Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Excludes GPLv3 From Linspire Deal
rs232 writes to tell us that Microsoft is excluding any software licensed under the new GPLv3 from their recent patent protection deal with Linspire. "Microsoft has since been treating GPLv3 software as though it were radioactive. 'Microsoft isn't a party to the GPLv3 license and none of its actions are to be misinterpreted as accepting status as a contracting party of GPLv3 or assuming any legal obligations under such license,' the company said in a statement released shortly after GPLv3 was published on June 29. In addition to excluding GPLv3 software from the Linspire deal, Microsoft recently said that it wouldn't distribute any GPLv3 software under its SUSE Linux alliance with Novell, even as it maintains in public statements that the antilawsuit provisions in the license have no legal weight. "
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
he must be doing something right if Microsoft is shunning it.
Look, Microsoft is not an "Open Source" software company. Neither they, nor anyone else (including "Open Source" software companies), are obligated to distribute software under GPLv3. Indeed, contrary to popular beliefs, GPL is not the only real "Open Source" license.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Why isn't there a "noshit" tag? The whole idea behind GPL3 was to keep Microsoft from license-protecting customers from lawsuits. Microsoft's main contention is that GPL2 allows them to do what they're doing. Why not just save room by posting a story that says "some old story, different day"?
It took over a decade for a lot of major corporation to adjust to Open Source and the GPL as a business model. A lot of this time was finding the right loop-holes in it that would make it work with their business model... With these loopholes both sides won. These company contributed to the Open Source Community as some level and the Company made money. Now a few people who to the most part are anti-capitalistic. decided to change the rules because they see that the a few companies found a hole in the GPL that allowed them to do things not in the Spirit of the original GPL. So they go and change it make it more rigid for corporations and incompatible with their business model. So yes they will block GPL 3 Code and Contribute less to Open Source and Hire Developers to make in house software. (Both Sides loose) Now it may take an other decade for Business to find how to make GPL3 work for them, but in the meantime it is back to priority software. By going to far in one direction you loose more people who are in the middle. The Utopian vision of totally free information and code will never happen, The best you can do is maximize it. GPL 3 in my opinion is trying to force the Utopian vision thus minimizing the use of open coding. I know we all hate Microsoft and all. But can you blame them, they are just starting to kinda sorta maybe just a little bit become open source friendly then the rules change.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I read the summary as "Microsoft is being very careful ... to avoid stepping in the GPLv3 ... even though the GPLv3 has no legal weight". I realize that enough lawyers gives you infinite shades of grey, but it still seems like it's one or the other: if GPLv3 has "no legal weight", why bother excercising any due caution with your partner agreements?
So many firms have merely pretended to be at war with Microsoft - only to cave in later and become partners - Novell and Linspire being recent cases. Have any significant no. of customers actually signed up with Linspire for patent protection? I don't think so.
Microsoft's Covenant to Customers (Linspire's customers it would seem - not Microsoft's) hardly makes compelling business sense to consider Linspire for the business desktop. Few home users would consider themselves vulnerable to patent lawsuits by Microsoft, if they used Linux.
So this announcement merely indicates that GPL3 has won, and Microsoft has been compelled to publicly qualify their pre-negotiated deals with business partners, and customers gain more from GPL3 than covenants from Microsoft.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
bullet-dodging FUD-slinging bloatware overlords!!!
-WtC
Creator of RPerl, Scouter, Juggler, Mormon, Perl Monger, Serial Entrepreneur, Aspiring Astrophysicist, Community Organiz
Well, given that the GPLv3 was written specifically to make those "patent protection deals" untenable, this is a huge success for the GPLv3. Microsoft is essentially admitting that, legally, the GPLv3 does what it intends to do.
So, anyone who was bothered by the MS/Novell deal (and its variants) can and should encourage usage of GPLv3. Coders who want to prevent MS from using patent threats to splinter the community should consider adopting the GPLv3.
Since a certain number of important projects have already switched to GPLv3, this means that within a year or two the MS/Novell deal (and variants) will essentially disappear. As someone who was not happy with those deals in the first place, I say good riddance.
What amazes me is the fact that most pundits warned Linspire about Microsoft's actions while citing its past actions. They did not listen and even went ahead to defend their position. I wonder how they (Linspire folks) feel now.
On the other side - Theres atleast one thing both Linus Torvalds and MS agree on. They both disagree to GPLv3!!
Do they still not get the optional "later versions" clause that covers most GPL2 software?
