Jeremy Allison Talks Samba and GPLv3

dmarti writes "The software that enables Linux to act as a Windows file and print server is adopting the Free Software Foundation's new license. What will be the impact on users, distributors, and appliance vendors? Samba maintainer Jeremy Allison answers, in a podcast interview."

Comments

Nothing for you to see here. Move along.

[wanderingknight]

Repost.

Re:Nothing for you to see here. Move along.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe the douchebag mods moderated you down!

dupe

[Anonymous Coward]

dupe

Awesome

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought this was barely newsworthy the first time they posted it, good thing they posted it again.

Re:Awesome

[cyphercell]

The original post linked to a FAQ, this one links to a podcast interview of Jeremy Allison. The first one shouldn't have made it through, this one is better, welcome to the world of the firehouse - a story that only links to a FAQ is not a story.

Re:Awesome

[trolltalk.com]

Yeah, but this article is licensed under the GPL v 3 !!!

So you can't listen to it using GPL v2 software like linux.

(... and there's bound to be some idiot^Wphb^Wastroturfer out there who is ready to spout off about how this is *really really really* the case and suggest we all avoid the "problems" of the "viral open sores GPL" by going to Windows ....)

Didn't we just discuss this?

[GizmoToy]

Maybe it's just me, but didn't we have this conversation 3 days ago?

Samba Adopts GPLv3 For Future Releases

Re:Didn't we just discuss this?

[strredwolf]

We did. DUPE!

Re:Didn't we just discuss this?

[evanbd]

Yes. We did. So why does the 'Dupe' tag not show up for it?

Re:Didn't we just discuss this?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

No, that story was invented by CowboyNeal detractors just to embarrass him.

Re:Didn't we just discuss this?

[larry bagina]

certain tags are banned because they were overused. gay, dupe, and bonkthezonk, for example.

Strange

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you want Samba, software that combines an operating system that doesn't have drivers (Linux) with one that has no security (Windows) ?

in other news...

[RelliK]

slashdot stops posting dupes. No wait...

Re:in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

I honestly don't understand how the editors can fail so hard. Apart from the fact you'd think they'd remember what had just been on their front page when we have no difficulty doing so, they apparently have a script that compares tags / body text of submissions with previous ones. "Samba" and "GPL3" would surely have pulled out the previous story in this case. The only explanation that I can see is that they sometimes just hit approve without even really reading it, which would also explain the not infrequent errors and spelling mistakes.

NewsFlash!

[Anonymous Coward]

CowboyNeal is rising to the challenge of out-duping Zonk on the main page. The gloves are off. In this clash of titans, who will prevail? Zonk opens by fanning the irony flames with a data mining dupe. CowboyNeal replies with a Samba entry on a RMS theme. What will Zonk do? can you guess the next move?

Stay tuned for Slashdot's biggest show - THE DUPE WAR!

Linus is right

[Anonymous Coward]

I am with Linus on this one. Linus has made the most persuasive argument against GPL v3.
Since he is the most important contributtor to open source his opinion needs to be respected.
RMS has to be stopped

Re:Linus is right

[QuantumG]

I agree with you.

People who support "open source" and don't like RMS should stop using the GPL (any version).

Re:Linus is right

[Richard Steiner]

What does the GPL have to do with usage? It's a source license.

Re:Linus is right

[Moridineas]

Not sure what you're saying?

That people that don't like RMS shouldn't use any GPL software? or that they shouldn't themselves use the GPL?

Are you saying Linux should no longer be under the gpl?

Re:Linus is right

[Miguel de Icaza]

I am with Linus on this one. Linus has made the most persuasive argument against GPL v3.
Since he is the most important contributtor to open source his opinion needs to be respected.
RMS has to be stopped

Not everyone involved in opensource can express their opinions freely. Many are employed by companies with strict PR policy and enforcement. When Jeremy Allison resigned from Novell, the fact of his resignation was known by the public for some weeks before his last official day as a Novell employee. Jeremy had to refrain from doing or saying certain things until he was actually off the payroll, so it is good to hear him able to talk freely now. On switching to the gpl3 so soon I'm not sure this isn't too soon. The fact remains it took over a decade to find exploitable weaknesses in the gpl2 (although the gpl2 had patent provisions they were not specific enough to US and international recent software patent law). Today there are many IP lawyers studying the gpl3 for weaknesses, I very much doubt it will take a decade - and when Novell find those loopholes - there will be no one to stop them this time.

Re:Linus is right

[sonamchauhan]

> People who support "open source" and don't like RMS should stop using the GPL (any version).

Write that into the license

Re:Linus is right

[QuantumG]

English comprehension isn't your forte eh?

I said:

People who support "open source" and don't like RMS should stop using the GPL (any version). How many ways is there to interpret that?

That people that don't like RMS shouldn't use any GPL software? How do you possibly get that? Do you equate "the GPL" with "any GPL software"? Just so we're clear no, I am not saying that.

What I'm saying is that if you think the FSF are wrong then don't use the FSF's licenses on your software. I don't think that is such a way out concept do you?

Are you saying Linux should no longer be under the gpl? No. I wasn't saying that either. But if you want my opinion, Linux shouldn't have been released under the GPL. Linus should have stuck to his non-commercial-use-only license. He only adopted the GPL because of pressure from others and has never believed in it. I don't advocate people doing things they don't believe in.

Re:Linus is right

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL was devised primarily by RMS to promote his views on software licensing/distribution. If you don't agree with his views, why license under the GPL? Sooner or later, the license will be revised to match RMS's outlook.

There are tons of open sources licenses, so if you don't agree with the ideology behind the GPL, it doesn't make sense to use it.

Re:Linus is right

[QuantumG]

Exactly.

Re:Linus is right

[Anonymous Coward]

Miguel, my impression of Novells' executives actions and statements is that the M$ deal was all about greed and fear. Now Novells brightest leaders Jeremy Allison and Hubert Mantel have jumped ship to google, what about Novell's remaining greats such as Nat Friedman?

Re:Linus is right

[rustalot42684]

He only adopted the GPL because of pressure from others and has never believed in it.
[[Citation Needed]]

Re:Linus is right

[Miguel de Icaza]

Hubert Mantel is a public hero, be in no doubt. But please don't use M$ in a serious context, I don't appreciate it. Sadly Novell is still using Nat Friedman, as the public apologist for the patent agreement. His arguments are untenable and I think his ethical position stinks. Jeremy Allison's GPL v3 announcements (which I applaud), should reinforce this. Nat should resign too.

Re:Linus is right

[Anonymous Coward]

But please don't use M$ in a serious context, I don't appreciate it.

Without the quotes I think you intended, that sentence is hilarious.

Re:Linus is right

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh (If thats all you found funny in this thread)

Re:Linus is right

[wrook]

Linus should have stuck to his non-commercial-use-only license. He only adopted the GPL because of pressure from others and has never believed in it. I don't advocate people doing things they don't believe in.

From an interview with Linus Torvalds himself - http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html :

I'm generally a very pragmatic person: that which works, works. When it comes to software, I _much_ prefer free software, because I have very seldom seen a program that has worked well enough for my needs, and having sources available can be a life-saver.

So in that sense I am an avid promoter of free software, and GPL'd stuff in particular (because once it's GPL'd I _know_ it's going to stay free, so I don't have to worry about future releases).

Further more:

I changed the copyright to the GPL within roughly half a year: it quickly became evident that my original copyright was so restrictive that it prohibited some entirely valid uses (disk copying services etc - this was before CD-ROM's became really popular). And while I was nervous about the GPL at first, I also wanted to show my appreciation to the gcc C compiler that Linux depended on, which was obviously GPL'd.

Making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did.

So... I'd say you are completely and utterly wrong.

Re:Linus is right

[QuantumG]

Heh, no. But that's some nice selective quoting. Linus likes Free Software and the GPL, because it gets him lots of code for his project. He doesn't actually think proprietary software is evil though. That's what RMS believes. That's the body and spirit of the GPL. As such, I don't think Linus should be using the GPL. Nor should anyone else who thinks proprietary software is morally ok. This is why Linus went with "the GPL version 2 only with exceptions for syscalls" for his license. He doesn't subscribe to the faith, he just wants to benefit off the gospel.

Re:Linus is right

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you. The contributions of illiterates are always welcome here at Slashdot.

Re:Linus is right

[flyingfsck]

Hmm, the FSF is not a church. It is not a gospel. It is not a faith. It is just a bunch of people who think that the best way to spread computer knowledge for the betterment of mankind is to turn software into a free commodity. You are free to do otherwise. Just write your own software then. Don't leach off other people's charity work for your profit. A good example is Tivo. Tivo can do whatever they want, provided that they write their own software and don't leach off GPL software. Tivo can either free up their code the way the GPL intends, or they can rewrite their system using Microsoft Windows, or VxWorks, Or Sun Solaris. It is their choice. That is all that the FSF and the GPL is about.

Re:Linus is right

[QuantumG]

Well, just last month he claimed he understood the spirit of the GPL better than the people who wrote the damn thing:

You claim that I "misunderstood" the "spirit of the GPL".

Dammit, the GPL is a license. I understand it quite well. Probably better than most. The fact that the FSF then noticed that there were *other* things that they wanted to do, and that were *not* covered by the GPLv2, does *not* mean that they can claim that others "misunderstood" the license.

So tell me: who is the more confused one: the one who chose the license fifteen years ago, and realized what it means legally, and still stands behind it? I don't think so.

The whole idea that there is a philosophy behind the GPL and that is the spirit, not the words that are written down to satisfy the lawyers is just lost on the guy. He goes on to say:

The beauty of the GPLv2 is exactly that it's a "tit-for-tat" license, and you can use it without having to drink the kool-aid.

I've said that over and over again. It's the "spirit of the GPLv2". It's what has made it such a great license, that lots of people (and companies) can use, is very fundamentally that it's fair.

The fact that the FSF sees *another* spirit to it is absolutely not a reason to say that I'm "confused". Quite frankly, apparently I'm _less_ confused than they are, since I saw the GPLv2 for what it was, and they did not - and as a result they felt they needed to extend upon it, because the license didn't actually match what they thought it would do. And now I hope you are as totally lost as I am. The "spirit of the GPLv2", what the hell does that mean? Maybe I just have this concept of a "spirit" of a document wrong but to me, it means "what the guy who wrote this document was trying to say". RMS wrote the document. He defines the spirit. The FSF represent his message.. they get their mandate from him. So for Linus to say that he understands the spirit of the GPLv2 better than they do is just obnoxious.

As for the comment about drinking the kool-aid, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You wanna talk about confusing? How confusing is it for you to choose the GPL, a Free Software license, when you just don't believe in the Free Software philosophy? If you don't wanna drink the kool-aid, and yet you still wanna use their license, don't get confused when people who have drunk the kool-aid wonder why you don't care about the same things they care about. Choosing the GPL for your project should be a message that you *have* drunk the kool-aid.

Otherwise, take off the t-shirt already.

Re:Linus is right

[cching]

But that's some nice selective quoting So tell us what was wrong with his quotes. I read the link and what he quoted seemed in the spirit of what the link said.

Making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did. Can't really argue with that.

Re:Linus is right

[QuantumG]

a bunch of people who think that the best way to spread computer knowledge for the betterment of mankind is to turn software into a free commodity Worst summary of Free Software philosophy, ever.

Re:Linus is right

[VGPowerlord]

I prefer a more neutral list rather than one that attempts to vilify other licenses in favor of their own.

Re:Linus is right

[Moridineas]

People who support "open source" and don't like RMS should stop using the GPL (any version).

How many ways is there to interpret that? That rather depends on what "support open source" means..

How do you possibly get that? Do you equate "the GPL" with "any GPL software"? Just so we're clear no, I am not saying that.

What I'm saying is that if you think the FSF are wrong then don't use the FSF's licenses on your software. I don't think that is such a way out concept do you? Like I said, depends on what you mean by "support open source." I've talked to some people who DO take the viewpoint that they won't use any GPL software--or vice versa, will ONLY use GPL software, because of their beliefs. I don't particularly care either way, I prefer BSD, I use FreeBSD. Even FreeBSD has GPLed software in it (though the amount is steadily decreasing!)

No. I wasn't saying that either. But if you want my opinion, Linux shouldn't have been released under the GPL. Linus should have stuck to his non-commercial-use-only license. He only adopted the GPL because of pressure from others and has never believed in it. I don't advocate people doing things they don't believe in. Not really sure how valid that is. Sounds like a good interview question for Linus--"knowing what you know now, if you had the choice to do it all over again, would you pick the GPL 15 years ago?" (or however long it was).

Nobody wants to do things they don't believe in, but the unfortunate reality is that precious few of us have the ability to make all those stands. From this thread and what I've read elsewhere, Linus seems cool with the GPLv2. Doesn't mean he has to like the people behind it, doesn't mean he has to like v3.

Re:Linus is right

[cching]

On switching to the gpl3 so soon I'm not sure this isn't too soon. The fact remains it took over a decade to find exploitable weaknesses in the gpl2 I don't know, seems to me it's better to get those concerns aired earlier rather than later. And what better project to get that tested than something as vital as samba? I applaud Samba's initiative. I remember a time when there was genuine concern that the GPL hadn't been tested in court, I'd like to get those concerns dealt with sooner rather than later. I mean, the idea is to get a good, solid license that *does* hold up in court, yeah?

Re:Linus is right

[Jeremy Allison - Sam]

Somehow I don't think you're the real Miguel :-).

Nice impersonation though, although a bit too obvious :-) :-).

Jeremy.

Re:Linus is right

[cHiphead]

We need to stop saying the 'spirit' and say the 'intent', THAT is what needs to be understood by all parties. Problem is, it will probably take a judge setting a precedent of just what the general and specific case intent is before its near universally agreed upon, until the next case where a different judge rules differently. Welcome to the snafus of the American legal system.

For fucks sake people, its a software license, its something for educated legal minds to argue over, not developers and random slashdot mouth flappers like myself.

Cheers. Did I win?

Re:Linus is right

[QuantumG]

To Linus it's just a software license. To RMS and the rest of us who believe in Free Software, it's the legal embodiment of a philosophy. My only hope for the future is that people who don't care about the philosophy stick with GPLv2 and those that do, switch to GPLv3.

Re:Linus is right

[Antique Geekmeister]

GPL is "free", not merely open. And you don't have to like someone to find part of their beliefs helpful or relevant or very insightfu, but not agree with everything. That's basic science, and basic law, and consistent with what Richard says. Allow people to compete in the world of ideas, just don't take away his or our freedoms to do the same.

Re:Linus is right

[cortana]

So say that the FSF vilifies other licenses is pure hyperbole! The page merely points out why certain licenses are (or are not) compatible with the GPL, and whether or not they are as good as the GPL at preserving the four freedoms.

Re:Linus is right

[Antique Geekmeister]

No, I've seen worse, from people who couldn't imagine a business selling new software and software services rather than keeping your software secret. The worst I've seen was from the same person who, seriously, thought it was better to fight the Taliban in Baghdad rather than in Ohio.

He was a nice person in many ways, but completely confused about a lot of subtler software and political issues. And a big Slashdot fan, too.

Re:Linus is right

[Antique Geekmeister]

Amen. Samba is critical to a lot of hardware projects, particularly cheap network file servers. The patent protections and anti-Tivoization clauses are vital to keep Jeremy's and Andrew's, and our, work available to us for the future.

Watch what happens as "Trusted Computed", which should have been named "DRM Everything", will play out with DVD or hard drives registered to operate only with certain software, but that software hooked through Samba to provide file access to the contents. As much work as Microsoft spent on it, I expect to see at least a few major holes show up and allow this kind of access.

Re:Linus is right

[Antique Geekmeister]

Wait: so you're suggesting we should continue with the GPLv2 and stay vulnerable to the known vulnerabilities? That's unwise: the patent issue alone is a compelling one for us to switch to GPLv3 immediately.

For example, examine how the patents surrounding Microsoft's XML tools from SenderID poisoned public acceptance of the SPF anti-forged-email tools and basically sidelined if not outright ruined the project.

