Slashdot Mirror
Final Draft of GPLv3 Allows Novell-Microsoft Deal
famicommie writes "All of Novell's fingernail biting has been for naught. In a display of forgiveness and bridge building on behalf of the FSF, ZDNet reports that the final draft of the GPLv3 will close the infamous MS-Novell loophole while allowing deals made previously to continue. From the article: 'The final, last-call GPLv3 draft bans only future deals for what it described as tactical reasons in a 32-page explanation of changes. That means Novell doesn't have to worry about distributing software in SLES that's governed by the GPLv3 ... Drafting the new license has been a fractious process, but Eben Moglen, the Columbia University law school professor who has led much of the effort, believes consensus is forming. That agreement is particularly important in the open-source realm, where differing license requirements can erect barriers between different open-source projects.'"
So does that mean TiVo can continue to sell their products because their deal was made before GPL3 was drafted?
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Eben Moglen's (and FSF's) stance on this issue seems to be that the language of GPLV3 will automatically cause all GPLV3 software distributed by Novell in SLES to be protected by the Microsoft-Novell deal. Now, IANAL, but Eben Moglen is. I'm not sure he's 100% right, but I'm also not sure he's 100% wrong either. I wonder if that would hold up in court?
My blog
This story is from 4th June... Another great bit of Slashdot editing.
This affects "GPLv2 or later" projects that can't be relicensed because some of the contributors can't be reached.
For new projects, or if all the developers agree, or for new contributions to existing projects, you can strike the clause permitting earlier deals if you like.
Good morning fellow employee. You'll notice that I am now a model worker. We should continue this conversation later during the designated break period or after work. Sincerely, Homer Simpson.
Good. Despite my displeasure with the MS/Novell deal, I think it's best not to create in-fighting within a community that has worked so hard to get where it is in the market. Divide and conquer is an old trick.
So when the 5 year deal runs out... will Novell be able to renew it? I would presume not..good news, no?
Most people have no idea what they are doing, and are silently panicking on the inside.
All these stuff about free software, people acting together and stuff, are, despite the turmoil and bickering, maybe because everything moves forward in spite of the turmoil and bickering, filling me with much hope.
Read radical news here
This seems a bit foolish to me. By not locking out the MS-Novell and other deals, it's as if they're being rewarded for weakning open source.
Dear diary: Today I stuffed some dolls full of dead rats I put in the blender.
I've also been reading Linus comments on Tivoisation, and I agree with him in principle. However, I see the potential threat that FSF sees too. There will always be ways to lock down hardware unless you require them to provide all development tools - which could include hardware. That sounds unreasonable, so Tivo would probably not use the code. However, that means all projects would have to provide complete development environments to their users on request. I seriously doubt if Tivoization can be stopped by a software license without making the license useless for everyone.
Does anyone know whether RMS has backed down on this? Or has he simply flip-flopped like politicians?
nt
Here's a big clue-in as to why everyone and their mama has been discussing their decision to deal or not deal with MS.
I guess this means that GPLv3 really is closing in?
This was yet another of those deals where a company includes the usual collection of possible disasters in its SEC filings and the morons at Groklaw turned it into one of their "Company We Don't Like Trembles In Fear Of Teh Community!" fantasies, right?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
What makes you believe that that particular license modification is allowed? Generally, modified versions of the GNU GPL are forbidden to reduce the ridiculous proliferation of just-different-enough-to-be-incompatible licenses.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Seriously, every day I'm more and more unhappy with the GPLv3. We have four big problems, which are digital restrictions management, patents, tivoization, and trap deals. The GPLv3 was about preventing these problems from happening, or at least, from affecting us. Yet right now it barely solves one of them. With every new revision, the GPLv3 got more and more fagged up, to the point it's now a stupid overhyped version of GPLv2 with little to no improvement, a pointless license.
Now I'll consider relesing my stuff with my own license that will address these issues, and I encourage others to do likewise. And, for the things where GPL will suffice, I'll stay with GPLv2, because GPLv3 is just not worth it.
I was about to say 13256278887989457651018865901401704640, but it appears this number is private property.
I've two open source projects that I'm working on, and both are either going to be released GPLv2 or maybe even BSD. I might even contemplate, gasp, Public Domain. Once you make the mental leap that you are going to be giving your software away, then, what difference does it make how you do so? I really don't want to spend too much time worrying that someone might make money with my stuff when I know that I won't.
The GPL is sorta irrelevant in a way. Any more, open source can mean any number of licenses. If people want to see the source code for my thing, they can always come to my web site. The odds of someone making a closed source product out of my code are probably rarer than the odds of me getting rich writing shareware for Windows, so what difference does it really make?
I just don't see the need for this license at all.
This is my sig.