Worse for Microsoft, they were being clever-dicks and trying to work around existing license terms. All that GPL3 does is make GPL2 these terms implicit; all of which a court would take into consideration.
I have altered the deal, pray I don't alter it any further.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Let's see now how MS realizes that it can't exploit GPL and or any other kind alike conscienceless company (which is redundant, I know).
... at the end all use OSS software, but run their nifty (closed source) GUI on top of it . . . and all are happy: stable OS, great GUI, almost all open source, except the GUI layer ... this will happen, it's a matter of time (5 years). Of course, it will be interesting how FSF with handle it . . . GPLv4 or v5 preventing to use the kernel in a closed-source setup? Let's see.
I had the idea, sometime in the future MS will adapt Linux Kernel (a snapshot of it, essentially fork it) and run MS Windows on top of it, not yet excluded, right? Like Apple took *BSD fragments making MacOS-X
I guess this is what we get for not buying subscriptions to Slashdot.
This Info World sure seems hell bent on trolling, really driven, I wonder why they are so interested?
"better ways of doing things eventually just replace the inferior things" - Linus Torvalds 09-08-07
I'm not a lawyer, yet.
In a lawsuit, it is possible to argue multiple theories of liability, or multiple theories of innocence. As long as each theory is internally consistent, they don't all have to be consistent with each other. It's the legal version of throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks... and when you're just getting started, you don't want to leave stuff out by mistake, becuase there might be a chance that if you don't bring it up at the beginning you won't be allowed to bring it up later.
The classic example is: Your buddy says, "You bastard, you slept with my wife!" If this was a lawsuit, you might respond
a. No I didn't!
b. You said that I could!
c. She wasn't your wife!
d. I thought she was someone else!
e. I was insane!
This would be OK, becuase even though (d) seems to contradict (a), that doesn't automatically mean that (a) is invalid, even though BOTH statements can't be true at the same time. These are all alternative theories of how you might avoid blame/liability for the act, and in filing or responding to lawsuits, this practice is known as alternative pleading.
In that context, Microsoft's GPLv3 statement doesn't need to be consistent- although it is unusual to see this kind of logical construct outside of a court document. The press release reads like they're anticipating a lawsuit, and they're trying to get their story straight ahead of time... In this situation, their story is plausible deniability. and it doesn't matter which alternative theory ends up working, as long as one of them does the job.
So it's perfectly legit for MS to use alternate theories to justify their actions- it just reeks of bad faith when their public position is so openly contradictory. It does seem pretty odd that Microsoft is using legal tactics to write their press releases- almost like they've got something to hide.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
Me too am with Linus on this one. GPL v3 is a bad idea.
Look, Microsoft is not an "Open Source" software company. Neither they, nor anyone else (including "Open Source" software companies), are obligated to distribute software under GPLv3.
True but software currently under GPLv2 vary well may be moved to v3. As Linus had said he doesn't like v3 he may keep Linux licensed under v2. If so then MS could still distrbute Linux itself.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The are laughing all the way to the bank! MS paid them for nothing...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
*Assuming others are contributing to it. If you're the sole copyright holder for your project, you can always do whatever the hell you want. Yep thats pretty much explains why BSD is the product of choice over Linux in many of the above cases. 15 years later BSD made it into mainstream products from large manufacturers (F5, OS/X and iPhone, etc) And the companies that try Linux (Tivo, Cisco) are treated as the enemy by GPLv3. Has GPL been like GPLv3 from the get go, would Tivo or Linksys ever consider using Linux or would those be BSD products?
-Em
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
You say:
"are eschewing GPL 3, saying it's a much worse license than GPL 2, which they consider to be a pretty good license."
So if GPL2 is "pretty good" and GPL3 is "much worse" does that make GPL3 just mediocre?
I don't get what you're saying. Can you please explain it with some hint of coherence?
It might be a very beautiful garden, but your code will never get out.
Not quite. You can take code out of the garden and modify it for personal/internal use, and you don't have to share those changes. You only have to put your modifications back into the garden if you redistribute them, and putting them back in the garden is the only way you are allowed to redistribute those changes.
This ensures that changes that are redistributed are available to the original authors, and the community at large. That 'walled garden' is always open, and anyone can use it.
Other licenses allow you to take code improve it, and then redistribute it in proprietary walled gardens that may restrict who can use it. Why would I want to contribute code to be used in someone elses proprietary walled garden... where one day I might be required to pay a license covering the code I wrote and contributed.