Re:Linus is right

[bytesex]

I think you are wrong. There's the 'you give back' aspect that's literally in the GPL, which is what Linus likes. And there's the 'we don't like proprietary software', which _isn't_ explicitly in the GPL, but which is what RMS thinks. As such, the GPL is usable to Linus, but since he doesn't live inside the head of RMS, he doesn't have to abide by his (not the GPL's) intentions. This isn't Soviet Russia, you know. People don't have to have the ultimately correct mindset only. He thinks 'share and share alike' for what I (and others) make, and proprietary software is Ok. Those two views _can_ be combined, and they still _do_ allow you to use the GPL for what you've wrought.

Re:Linus is right

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice troll, lot's of bite's

Re:Linus is right

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, just last month he claimed he understood the spirit of the GPL better than the people who wrote the damn thing

Well that's true isn't it? The FSF are the ones who suddenly find they have to draw up a new version.

Re:Linus is right

[Taagehornet]

Nope, this guy is a troll who's been living here for a few years.

Re:Linus is right

[10101001 10101001]

Imagine I own a vineyard. Also, imagine I wrote up a contract between me and my neighbor to exchange a bushel of grapes for $5. Now, imagine after signing the contract, my neighbor decides he'd really like white grapes. It happens that I don't grow white grapes on my land, so I'd have to buy them at a cost of $6 (where my own grapes have an effective cost of $4). Since the contract is so vaguely worded, one could say* that my neighbor has every right to demand the white grapes, even though the spirit of the contract was to exchange my grapes for his $5. Or, in short, sometimes the legalize that is used to cover an issue isn't accurately enough written to deal with issues that might arise.

Beyond this, one has to remember that 15 years ago, the DMCA didn't exist. Copyright law has changed in many other countries as well. A major part of the GPLv3 was to attempt to better harmonize the language to be more consistent with international copyright law. So, there's at least a few reasons to try to better describe in legal terms the intent of the GPL in a new license.

*IANAL, so I don't know how well this argument would actually stand in court. After all, intent is often used when the language of a contract is vague. The major problem with the GPL's vagueness is that the GPL's intent was to cover usage (specifically, there's an innate assumption that one can use the software (look into First-sale Doctrine)) while copyright doesn't provide a direct means for that. As such, the GPLv3 is left to attack the common means used to limit the use of GPL'd software.

Re:Linus is right

[VGPowerlord]

So say that the FSF vilifies other licenses is pure hyperbole! The page merely points out why certain licenses are (or are not) compatible with the GPL, and whether or not they are as good as the GPL at preserving the four freedoms.

Here are some choice excerpts from said list:

License of Netscape Javascript: "This disjunctive license is a good choice if you want to make your package GPL-compatible and MPL-compatible. However, you can also accomplish that by using the LGPL or the Guile license." Intentionally suggesting that there's something wrong with the license and telling you to use something else despite the fact that it's a GPL-compatible license.

Artistic License 1.0 (one of the licenses for Perl 5): "We cannot say that this is a free software license because it is too vague; some passages are too clever for their own good, and their meaning is not clear." The problem with this license isn't spelled out. You'd think that someone who is complaining that something is too vague would elaborate on what they thought was too vague.

License of Perl 5 and below: "We recommend you use this license for any Perl 4 or Perl 5 package you write, to promote coherence and uniformity in Perl programming. Outside of Perl, we urge you not to use this license; it is better to use just the GNU GPL." Vilifying it because you can choose the license directly above this one.

Apache License, Version 1.1: "We urge you not to use the Apache licenses for software you write." Vilified solely because it has "a few requirements that render it incompatible with the GNU GPL." which are not further elaborated upon. Oddly enough, the Apache License, Version 2.0 is compatible with the GPLv3, so apparently the wording for the first line hasn't yet been updated.

CDDL: "It requires that all attribution notices be maintained, while the GPL only requires certain types of notices. Also, it terminates in retaliation for certain aggressive uses of patents. So, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason." Vilified because it's not GPLv2 compatible. No mention of whether or not it's GPLv3 compatible.

LaTeX Project Public License 1.2: "This license contains complex and annoying restrictions..." Vilified.

Lucent Public License Version 1.02 (Plan 9 license): "This is a free software license, incompatible with the GNU GPL. We recommend that you not use this license for new software that you write, but it is ok to use and improve Plan 9 under this license." Vilified for not being GPL compliant

Mozilla Public License, Netizen Open Source License (NOSL), Version 1.0: I'll cover these two together because of the similarity of wording. "...it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the [license] cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the [license] for this reason." No further elaboration upon why they are not GPL compatible... so they're vilified for not being GPL compatible.

OpenSSL License: "The license of OpenSSL is a conjunction of two licenses, one of them being the license of SSLeay. You must follow both. The combination results in a copyleft free software license that is incompatible with the GNU GPL. It also has an advertising clause like the original BSD license and the Apache license." Note the lack of explanation of why SSLeay's license is bad (other than the advertising clause) despite drawing attention to it by name. Also note that GNU has a competing, but less widely-used project, GNUTLS. (Before you comment, yes, this IS disclosed in a paragraph I omitted here.)

PHP License, Version 3.01: "We recommend that you not use this license for anything except PHP add-ons." The explanation is that it isn't copyleft, but not elaborated upon.

lha license: "The lha license must be considered non-free because it is too unclear

Re:Linus is right

[Tony Hoyle]

GPLv3 would change this how exactly? SPF is a speficication, as is SenderID. Software licenses are irrelevant to them.

Re:Linus is right

[bavarian]

Hubert Mantel left Novell, but he has been back for quite a while. See http://www.pcwelt.de/it-profi/business-ticker/4580 68/ (German) or http://www.osnews.com/story.php/16763/Hubert-Mante l-Back-at-Novell/ or just trust me as someone working in the Nuremberg SUSE office, too. ;-)

Re:Linus is right

[greginnj]

The whole idea that there is a philosophy behind the GPL and that is the spirit, not the words that are written down to satisfy the lawyers is just lost on the guy.

I disagree. I don't think that 'whole idea' is 'lost on the guy'; I think he grasps that idea very well. He just disagrees with it. A license is a text you bring into a courtroom when necessary; it is not a token for an 'idea', 'philosophy', or 'spirit'. Those abstract entities may have motivated the creation of the license, but they do not supersede the text, in all cases when what the license actually means has to matter.

When you go to court, you go to court with the text, not with 'what RMS was trying to say'. Otherwise, contract law would be even more of a mess than it is now.

To put it in your terms, RMS published for the world to see a text called the GPL, and made further claims about it being inspired by a spirit/philosophy/idea/manifesto. Linus saw that and said, hey, great text, I think I'll use it as a software license, I may or may not agree with your philosophy, but that doesn't matter."

Now some people come along and say, hey, Linus is using the text of the GPL without agreeing with the philosophy! Which brings us to what I'll call the GNU Koan:

Is the text of the GPL released under the GPL?

If so, Linus can use it for whatever he wants, and RMS et al should stop whining about it. If not... I'll leave it to you to contemplate the hypocrisy. To claim that anybody who used GPL2 was thus ipso facto buying into a 'philosophy' that subsequently required them to upgrade to GPL3 is a rather dubious argument.

Re:Linus is right

[OldeTimeGeek]

Not completely true. It would have required the use some of Microsoft's IP (which would have rendered it unusable by people who strongly adhere to the GPL) and a lot of folks felt that Microsoft's responses to questions about it were, ultimately, less than persuasive.

Re:Linus is right

[gregorio]

It is just a bunch of people who think that the best way to spread computer knowledge for the betterment of mankind is to turn software into a free commodity.

The "betterment of mankind"? Why does every politicized person describes his cause as the "betterment of mankind"?

It's not the "betterment of mankind" you, the Democrats, the Republicans, Greenpeace, PETA, Shell, or anyone else is looking for. What "you people" are looking for is the ultimate victory of "your" ideologies and interests.

Stop pretending you're doing it to save the world, just be honest: you're doing it for yourself, because you're commited to this ideology. You can try to say that you're saving the world, but until you prove that by showing some results or using some very good logic, you're just another politicized dude talking about .

Re:Linus is right

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't leach off other people's charity work for your profit[...]
[...]provided that they write their own software and don't leach off GPL software

Leech, man. Not leach. Other than that, I agree 100% with you.

Re:Linus is right

[Raenex]

He doesn't actually think proprietary software is evil though. That's what RMS believes. That's the body and spirit of the GPL. As such, I don't think Linus should be using the GPL. Nor should anyone else who thinks proprietary software is morally ok. It's perfectly valid for co-existence. Many people who contribute to GPL software are also paid to work on proprietary software. Many people who use GPL software also use proprietary software. I'd guess that not even RMS would want people who don't share his binary world view to abandon GPL completely. I think he'd rather encourage them contribute and use as much GPL software as possible.

Re:Linus is right

[SillyNickName]

"Vilify - To make vicious and defamatory statements about."

I don't see that in any of your examples.

Re:Linus is right

[MikeBabcock]

The whole idea that there is a philosophy behind the GPL and that is the spirit, not the words that are written down to satisfy the lawyers is just lost on the guy.

The fact that the GPL really is a license written to satisfy lawyers is lost on the rest of you. Write manifestos to explain your belief systems (RMS has done so several times), but licenses are still just licenses. Whether there's a belief system they arise from ("Everything is mine, mine mine!" or "We should all share") isn't very relevant once you're staring down the violator in court. The words on paper are.

Re:Linus is right

[Miguel de Icaza]

Jeremy Allison - Sam (8157):
Somehow I don't think you're the real Miguel :-).
Nice impersonation though, although a bit too obvious :-) :-).
Jeremy.

Taagehornet (984739):
Nope, this guy is a troll who's been living here for a few years.

Harmless fun, anyway it seems to have amused the Jeremy Allison troll

Dupes make me....

[gustolove]

... feel like I don't need to read slashdot but once a week. If they are going to have the same damn stories every day!

You could be an editor...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were able to cut it down to not reading Slashdot at all.

Implications for commercial companies?

[Midnight Thunder]

Just curious what sort of implications this will have on companies, such as Apple, who use Samba in their commercial software? Is anything that Apple doing now with Samba rendered incompatible, license wise?

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[QuantumG]

All these questions and more answered in the podcast linked to by the summary!

RTFA.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[sumdumass]

What if you cannot listen to the podcast? I don't have a working sound card, It doesn't seem right posting an article in a form that cannot be accessed in the same way the site is.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[sumdumass]

I dunno about apple but I noticed that I don't necessarily agree with the GPLv3. For me, Someone who just uses Samba in about 20 or 30 different sites and on multiple servers, I have about lost any reasons not to use Microsoft's products with this switch to a license I don't agree with. I mean, it was the licensing I disagreed with windows servers, it wasn't that samba was better or anything, In fact, it was more difficult to emulate windows domain controllers and such on it. Now that both options have a license I don't agree with I just supposed I should pick the one that requires less work for me.

This is something people are going to have to accept. The adoption rate will change because of this. People already using windows won't care and use windows, people who disagree with the GPLv3 will probably do the same (use windows_ms products). And to be frank, I don't think it is the actual terms of the GPLv3 that I am in disagreement with, it is all the perpetual loss of any right you might think you had that is falsely being perpetuated by people who don't understand the GPL. And yes, these are the vocal people claiming it is going to ruin Novell and Microsoft. I don't like the idea of the GPLv3 controlling hardware now but I don't think that is as much a stopper for me as the misconceptions over the license being thrown around.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[flyingfsck]

I actually read the GPL - all versions. The spirit of the GPL hasn't changed. It has always said: If you are a team player, then donate your code modifications back for the greater good and ensure that your users have all the rights that you have. If you are not a team player, then go away, do your own thing and leave us alone.

Unfortunately, as the GPL code corpus grew, various commercial leaches sensed an opportunity to profit off other people's charity. For example Tivo and lately Microsoft. The GPL V3 changed the wording to make it abundantly clear that leaches will not be tolerated and that all users have equal rights. Some users cannot be more equal than others. If you don't want to play, then go away. We don't need you, you need us.

Nothing changed. That has always been the intent of the GPL:
"Copyleft, most rights reversed."

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[sumdumass]

I actually read the GPL - all versions. The spirit of the GPL hasn't changed. It has always said: If you are a team player, then donate your code modifications back for the greater good and ensure that your users have all the rights that you have. If you are not a team player, then go away, do your own thing and leave us alone.

well, the GPLv3 goes a little further. And some, including me question the realm of the spirit it is in. I get moded down every time I post something to that effect, I find it interesting that people would rather hide the idea then discuss the legitimacy of it.

Unfortunately, as the GPL code corpus grew, various commercial leaches sensed an opportunity to profit off other people's charity. For example Tivo and lately Microsoft. The GPL V3 changed the wording to make it abundantly clear that leaches will not be tolerated and that all users have equal rights. Some users cannot be more equal than others. If you don't want to play, then go away. We don't need you, you need us.

I'm not sure what your talking about when you mention Microsoft. Unless your trying to say that the vast jump in approachs to distributing that the GPLv3 took in the attempt to lock someone into it's clutches by mere advocating it (as I read on Groaklaw). I don't think that was ever the intent of the GPLv2, the intent there was to regulate people who distribute it.

As far as Tivo goes, lets get something streight, leaching isn't a bad term with free software. It has always been ok to leach the programs, distributing without providing the source has been the bad thing. These are two entirely different things. But Tivo did give the source back, The problem is that they product an appliance not a general purpose computer. People want to use an appliance computer as a general purpose computer and the use outside of distribution has always been specifically stated in the GPL to be outside the scope of the GPL. The job of a software license isn't to ensure compliance of the hardware someone wants to run it on. There are certain applications like software radios that the GPLv3 are completely incompatible with now because the FCC requires, or did there has been some changes lately, but they require the radio to be locked down from changes by consumers. And the GPLv3 says this isn't acceptable now. And there is other things too. But more to the point, Hardware manufacturers can actually lose their IP now so vendor provided drivers might be harder to come by and that I think is too great of a cost to pay because a few people want to use an appliance computer as a general purpose computer.

Nothing changed. That has always been the intent of the GPL:
"Copyleft, most rights reversed."

If you honestly believe this, I think you didn't understand the GPL in the first place. The intent has always be so that the code remains free and that you can change it if necessary. Not to control hardware and make sure you can run your own stuff on the hardware which is something that has always been explicitly held outside the scope of the license.

And now there is this MS Novell Patent clause that will backfire and cause a lot of problems too. If you think Microsoft is disrespecting the GPLv3 now, wait until they craft their license to place everyone into a little Novell situation and then sell their product sans the clause for 10 times the cost in order to kick the you can no longer convey a GPLv3 covered work again for anyone who uses an Microsoft products. When no major distributer is able to convey a GPLv3 covered work because of wording in the GPLv3 itself, I guess people will take notice. But this license is reckless and selfish.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[ShieldW0lf]

It doesn't matter anyway... Despite the snide remarks, the podcast actually doesn't answer the parents question. Unless you call "OEMS and hardware manufacturers who distribute GPLv3 software should of course speak with their lawyers" an answer.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

People want to use an appliance computer as a general purpose computer and the use outside of distribution has always been specifically stated in the GPL to be outside the scope of the GPL.

What end users actually do with the program has always been outside the scope of the license. The GPLv3 did not change that. What Tivo is doing, however, is restricting end users from using a modified version of the program. That has always been against the license, also with the GPLv2, but has been made very clear in the GPLv3 that hardware tricks is no exception to the rule.

