Taxes for the common defense, where the one man is in some ways losing his "freedom" to not pay taxes, and so forth. Pretty arguable though, as he is "free" to live in a very free country like Somalia if he so elects.

C//

Re:War is peace

[sumdumass]

Sure. There is nothing inconsistant with My statment in there.

Except I think your neglecting the GPLv2 license that says no "further restrictions". So all GPLv2 or later code would have to be forked to GPLv3 to get around the further restrictions clause. This is were the problems come in. IF you include something that places further restrictions in the GPLv2 (or later or not) you are breaking the terms of the GPLv2 license. Now were this gets interesting is that we have a history all ready established in this fashion. The LGPL was created specificly to deal with it.

If the inclusion of the GPLv3 in effect places restrictions, then expect to see legal challenges for it. Expect to see objections and further fracturing of the community. Expect to see forks maintained primarily by comercial interest who bill it as clearing up all the confusion left by the other licenses and expect to see add campains saying something to the effect of "don't limit your ability to do business because of the software your servers run, use XGPL quality assured software to ensure you won't end up getting a bunck of crazed lunitics wanting to dictate how you run your company on you back".

Re:War is peace

[Chris Burke]

You see, I'd say that was more "utopian" than "free".

Fine with me. The GPL is more about utopia than any individual's notion of absolute free action.

Re:Once again the fanatics take charge

[petrus4]

Feel free to write the rest of the toolchain.

*Bangs head on desk*

Did you *look* at any of the links in the parent? Where I linked to the Heirloom Project?

Meaning, that I wouldn't *need* to write the rest of it myself, because it's already been done.

Re:Novell owning the original Unix IP - not so sur

[micheas]

As I understand it: much of the outcome of the ATT vs BSD trial was sealed.

Was is the key word here. SCO vs IBM has unsealed most if not all of that.

Novell won't be out of business

[Pecisk]

Simply they will host GPL 2 versions of software and will roll back changes from GPLv3 version. They can do that? Ohh, sure they can do, they can look at the code and code it in (not copying it) in GPL 2 version. Of course, it will cost them more a little bit, but more or less I don't see it as a problem.

RMS, Perens, I think it is all bullshit that you can stop deals like Novell vs. Microsoft _THIS_ way. Deal with it - as long as software patents will be threat, we will be in danger. Period.

And Perens, chill out, you are seeing too much evil in details, I think.

Re:Novell won't be out of business

[codepunk]

Well listen, I happen to agree with you 100%, it does not matter what you, RMS or Perens says. However I do not know many developers that are cool with the idea and what we think matters. If the GPL3 is gonna block those kind of deals then everything I produce will be GPL3...simple really!

Re:War is peace

[NickFortune]

I can't speak for anyone else in the thread but the main reason I bother

Well, it was pretty much a rhetorical question - but fair enough, I suppose :)

Re:War is peace

[botik32]

n/a. I accidentally modded parent down, posting here to undo.
sorry.

If you continue to post this comment, all moderations done to this discussion will be undone! Are you sure you want to post?

Re:War is peace

[Intron]

The point of my original post was that people are making statements about the MS-Novell deal without knowledge of the language or the intent, since neither are public other than some general statements. You jumped right in repeating those same assertions.

I don't see how Novell is violating or "getting around" GPLv2 with the deal, since they don't seem to be trying to add any restrictions. Their intent might be to somehow corner the Linux market through some legal loophole and risk a backlash of the entire open-source world, but I think it's more likely that they just want to improve their own offering and market share by eliminating one of the main concerns decision makers have about Linux - which is what if MS decides to do a patent attack. The only thing you can fault Novell for is that they aren't trying to help out their competitors as well as themselves. How rude of them.

Re:Once again the fanatics take charge

[petrus4]

Are you asking because you genuinely want to know what I think, or because you've already made up your own mind and you simply want to use whatever answer I give you to refute me?

Re:War is peace

[NickFortune]

The point of my original post was that people are making statements about the MS-Novell deal without knowledge of the language or the intent, since neither are public other than some general statements. You jumped right in repeating those same assertions.

You asked a question, I gave you the answer as I saw it. I'm sorry if you don't like my answer, but I don't really feel it's my responsibility to check right back to the start of a thread, just in case you're in a sarcastic mood.

I don't see how Novell is violating or "getting around" GPLv2 with the deal, since they don't seem to be trying to add any restrictions.

Yes, yes, yes. The general feeling is that they are contravening the spirit of the agreement whilst continuing to observe the letter of same. Which should be obvious, really, since it they were adding restrictions then they would forfeit their licence to distribute and would not be having this particular discussion.

However, just because they are conforming to the letter of the licence, that doesn't mean they are adhering to its intent. In particular, the implied threat of litigation is seen by many as fundamentally contrary to the spirit of the GPL.

What is so very difficult about that?