Since samba is going GPLv3, and the whole "point" of the MS/Novell deal was interoperability, and Samba is pretty much THE windows/linux integration point...
Obviously Novell doesn't have to remove samba, but I would imagine that the "vouchers" that MS has are for standard Suse distros which include samba. So, does Novell now have to create a "special" distro just for MS so they don't distribute GPLv3 software?
Sorry, but I have to correct you. F5 BigIP now runs, and has for quite a while now, RHEL 3. That's GNU/Linux for the avoidance of any doubt - not BSD.
The only serious objection Linus has is over TiVo-ization. He thinks it should be OK.
... wha??
He says he is angry that FSF is claiming to protect freedom while taking away a certain freedom from companies like TiVo.
But the freedom that FSF is taking away is the freedom to take away freedom from users of the software. Thanks you Linus, great protector of
But keep in mind the politics that Linus has to deal with. There are many developers who would have to sign off on GPLv3. One of the biggies is Greg Kroah Hartmann of Novel, who owns the USB subsystem. Novel no doubt takes GPLv3 personally. Greg has actively tried to discourage even the "or any later version" clause from being included in kernel patches.
On top of that, even if everyone wanted to go GPLv3, they would have to track down hundreds of developers. So it's just easier for Linus to say no to GPLv3 in any case.
-Em
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
I still haven't made up my mind on GPLv3, but I was under the impression that it was designed to unite, not to fork.
If most F/OSS goes GPLv3, and simultaneously Microsoft denies GPLv3 bug still has a vested interest in Novell Linux, won't that just mean that MS will fork every open source project at the point where it switches to GPLv3? They'll create their own faux-communities loyal to the regime and play them off as open source, and the public will eat it up since they don't know any better. Those who believe in F/OSS as a philosophy and accept GPLv3 will be branded pinkos and commies by "commercial friendly" open source, and die a slow death...?
I sure hope I'm wrong.
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
I've never understood that phrase in relation to some party that isn't liked or is doing bad stuff. Why in the world would you want to have sex with them?
Considering that a lot of the GPLv3 was designed to specifically target the actions of companies like MS, is it so surprising that MS would be avoiding them? Yes I know MS is claiming those sections don't apply to them, but that really hasn't been proven in court yet. For now its still a bit nebulous. I'm not saying that MS is in the right about those sections. All I'm saying is that MS's lawyers think they might be able to convince the courts that they are right. FSF lawyers say it does apply to MS. Until a few court cases settle the issue, it only makes sense for MS to avoid GPLv3 code if at all possible.
For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the quality of life, please press three. -- Alice Kahn
So, anyone who was bothered by the MS/Novell deal (and its variants) can and should encourage usage of GPLv3. Coders who want to prevent MS from using patent threats to splinter the community should consider adopting the GPLv3.
I'm not so sure. One of the things I've heard is that GPLv3 will create hardware vender lockout. Because of clauses in v3 they won't move to v3. It's hard enough the get hardware venders to release drivers for Linux, with v3 they won't period.
Falcon
All I know is that I know nothing!Should there be a Law?
The point is they will be using their bully pulpit to sodomize the Linux market by conveniently ignoring whatever rule of law applies in this situation.
They will change tactics when ignoring the rule of law as they see fit is no longer tolerated.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
I vaguely remember something about Microsoft suing Lindows (currently Linspire) for name infringement. Now M$FT (The Devil) wants to metaphorically "make a deal with the devil" so to speak with Linspire? this just doesn't feel right at all.
Somebody's been playing a bit too much Nuclear War. I don't think I have that card in my decks....
Why would I want to contribute code to be used in someone elses proprietary walled garden... where one day I might be required to pay a license covering the code I wrote and contributed.
Legally if you write code for yourself you own the copyright. Nobody can force you to pay a license fee to use that code unless you sell the rights to the code. Now you might of noticed I said "write code for yourself". That's important because if you write the code on someone else's (the owner's of that walled garden) dime, it's work for hire, then whoever hired you owns the code unless otherwise specifically stated in a contract.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I believe that is what Microsoft will try to do. But, they aren't going to spend a lot of time or money on it, because open-source and free software isn't important to Microsoft. I don't believe they even really care.
It's all about marketing. Microsoft is successful only to the extent they can control the market. Market dominance and market control are one and the same to Microsoft.