What happened is: Preventing end users from running a modified version has always been against the GPL. Tivo found a loop-hole, that allowed them to do it anyway. Or at least their lawyers thought so, and the FSF apparently thought that a judge might agree with Tivo that there actually was a hole. So they set out to fix the hole.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[Alphager]

There exist no such thing as an "appliance computer". THe Tivo is a normal computer, to which Tivo Inc. added some restrictions.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[sumdumass]

What end users actually do with the program has always been outside the scope of the license. The GPLv3 did not change that. What Tivo is doing, however, is restricting end users from using a modified version of the program. That has always been against the license, also with the GPLv2, but has been made very clear in the GPLv3 that hardware tricks is no exception to the rule.

no, what Tivo is doing is restricting end users from using a modified version of the program on the appliance computer hardware they sold. There is a difference. You are able to use the software, just not on the hardware they provided. And I don't see an issue with this. The manufacturer doesn't have to open everything up so you can hack around with their products. And they shouldn't have to. You bought an appliance not a computer. Because it can do the other doesn't mean it has to.

What happened is: Preventing end users from running a modified version has always been against the GPL. Tivo found a loop-hole, that allowed them to do it anyway. Or at least their lawyers thought so, and the FSF apparently thought that a judge might agree with Tivo that there actually was a hole. So they set out to fix the hole.

It wasn't a loophole at all. It was there by design. The GPLv2 and earlier said explicitly that anything outside the act of modifying/distributing was outside the license. Of course Tivo gave the code back, you could modify it and run it on other devices, you could change it or add parts of it to other programs. You could even build a Tivo like device and run it on that. The only thing they stopped you from doing was turning their appliance into another appliance that they never intended it to be.

But the Tivo part is only the start. They went too far and it would appear that they didn't even do that very well. You see, the GPLv3 doesn't even stop Tivo from doing the same stuff. They can still disable the device if their special version of software isn't running.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[bWareiWare.co.uk]

But the big difference is that the GPLv3 only licenses copying. If you are just using Samba inside your organization you are not bound by its terms. Microsoft believes the EULA licenses your use of the software.

I agree you your concerns about the GLPv3's PR impact, but the choice is:

Use software where you do not like the terms you would have to agree to if you modified and redistributed it, or

Use software where you have to agree to terms you do not like to install it, and you can not modify or redistribute it under any terms.

It may not be a step forward but it hardly makes Microsoft an attractive alternative.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[10101001 10101001]

The manufacturer doesn't have to open everything up so you can hack around with their products. And they shouldn't have to. You bought an appliance not a computer. Because it can do the other doesn't mean it has to.

The manufacturer doesn't have to open everything, and we (ie, GPLv3 authors) don't have to allow the manufacturer to distribute our code. In fact, we want it to be the case that anywhere are code is run*, we can hack "their" products to use it in applications that the manufacturer didn't necessarily intend.

It wasn't a loophole at all. It was there by design. The GPLv2 and earlier said explicitly that anything outside the act of modifying/distributing was outside the license. Of course Tivo gave the code back, you could modify it and run it on other devices, you could change it or add parts of it to other programs. You could even build a Tivo like device and run it on that. The only thing they stopped you from doing was turning their appliance into another appliance that they never intended it to be. But the Tivo part is only the start. They went too far and it would appear that they didn't even do that very well. You see, the GPLv3 doesn't even stop Tivo from doing the same stuff. They can still disable the device if their special version of software isn't running.

It was only "by design" in respect to the fact that copyright doesn't cover usage, so there's no way to create a license to directly cover usage. And as you point out, the GPLv3 doesn't really resolve the issue of usage because there's still various tricks to void the intended effect (burning the GPLv3 code into ROM is a simple example). Truthfully, there's no way to insure usage abilities with some sort of generic distribution license** because any legalized wording would leave a manufacturer to follow the legal definition of the wording but not the intent (a great example comes to mind, of simply crippling any "invalid" software to run at one millionth the speed of official code, allowing some of the code to run if it's "invalid", or in some other way still allowing a use of "some kind" without actually allowing what the GPLv3 author intended). The spirit of the GPLv2 and GPLv3 includes the ability to actually use the code in question. Just because there might be no way to legally enforce that doesn't mean it wasn't an intent; it just means there's a lack of legal footing to cover all cases.

*Clearly copyright doesn't allow this, since using/running is outside the scope of copyright. But anyone who would manufacturer an item and sell it is distributing, so that's adequately sufficient for the wide-scale issue. The fact that a person might personally make a machine and do things alone with our code is fine. We'll never have access to the machine, anyways.

**IANAL, but feel free to prove me wrong.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[DuncanE]

"When no major distributer is able to convey a GPLv3 covered work because of wording in the GPLv3 itself, I guess people will take notice."

Thats right.. they will stop buying mircosoft products because the want to use the open and free ones.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[Secrity]

"But this license is reckless and selfish."

Nobody is forcing you to use their GPLv3 licensed software; don't use software licensed under GPLv3 if you think that it is reckless.

If you want to see selfish, read the license on almost any copyrighted commercial product that can be used on or with a computer.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

"THe Tivo is a normal computer, to which Tivo Inc. added some restrictions."

Thus making it an appliance.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[sumdumass]

There exist no such thing as an "appliance computer". THe Tivo is a normal computer, to which Tivo Inc. added some restrictions.

Wrong. An appliance computer is a term for a computer that does one specific task. That task might be complexed and involves many tasks but the goal in one thing. A VCR is an example of an appliance and Tivo is the same. A Network attached storage and others are appliances too.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[Alphager]

There exist no such thing as an "appliance computer". THe Tivo is a normal computer, to which Tivo Inc. added some restrictions.

Wrong. An appliance computer is a term for a computer that does one specific task. That task might be complexed and involves many tasks but the goal in one thing. A VCR is an example of an appliance and Tivo is the same. A Network attached storage and others are appliances too. No, they are normal computers who have been limited to only do one task. An appliance is something that is physically capable of doing only one thing (think of a shaker). The examples you mentioned are normal computers who have been crippled.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[Ferret55]

Let me be plain for a moment, you are an idiot.

        But this license is reckless and selfish.

This is a brave (NOT foolish) attempt to pull the "reckless and selfish" companies that abuse the spirit of the GPL licence for their own gains back into their place. Make no mistake this is the COMMUNITY'S code, not microsoft et al's. I am happy for microsoft to turn their back on linux, free software, open source and the whole gamut of freebies that I have at the pointy points of my fingertips. Or haven't you already noticed microsoft trying to lock/ban any user from using linux code with the whole SCO debarcle. Wake up and smell the legal action you idiot. The world is extremely hostile towards free software and the fact that it has become so successful has meant many companies want to hitch a ride on the free software train and carve out their own "open source" fortress. Now that they've seen how good it is, some companies are trying to keep it for themselves and not share. Just like patents, patenting was tool to help the underdog to get an edge, not for big companies to hoarde and lock up the market with their "ideas" it was supposed to provide innovation and protection to those less privileged and thanks to big corporation's influence and flooding the system with inane grabs at ip, the system has failed.

Then along comes the GPL, meant to protect users and developers and fuel innovative concepts that all of us (the less fortunate) can benefit from, and we see history repeating itself, the big corps have shon their big shiny eye on the treasure trove of ip, innovation and code and thought "how can we make all of this ours? and if we can't make it ours how can we force people to stop using it". Now microsoft is swinging it big patent clad IP hammer at the founding pillar of the GPL and you have the GAUL to say amending the GPL to stop these greedy slugs is reckless and selfish? Who the fuck do you think you are? I don't CARE if it causes problems for companies, COMPANIES are the main cause of all this crap that is going on in the first place.

And lets get one thing straight, when it came to Tivo "giving the source back", lets be crystal clear, it was NEVER THEIRS to begin with, they modified code that belonged to the community and tried to keep it for themselves. And the point about hardware vendors losing their IP is a crock of shit also, patent protection is passed only to users for the software being used, it is hardly as broad as you think, and anyone that locks their hardware is literally locking themselves out of the market anyway, bluray and hd players can go get stuffed if they have the nerve to thikn i'll buy their drives, they'd be better suited as paper weights.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[sumdumass]

Let me be plain for a moment, you are an idiot.

You think? Because I voiced an opinion? I will try to look smarter next time and jump into group think mode agreeing with everything being pushed at me. Bottom line is that the GPLV3 is selfish and reckless, it doesn't do what we were told it would do, most of it will be challenged and shot down in court and when the answer to a question is ask a lawyer, it is simply to complexed and convoluted for the job.

This is a brave (NOT foolish) attempt to pull the "reckless and selfish" companies that abuse the spirit of the GPL licence for their own gains back into their place. Make no mistake this is the COMMUNITY'S code, not microsoft et al's. I am happy for microsoft to turn their back on linux, free software, open source and the whole gamut of freebies that I have at the pointy points of my fingertips. Or haven't you already noticed microsoft trying to lock/ban any user from using linux code with the whole SCO debarcle. Wake up and smell the legal action you idiot. The world is extremely hostile towards free software and the fact that it has become so successful has meant many companies want to hitch a ride on the free software train and carve out their own "open source" fortress. Now that they've seen how good it is, some companies are trying to keep it for themselves and not share. Just like patents, patenting was tool to help the underdog to get an edge, not for big companies to hoarde and lock up the market with their "ideas" it was supposed to provide innovation and protection to those less privileged and thanks to big corporation's influence and flooding the system with inane grabs at ip, the system has failed.

Yea, Brave, Some people say that suicide bombers and kamikazes pilot were brave. It doesn't negate their foolishness. And yea, I'm with the Idea just not the implementation. the fight went places it shouldn't have gone and because of it we are all now at risk. You think MS is trying to stop people from usig linux, wait until the GPL does this. Oh, it can right now, I have a feeling it is waiting on more companies to sign on to the recklessness.

You probably wondering how or what I'm talking about. How about a well crafted MS software license that says MS won't sue you for their IP in products you use as long as you didn't put it there. Then what if after turning everyone into a little Novell, they decided to release software without this clause for a fee 10 times the normal price. Now you have every element necessary to stop everyone from participating in a GPLv3 covered license who also uses MS products. And with the OEMs and the propagation language, now there aren't going to be any OEM vendors who sell MS products allow to distribute GPLv3 covered software as well as preinstalled linux boxes with GPLv3 covered works. In short, it is going to be really difficult o distribute any GPLv3 covered works and distribute MS products too.

Now, this means large companies will have to drop support outside their shop, (no giving back), it means a lot of bad things that only foolish and selfish motives would bring about. You know, the ends justify the means, it doesn't matter if we kill ourself as long as the message gets out. all that shit. Oh, and it is going to be the GPLv3 that imploads it. MS isn't going to place any restrictions out there, they are going to give you something and the GPLv3 is what is going to be restricting. I just think they are waiting for more projects to jump over like Samba so happily has so after the shit hits the fan, they have to go back and redo everything or attempt to find a way to convert the copyright back from GPLv3 to GPLv2 or worse yet, some other ill conceived GPLv4.

And lets get one thing straight, when it came to Tivo "giving the source back", lets be crystal clear, it was NEVER THEIRS to begin with, they modified code that belonged to the community and tried to keep it for themselves.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Today it's Tivo on what could (arguably) be called an appliance.

Tomorrow it's Trusted Computing on your general-purpose computer. Except that when that happens it won't be general-purpose anymore, will it? Even if the scope of it's functionality is more like a general-purpose computer than a Tivo, it will still have become an appliance in the sense that it's something you bought, that you should be able to do anything you want with, but it's really someone else telling you what you can and can't do with it.

Tivo is just an early manifestation of the trusted computing concept, one that people don't get too upset about because they only only expect a Tivo to be an appliance. But the restrictions on a Tivo are a preview of where your computer is headed.

The GPL's purpose is not to control hardware. But it's not just about getting the source code into your hands, either. It's to make sure you can exercise the four freedoms in a *meaningful* way. Tivo gave you the source but made it useless to you at the same time. That was clearly contrary to the spirit of the GPL, and so the new GPL fixes it. It fixes it without dictating to Tivo how they make their hardware or software, and without (as you say it) "losing their IP" (a claim which is absurd). They simply have to provide the necessary prerequisites (e.g., a software signing key) to allow a user to put the source code to effective use.

If they don't want to comply, they're more than welcome to write their own software or pay to use someone else's. They have no inherent right to use Linux (and GNU, etc.), so if they want the permission they have to accept the terms.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you merely use GPL software, then the change from GPL2 to GPL3 makes zero difference to you. Neither version has anything to say about your right to simply *use* the software.

Only if you're somehow involved in redistribution (which is entirely prohibited by default under copyright law) does the GPL even come into play, because it is your permission to distribute. Both versions attaches only very light conditions to that permission.

This is in sharp contrast to Microsoft licenses, which are really contracts that go far beyond the scope of copyright, and put all kinds of onerous restrictions on how you can even use their software.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[dfghjk]

Bullshit. There is no such thing as a "normal computer", there are only devices made to do certain things. Some are fixed function; others are not.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[Xenographic]

> Bottom line is that the GPLV3 is selfish and reckless, it doesn't do what we were told it would do, most of it will be challenged and shot down in court and when the answer to a question is ask a lawyer, it is simply to complexed and convoluted for the job.

So you're a lawyer, now? I won't go into selfish or reckless, but I'll trust the professor emeritus of law who drafted it over you. I assume the ineffective part is talk about the Novell deal. But copyright law requires copyright holder permission for more than just distribution and you apparently don't know about secondary liability for infringement, so I'll write that off as talking out your ass. Whatever else it was supposed to do and didn't I'm not sure. It's true, it doesn't (and cannot) ban all DRM, but if it did, it'd probably qualify as "selfish" to you, so whatever. The only other thing I can think of is Apache license compatibility which they DID get in the final version.

> Oh, and it is going to be the GPLv3 that imploads it. MS isn't going to place any restrictions out there, they are going to give you something and the GPLv3 is what is going to be restricting. I just think they are waiting for more projects to jump over like Samba so happily has so after the shit hits the fan, they have to go back and redo everything or attempt to find a way to convert the copyright back from GPLv3 to GPLv2 or worse yet, some other ill conceived GPLv4.

Uhh, all the GPLv2 or later stuff can be had under the GPLv2 or GPLv3 at your option. The rest is too incoherent for me to respond to. It sounds like you think the GPLv3 will alienate business. Yet Novell, IBM & co. still plan on distributing GPLv3 stuff. Imagine that? Seems there's more FUD than sense here.

I'd respond to the rest, but I have to leave now. Doesn't look like I'm missing much.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[sumdumass]

The manufacturer doesn't have to open everything, and we (ie, GPLv3 authors) don't have to allow the manufacturer to distribute our code. In fact, we want it to be the case that anywhere are code is run*, we can hack "their" products to use it in applications that the manufacturer didn't necessarily intend.

I gotta pay more attention to what going on. I keep seeing people that tell me what I decided but never do I see anyone asking me what I decided. Somehow, I think the idea or the term WE is overused and over valued.

It was only "by design" in respect to the fact that copyright doesn't cover usage, so there's no way to create a license to directly cover usage. And as you point out, the GPLv3 doesn't really resolve the issue of usage because there's still various tricks to void the intended effect (burning the GPLv3 code into ROM is a simple example). Truthfully, there's no way to insure usage abilities with some sort of generic distribution license** because any legalized wording would leave a manufacturer to follow the legal definition of the wording but not the intent (a great example comes to mind, of simply crippling any "invalid" software to run at one millionth the speed of official code, allowing some of the code to run if it's "invalid", or in some other way still allowing a use of "some kind" without actually allowing what the GPLv3 author intended). The spirit of the GPLv2 and GPLv3 includes the ability to actually use the code in question. Just because there might be no way to legally enforce that doesn't mean it wasn't an intent; it just means there's a lack of legal footing to cover all cases.

You can actually use the code in question. You just cannot use it on the appliance you purchased from Tivo. And this is a real stumbling block for me. The idea of free is a two way street. You have to be free in order for me to be free when we are acting in the same arena of thoughts. Otherwise your freedom is only a position of power over me, It isn't freedom at all, it is oppression.

The GPLv3 jumped the spirit and I am surprised that I have received this many comments about it. I have mentioned it before and usually get ignored and modded down or something.

