Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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.
Developers: We can use your help.
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!"
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.
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.
Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
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.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
- Crow T. trollbot
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.
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?
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
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?
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.
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.
Move Sig. For great justice.
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
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.
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.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
A lot of people would disagree with that. Hell, the GPL disagrees with that:
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.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
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.
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":
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
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"
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
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
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
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.
"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.
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
Working in a DevOps shop is like playing in a band made up entirely of keytarists.
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.
You might be able to imagine it a little better.
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.
Tech Public Policy stuff
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.
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.