Controlling the market is two parts controlling the distribution chain, and one part controlling public opinion. Microsoft's Linux deals are about controlling Linux vendors (Linspire, Novell), and also controlling public opinion ("GPLv3 is illegal, because of the 'No Lawsuit' provisions. No, this isn't like the 'no lawsuit' provisions in our EULA at all.").
Microsoft has no interest in building a free software community, and even if they did, I don't think they have the resources. Most of their third-party developers don't care about community; they only care about selling products. There's nothing wrong with that, but not the stuff for building a community.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
both Sun and IBM appear to have learned the lessons of fractured markets and IP warfare.
True, but I see GPL v3 as a treat to more fracturing.
It creates many more losers than winners, and it damages the market as a whole
Yeap, GPL v3 certainly does that. Remember the GPL is meant for the freedom of the user not the freedom of the developer. And with Linux having literally thousands of contributors each one of them would have to approve the move to v3. I seriously doubt that will happen, so either Linux stays v2 or it forks with people needing to write code to replace the code the programmers who refuses to move to v3 wrote. I am afraid v3 will damage the GNU movement specifically and the FOSS movement generally.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Don't they know that coreutils and tar form a good chunk of any Linux distribution? And Samba's used to talk to MS Windows?
Don't they know that those packages are GPL v3?
In other words, Microsoft ether has to rewrite those packages themselves, break the distro into an unusuable state, or drop any Linux deals.
Or give up on the patent saber rattling.
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
Concise explanation. Why do some people find it so difficult to see that no one is forced to use whichever GPL version they are talking about? Don't agree with GPLv3, fine,stick with v2, use BSD or another license. Heck, write your own. The GPL exists to provide the user these freedoms. Not everyone will agree with that. But as we begin to see more and more GPL software encased inside hardware where it can't be effectively modified by the end user, more and more shady patent agreements like Novell's, perhaps more FOSS developers will understand why GPLv3 came into being and adopt it.
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
I don`t think all this is over but it looks like we`ve won... -- $ /usr/bin/fortune
Microsoft may be very rich but they do not have enough income to hire enough developers to fork every open source project.
Customers and stockholders would be very angry if MSFT diverted a large part of their current staff to forking open source projects. They can't just pull the open source work into their existing teams because of the possibility of contamination of their precious source code assets with some Open Source or - horror! GPLv2 - licensed code.
MSFT forking the code would mean them hiring a whole lot more developers of the required skill level and as far as I know there is not currently a large pool of sufficiently skilled unemployed developers. Hiring enough to even make a start is going to be significant expenditure for no extra income and that means taking a substantial hit in profits. Financial analysts and stockholders are not going to be happy with that and if they start to sell the share price goes down and we see just how much of MSFT's money is real and how much is just a high P/E ratio that could collapse frighteningly fast if investors lose confidence.
MSFT's best bet is to try to cause divisions between different groups of open source developers but I think that the problem there is that whatever license they prefer, open source developers tend to have respect for technical contribution and contempt for the marketing bullshit and 'business' dirty tricks that are MSFT's stock in trade. Heated public arguments over the merits of different licenses are not a sign of the community fragmenting, they are a sign that the open source community does its thing in the open and collectively comes up with a set of variants that can satisfy everyone and an understanding of how to work together.
What we all need to do is to keep shining a light into the corners where MSFT is trying to play its dirty tricks - like the ballot stuffing in the standards committees - so that they are seen for what they are. The advantages of open source speak for themselves, even to businessmen, if we make sure that the real facts are available.
I think originally it implied forced penetration: rape (irrespective of gender). That should explain its offensiveness.
Or, when you put conflicting statements in front of anyone but a bunch of lawyers, everyone else will call shenanigans and point out you were full of crap from the get go?
That's kind of the point that I was going for. This tactic might work on paper in a courtroom, but not in the real world- the correct response in the realm of PR should be to attack Microsoft for failing to take a consistent position.
Imagine if Giuliani was asked for his position on abortion, and he said "1. I believe abortion should be legal and provided on-demand to anyone who requests it, and 2. Roe v. Wade must be overturned because abortion is murder." Sure, Tim Russert would just continue with his blowjob, but everyone else would flip out, becuase half of that statement MUST be a lie, but it's impossible to know which half.