**IANAL, but feel free to prove me wrong.

As for the generic license, How about this, "All freedoms expressed or protected by this license are implicit in their intended design, Any usage combined with specific hardware must allow the benefiters of these freedom to express that freedom with respect to the covered works and the hardware it is distributed with. Nothing in this clause stops the ability of the covered works from being used with other combinations of hardware and it placed no demand on any distributer to make it able to work with other hardware outside not being able to deny it. It places no demand on any distributer to ensure something not included inside their specific act of distributing the covered works with the hardware as it was intended to be used by the distributer when sold outside the fact that they cannot stop or deny you the freedoms protect by this license in respect the the hardware itis associated with"

Seems simple, conveys the message and the point, closes all the "loopholes" (that wasn't there in the GPLv2 despite the claims) and ensures that when you buy a product that contains GPLv3 covered software, that you can use it after making some changes. It doesn't need a team of lawyers to determine if you think you will be screwed after touching it. It doesn't pose a threat to hardware vendors who feel they need a way to go back on companies that use the drivers to steal feature designs and produce clones products.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[sumdumass]

Thats right.. they will stop buying mircosoft products because the want to use the open and free ones.

I don't think people will see it that way. currently and for the immediate future the Demand for MS products are far greater then FOSS style products. This is for many reasons but mostly I would say is that it is because of dependency on a product that doesn't work without windows.

so it doesn't really matter what they want Or even what you think they want to use, Once it gets down to this, they will stop using GPLv3 covered works. If you actually think your forcing someone to make up their minds, you wrong. You forcing them to choose which is completely different.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[sumdumass]

It doesn't matter what you boiled it all down to, what matters is what you buy in the process of buying the system. If you purchased an appliance, then thats what you got. It has no barring on your ability to hook blades up to your refrigerator and mow the lawn with it. You still purchased that device.

and to that point, when you purchase a glorified VCR, that is what you purchased. Not some general purpose computer. And it isn't that hard of a concept.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

I gotta pay more attention to what going on. I keep seeing people that tell me what I decided but never do I see anyone asking me what I decided. Somehow, I think the idea or the term WE is overused and over valued.

Ah, no. It's a very useful word that you seem to be misinterpreting. The previous poster was very clear that the group he was referring to are "GPLv3 authors". There's more than one of them. What pronoun would you suggest? If you consistently interpret "we" to mean "you", as you seem to have done here, then you're going to wind up very very confused.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[jafac]

While I'd agree that your characterization of "appliance computer" as a computer that has been "crippled" is accurate; it is also incomplete.

If all you want is a device that does X, and packaging a computer as an appliance that does only X saves both development costs, and administrative overhead, then I'd say it's a damn useful crippled computer.

I wouldn't want to have an appliance as a desktop system to do my accounting/web browsing and email.

But I wouldn't want to have to deal with all the administrative overhead of managing software installs, disk space, etc. for something that's just slinging video to my TV, or web pages.

"appliance" is a much abused buzzword - I'll give you that. But they're damn handy for a lot of infrastructure tasks (routers, anyone?).

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[sumdumass]

I assume the ineffective part is talk about the Novell deal. But copyright law requires copyright holder permission for more than just distribution and you apparently don't know about secondary liability for infringement, so I'll write that off as talking out your ass

Lol. You remind me of the type of person who hates lawyers because they promised you the world in a lawsuit, you paid them everything and ended up losing. The entire Idea behind modern lawyers is to create controversy that they can settle. As for talking out my ass, No, And secondary liability for infringement only occurs when there is an infringement. So without the infringement, there isn't anything in violation. This is the one of the problems around attempting to go after Microsoft. But that isn't what I was talking about. What I was talking about it the Anti Tivo clauses that won't stop companies from creating a Tivo scenario. Parts, if not all of the device can still be locked out.

Whatever else it was supposed to do and didn't I'm not sure. It's true, it doesn't (and cannot) ban all DRM, but if it did, it'd probably qualify as "selfish" to you, so whatever. The only other thing I can think of is Apache license compatibility which they DID get in the final version.

The other thing is, that just by participating in the conveyance of the covered work, it is supposed to negate patent claims and make it impossible to be sued over them. And it doesn't do this either. While it could have conveyed that promis if it wanted to, it doesn't because it distinguishes between what you give and your obligations under that and what other give and you obligations under that. So in the case of microsoft, As long as they didn't place the patent material in the covered work, they aren't effected by the patent clauses.

And even if they are, as long as they don't distribute the covered work that they claim infringes after knowing about the infringement, they aren't giving anything up in their rights to sue. The GPLv3 and the current promotion around it conveys the false premise that a covered work is free from patent obligations. While it works towards that goal, it fails sharply in the process when compared to what the intended stated goals are in reference to what ti does.

The GPLv3 is selfish for many reasons. But I say this primarily because they took an existing action and then attempted to sneak a benefit in their favor into it. And with this wrangling of unethical and unjust after the fact information, they are presenting a false interpretation of the way thinks actually work under the GPLv3. This is dangerous and it will scare companies away.

BTW, I'm not talking about the companies competing with Microsoft either. I'm talking about the companies making the stuff that the users want to use. The companies that produce the software we think we need.

Uhh, all the GPLv2 or later stuff can be had under the GPLv2 or GPLv3 at your option. The rest is too incoherent for me to respond to. It sounds like you think the GPLv3 will alienate business. Yet Novell, IBM & co. still plan on distributing GPLv3 stuff. Imagine that? Seems there's more FUD than sense here.

The GPLv3 covered works cannot go back to GPLv2. OR at least that is my understanding of it. I know that there are some people who take the you must license it under this license if it is if it is derived from a covered work to mean that it would have to remain as a GPLv2 covered work but I don't buy that. The point is that the GPLv3 effort would need to be recoded in order to be used in a GPLv2 effort.

Now, the incoherent rambling you can't understand is because you, like others don't want to understand it. I was describing what I think Microsoft's plan is going to be. And this plane is to create two versions of windows licenses where if you buy the cheaper versions, you are buying a covenant not to sue from MS that would covers your activities in

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[mrsbrisby]

As far as Tivo goes, lets get something streight, leaching isn't a bad term with free software. It has always been ok to leach the programs,

No, it just never happened often enough to cause serious problems.

If you honestly believe this, I think you didn't understand the GPL in the first place. The intent has always be so that the code remains free and that you can change it if necessary.

Read that last sentence you wrote again.

On my a TiVO, I cannot change the code if necessary. I have to wait for TiVO to change the code "if necessary", and TiVO and I have very different ideas on what is necessary. I for one would like to be able to transfer shows between my bedroom and my livingroom at faster than realtime as I could with the Series1. This isn't that important to TiVO so they won't fix the problem.

Not to control hardware and make sure you can run your own stuff on the hardware which is something that has always been explicitly held outside the scope of the license.

You're either dishonest or an idiot. The point was that RMS got his hands on a printer (a piece of hardware) that he couldn't fix a bug with. That's right, the point of the GPL always has been about the hardware.

The fact that nobody used encrypted bootloaders until recently is why the GPL doesn't mention hardware: It didn't need to. I mean, who in their right mind would slow down their computers to 1/10th their speed on purpose. And who still would expect consumers to put up with it?

Well, look, RMS was wrong. I was wrong. Lots of people were wrong. So the GPL is getting revised.

Now you understand what the GPL2 says. So does Linus. So do a lot of people. And if your goals is to prevent your
software from being marginalized then the GPL2 is a good way to do it. But the only person who knows what was meant by the GPL is RMS, and that's because he wrote it, and he says it was to stop consumers from being hurt.

A lot of people adopted his license because we want what he wants. But others, adopted his license because they want what the license said.

We can argue about whether TiVO is right or wrong if you want to, but you're patently wrong that the intent of the GPL was. Even Linus knows that.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[Ohreally_factor]

You're doing a good job of voicing objections to the GPL v3, and I have nothing to really add. I just wanted you to know that, despite the piling on you're getting from the 'tards, most people that understand the issues agree with you. Don't let a very vocal minority shut you up by repeating the same stupidities over and over. They've got such an emotional stake in the FSF ideology that they cannot listen to reason. If you're not attacked outright, then you'll be given the condescending "you misunderstand".

The FSFtards with their propaganda, to little effect. (I wonder if their strategy is to distract the kernel developers so that Hurd (excuse me, GNU/Hurd) can catch up.)

Anyway, if you ever get stumped by a pro-GPL v3 argument, you can be sure it's already been addressed and destroyed on the LKML. Especially arguments that use an appeal to "the spirit of the GPL", the "spirit" being whatever RMS says it is at the moment.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[Ohreally_factor]

That second paragraph should read:

The FSFtards continue to hammer the LKML with their propaganda, to little effect. (I wonder if their strategy is to distract the kernel developers so that Hurd (excuse me, GNU/Hurd) can catch up.)

I dropped a greater than. =) Why didn't anyone warn me not to eat cous cous directly over the keyboard?

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[sumdumass]

Read that last sentence you wrote again.

Leaching is the act of using the code and not putting your changes or improvements back to the community. This has always been the Idea behind the GPL except that it required you to provide the source if you did make changed. However, giving back outside the act of making the source available has never been part of the agreement. So, If I used Kwrite and changed it for the better but didn't share my changed, I was leaching it. It is gave back by providing the source, I'm not leaching. If I distribute it and don't give the source, I am violating the license and possibly copyright law.

On my a TiVO, I cannot change the code if necessary. I have to wait for TiVO to change the code "if necessary", and TiVO and I have very different ideas on what is necessary. I for one would like to be able to transfer shows between my bedroom and my livingroom at faster than realtime as I could with the Series1. This isn't that important to TiVO so they won't fix the problem.

I don't se a problem with that. Of course when I buy something, I usually buy it for it's intended purpose. As for Tivo goes, I wouldn't spend my money on it unless I had too. But I don't fault me VCR for not printing a grocery list out, I bought a VCR not a printer or computer. If you can make it do that, then fine, make it do that, you have the source.

You're either dishonest or an idiot. The point was that RMS got his hands on a printer (a piece of hardware) that he couldn't fix a bug with. That's right, the point of the GPL always has been about the hardware.

I think your representing this backwards. RMS was fixing a bug in the driver on the computer he was working with, not the appliance, eg, printer. And there is a distinct difference here. The computer holding the driver was specifically designed to allow different software to be loaded. The printer isn't. Same with the Tivo.

The fact that nobody used encrypted bootloaders until recently is why the GPL doesn't mention hardware: It didn't need to. I mean, who in their right mind would slow down their computers to 1/10th their speed on purpose. And who still would expect consumers to put up with it?

This is the problem. I don't see it as slowing a computer down. I see it as controlling the operation of an appliance. If you purchased a computer it would have represented itself as a computer when you bought it. I may be wrong but I don't remember anyone saying the Tivo is represented as a computer at all in any of the markings or advertisements they produced to entice you into buying it. What they did was represent it i it's limited role as an appliance that did certain things. I find it totally acceptable in this manor and don't think the GPL forgot to do something.

Well, look, RMS was wrong. I was wrong. Lots of people were wrong. So the GPL is getting revised.

I think the time line of wrongness is in the wrong order.

Now you understand what the GPL2 says. So does Linus. So do a lot of people. And if your goals is to prevent your
software from being marginalized then the GPL2 is a good way to do it. But the only person who knows what was meant by the GPL is RMS, and that's because he wrote it, and he says it was to stop consumers from being hurt.

RMS isn't the only person who knows what it mean. Plenty of people have written about it's intentions as well as RMS. What I see is RMS changing his mind and representing the intentions differently.

This Tivo scenario is different then some company marginalizing the software. This was born out of spite with Tivo. They didn't release the source until after a long battle, once the did they started attempting to lock the hardware out and that is when RMS as well as other started getting pissy about it. There are instances of OSS and GPLed covered sof

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[mrsbrisby]

From my experience, what he wanted is what the license says.

Then your experience is limited. Most license disputes are questioning what the terms state, not whether they have been upheld. The CDA was enacted for exactly this reason- so that license disputes could be handled by mediator.

Judges do not usually expect people to be infallible, which is why they do infact hear arguments from people, instead of from Noah Webster.

This is the problem. I don't see it as slowing a computer down.

Uh no. Tivo S1 community software supported network streaming that could easily saturate a 10mbit/sec link. Tivo's own software for the S2 barely approaches 1mbit/sec.

Of course when I buy something, I usually buy it for it's intended purpose.

Well good for you. You're a sucker: I fix my own car, I fix my own computer, and I fix my own dinner.

There are laws preventing Ford from making countermeasures that disable my car if I try and work on it. Why is TiVO allowed to sell a DVR with similar countermeasures?

There's some confusion on that last point, and that's why the FSF is so important: They're the only ones that are fighting to change that. They're cowards, so they fight by simply working to replace all of the software out there with software without countermeasures.

I'm okay if you want to buy a car that you can't fix yourself, and I'm okay if you want to dine on hot pockets for the rest of your life. But I don't see why you think it's important that I accept a car that I can't fix myself!

So, If I used Kwrite and changed it for the better but didn't share my changed, I was leaching it.

Uh no. US Copyright law doesn't stipulate terms of use. The GPL doesn't affect use- nor does any other software license. They can only stipulate redistribution terms; Vault v. Quaid, 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988) was a supreme court decision that Federal copyright law preempts state law, and the cases of Galoob v. Nintendo, 780 F. Supp 1283 (N.D. Cal. 1991), 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1587 (9th Cir. 1992), and Foresight v. Pfortmiller, 719 F. Supp 1006 (D. Kan. 1989), are all federal cases where the US government held that even though the software says on it "you may not reverse engineer or alter it", you still have those rights, as a consumer.

So only someone who wasn't familiar with copyright law could consider your definition of "leaching" meaningful in the slightest. The GPL only talks about redistribution because its a right you don't have, but that the GPL can grant to you, not because redistribution is the only thing important to the FSF.

RMS isn't the only person who knows what it mean.

No, he really is. He's tried stating what the FSF stands for many times.

This isn't the same thing as knowing what Linus meant, when he adopted the GPL. RMS didn't know that- and was completely wrong about that when he brought it up.

Plenty of people have written about it's intentions as well as RMS.

So what? RMS wrote the GPL with the intention of preserving software user's freedom- whatever that means. He admits the GPL2 doesn't do that, which means that the GPL2 isn't an adequate representation of his intentions.

The GPL doesn't have intentions separate from RMS. He wrote it. When someone who writes software grants redistribution rights to others, they have their own intentions- those intentions may be exactly what the GPL2 says, like Linus. Or they may actually be interested in eliminating non-Free software entirely, like RMS. The GPL2 doesn't do that, maybe the GPL3 will.

What I see is RMS changing his mind and representing the intentions differently.

I hope not. If so, then you're completely hopeless.

I hope that Vista is working out for you.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[10101001 10101001]

I gotta pay more attention to what going on. I keep seeing people that tell me what I decided but never do I see anyone asking me what I decided. Somehow, I think the idea or the term WE is overused and over valued.

Are you a GPLv3 software author? If not, then I'm not sure why you think I'm including you. If you are and you think I'm not adequately covering your beliefs then fine, you're right. Agreeing to the GPLv3 doesn't mean you have to want anything. Hell, you can license code under the GPLv3 and ignore people who abuse your copyright. So, feel free to replace "we" with "I". Or take we to mean me and RMS, as I'm pretty sure RMS's point was to try to insure that further tivo-ization doesn't occur.

You can actually use the code in question. You just cannot use it on the appliance you purchased from Tivo. And this is a real stumbling block for me.

See, that's contradictory. If it's true that Tivo is an appliance, then it's the case that either it is (a) a general purpose machine with limited hardware, (b) a general purpose machine with specialized hardware/features, or (c) some sort of FSA. But if it were the last (c), then it wouldn't be using GPLv3 software, as software is designed to run on a LBA. And if it were (a), then there's no reason to call the Tivo an appliance, since virtually any general purpose machine can be called "limited hardware" compared to another machine. So, the only reasonable definition of a Tivo being an appliance is that it is a general purpose machine with specialized hardware. This means that the code in question *can't* run on other hardware, because other hardware lacks the specialized hardware. So, Tivo crippling their hardware's ability to run the code is preventing the use of the code*.