The text the article is referring to is unchanged since the earlier drafts, and it certainly doesn't get novell off the hook wrt the linked article - Microsoft may still well have to lean on them to stop them shipping gplv3 code - since the use of the coupons, whilst existing as an effect of the patent agreement, will cause, when useed, a new contract between the coupon issuer [microsoft and novell] and the redeemer [joe bloggs] to be created at the date of redemption. If the code joe bloggs recieves contains gpl3'd code, then under the current draft (and as indicated in tfa) any patent protection indemities offered by that contract will automatically be extended to everybody. Thats why there was the fuss after poeple noted there isn't an expiry date on the coupons - up till that point it was thought they would all be gone by the time gplv3 was out and suse would be fine. Conclusion: either the summariser is misinformed or a turfer. for further info, go have a browse through groklaw. They have had pretty good coverage of it.
"Success is based on knowing how far to go in going too far"
"The final, last-call GPLv3 draft bans only future deals for what it described as tactical reasons
Oh, I see. They created a loophole specifically for Novell. Well, isn't that dandy. Who do I have to pay-off to get exemptions included in GPLv3 for myself?
All the GPLv3 language does is make merely having entered into the deal not per se a violation of the license. It does not exempt the company from any of the other terms of the license, including the requirement that all recipients receive not merely the protections resulting from any agreement but the right to pass along those protections in turn. So Novell is still on the hook there: as soon as they're faced with GPLv3'd software in their distribution they'll have to decide whether or not they can extend the agreement with Microsoft to cover all Linux users, not just those who got their software directly from Novell. If they can't, then distribution subject to the agreement would still be a violation of the GPLv3 even with the grandfather clause in there.
free licence ehh? and it forbids people from doing stuff? and tells them they MUST do other stuff?
portfolio
I still won't use SuSe.
> ...what it described as tactical reasons...
It should had said "...what it described as practical reasons..." instead.
I quite understand that money is spent by Tivo for each device. However, I PAY money to Tivo for the device. Now, if that wasn't enough to cover manyfacturing costs, I could see them wanting to monetise my ownership as a form of subsidy. In that case, I could see a reason for Tivo to tell me they can update my system and take away finctionality BUT I CANNOT.
However, since the vast ammount of money I pay for the device covers costs, salaries and profit left over, what gives them the right to stop me doing what I want with the device I own?
Except open source is not weaker; if you think it is because of the deal, I'd like to see some evidence. What are the facts?
* Novell and SUSE has been consistently one of the biggest contributors to free and open source software and still is. While probably your distro X is packaging Linux software (a truly wonderful thing), let's not forget that Novell are the ones ensuring that developers can work on this free software. Countless developers to work and improve KDE, GNOME, the Linux Kernel, OpenOffice, Alsa etc.
* Novell have more money to hire more people to work on Linux (they have more Linux engineers now than back then)
* Adoption of Linux has increased with more SLE coupons being sold out. All the studies I've seen suggest that all of this is still the case without a detriment to Red Hat et al.
Who is making the community weaker? The same old poisonous people who spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about deals such as these, constantly bickering without knowing the facts. Nonsense like "Novell are going away from ODF" (completely untrue), Novell admitted that Linux infringes any patents (which they've vehemently denied since the beginning of the deal, and before), or that Novell and Microsoft are real partners (while they're still fierce competitors, despite agreeing to work on some areas). Still, it surprises me.
You can't change the text itself.
You can add a wrapper. You say the code is under the Foo Public Licence. In that, you refer to the GPL.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Most people writing Open Source don't want to *give* their software away, in the BSD sense (i.e. give your hard-earned work to Microsoft so they can wrap it up in closed proprietary crap and sell it back to you).
What most Open Source authors want to do is *share* their software with others, in a basically fair way -- that if those others take the software and improve it, they should contribute the improvements back.
BSD is about giving away code to anyone who wants to use it for any purpose, without asking anything back. GPL is about sharing code and protecting important freedoms for the *end users* of the software (such as the freedom to modify it if they want to). In order for GPL to do its job, it requires developers to share back with the community any improvements they make that they want to distribute. That's why a lot of programmers like it--the fairness of the sharing. But that is not the explicit goal of the GPL, but more like a beneficial side effect. The goal of the GPL is really to ensure freedoms for end users.
not the GPL.
Copyright says "to use gpl code in a closed application, you MUST release all your source code under terms acceptable to the GPL license".
COPYRIGHT tells you you must. The GPL just says what it considers an acceptable payment for license.
Try copying patented algorithms in code and selling it. The patent owner will shoot you down like the damn dirty ape you are.
" In a display of forgiveness and bridge building..."
What are you willing to bet that it would read quite like that if it were Microsoft displaying the forgiveness?
You are attempting to read sigs. Cancel or Allow?
I don't know about this article, but the reason behind allowing the deal is that the vouchers Microsoft gave out have no expiration date. What that means is, should someone redeem them for any software covered by the GPLv3, Microsoft's patents become moot because Microsoft has now "conveyed" GPLv3 software and is bound by the terms. In short, Microsoft will get caught in their own trap because of the strange way they did things.
As for the other issues, I suggest looking at the rationale documents. I don't think that the new terms will do "nothing" on those threats. I think rather that they'll do as much as a software license can do, while trying not to get in anyone's way. Unfortunately, the GPLv3 simply lacks the power to neutralize all threats and many were worried that it was trying to do way too much.