I know of two main reasons to do things this way- the first one is efficiency. This style of pleading encourages both parties to put everything they have on the table right at the start, so that both sides know what the fight is really about. Imagine if MS does land in court over some infringement- they get sued for GPL3 violation, and they use only one of these excuses as a defense. The trial goes on for 5 years, and at the end of it, MS loses, and then they trot out the OTHER defense... new trial, 5 more years of bullshit in the courts... So it's more efficient for the courts to force the parties to do it all at once.
The other argument is discovery. US federal courts have liberal discovery rules, but you can only ask for stuff that's related to your case. So if you have multiple theories, you can potentially discover more evidence than you would if you only had the one theory. When "evidence" is defined as "corporate email discussing how to discriminate against employees, destroy competitors, and violate license agreements," more is generally better.
I think the reason it works in law is that it has become accepted legal shorthand to leave out the "if... elseif" part of the argument, and before the case gets to the point where you're going in front of a jury, you usually collapsed the arguments and settled down to one internally consistent theory. It would be disaster if you were on trial for murder, and your defense was "1. I wasn't actually there: here's a witness who saw me somewhere else, but if you don't believe that then 2. I shot him in self defense." Just becuase it's an acceptable formal logical contstruct doesn't mean that you wouldn't suffer because the jury evaluates your statement on a moral basis, and punish you for what they can't help but percieve as a lie.
Obviously this creates problems when the legalese so permeates a company's business that it starts leaking out around the edges. People are naturally repelled when you lie to them, and this kind of statement is the worst sort of PR because its necessary partial falsehood taints the entire message.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
What's "free code" (I reckon you prefer "open code", but GPL is about "free") if people does not have the freedom to use it?
The two things that made most noise about GPL 3 were its stance agaist patents, and its requirements against effective tivoization.
I feel lucky that software patents seem unenforceable still here in the EU. The intent of the GPL 3 in this respect is clearly to avoid a (re)distributor from applying a layer of selective patent licenses on the receiving users. Many of us would like to ban software patents globally, as they actually can strangle independent innovation and be the means that incumbents may use in order to squash any competition, in this case in the software field. A third party (a non-user and non-distributor) could try to enforce software patents against GPL 3'd software users; GPL 3 cannot project its software-freeing agenda here, since the license does not bind a third party that does not use or (re)distribute the software. So, in the end, the behave-well-with-patents enforcement is done on the only ones the license applies to (users and redistributors), which is as far as the license may take this part of the FSF political agenda. This is, BTW, part with which I happen to agree fully.
I recognize the aspect about anti-tivoization to be a more difficult point because, unlike the former one, transcends out of the software world into the hardware one. In the TiVo case you get the code... and you would be able to use it if you were able to replicate the hardware that it's intended to run on minus the selective restrictions on the software it can run.
The case of TiVo may seem a petty one, as in this case the restriction on the software isn't placed on individuals on an arbitrary basis. "It's their hardware; let them do what they want with it." That's what people that doesn't like this aspect of the GPL 3 say. Ok; maybe you cannot replicate their hardware, and you lose some little bit of code thats GPL'd but actually unusable because there's no free hardware to use it on.
But if Microsoft is able to take along its agenda about "Trusted Computing", in which each computer available to customers would be required to enable hardware-based DRM on software (no TPM, no Windows, that's what the computer vendors would hear), then they would in fact be able to control ANY code that could be used in the hardware that's readily available to customers. And that would be very similar to a new layer of selective licensing that could be used against any user of any software, free or not.
So, even if you may be in the "free software is ok; free hardware is not really needed" camp, you may recognize that free software may be successfully reduced to insignificance if no free hardware (or "open hardware", at least) is available in order to run it. Although I don't really mind proprietary hardware to enforce restrictions on the software it may run (I simply don't buy the hardware), the possibility of ending up with no unrestricted hardware if we do nothing about it, actually makes me fully support the anti-tivoisation clause.
So, paraphrasing the famous poem:
But as we all know, Free Software is not the same as Open Source.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
It would be a good idea to also block or forbid transmission of GPLv2 MP3. Although GPLv2 doesn't have the anti-DRM clause, it does indeed have the patent-licensing one. If Microsoft doesn't agree with such licensing, it must cease and desist, effective always, from distributing said GPLv2 music.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
No it isn't. If I write a killer app and release it under GPL I can't prevent someone else from taking it and selling it without me making a dime. Sure I could sell it but so could anyone else and I couldn't stop them from giving it away either. I'm hoping to break into phototgraphy and want to create a photography suite so the business will run smoother than otherwise. If I'm going to spend much tyme and effort into programming it I'd like to be able to sell it to other photographers and not be concerned others could sell or give it away too. Some have said what I could do is sale service and support, but remember I said I wanted to be a photographer, I don't want to be a service and support person.