The idea of free is a two way street. You have to be free in order for me to be free when we are acting in the same arena of thoughts. Otherwise your freedom is only a position of power over me, It isn't freedom at all, it is oppression.

The GPL is based on copyright and copyright is oppressive. There is no way to void this oppression within copyright law. The BSD tries to push on disclaimers. Public domain leaves those with access to the public domain work to copyright it to the exclusion of others, assuming they can maintain exclusive access. The GPL works to further its goals, even if they require oppression to be reached. That's how most social interactions work.

The GPLv3 jumped the spirit and I am surprised that I have received this many comments about it. I have mentioned it before and usually get ignored and modded down or something.

To think the GPLv3 jumped the spirit is to not have understood the GPLv2. Of course, I state this because the GPLv3 was written by RMS, author of the GPLv2 as well (co-authors not included). And nothing I've heard from RMS would imply that the intent/spirit of the GPL has changed. How it goes about to further its goals has.

As for the generic license, How about this, "All freedoms expressed or protected by this license are implicit in their intended design,...

What does "all freedoms expressed...are implicit in their intended design" even mean? You never even begin to lay down on what freedoms you speak of or what intents are made. Do you want your license to be something that has to be brought to court on a regular basis such that it is court decisions that determine what you "meant"?

...Any usage combined with specific hardware must allow the benefiters of these freedom to express that freedom with respect to the covered works and the hardware it is distributed with. ...

So, if Tivo use code under your license, they're a benefit of "these freedoms". And they must be allowed to express those freedoms. But, Tivo doesn't want to "express that freedom"

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[Antique Geekmeister]

Overall I agree with what you wrote. But I'd like to disagree on 2 small points.

1: Other poeple are working on free softwae, just as groups besides Amnety International work on human rights. They're some of the most clear and effective leaders in the work, but not the only ones. Various BSD projects, for example, take this seriously.

2: RMS is not the whole of the FSF or the GNU projects. He's certainly the leader, and his beliefs have compelling power, but he's certainly not a cult leader of followers of unquestioned loyalty. We're geeks: we argue, debate, and often disagree and fork off our own ways of doing things. The FSF certainly fosters this where feasible.

The GPL does not to be clear and consistent to protect people from legal confusion, that's why it's so consistently defined by the FSF.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[SillyNickName]

But Tivo did give the source back,

Not quite. They left out the portion of the code that was necessary to make it actually run on the computer.

People want to use an appliance computer as a general purpose computer and the use outside of distribution has always been specifically stated in the GPL to be outside the scope of the GPL.

Distribution inside a box has always counted as distribution when the box was distributed.

Hardware manufacturers can actually lose their IP now so vendor provided drivers might be harder to come by

If they are going to patent their drivers anyway then I would rather them *not* use GPL code to do so. I would much rather they keep their proprietary drivers secret but release the device specifications to allow non-patented third party drivers to be developed.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[sumdumass]

Are you a GPLv3 software author? If not, then I'm not sure why you think I'm including you. If you are and you think I'm not adequately covering your beliefs then fine, you're right. Agreeing to the GPLv3 doesn't mean you have to want anything. Hell, you can license code under the GPLv3 and ignore people who abuse your copyright. So, feel free to replace "we" with "I". Or take we to mean me and RMS, as I'm pretty sure RMS's point was to try to insure that further tivo-ization doesn't occur.

Lol.. I am a GPLv2 author and some of the projects I am invovled with will go to GPLv3 so yea, I am a GPLv3 author by default. I don't think it matters much how insignificant the contribution is, if you participate you are a member of the community at large and therfor are one of the "we"s that everyone keeps saying agrees in a certain way. And No, I didn't become invovled because of any rant RMS had, I became invovled because I needed the software I was invovled with and I needed it fixed. I supposed other needed the same because they use it as well.

See, that's contradictory. If it's true that Tivo is an appliance, then it's the case that either it is (a) a general purpose machine with limited hardware, (b) a general purpose machine with specialized hardware/features, or (c) some sort of FSA. But if it were the last (c), then it wouldn't be using GPLv3 software, as software is designed to run on a LBA. And if it were (a), then there's no reason to call the Tivo an appliance, since virtually any general purpose machine can be called "limited hardware" compared to another machine. So, the only reasonable definition of a Tivo being an appliance is that it is a general purpose machine with specialized hardware. This means that the code in question *can't* run on other hardware, because other hardware lacks the specialized hardware. So, Tivo crippling their hardware's ability to run the code is preventing the use of the code*.

The physical makeup of the hardware doesn't matter, what matters is the terms it was presented with and what you understood was represented when you purchased the device. When you buy a Tivo, it was represented as an appliance, you purchased an appliance, you own an appliance. And yes, you can find other hardware that will run the code, it might cost more because you are then buying something other then an appliance with a limited role but then again, you know what your buying before you buy it. You certainly wouldn't buy a car and complain that you couln't make it fly when they put thing in place to keep the car on the ground for traction and performance reasons. But then again, you know your not buying a plane when you buy a car.

The GPL is based on copyright and copyright is oppressive. There is no way to void this oppression within copyright law. The BSD tries to push on disclaimers. Public domain leaves those with access to the public domain work to copyright it to the exclusion of others, assuming they can maintain exclusive access. The GPL works to further its goals, even if they require oppression to be reached. That's how most social interactions work.

There is nothing inherently opresive about the GPL. And the GPL is a contract based on copyright in the form of a license. A license says you can do X. And contract may include a license and says you can do X if you also do Y. The GPLv3 attempts to go past anythign associated with X and effect TUV with Y and Z in the process. This isn't good.

To think the GPLv3 jumped the spirit is to not have understood the GPLv2. Of course, I state this because the GPLv3 was written by RMS, author of the GPLv2 as well (co-authors not included). And nothing I've heard from RMS would imply that the intent/spirit of the GPL has changed. How it goes about to further its goals has.

No, the Spirit of the GPL has been described for quite a while. What has happened is that RMS made this spririt cl

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[10101001 10101001]

The physical makeup of the hardware doesn't matter, what matters is the terms it was presented with and what you understood was represented when you purchased the device.

So if I understood it to be the case that Tivo ran off Linux and Linux meant the ability to modify the existing code and to run it on the same hardware, I'd be right to be upset up until that point at which I found out that Tivo specifically blocked the running of modified code, but not after? It sounds more than anything what you're describing is what defense Tivo would have to fraud charges.

When you buy a Tivo, it was represented as an appliance, you purchased an appliance, you own an appliance.

Again, no. I've already described quite well that Tivo is not an appliance. It's general hardware that's been intentionally crippled. Just like the XBox is general hardware that's been intentionally crippled. Whether Tivo itself might have, from a PR perspective, tried to sell the Tivo as an appliance doesn't matter. I can try to sell a chocolate candy bar as a vanilla candy bar. It doesn't change what the candy bar is. It just happens that few people are interested in suing Tivo for misrepresentation/fraud because general hardware that's crippled is considered a "better value" than an appliance.

And yes, you can find other hardware that will run the code, it might cost more because you are then buying something other then an appliance with a limited role but then again, you know what your buying before you buy it.

Show me hardware than can run said code, unmodified or with trivial modification.

You certainly wouldn't buy a car and complain that you couln't make it fly when they put thing in place to keep the car on the ground for traction and performance reasons. But then again, you know your not buying a plane when you buy a car.

I'd complain if the car engine was the same as used in a plane, except it was artificially limited to prevent people from taking it out and using it in planes (just like I'd complain if someone sued because their family died from using said engine in a plane, as the engine hadn't gone through sufficient testing for use in a plane (as it's used for a car)). Of coure, since there's nothing technically illegal about the action, I wouldn't sue over it either; I don't think anyone plans to sue over the GPLv2 vis-a-vis Tivo.

There is nothing inherently opresive about the GPL. And the GPL is a contract based on copyright in the form of a license.

Um, contracts are inherently oppressive. They force upon you obligations (admittedly, ones you agreed to) with the possibility of punative damages for ignoring those obligations. The GPL being based off copyright, a law (which is, again, oppressive), does nothing to remove that oppression. Just because you're morally okay with that oppression because you see it as lessening the oppression of copyright doesn't change the fact that the GPL is oppressive.

But more importantly. the spirit we are talking about is the effect the GPLv2 license had and what it attempted to do. It never attempted to control hardware or patent agreements outside the scope of the GPL.

So, the "spirit" you're talking about is the *letter* of the GPLv2. Um, do you not understand what "spirit" means?

I never wrote it in the context of BSD. I wrote it as a clause in the existing GPLv2 that would achive the same goals without all the headache.

I didn't say you wrote it in the context of BSD. Your license was prefaced with "for the generic license...". I didn't realize you meant it to be a clause for the GPLv2, so I took your comments to be in the context of copyright law, since that's where distribution licenses derive their power.

And with the GPLv2 in mind, it would put

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[sumdumass]

So if I understood it to be the case that Tivo ran off Linux and Linux meant the ability to modify the existing code and to run it on the same hardware, I'd be right to be upset up until that point at which I found out that Tivo specifically blocked the running of modified code, but not after? It sounds more than anything what you're describing is what defense Tivo would have to fraud charges.

It wouldn't matter what Tivo blocked, The represented an Appliance computer and you bought an appliance computer, you shouldn't be upset at all unless it didn't perform as they represented it to. And as far as I know, the problem isn't the Tivo working, it is the Tivo working in ways the manufacturer never intended for it to work.

Again, no. I've already described quite well that Tivo is not an appliance. It's general hardware that's been intentionally crippled. Just like the XBox is general hardware that's been intentionally crippled. Whether Tivo itself might have, from a PR perspective, tried to sell the Tivo as an appliance doesn't matter. I can try to sell a chocolate candy bar as a vanilla candy bar. It doesn't change what the candy bar is. It just happens that few people are interested in suing Tivo for misrepresentation/fraud because general hardware that's crippled is considered a "better value" than an appliance.

Really, you have just names two devices that are sold as appliances. It doesn't matter what you think they are capable, what matter is what they were sold as and what you bought. You puchased a Tivo as an appliance and an Xbox as an appliance. Nothing more then that came about in the transaction. If you can get it to do more on your own, then do it. But don't expect the manufactuers to help you along the way. The didn't see you anything other then what they represented when the device was sold.

As for those people thinking of suing. Tell them to go ahead. Tivo never represented the device to do anything outside what they claimed it to do. I seriously doubt they would be able to find a lawyer to take it to trial. If they could, I would assume they wouldn't be thinking about it but doing it. As it stands now, this situation has been going on for 6 years and to date, no one has attempted taking Tivo to court over it. And the reason for that is because Tivo deliver on what they sold, An appliance. but tell those people to go ahead and prove me wrong. I want to see it.

Show me hardware than can run said code, unmodified or with trivial modification.

I don't have a Tivo so I don't know what hardware they use. However, they don't manufacture the hardware in itself. This means like anything else, someone else does and that componants will be availible to some degree.

'd complain if the car engine was the same as used in a plane, except it was artificially limited to prevent people from taking it out and using it in planes (just like I'd complain if someone sued because their family died from using said engine in a plane, as the engine hadn't gone through sufficient testing for use in a plane (as it's used for a car)). Of coure, since there's nothing technically illegal about the action, I wouldn't sue over it either; I don't think anyone plans to sue over the GPLv2 vis-a-vis Tivo.

Why? You didn't buy a plane engine. You bought a car engine. A lot of times the difference between what would be considered a car engine verses a plane engine is the metal that makes it up which isn't as much of an issue with everything attempting to be lighter and the plane engines have double and triple redindencies. You could take a plane engine, pull the redindencies out of it and probably install it in most cars without issue except the emisions wouldn't pass.

But I don't see why you would be expecting something to work other then it was intended to and represented to you when you purchased it. The manufactuer is under no obligation to ensu

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[10101001 10101001]

You puchased a Tivo as an appliance and an Xbox as an appliance.

No, I didn't. But, let me give you a better example. Let's use the example of something I did buy that is "sold as an appliance". I bought the GBA specifically to play NES games through pocketnes (one's I legal own, mind you). I recognize quite well that Nintendo has a long reputation of being very much against emulation of their own system (Sony too) when it's not under their own power. And people running "unauthorized code" is certainly something outside of their design plan to supporting in any way. All of that I accept.

And I even accept, to some extent*, Nintendo's efforts to thwart further versions of their GBA (or DS) to running "unauthorized code"--I don't accept their attempts to block copy devices for the GBA, however, as no copy protection scheme exists for the GBA, so it's unreasonable to try to use the DMCA or similar laws to act as if there were. But if Nintendo had used GPL code as the basis of their hardware, I wouldn't be so willing to accept such actions. This is because the GPL is specifically designed to allow users to modify code to their liking. Any attempt by a publisher of code to specifically block running said modified code on the very hardware that includes said code goes directly against the intention of the GPL. The GPL isn't there merely to let people read the code or port it to new hardware. The whole reason RMS started the FSF and wrote the GPL is because of difficulties he had with hardware because the creator of the hardware, Xerox, was willing to release a binary driver but not the source--at the time, it was customary to include the source. It's the very spirit of the GPL and Tivo's actions being so diametric that spurred the GPLv3.

As for those people thinking of suing. Tell them to go ahead. Tivo never represented the device to do anything outside what they claimed it to do.

As I already said, people don't generally sue for getting more of something than they asked for. In fact, I doubt the courts would side with a person who would make such a claim, unless it could be shown that getting more of something is itself a sizeable burden. Or, in short, people don't generally sue when a situation is tilted in their favor, and courts generally resolve disputes when a person can claim they were wronged--you can't very well sue your customers for wronging yourself.

Why? You didn't buy a plane engine. You bought a car engine. A lot of times the difference between what would be considered a car engine verses a plane engine is the metal that makes it up which isn't as much of an issue with everything attempting to be lighter and the plane engines have double and triple redindencies.

Um, because I said they're the *same*. Ie, that short of further testing that might have been performed on the plane engine, they're identical. Put another way, it's very much identical to Intel creating one processor line at 3GHz, then underclocking half to 2GHz to meet demand, then further artificially blocking the now 2GHz CPUs from running at 3GHz. Perhaps I'd be understanding if all the 2GHz CPUs were rejects, but Intel's history has shown that there have been times when CPUs were underclocked merely to meet demand even when they were tested and known to be able to perform at their originally designated rate. Artificially limiting hardware to meet some "business model" is BS that goes against the idea of the free market. If you have an oversupply of 3GHz CPUs, you don't butcher the 3GHz CPUs. You drop the price of 3GHz CPUs. And if there's an undersupply of 2GHz CPUS, you raise the price. Of course, that seems to go against capitalism.

In the case of a plane engine, the car makers wouldn't allow it to be used in a plane for liability reasons,

Which brings me back to my "just like I'd complain if someone sued because their family died from

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[sumdumass]

No, I didn't. But, let me give you a better example. Let's use the example of something I did buy that is "sold as an appliance". I bought the GBA specifically to play NES games through pocketnes (one's I legal own, mind you). I recognize quite well that Nintendo has a long reputation of being very much against emulation of their own system (Sony too) when it's not under their own power. And people running "unauthorized code" is certainly something outside of their design plan to supporting in any way. All of that I accept.

so your sayig that Tivo represented thier device as something you could hack around with and change or alter to your liking? You bought the Tivo specifically because you were looking for something you could monkey around with and Tivo presented the type of hardware to you and represented it withy those abilities? And Nitendo did the same respectivly with the game boy advanced? Both companies represented the devices in the way you describe when you decided to buy them?

Notice I said companies and not some internet site unrelated to the device's manufacturer. Because you can do something doesn't mean it is supposed to do that. The Anti-Tivo clause is an attempt to make any hardware "supposed to do something" outside the manufactuers original intent and design. This is what is wrong. You purchased a glorified VCR and that's what was delivered.