I think it's more likely that they just want to improve their own offering and market share by eliminating one of the main concerns decision makers have about Linux which is what if MS decides to do a patent attack.

And do you think this particular initiative is well founded from the viewpoint of protecting people from patent attack? It seems to have heightened concerns rather than allaying them, and given that Microsoft can cancel the deal at any time, it doesn't seem to be terribly reassuring either.

On the other hand, it has garnered a number of high profile deployments for Novell. So if we do Ron Hovsepian the courtesy of assuming him to be other than a blithering incompetent, then it seems likely reassuring the business community was not uppermost in his mind when he signed this agreement.

The only thing you can fault Novell for is that they aren't trying to help out their competitors as well as themselves. How rude of them.

I'm sorry, but you can't just invoke competition as if it were some arcane word of power and expect it to drive all dissent before you. If Novell want to be twats with software that they wrote and own themselves, then you might have a point. If they do it with software that they distribute under licence from others, and if they do so at the expense of those others, then they needn't come crying when the licence gets changed to preclude their bad behaviour.

Again, what's so complicated about that?

Re:Once again the fanatics take charge

[ciggieposeur]

A little of both I guess. It sounds like you want to clone gcc so that the community can have a non-GPL-licensed compiler suite, but I don't understand why you think that is necessary.

Re:GPL3 won't fly in the real world

[MSG]

according to the terms of the GPL 2 they will have to take a snapshot of the code right before the upgrade

No fork would be required by the GPL. Several clarifications:

Any reasonable group of developers would be able to check out the required code using CVS (or any other RCS system they might use).

Even that isn't really necessary. The GPL requires that a publisher grant the source code of a covered work to users who request it. A user who received version 2.0.1 of a program is entitled to the source code for that release, but not necessarily any code that was written after the release.

Last, the source will continue to be available via all of the same channels when the license is updated. GNU will continue to make their code repositories available, and publish tarballs of their releases. Transition to the third revision of the GPL isn't the herald of a move toward a proprietary state.

Re:Once again the fanatics take charge

[petrus4]

but I don't understand why you think that is necessary

Because

a) I feel that history has shown me at least that having only a single implementation of *anything* (especially something as important as GCC) is a bad thing in general terms.

b) Going on from a), I especially feel that a *license* monoculture with the license controlled by a single institution is an extremely bad thing, especially when said license is as strongly mutually exclusive as the GPL is.

c) I do not trust Richard Stallman, and I never have. His own rhetoric about "freedom," notwithstanding, there are those of us who believe that the GPL was written expressly with the intent to create a monoculture in mind. I also feel that the behaviour of the FSF over the last 18 months or so has gradually been bearing this assertion out to an increasing degree. If we had access to a compiler under a license outside of the FSF's control, (my own suggestion would be the BSD license, but there are a lot of different options) those of us who no longer wish to be in any way associated with the FSF could still continue to use FOSS on our own terms, rather than theirs. It would also mean a radical reduction in factional conflict I suspect, since people like Bruce Perens and the Debian Project who agree with the FSF could continue to develop their own software and persue their own interests without continually trying to force their perspectives on those of us who do not agree. There are those of us who fervently wish that, while being able to continue to use open source in various forms, that we could otherwise forget about the FSF's existence entirely.

If the FSF want to start banning people who are taking actions that they dislike from using or distributing their software, that's fine. I simply want a scenario where not only I myself, but *anyone* can have an alternative if they do not wish to bow to Richard Stallman's dictates. The FSF's threat to ban people from using GNU software is only of any importance *because* in the case of GCC they're the only game in town. If they weren't, Stallman could ban whoever he wanted to from using his software, and he'd be the only person who cared. Exclusivity is in itself the very thing that gives him power...and you can bet that he knows that.

In case you're thinking of accusing me of having purely or primarily economic reasons for wanting an alternate compiler under a different license, I can make two points in refutation of that:-

a) Some of us (primarily the developers of the BSDs, among others) simply do not believe that the law should be involved in any way whatsoever in dictating either distribution *or* end use. Anyone else who believes otherwise is entirely free to, in my mind...and that itself is a very important distinction. Those who use licenses such as the BSD license believe that an individual's choice of beliefs is their own to make, rather than feeling that their own belief system should be imposed on everyone else. Richard Stallman has always seemed to believe that he has a divine right to dictate how other people think. It is but one of a myriad things about the man that I consider profoundly repugnant.

b) The idea that software should not be associated with commercial enterprise at all is an idea largely introduced by Stallman anyway, and propogated not only in the face of extreme fear and disgust over the behaviour of such companies as Microsoft, but also due to the FSF (and particularly the FSFE) being deeply cultic in nature. The rank and file adherents of these two groups blindly propogate whatever ideological dictates are handed down from on high, without recourse to any use of critical thought whatsoever. If Stallman or the zealots in charge of the FSFE say that making money from software is a bad thing, then said adherents will believe it, without the need for any further word being said. Stallman's perspectives are accepted without question.