If it were that simple, I could do something like "in return for the right to read this copyrighted post, you agree to disclaim any and all patents and copyrights you own into the public domain" or better, get Google or someone to put a EULA like that on their home page and we could be done with this Imaginary Property nonsense once and for all.
Alas, it's just not that simple, and the FSF has worked hard to mitigate as many of these threats as possible. The rest we'll just have to deal with in the legislature or the courts. That said, if you do have any last minute ideas for how to do better, feel free to suggest them. I think the final draft will be published in a week unless there are any new revisions.
Am I the only one that sees linus's hand in this? I would think that it all came down to him pressing for this act of forgiveness just to try and stop distro balcanization (youd have three smaller, stupid distros -suse, linspire and xandros- only able to use GPL2 and the rest on GPL3), which wouldve played well for microsoft.
I say the FSF has not lost its edge and focus as to what the real intentions of Redmond are.
I, for one, welcome our new patent blasting, music playing and freedom catering GPL-III overlawrds.
NO SIG
Microsoft is expected to distribute GPLV3 software. As soon as it does so (don't forget the coupons already sold), M$ will effectively donate any patents theoretically covered by that software.
This concisely explains the tactical reason for the exception. It is also why Microsoft will not distribute GPL V3 software. IANAL, but it may invalidate the Novell agreement anyway. I don't know that Novell can really breathe easier at all.
The grandfather clause that Richard Stallman added to the latest draft of GPL3 allows Novell to distribute GPL3 code but disallows any similar deal after the Microsoft-Novell deal from distributing GPL3 code.
The grandfather clause acts as a flip-flop. Any developer who wants to allow their GPL3 code to be distributed by Novell under the Microsoft-Novell agreement will use GPL3 with the grandfather clause included. Any developer who does not want their code distributed by Novell under the Microsoft-Novell agreement will have to remove the grandfather clause (paragraphs 6 and 7 of section 11) from their version of the GPL3.
The rationale for the grandfather clause is that the coupons being distributed by Microsoft under the Microsoft-Novell agreement could be used in a court case to argue that Microsoft has extended its patent coverage to everybody. But in order for that to be effective then Microsoft must sue somebody. Since Microsoft is not going to sue anybody the coupon defense will never be used. Thus the grandfather clause gives Novell a free pass to distribute GPL3 code under the Microsoft-Novell agreement. Also Microsoft FUD will point to the grandfather clause as validating the Microsoft-Novell agreement.
I suppose if the FSF wants to release gcc, etc. under the grandfather clause and wait for the court case which never comes to prove their elegent legal theory that is OK. But it puts them in the weak position of validating the Microsoft-Novell agreement. I suggest that they remove the grandfather clause from GPL3 while leaving in the coupon defense. The coupon defense would still be usable in the unlikely case that Novell distributes GPL3 code in violation of GPL3 and that Microsoft is stupid enough to sue some open source user over a software patent.
For any developer who does not want to validate the Microsoft-Novell agreement I recommend that they release their code under a variant of GPL3 which does not contain the grandfather clause. A good name for this variant would be GPLv3ng
---------------------
Steve Stites
[
That'd probably be an additional restriction, and if it's not one of those permitted by the GPLv3 which I don't think it is, then it's no longer GPLv3 licensed nor compatible with any other GPLv3 software like libraries, others can't use your code in other GPLv3 projects etc. and it'd be wrong to call it GPLv3 at all. The part which says that the work as a whole must be distributed with no other restrictions is of course at the core of the GPL, at the same time it doesn't allow for "good" restrictions. For example there are GPLv2-incompatible licenses with patent clauses, which RMS likes but you can't just say "well, that was smart so it's ok". In short, if the GPLv3 does something you consider "stupid" there's not really much you can do to make it more restrictive, unless you voice in now.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
>thus taking away their ability to make patent threats
I wouldn't put too much money behind that part of GPL3 because a judge is likely going to toss that right out as an being unconscionable. A contract that says "You must give me a license to all your patents if you distribute X" is about as conscionable as "You must give me everything you own if you distribute X". Not gonna fly.
I am a linux user and I am concerned about the in-fighting amongst our community! We all know that some (SuSe Linspire,Xandros)may have made a mistake by signing agreements with microsoft, If the linux community wants to be number one, the bickering about one another has too stop and stop now! All three of the above have been contributers of the linux community for quite some time now (especially SuSe) It is way past time for us to get over our differences and move on! I personally do not care what kind of agreement these people signed,I do not believe that it was for profit only! Everybody knows that we need more compatibility with microsoft,even if we do hate them,so what are we going to do about it? Bickering back and forth did not work for unix and it will not work for linux either,give the guys some credit and stop the crying already! If they have made a mistake,they will suffer,give them some credit,in the mean time can we work on some compatibility issues? Thanks Dan
"So the grandfather clause says that deals entered into before the relevant changes to GPLv3 were penned aren't, merely by existing, a violation of the license."
So why the distinction between Novell on the one hand and Linspire and Xandros on he other?
---------------
Steve Stites