And I even accept, to some extent*, Nintendo's efforts to thwart further versions of their GBA (or DS) to running "unauthorized code"--I don't accept their attempts to block copy devices for the GBA, however, as no copy protection scheme exists for the GBA, so it's unreasonable to try to use the DMCA or similar laws to act as if there were. But if Nintendo had used GPL code as the basis of their hardware, I wouldn't be so willing to accept such actions. This is because the GPL is specifically designed to allow users to modify code to their liking. Any attempt by a publisher of code to specifically block running said modified code on the very hardware that includes said code goes directly against the intention of the GPL. The GPL isn't there merely to let people read the code or port it to new hardware. The whole reason RMS started the FSF and wrote the GPL is because of difficulties he had with hardware because the creator of the hardware, Xerox, was willing to release a binary driver but not the source--at the time, it was customary to include the source. It's the very spirit of the GPL and Tivo's actions being so diametric that spurred the GPLv3.

As long as you get the source code, I don't see the problem with them using the GPL. They are fulfiling the agreements in the GPLv2 when they release the source. You can get a copy of it and do whatever with it. You could even bypass the security on a TIVO. It is telling others how to do it or doing it for them that is illegal.

As I already said, people don't generally sue for getting more of something than they asked for. In fact, I doubt the courts would side with a person who would make such a claim, unless it could be shown that getting more of something is itself a sizeable burden. Or, in short, people don't generally sue when a situation is tilted in their favor, and courts generally resolve disputes when a person can claim they were wronged--you can't very well sue your customers for wronging yourself.

More then waht they asked for? So your saying that when they buy something, as long as it works like the manufacturer represented, then that is all you bought? Anything else is extra?

Lol. I think your proving my point with this. It seems that you upset because the manufacturer took steps to stop you from getting more then you paid for.

Um, because I said they're the *same*. Ie, that short of further testing that might have been performed on the plane engine, they're identical. Put another way, it's very much identical to Intel creating one

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[10101001 10101001]

so your sayig that Tivo represented thier device as something you could hack around with and change or alter to your liking?

Um, no. I'm saying Nintendo never went out of its way to sell the GBA as a user-hackable device. And I bought the GBA as a user-hackable device. Why? Because it's innately possible to hack hardware. Funny, eh?

Because you can do something doesn't mean it is supposed to do that.

Granted. But it's one thing to be unable to do something because you're going out of what's "safe" and "inherently reliable" and another when you are willing to invest the effort to make it "safe" and "reliable", and a manufacturer cripples hardware to prevent you from making those steps. Most people are willing to accept this for most hardware because they perceive any possible advantage minute and the effort "not worth it". Further, that minority who is willing to invest the energy, realizing they're the minority, generally accept that there's nothing they can do about the problem. But, if a manufacturer wants to take advantage of *my* effort, then they're forced to come into agreement with me.

So, even if you have some belief that there isn't something inherently wrong with trying to block the ability to hack what is inherently hackable, copyright gives me every right to have some control over what Tivo does if it uses my software. That's the oppressiveness of the GPL. The GPLv2 requires the release of source. The GPLv3 tries to prevent the DMCA from being enforceable, so you *can* legally hack the Tivo. That's what brings me to...

You could even bypass the security on a TIVO.

If Nintendo was able to block the import of cartridge copiers when the GBA doesn't even include a copy protection scheme, what makes you think Tivo couldn't make the same argument with their device? But so long as Tivo is required to hand out their signing keys, then there's nothing to "hack". At least, that's what the GPLv3's original design plan was. I'm not sure that the final revision keeps the logic in place.

It seems that you upset because the manufacturer took steps to stop you from getting more then you paid for.

"More than you paid for." Perhaps you should take some microeconomics. Then you might realize that most people get "more than [they] paid for". I don't think it's unreasonable to be upset when a supplier fucks with their supply of a good to jack up the price/decrease the value.

You do know that this is the generaly accpeted model for creating processors. They shoot for a certain level, test and the ones that don't meet expectations get underclocked and sold as the underdog.

Perhaps I'd be understanding if all the 2GHz CPUs were rejects, but Intel's history has shown that there have been times when CPUs were underclocked merely to meet demand even when they were tested and known to be able to perform at their originally designated rate. Artificially limiting hardware to meet some "business model" is BS that goes against the idea of the free market.

So, yes, I do understand how the "generally accepted model" works.

They don't make 2 gig cpus, they make on CPU and sell it at whatever the market decides it wants.

Golly, and here I was complaining about the "[generally accepted] business model" precisely because it involved selling 3GHz CPUs as 2GHz CPUs.

Doing things differently would result in three times as expensice processors.

Really? That's rather magical. That defies both the capitalistic and free market model. In both, increased supplies of 3GHz processors would decrease the price of 3GHz CPUs. And if people were that demanding of 2GHz CPUs over 3GHz CPUs, then Intel would "shoot" for making 2GHz CPUs over 3GHz CPUs. None of this would "resu

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[sumdumass]

Um, no. I'm saying Nintendo never went out of its way to sell the GBA as a user-hackable device. And I bought the GBA as a user-hackable device. Why? Because it's innately possible to hack hardware. Funny, eh?

Yea, it is funny. You seem to be taking something one manufacturer doesn't mind much as a sign that it is some inherent right. I don't think that is the case and it is flawed logic from the begining.

Granted. But it's one thing to be unable to do something because you're going out of what's "safe" and "inherently reliable" and another when you are willing to invest the effort to make it "safe" and "reliable", and a manufacturer cripples hardware to prevent you from making those steps. Most people are willing to accept this for most hardware because they perceive any possible advantage minute and the effort "not worth it". Further, that minority who is willing to invest the energy, realizing they're the minority, generally accept that there's nothing they can do about the problem. But, if a manufacturer wants to take advantage of *my* effort, then they're forced to come into agreement with me.

I don't think you need to precondition anything on it. Not being able to do something easily is what you after here. You can still get around Tivo's security and do whatever you want with their device. You might not be able to talk about it or tell others how you did it but you can do it. I think it is strange that in some cases your willing to accept it is hard but not in Tivo's case.

And as for the majority of people who don't mod things, Well you reading too much of your own will into things. Most people buy a gameboy and use it as a game boy because that is what they wanted when tey bought it. I'm sure if there was enough demand, Nitendo would be happy to make something already hacked and sell it to you. Companies are good at seeing what the majority of people want and attempting to provide that, however horible it might turn out. I don't know of one company that would look at a product it has control over and say, nope, I don't want to make money from that. IT is more like I can't make enough money from that.

So, even if you have some belief that there isn't something inherently wrong with trying to block the ability to hack what is inherently hackable, copyright gives me every right to have some control over what Tivo does if it uses my software. That's the oppressiveness of the GPL. The GPLv2 requires the release of source. The GPLv3 tries to prevent the DMCA from being enforceable, so you *can* legally hack the Tivo. That's what brings me to...

I don't think copyright gives you this much control. It might but what I see happening is that the license will be challenged in certain ways that will end up voiding parts of it in certain areas. This will be done when some people are violating the GPLv3 because they didn't hire a lawyer to tell them what they can and can't do. And then this will start the confusion were doing something against the GPLv3 wording and specified intent is legal in some areas but illegal in others. More importantly, it will be legal in areas with large enough populations that the violated covered works will be distributed to areas where it is still valid. How do you treat a device or program that allows you to do something in one region and disallows it in another and carries the same license in both. Getting something from germany or the USA and using it in Canada or Australia that was legal to distribute in one area but against copright law in another.

Now, even with the GPL, if they write their own code that controls the turner and video outputs and don't release them Via GPL or mor specifically GPLv3, the can lock those out Via firmware and the same signing stuff in use now. And more to it, they can check the version of the GPLed material and determine if they want to let it work or not based on that. They can distribute the thing with a USB

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[10101001 10101001]

You seem to be taking something one manufacturer doesn't mind much as a sign that it is some inherent right.

Um, as I keep saying, Nintendo *did* mind, so much to make the false argument that the GBA included a copy protection scheme and hence cartridge copiers are in violation of the DMCA. The inherent right was blocked by a law.

You can still get around Tivo's security and do whatever you want with their device. You might not be able to talk about it or tell others how you did it but you can do it.

<sarcasm>And that's certainly within the spirit of the GPL.</sarcast> Or can you seriously say that the GPL is all about individuals reinvent the wheel and not sharing knowledge?

And as for the majority of people who don't mod things, Well you reading too much of your own will into things. Most people buy a gameboy and use it as a game boy because that is what they wanted when tey bought it.

Most people are willing to accept this for most hardware because they perceive any possible advantage minute and the effort "not worth it".

I'm sure if there was enough demand, Nitendo would be happy to make something already hacked and sell it to you. Companies are good at seeing what the majority of people want and attempting to provide that, however horible it might turn out.

Further, that minority who is willing to invest the energy, realizing they're the minority, generally accept that there's nothing they can do about the problem.

I don't know of one company that would look at a product it has control over and say, nope, I don't want to make money from that. IT is more like I can't make enough money from that.

So, why again was it that the MPAA is obsessed with wrapping their HD content in DRM again? Oh, that's right. It has figured out it can potentially make more money by limiting access/having greater control. Nintendo(/Microsoft (vis-a-vis X-Box [360])/Sony) does the same thing, through controlling who can publish for their systems by being the sole maker of discs--look no further than Manhunter 2. Or, in short, companies in a monopolistic system* will aim for the *monopolistic price*. That may or may not be the one that involves selling the most units.

I don't think copyright gives you this much control. It might but what I see happening is that the license will be challenged in certain ways that will end up voiding parts of it in certain areas.

This is unlikely, given the history of the GPL. But, of course, time will tell.

This will be done when some people are violating the GPLv3 because they didn't hire a lawyer to tell them what they can and can't do.

Right. Like how when the GPLv2 is violated (which has happened many times), the GPLv2 will just collapse. And of course, magically copyright won't kick in.

And then this will start the confusion were doing something against the GPLv3 wording and specified intent is legal in some areas but illegal in others.

It's funny you say that because the GPLv3 was specifically written to better harmonize the language used in it with international copyright law (ie, the laws of many areas). If anything, the GPLv2 has more loopholes than the GPLv3.

More importantly, it will be legal in areas with large enough populations that the violated covered works will be distributed to areas where it is still valid. How do you treat a device or program that allows you to do something in one region and disallows it in another and carries the same license in both. Getting something from germany or the USA and using it in Canada or Australia that was legal to distribute in one area but against copright law in another.

Re:Implications for commercial companies?

[sumdumass]

Um, as I keep saying, Nintendo *did* mind, so much to make the false argument that the GBA included a copy protection scheme and hence cartridge copiers are in violation of the DMCA. The inherent right was blocked by a law.

I must have misread something. I didn't catch that part before.

And that's certainly within the spirit of the GPL. Or can you seriously say that the GPL is all about individuals reinvent the wheel and not sharing knowledge?

You know, the source was given back. Granted not until a fight was made but the source was availible. And I think that was the spirit of the GPL. I seriously think that none of this would be an issue if Tivo didn't put up such a hard fight in releasing the source code. If they would have released it from the start and locked everyone out, no one would care. Or at least not to th point a special license needed to be made to retaliate. And with the source, you could use their modifications anywhere, including on their device if you could get around thier protections.

So, why again was it that the MPAA is obsessed with wrapping their HD content in DRM again? Oh, that's right. It has figured out it can potentially make more money by limiting access/having greater control. Nintendo(/Microsoft (vis-a-vis X-Box [360])/Sony) does the same thing, through controlling who can publish for their systems by being the sole maker of discs--look no further than Manhunter 2. Or, in short, companies in a monopolistic system* will aim for the *monopolistic price*. That may or may not be the one that involves selling the most units.

Well, the **ias are in a different situation then the console games and such. The console games control the content in order to not get a bad reputation. They want every game working to a set of standards help higher then their own computer software standards. They wan't things to work properly because a screwed up game will means the Xbox sucks not the game sucks. With computers, it is the game sucks because if it is broke, it will be broke just as much on a dell, HP, IBM or whatever. Being borked on an Xbox doesn't means the Playstation model will be borked.

As for monopolistic prices? With an Xbox, you got a computer for $500 or so that would cost $200 more to build when it was new. Now, they are cheaper yet. For some reason, I don't think that word means what you think it means. Of course they control the price to an extent but they ar all in line with each other, at least when first released, then they decrease in costs and follow something else.

Right. Like how when the GPLv2 is violated (which has happened many times), the GPLv2 will just collapse. And of course, magically copyright won't kick in.

The GPLv2 didn't reach into areas that are on the fringe of copyright laws. It also wasn't so complexed in an attempt to trap microsoft or punish Novell and Tivo that it is already causing great amounts of confusion with people.

It's funny you say that because the GPLv3 was specifically written to better harmonize the language used in it with international copyright law (ie, the laws of many areas). If anything, the GPLv2 has more loopholes than the GPLv3.

I think that goal was tossed out then they thought they could trap microsoft into releasing their patents and screw the Novell deal. If you have paid attention to the process, it went from a lot of things to a focus on Tivo, the Novell deal and then getting microsoft traped into distributing covered works in order to negate their patent claim fud.

Well, you'll have the same situation you have with DVD players where you can undo the region lock. Is your point that in an international market, what is effective law when it comes to copyright and patents is whatever is available in the least strict regime? If that's your point, you're probably right. That holds true

Typo

[ImaLamer]

LTFA

Re:Typo

[PitaBred]

LTTFA. Listen The Fucking Article or Listen To Fucking Article aren't quite correct grammatically. If you correct someone, do it... correctly ;)

Re:Typo

[Anonymous Coward]

LTTFA. Listen The Fucking Article or Listen To Fucking Article aren't quite correct grammatically. If you correct someone, do it... correctly ;)

Don't get me started on the issue of missing words: "write me" vs "write to me". Only the latter is grammatically correct, if you are writing to someone, even if the former is appears to be accepted in North America.

Poster full of it.

[Anonymous Coward]

"People who support "open source" and don't like RMS should stop using the GPL (any version)."

I support BSD, so what am I suppose to be upset about again?

Re:Poster full of it.

[Anonymous Coward]

slashdot-post.c: In function 'main':
slashdot-post.c:5: error: expected ',' or ';' before 'open'

Transcript?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody have a transcript? I can't be the only one who hates having to listen to something for ten minutes instead of reading it in one or two minutes. Is there anything that actually makes audio necessary? No? Then have it as an optional extra for the people on the go, don't have it as your default format when you know it's going to be decidedly suboptimal for the majority of your visitors!

Re:Transcript?

[Anonymous Coward]

JEREMY ALLISON IS A KNOWN FAGGOT.

GPLv3 IS WORTHLESS

FUCK RMS

qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq

Re:Transcript?

[Jeremy Allison - Sam]

What happened to the quality trolls we used to have on slashdot ? These jokers aren't even trying....

I miss Klerk, he had *class* :-).

Jeremy.

Re:Transcript?

[niceone]

Hey, this is Slashdot! Not listening to the podcast is just as quick as not reading the article!

Re:Transcript?

[dmarti]

d00d, trolling is a business model now. It's turned all commercial and stuff just like virus writing. It used to be trolls were just out to show you a gross-out picture or something, just like virus writers were out to trash your hard drive. Now trolling drives the monetizable web 2.0 eyeball traffic, or something like that. And all the gifted amateur trolls have gone pro.

Re:Transcript?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, yuo mean "Klerck".
Agreed, in any case. RIP (RideTheSpoke In Peace.)

Dear /. - there are other operating systems!

[Anonymous Coward]

The software that enables Linux to act as a Windows file and print server is adopting the Free Software Foundation's new license.

And here all this time I thought Samba supported several platforms. *checks address in browser* oh slashdot! that explains it.

Re:Dear /. - there are other operating systems!

[RLiegh]

Samba supports non-linux systems about the same way that WINE does; very half-assedly. If you're not using it on Linux, you should be greatful it runs at all...so what if it lacks core functionality.