Some of the BSD developers have written about scenarios where, as a result

Re:War is peace

[rastos1]

See? "restrictions".

You stopped quoting too early. It is "restricting of denying rights". That equals to "ensuring more rights are granted".

Re:War is peace

[NickFortune]

You stopped quoting too early. It is "restricting of denying rights".

You started quoting too late. I cited the entire paragraph, and supplied a hyperlink to the source document.

That equals to "ensuring more rights are granted".

I don't think you can do that sort of boolean logic in this context.If I restrict your rights to restrict mine, is that a net enablement? If so I can promote freedom by having you locked up

The point is that this is not an either/or case. The GPL aims to provide maximal rights with the minimum restriction needed to maintain those rights.

Look at it this way: if you're arguing that the GPL is a Good Thing, and someone starts up a song and dance about how restrictive the GPL is, they're inviting you to buy into a false dichotomy, namely that the GPL has to be either absolutely liberating, or absolutely restrictive. However, if you accept this notion, you hand your opponent a ready made straw man - all he now need do in order to refute you is to demonstrate a single restriction at which point your proposition falls apart.

So what i'm saying is that it's better to reject the false dichotomy from the start. You may loose the warm fuzzy feeling of being the Defender Of An Instrument Of Absolute Freedom; but on the other hand, it'll be a lot harder to trip you up using schoolboy debating tricks.

Re:Once again the fanatics take charge

[ciggieposeur]

a) I feel that history has shown me at least that having only a single implementation of *anything* (especially something as important as GCC) is a bad thing in general terms.

I agree that standards are good and multiple implementations that meet a particular standard make that standard much stronger. However, I disagree that every piece of code MUST have competing F/OSS implementations. Example: pppd. We essentially all use the same version of pppd and it works well and has been mostly bug-free for over 10 years. Other examples more in line with this discussion are perl, Python, and Ruby. The reference implementations are the only implementations used but those languages have not really suffered as a result, especially since the reference implementations support so many platforms. I think where it really matters is F/OSS vs. proprietary software. Example: we were (are) all at the mercy of Sun's Java implementation until a F/OSS Java stack became viable. Now that Kaffe + Classpath can run 95% of Java software, developers can breathe easier about using that platform.

I suppose I would say the gaping chasm is between between proprietary software and F/OSS and this gap creates a lot of immediate problems for both users and developers. The much smaller cracks between various F/OSS licenses matters only to developers, and even then only to developers who wish to use community code in proprietary products. The latter gap would matter to me only if the GPL community code was the ONLY way to achieve a certain end; however, commercial products exist that force the community code to adhere to a standard so this problem does not seem critical to me.

b) Going on from a), I especially feel that a *license* monoculture with the license controlled by a single institution is an extremely bad thing, especially when said license is as strongly mutually exclusive as the GPL is.

I think everyone already agrees with this. Some code needs to be BSD/public domain/LGPL, and some code needs to be GPL. Witness the projects that had to switch to Postgres due to the GPL'd MySQL library.

However, though GPL is controlled by the FSF, developers are still the ultimate deciders in how their code is used, and as we have seen with Mozilla, Apache, and others developers have created a number of different licenses to reflect their needs. With so much of the regular stack under so many different licenses, GPL is (and always will be) one voice of many.

c) I do not trust Richard Stallman, and I never have. His own rhetoric about "freedom," notwithstanding, there are those of us who believe that the GPL was written expressly with the intent to create a monoculture in mind. I also feel that the behaviour of the FSF over the last 18 months or so has gradually been bearing this assertion out to an increasing degree. If we had access to a compiler under a license outside of the FSF's control, (my own suggestion would be the BSD license, but there are a lot of different options) those of us who no longer wish to be in any way associated with the FSF could still continue to use FOSS on our own terms, rather than theirs. It would also mean a radical reduction in factional conflict I suspect, since people like Bruce Perens and the Debian Project who agree with the FSF could continue to develop their own software and persue their own interests without continually trying to force their perspectives on those of us who do not agree. There are those of us who fervently wish that, while being able to continue to use open source in various forms, that we could otherwise forget about the FSF's existence entirely.

I expect RMS does indeed ultimately desire a GPL monoculture, but he is pursuing it by competing more-or-less fairly in the marketplace, not by stamping out the rest. I think it is wrong to say that RMS and Debian et al are "continually trying to force their perspectives" on everyone else. They have their code, they have their terms, and most people attacking them want their code u

Re:Novell owning the original Unix IP - not so sur

[mr_mischief]

X/Open claims to own the Unix certification mark, and they also claim to own the rights to the definition of standards and interfaces. If they publish a paper with the IP they got from Novell that SCO didn't, and someone uses that to make a clone, what foot is SCO standing on in the first place?