Worng person to ask about licences

[dbIII]

Now Mr Allison has done very good things with samba, rsync and many other things but after the bitkeeper fiasco is he really the one to talk to about complying with software licences? Arguing that it doesn't count because it is was a terrible licence or that his employer was bound by it but somehow not him is pointless. It's better to state outright that you do not intend to comply for reason X and then either not use the software or take the consequences (he took the consequences in that case).

Re:Worng person to ask about licences

[Anonymous Coward]

So are you saying it should be illegal to reverse engineer proprietary software? On the one hand you praise him for reverse engineering Microsoft software, and on the other hand you condemn him for reverse engineering bitkeeper. So which is it? Pick a side. We're at war!

Re:Worng person to ask about licences

[dbIII]

So are you saying it should be illegal to reverse engineer proprietary software

It was not illegal just against the terms of the licence. This condition is of course one of the reasons he saw it as a bad licence as far as I can recall from the statements at the time. There is no point trying to read between the lines or bring extra baggage from other converations into this.

Re:Worng person to ask about licences

[Jeremy Allison - Sam]

Wrong person full stop. :-)

You're confusing me with tridge. I don't know why people do that. He's the clever one, I'm just better at P.R. :-)

Jeremy.

Re:Worng person to ask about licences

[dbIII]

Whoops - sorry about that and many apologies.

Re:Worng person to ask about licences

[Knuckles]

1. You confuse Jeremy Allison with Andrew Tridgell
2. Tridgell "reverse-engineered" bitkeeper by logging into the bitkeeper server with telnet and typing "help". How was this forbidden by the license?

Re:Worng person to ask about licences

[dbIII]

It was Andrew Tridgell so I should not post half asleep - couldn't even spell wrong correctly.

However the paticular licence for bitkeeper forbid reverse-engineering which is one of the reasons why people did not like it. Andrew Tridgell's employer had licenced the software and was supposed to keep to the conditions of that licence no matter how stupid they may appear, even if it meant stopping him logging in to work out how it behaved. It comes back to either not using the software if you do not like the licence or being honest about violating the licence (as I think he was but commenters were not) if you entirely disagree with it and think you can justify it. Personally I think it was a little bit of a kick in the teeth to a small company that couldn't see how they could make money with a better licence but might have come around some day - like a short rerun of the Trolltech thing only with a far worse original licence.

Re:Worng person to ask about licences

[byolinux]

If a license prevents you from sharing with your neighbour, you need to decide whether it is better to comply with the license, or be a good person.

I'd say Tridge simply believed that YOUR freedom, and the freedom of everyone else was more important than the terms of the license which forbid reverse engineering.

(Also, typing 'help' on a telnet session doesn't seem much like reverse engineering to me.)

Re:Worng person to ask about licences

[pchan-]

Hey Jeremy, I just wanted to thank you and the rest of the Samba developers for moving to GPLv3 and generally doing what it takes to keep free software free.

Re:Worng person to ask about licences

[dbIII]

(Also, typing 'help' on a telnet session doesn't seem much like reverse engineering to me.)

There was obviously more to it than that even if that was the starting point of the effort to replace the software with something else. I suggest you look at what was written at the time again - but yes the licence was unpleasant.

Re:Worng person to ask about licences

[Knuckles]

Excuse me if I don't reread everything, it was enough to read it all the first time ;) But the article I linked to refers to a demo by Tridgell of how to interoperate with BK using telnet.

At the time there was also a lively discussion about whether Tridgell was bound by the license agreement at all, and no real conclusion was arrived at, IIRC. I think Tridgell himself denied that he ever accepted the license or that he was bound in any way by the fact that he was employed by the same organization that had accepted it.

Re:Worng person to ask about licences

[Just Some Guy]

You're confusing me with tridge. I don't know why people do that. [...] I'm just better at P.R. :-)

If people are still confusing you two, perhaps you need... better PR?

Re:Worng person to ask about licences

[dbIII]

Usually it is a very simple situation where if you use the software or interact with it you are supposed to comply with the terms of the licence, even if you don't like the licence. It looked like that to me at the time. Anyway, I got people mixed up here, and as you suggest there were people who believed the terms of the licence did not matter at all.

Re:Worng person to ask about licences

[Knuckles]

where if you use the software or interact with it you are supposed to comply with the terms of the licence

I don't think this is the case, unless I agreed to the license. How am I supposed to comply with a license whose terms I have never read nor accepted?

Mod parent up

[bcat24]

I would also like to see a transcript.

Re:Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod your parent up for what? Did he post the transcript? He's just bitchin' for one.

End Users

[ynososiduts]

Do people that use software, really pay attention to licenses? I mean, we as geeks do, but we are not the garden variety user. If you give Ubuntu to grandma she wont notice the transition from GPLv2 to GPLv3. The only people this really effects is developers.

Re:End Users

[sumdumass]

The people who would use Samba would pay attention to a license. It isn't something you accidentally find and click your way through until it "just works". You will be reading quite a bit to get it going and the license will be know to you.

Windows provides enough functionality in this same ares for the casual users.

Re:End Users

[ynososiduts]

Yeah I didn't think that through. Grandma wouldn't be using samba, ever. It's not something for the lay person.

Re:End Users

[Antique Geekmeister]

No. No, Windows really doesn't. Their services are expensive to license, difficult to support, and a basic security nightmare with useless documentation.

While Samba often tails providing new features of CIFS, formerly SMB, its overall security and robustness and scalability make it clearly superior. It's graceful integration with NFS, FTP, HTTPS, or other services are even better. This is why almost all of those cheap little network storage boxes, and a lot of big ones, rely on Samba. Whenever I've worked with people who haven't drunk the Windows 2003 or Windows NT "managed server" Kool-Aid, they've lept on and been happy with the performance of Samba servers, even in arrays well over 10 Terabytes.

Re:End Users

[sumdumass]

No. No, Windows really doesn't. Their services are expensive to license, difficult to support, and a basic security nightmare with useless documentation.

it isn't all that expensive. $700 or less gives you an OEM version of windows server and when you think about that being a one time investment lasting over 4 years, it doesn't seem like much at all. Especially when you make several times that much weekly off the server. that is unless it is some home use product. And the security isn't really an issue either if you know what your doing. The first step is not to depend on the server in question to do the security itself. And outside firewall should be the minimum in addition to locking down the server. And of course, I would recommend this for any linux server too unless the server is setup specifically for being on the Internet and doesn't hold any sensitive information on it.

While Samba often tails providing new features of CIFS, formerly SMB, its overall security and robustness and scalability make it clearly superior. It's graceful integration with NFS, FTP, HTTPS, or other services are even better. This is why almost all of those cheap little network storage boxes, and a lot of big ones, rely on Samba. Whenever I've worked with people who haven't drunk the Windows 2003 or Windows NT "managed server" Kool-Aid, they've lept on and been happy with the performance of Samba servers, even in arrays well over 10 Terabytes.

If you need NFS maybe, I'm not so sure about the claims for FTP or HTTPS. But I don't need them either so it isn't a point I want to press.

As for the Kool-Aid, we all drink it to some extent. It may not have the same results but your happily pushing the Samba with some claims that don't really need to be made. I think almost everyone is biased to some extent, However, the reasons for my bias has disappeared. And I wouldn't be surprised of it hasn't gone away for others too. The more the GPLv3 comes around the more people that will be in the same boat as me.

Now, don't get me wrong. I was happy with Samba. I'm not saying t is a dog or anything. It is harder to get working correctly then the windows servers and it isn't any easier at securing either. There just wasn't that much over using windows that Samba had to offer that I would use. I know others are in the same situation as me too. The little comment about the NAS devices is probably going to go away now too. The NAS devices fit into the consumer definition of the GPLv3 and aren't exempt form the tampering and such like the business devices might be. So, there won't be any way to secure them that can't be hacked easily. Any encryption on the drives will need to have the keys distributed- it is going to just cause issues. We won't use a portable device that I cannot completely lock everyone out of. We cannot afford someone taking it home and installing some back door program that allows them perpetual access to it. And you can't buy a device already locked down sufficiently from someone under the GPLv3.

But that's ok. I'm sure it was all considered before the switch was made. I know GPLed stuff is just for hackers and hobbyist. I don't know why we thought it was ready to compete in a commercial world when that was never the intention. I just wish I would stop hearing about the year of linux every year. It is misleading.

Re:End Users

[Antique Geekmeister]

That seems fair enough. But that $700 for an OEM server license is a capital cost, and not recoverable. It's not relevant to the money you make off the service *unless* it means you make more money than off of a Samba server, and that's pretty unlikely. And the capital cost of the heavier duty hardware that the Windows server requires, downtime for software upgrades and reboots, pain of upgrade paths, etc. are much higher.

If you think GPL'd stuff is only for hackers and hobbyists, you obviously haven't looked at the infrastructure of the Internet itself. Google just hired Jeremy Allison, one of the key maintainers and developers of Samba. Many of your home network routers and firewalls are Linux kernel and glibc based, which means they are using GPL licensed software. Render farms and computing clusters also make extensive use of Linux, the OS, with all its GPL components.

I'm not saying it's "the year of Linux". But large and successful companies, like Google and IBM, are using it heavily and pursing it avidly, and publishing their software changes.

Re:End Users

[sumdumass]

That seems fair enough. But that $700 for an OEM server license is a capital cost, and not recoverable. It's not relevant to the money you make off the service *unless* it means you make more money than off of a Samba server, and that's pretty unlikely. And the capital cost of the heavier duty hardware that the Windows server requires, downtime for software upgrades and reboots, pain of upgrade paths, etc. are much higher.

They $700 get exchange, active directory logins and extra stuff that I don't use but have setup at some shops. So i guess that once you divide that down, it is even less then $700. But the extra time and effort of setting it up and stuff like that can equalize the cost. You might be able to do it faster because you don't know how to do it on windows or something but it has always been faster on windows for almost everyone I know.

As for the hardware, I wouldn't know, I don't have more then 60 users at one time on any of the networks I support so I haven't hit the limit of normal hardware yet. I have heard that widows need bigger iron but I have never experienced it myself. Of course when I build a server, I just get whatever provides the most power for the dollar of the day, You will find sort of a sweet spot that gives you both performance and value. And this spot hasn't caused problems yet except with one install but that was because the other consultants didn't set their programs up correctly.

If you think GPL'd stuff is only for hackers and hobbyists, you obviously haven't looked at the infrastructure of the Internet itself.

Lol.. That what I am talking about. It seems as if you couldn't read the sarcastic frustration in there.

Google just hired Jeremy Allison, one of the key maintainers and developers of Samba. Many of your home network routers and firewalls are Linux kernel and glibc based, which means they are using GPL licensed software. Render farms and computing clusters also make extensive use of Linux, the OS, with all its GPL components.

This is all nice and all. I'm sure some might change with the use of the GPLv3. but this is along the lines of the same sarcasm. The point of making such a hostile software license and then jumping on to it in order to get fanfare and fame forgets all about what you just mentioned. Well, whatever the reasons are, it isn't a good move towards the business end of things. It is as if they want to keep it in a hobbyist/hacker realm.

I'm not saying it's "the year of Linux". But large and successful companies, like Google and IBM, are using it heavily and pursing it avidly, and publishing their software changes.

Yea, It isn't the year of linux. Google and IBM are using it preGPLv3. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't an attempt to stay in the GPLv3 realm. IBM just opened a bunch of patents because of the GPLv3. Some might think it was to head off any sense of urgency in pulling projects infringing or touching on those patent to a GPLv3. But that is besides the point. When someone's answer over a GPL question is to ask your lawyer, the end of the game is near.

Re:End Users

[Antique Geekmeister]

OK, that makes more sense. The $700 for just the license, with the Active Directory and other tools, makes more sense. But for that $700, you can buy a low end Terabyte network storage server, or buy two for on-line backups, and you're basically done. Storage itself is a commodity: you no longer need big iron to do quite large storage.

I missed the sarcastic frustration in your hackers crack: it's hard to detect sometimes. I've seen people as experienced and grounded as you seem to be toos out that kind of claim seriously: not as often as I used to, I admit. I'm not clear that you appreciate the "business side of things" in the long term. Compatibility is good in the short term, but the patent and Tivoization problems have been getting worse. Unless we want to see things like the fundamentally DRM-based "Trusted Computing" tools from Microsoft, already built into the current generation of Intel and AMD processors, used to lock out our hardware and software from doing their jobs with any software but the virgin, commercially packaged software from the original vendor, we need to address DRM and patent issues right now.

For example, it's a good thing that Microsoft failed miserably to get WinFS working for Vista. That's an XML based filesystem, and Microsoft has been filing hundreds if not thousands of XML patents. This makes open source drivers to access that filesytem vulnerable to serious patent issues. If Novell then turned around and wrote tools for it, layered on top of GPL components like the kernel or Samba, they could keep those components away from competitors with patent protection from Microsoft.

Is this a bit paranoid? Yes. Is it likely, given Microsoft's history of embrace and extend and unhook from compatibility with others? Absolutely.

Re:End Users

[sumdumass]

I missed the sarcastic frustration in your hackers crack: it's hard to detect sometimes. I've seen people as experienced and grounded as you seem to be toos out that kind of claim seriously: not as often as I used to, I admit. I'm not clear that you appreciate the "business side of things" in the long term. Compatibility is good in the short term, but the patent and Tivoization problems have been getting worse. Unless we want to see things like the fundamentally DRM-based "Trusted Computing" tools from Microsoft, already built into the current generation of Intel and AMD processors, used to lock out our hardware and software from doing their jobs with any software but the virgin, commercially packaged software from the original vendor, we need to address DRM and patent issues right now.

Well, to clear it up, I sincerely think Linux and the vast majority of opensource (not just GPLed material) is comercially viable in competition with other comercial products. I would even go as far as thinking the direction the movement and the GPLed products have been going was to produce something comprible to those implementations. I do think that people are trying to work against this movement with all the hubub going around the PGLv3. It is as if they want to keep it as a hackers hobbyist software only.

Now, I don't think MS's trusted computing would ever pull off. People think that locking that flagerant would be a violation of their rights. The best they could hope for is using the Trusted platfor would be a tyoe of appliance. The vast majority of people buy a vidoe player for the purpose of using it as a video player where when they buy a computer, they expect to use it as a computer.

For example, it's a good thing that Microsoft failed miserably to get WinFS working for Vista. That's an XML based filesystem, and Microsoft has been filing hundreds if not thousands of XML patents. This makes open source drivers to access that filesytem vulnerable to serious patent issues. If Novell then turned around and wrote tools for it, layered on top of GPL components like the kernel or Samba, they could keep those components away from competitors with patent protection from Microsoft.

Yes, and that is where projects like samba and all would come in handy. Most companies that I have had experience with won't switch all at once. And not having a native compatability in fully functional existing machine would mean that it would be a non starter for them. They couldn't have half of their company technoligically divided because of an upgrade.

Now, there is nothing to suggest Novell would have done anything of the sorts. They would have been more likely to create something like the exchange connector for evolution. In this way, they would still make a buck from the implementations and not spoil the GPLed code they contribute. The thing is, even with the GPLv2, you imply by adding something under it, that the patent license at least allows the freedoms the GPLv2 attempts to protect. So if novell, working under a patent arangment contributed something, they would be at least opening themselves up to litigation for the expense incured by MS's patents. So i don't evne think Novell would be toying with the idea of contaminating code. At best, they would be creating seperate products that achive th goals in order to get some revenue form it. After all, they always maintained that they weren't going to taint anything.

s this a bit paranoid? Yes. Is it likely, given Microsoft's history of embrace and extend and unhook from compatibility with others? Absolutely.

Im guess my biggest problem isn't in protecting from these things. It is in the way nad motivations they did it. There are all sorts of holes in the GPL that they rushed through the door because they wanted to trap MS into a position of giving up their rights. Now, even if you can get past the we are trying to screw someone part of that, you have

Re:End Users

[Antique Geekmeister]

You seem to have confidence that consumers, unhappy with a technology or corporate policy, can easily change that policy. I'm not: we've seen such corporate policy used illegally to hinder competitors before, and Microsoft is notorious for it. There are thiefs, crooks, and legal manipulators out there. We've seen them in action (such as SCO), and they've wasted a lot of our time and money.

And have you actually *READ* the Microsoft software licenses? Go read it on the MSDN software bundles, it's wildly more discriminatory than anything the FSF has even dreamed of offering.

Re:End Users

[sumdumass]

You seem to have confidence that consumers, unhappy with a technology or corporate policy, can easily change that policy. I'm not: we've seen such corporate policy used illegally to hinder competitors before, and Microsoft is notorious for it. There are thiefs, crooks, and legal manipulators out there. We've seen them in action (such as SCO), and they've wasted a lot of our time and money.

Not as confident as I am in thinking that the GPLv3 could have been done a lot better with a lot more effect without opening everyone up to potentionally being locked out of the entire GPLv3 procees by a third party and necessity.

And have you actually *READ* the Microsoft software licenses? Go read it on the MSDN software bundles, it's wildly more discriminatory than anything the FSF has even dreamed of offering.

Yep, I have read them. But frankly, I'm just as scared of the GPLv3. With the MSTF licenses, I know exactly were I stand. With the GPLv3, I can be effected by third parties or placed into a position where third part software can cos more at anyt given time. There are some other things but this is a deal breaker as much as MS's. I shouldn't be in a position of using GPLed software and have the GPL license itself disclude me because of someone else's openin of their works.

In case your wondering, I'm talking about the "we gotta screw Novell discrimnatory patent license" clause that leaves every one who uses thid party software open to the will of the third party vendor. I suspect anyone who has a product with a OSS GPLv3 covered competitor would invoke a disciminatory license with the purchase of their product if nothing else but to keep the potential developer pool down. I think MS will do it after Samba who already anounced it's intention releases a few updates just so Samba will become irrelevent in the MS world and it would take quite a bit of effort to go back to the GPLv2 license. It will be a fud fest all over again.

Re:End Users

[Antique Geekmeister]

OK, I have to assume you don't see the danger of Microsoft or other vendors cutting their own personal patent deals and including them in GPL licensed software. Novell had Jeremy Allison, deeply involved in Samba, on board, It would be trivial for them to publish GPL-licensed by patent poison pilled work in Samba. Jeremy would clearly have resisted, but it could have cost him his job and left a nasty, nasty mess for SuSE customers, or others who try to use the GPL published Samba code.

I really do not understand your last paragraph. The FUD fest is already in place with Microsoft's "GPL software violates our patents, the Linux kernel violates our patents, OpenOffice violates our patents, but we won't name them" publicly stated claims. I can find the podcast if I have to for you, but it was certainly mentioned here on Slashdot. And I simply do not understand what "discriminatory license" you mean. There are just too many possibilities.

Re:End Users

[sumdumass]

I know this sounds strange, But read the second part before the first and then respond. I didn't realize I wasn't clear on something and explained it in detail in th second part which is probably crucial to understanding the first responce. I didn't jump the order of the reply in order to keep a sane representation of your comments.

OK, I have to assume you don't see the danger of Microsoft or other vendors cutting their own personal patent deals and including them in GPL licensed software. Novell had Jeremy Allison, deeply involved in Samba, on board, It would be trivial for them to publish GPL-licensed by patent poison pilled work in Samba. Jeremy would clearly have resisted, but it could have cost him his job and left a nasty, nasty mess for SuSE customers, or others who try to use the GPL published Samba code.

OK lets get something out and make sure it is on the table. I am not totally against what the GPLv3 has done with patents or the intentions behind it. I am against the implementation it takes in doing so and I am against the way the Anti-Novel patent clause came around and what it fails to do. And lets keep this seperate from the tivoisation stuff which seem to be more of an unbendable position for most people.

Now, That being said, I do understand the dangers of MS or anyone making patent deals and such as you suggest. However, I think the Anti patent deal clause is more dangerous. Now, instead of Novell sneaking in a patent that could be programed around once the flexed some muscle over it, we have a position were MS can place a discrimnitory patent deal within the license of thier software and do some tricks with pricing that makes Jerimy and Samba almost completely irreleventto anyone who uses MS software. And the important part about this it that the purpose of Samba is to interact with windows networking software.

I'm not sure you understand the importance of that. First, in order for the Samba team to continue working with MS software, they are going to be in a position where they might have to pay 10 times the normal costs for windows in order to make it work. This is assuming MS does what I suspect they will do and create the patent deal in the software license that kicks the anti-Novell clause into action and offers their software without the deal for a premium. Samba will also be in a position where they will have to fight MS fud claiming that you cannot use Samba with Microsoft product because the GPLv3 license it is distributed with says you cannot use the software. But probably more important, very few companies will spend extra money to buy their license from microsoft so they will be barred form making changes and giving back to the community. Samba will lose a lot of potential contributions because of the GPLv3 license.

Think about that. If 90% of everyone who uses the software that Samba is designed to interact with it prohibited from the freedoms the GPLv3 is supposed to protect, were does that leave Samba in 5 years? worse yet, what is the incentive of using Samba for these people when the vendor locking and ability to fix things or have others help fix things is gone. We already know that for some, cost alone isn't enough. Where does this leave any chance of getting mainstream computers that just work with OSS style software when almost every product is GPLv3 and MS sells the patent deal as an OEM product and now because of the language of the GPLv3 the OEMs can't distribute GPLv3 covered works? You don't cut your arms off to stop a cut on your finger from bleeding. This is what is happening with Samba going to the GPLv3 license.

I really do not understand your last paragraph. The FUD fest is already in place with Microsoft's "GPL software violates our patents, the Linux kernel violates our patents, OpenOffice violates our patents, but we won't name them" publicly stated claims. I can find the podcast if I have to for you, but it was certainly mentioned here on Slashdot. And I simply do not understand

Listen to the article??

[valentyn]

We used to not read the article to reply. Well, I admit: this time I didn't listen to it.

Transcript in progress. Will be up soon.

[dmarti]

The transcript is already started. Watch the LinuxWorld home page or get the RSS feed to be notified when it's up.

Dupe level still better than Digg

[Random BedHead Ed]

I've been visiting Digg a lot lately and I'd have to say that the dupe level there is far worse, especially lately. The difference is editorial control, which Digg's "wisdom of the crowds" can't really match. A zillion people picking front page stories are going to pick dupes, whereas the once-a-week rate here is considerably better.

Talks Samba? you mean dancing Samba

[Saija]

Check it out for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samba_dance

Talk Samba, better dance samba

[unablepostAC]

Why talk about samba, that looks boring.
Better to dance Samba

It's their code

[gilesjuk]

They can release it under any licence they like.

Do you really think a hardware vendor who implements Samba in their product would stop using it and write their own SMB implementation?

Moving important projects to GPL3 is a good idea as it prevents abuse of the code.

Re:It's their code

[laffer1]

I can tell you that I still plan to use it in MidnightBSD. I'm curious what Apple will do since some people think buying CUPS was a stunt to stop GPLv3 code entering OS X.

Wow... this is surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

How amazing: the guy who is in charge of the "wannabe Microsoft" software is getting behind the licensing scheme which was solely created as the "Get Microsoft" revision of the GPL.

That's kind of like Jack Sparrow saying he supports the concept of piracy, or Darth Vader saying he supports the concept of a galactic hegemony.

Post Roland Piquepaille Dupes!

[Dareth]

Zonk will do what he is best at, post more submissions, dupes or otherwise from Roland Piquepaille!

I don't see that happening.

[Xenographic]

> Lol. You remind me of the type of person who hates lawyers because they promised you the world in a lawsuit, you paid them everything and ended up losing. The entire Idea behind modern lawyers is to create controversy that they can settle.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Contract lawyers are supposed to PREVENT lawsuits by drawing up an ironclad contract. The people who specialize in litigation take over after that. Believe me, they're not the same lawyers and so the contract lawyers have no incentive to want people to sue over something.

I may not be a lawyer, but I did take some classes, including a little bit of contract law. If you want to convince me, you'll have to cite, you know, laws. Or at least the opinion of an attorney who is a member of the copyright bar.

> As for talking out my ass, No, And secondary liability for infringement only occurs when there is an infringement. So without the infringement, there isn't anything in violation.

There's infringement as soon as you do something the copyright holder hasn't permitted and which copyright law requires permission for. The copy is NOT legal (i.e. it's infringing) if it's made in violation of the GPL. You violate the GPL the second you procure the conveyance of a copy because copyright law requires permission for it and you don't have permission per the GPLv3. How hard is that to understand? Okay, so copyright law isn't easy to understand, but you have to realize that it covers more than just distribution, right? Right??

> This is the one of the problems around attempting to go after Microsoft. But that isn't what I was talking about. What I was talking about it the Anti Tivo clauses that won't stop companies from creating a Tivo scenario. Parts, if not all of the device can still be locked out.

That's to help software defined radios. Wouldn't really help Tivo unless they want to put a hell of a lot of ROM in there if you mean it being ineffective.

> The GPLv3 covered works cannot go back to GPLv2. OR at least that is my understanding of it. I know that there are some people who take the you must license it under this license if it is if it is derived from a covered work to mean that it would have to remain as a GPLv2 covered work but I don't buy that. The point is that the GPLv3 effort would need to be recoded in order to be used in a GPLv2 effort.

Who said they did? I said GPLv2+ is either GPLv2 or GPLv3 (or, eventually, GPLv4+) at the licensor's option. It doesn't "go back" to anything, it was always under the GPLv2 (and now can be had under the GPLv3, as well).

> And this plane is to create two versions of windows licenses where if you buy the cheaper versions, you are buying a covenant not to sue from MS that would covers your activities in any open source project. And because you purchased the affordable license instead of the expensive one, you are not barred form distributing or participating in the GPLv3 project or form using the license.

I wouldn't purchase it, to begin with. Besides, they've already put out a patent pledge for "non compensated developers" or somesuch. As much as they had open source, I don't see them going there. They prefer nice, cheap FUD to expensive lawsuits.

Re:I don't see that happening.

[sumdumass]

There's infringement as soon as you do something the copyright holder hasn't permitted and which copyright law requires permission for. The copy is NOT legal (i.e. it's infringing) if it's made in violation of the GPL. You violate the GPL the second you procure the conveyance of a copy because copyright law requires permission for it and you don't have permission per the GPLv3. How hard is that to understand? Okay, so copyright law isn't easy to understand, but you have to realize that it covers more than just distribution, right? Right?

You attempt to convince me that you took classes on law and are in the position to argue this but you fail to abey the principles you should have learned. you cannot have a secondary liability for infringement unless there is an infringment in the first place. That is like telling someone they are breaking the law because you don't like them. They either infring or they don't. And contrary to your belief, if someone accepts the GPL and fails to honor it's requirments or obligations, thats a contract dispute and not copy right infringment. Copyright infrongment is the bases the contract eg the GPL license is derived from but failing to completely fufil the obligations is a contract dispute and not copyright infringment.

And more to this point, only parties in agreement or acceptance of the contract can be subject to the terms of the contract. so if the copyright license places obligations on people, it becomes a contract upon acceptence between the people who are using the covered works and the people who put the covered works forward under the license. Now, ask yourself, If microsoft didn't agree to the GPL (any version) is it illegal for them under copyright law to suggest that people use or buy the covered works? The answer is an astoundingly NO. Now, is it illegal for a third party (again, microsoft) to offer support or protection from a copyright mater? The answer again is NO. Think about how the underwriters of insurance policies are seperate from any actions being taken other then their obligation to pay if the terms of the contract they actually signed becomes fact. They have no connection or obligation, they cannot be pressured by a Contract(license) they never agreed to or came into contact with and that was developed specifically outside the realm of any agreements they were party too.

Who said they did? I said GPLv2+ is either GPLv2 or GPLv3 (or, eventually, GPLv4+) at the licensor's option. It doesn't "go back" to anything, it was always under the GPLv2 (and now can be had under the GPLv3, as well).

You said "Uhh, all the GPLv2 or later stuff can be had under the GPLv2 or GPLv3 at your option." as if that was sufficient. Well it isn't sufficient. Not when the situation I described comes around.

I wouldn't purchase it, to begin with. Besides, they've already put out a patent pledge for "non compensated developers" or somesuch. As much as they had open source, I don't see them going there. They prefer nice, cheap FUD to expensive lawsuits.

In your self absorded highness, you are missing the entire point. You are not everyone in the community. You are not the companies producing the hardware we are trying to get comercial support for. You are not the large well known OEMs who will be forbiden by the GPLv3 itself from distributing any GPLv3 covered works as well as making anything covered by the GPLv3 compatible with their computers and such. You are not in a position to understand anything you don't want to understand. The patent plagde already out there doesn't conform to the neccesary elements to kick the GPL clauses in. but buying a cheaper version of windows with the discriminatory patent license in it will. And the companies who cannot get away from MS products or anyone else's product who do the same will be denied the very rights the GPLv3 is attempting to protect because of the GPLv3 license itself.

I know your thinkin

Re:I don't see that happening.

[Xenographic]

> You attempt to convince me that you took classes on law and are in the position to argue this but you fail to abey the principles you should have learned. you cannot have a secondary liability for infringement unless there is an infringment in the first place.

I think, and I have written so more than once now, that the person turning in the voucher could well be an infringer, because the conveyance was contrary to the GPL. But even then, I'd like to see some kind of statutory authority for that. It shouldn't be too hard to show, should it?

Even so, like I said, I go with the professor emeritus' legal opinion. IANAL and neither are you, but the lawyers all are convinced that it does and even Microsoft changed their tune once it came out. You don't think they'd waste time responding to empty legal threats, do you?

Re:I don't see that happening.

[sumdumass]

I think, and I have written so more than once now, that the person turning in the voucher could well be an infringer, because the conveyance was contrary to the GPL. But even then, I'd like to see some kind of statutory authority for that. It shouldn't be too hard to show, should it?

This could be the case but I'm failing to see it. The person with the voutcher is part of the forbiden deal that is in effect a discrimnatory patent license under the GPLv3. So they couldn't be distributing, propagating or otherwise conveying anything covered by the GPLv3 according to the GPLv3 license itself. That would be a violation outside microsoft supporting the software. Remember, acceptance isn't required to aquire, use or otherwise run the program or covered work, only stuff that would be covered by copyright law as far as distribution and so on would be covered.

However, think about this, is there a law (in copyright or not) that forbids you from saying you will help someone make something work corectly without the copyright holders permision? Is there a law that says you cannot offer protection from patent disputes based on the use of someone elses copyrighted works that might infringe on your patent? And think about both these deals being made outside the GPLv3 license because they were and the GPL was changed to create a set of circumstances that never existed when the deals were made. If the answer to any of this is yes, there is a law covering it, you have a stronger point in the case. If the answer is no, then it gets really weak really fast.

Even so, like I said, I go with the professor emeritus' legal opinion. IANAL and neither are you, but the lawyers all are convinced that it does and even Microsoft changed their tune once it came out. You don't think they'd waste time responding to empty legal threats, do you?

Well, I would waist time resonding to empty legal threats. Why, Because I have an image to hold up. But more importantly, they may not have had time to respond to the threats in an legal manor. Also, when the GPLv3 came out, if they had kept selling the licenses or vouchers and been wrong, they might have lost their ability to protect their patents covering whatever they claim is in violation. So don't take their early action as much more then stepping back to study the changes they will have to deal with. I think it is too ealry to see lawyers who disagree with the representations made on the GPL because lawyers don't comment on things they arne't part of. When someone creates a dispute, you will start to see the disagreements but for not, your only seeing comments from lawyers who have a vested interest in the GPLv3 being represented in a certain way. (this clients want it to say that).

The lack of something isn't proof of it's non-existance and there might be as many reason why your not seeing something as there is in why you don't see fish living on land that oftent. (Yes, I know some can).

I snipped a long portion of my comment because I was starting to stray too far from your point. Some things might not make as much sence without them but they should still be aplicabe enough that you will see the points.

Transcript is up.

[dmarti]

Here's the transcript of the interview with Jeremy Allison.