FalconShould there be a Law?
YES!!
Microsoft will never sue - they know that the only thing they can do is amke noises. Actually suing would be the equivalent of a first strike in a MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction - scenario, which they would ultimately lose.
Well, does Red Hat have the clout to bring the big boys to their side? You see, MAD only works when both sides have an arsenal.
It's not just Redhat, there's IBM and a number of others as well. And IBM has a big patent portfolio.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Of course they're an open source company. They just don't advertise that they ship GLPv2 software:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interix
I'm against GPLV3 as well (sure plug the Tivo hole, but leave my web services alone! A good hearted open source geek needs to make a living.)
Anyhow, at first I thought Microsoft move's a good thing. But then again, microsoft is evil, so if they oppose GVLV3, then *it* must be a good thing. But I'm against it. But I don't like Microsoft.... Ahhrhhrhrhrrhghh... *HEAD EXPLODES*...
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
All of this gardening lingo has me lost. Can I get this in terms of cars?
I agree with you that a BSD license is superior to a GPL license if you're looking to build a business around the software. So why are so many companies using GPL licensed code? Why are Microsoft and Novell trying to make money from a Linux distribution when they could have selected a BSD distribution instead?
You are my new best friend. Thank you.
In capitalist America, GPLv3 excludes you!
"Yep thats pretty much explains why BSD is the product of choice over Linux in many of the above cases. 15 years later BSD made it into mainstream products from large manufacturers (F5, OS/X and iPhone, etc)"
So where can I download Mac OS X source code?
Oh, they made it non-free
so how is that an advantage for the free software community?
Because Microsoft is not really trying to make money
off of a Linux distribution, they are trying to kill
GNU/Linux. Novell got suckered via quick cash.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
... Microsoft is able to successfully manage a large software development project. Look at Vista. MS is really more of a marketing company.
The GPL was a radical invention to begin with. From the BSD point of view, even GPLv2 is overreaching. So calling GPLv3 overreaching isn't very convincing.
Calling it an attempt to control hardware design is fallacious too. If you want to run GPLv3 software in your hardware product, you can design it any way you want so long as you don't take away the user's ability to modify that software and run it on the same hardware.
That's the same kind of restriction that GPLv2 puts on software, and you don't run around saying that "GPLv2 attempts to control software design".
Microsoft has sounded the death knell for Novell/SuSE and Linspire. As the software moves on, they will have to maintain their own clean-room tree's under GPLv2 in order to both continue doing business and to satisfy their contracts with Microsoft. The problem is Novell and SuSE have been extremely good for the Linux using/developing community and I think Microsoft did it deliberately. With a few simple contract deals, Microsoft has significantly dented the appeal of Linux. While that hasn't really been popularly accepted yet due to the euphoria of the GPLv3 attack against Microsoft the economic after-effects will start to trickle through in the next couple of years.
Karma? What's that again?
Linksys: sure, they were a good member of the free software community with their home routers. Nothing they did would be in conflict with the GPLv3. So why not?
Oh, they made it non-free
so how is that an advantage for the free software community? How about here?
As for advantage for the free software community a.k.a. developers, I thought this was about USERS and not about DEVELOPERS (free software or otherwise) and And users seem to prefer OS/X to Linux 8 to 1. You want to explain to an average os/x user why it not to their advantage to use it? I think having OS/X is a bigger advantage to users than limiting their choice.
-Em
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
Microsoft can say its patent claims are valid, without telling anyone precisely what they are.
On the other hand, Eben Moglen, and Pamala Jones of Groklaw, are free to expound this ridiculous "coupon expiration date + gplv3" counterFUD theory. Any stick is good enough to beat a mad dog with.
Apparently, the tactic has worked. Because the tactic is aimed at suits, who might be worried about Microsoft's FUD, the counterFUD theory does not have to be sound to work.
No one has ever come up with some on point case law showing that distributing coupons is the same thing as "distributing software" within the meaning of Title 17 section 106.
Pure software licenses, like both version of the gpl, lack the power to prohibit anything that is allowed by copyright law with out the permission of the copyright holder. The GPLv3 does not even try. Let us look at the definitions section:
As you can see, if something is allowed by the applicable copyright law, without permission of the copyright holder, it is not propagating or conveying. Since the gplv3 is basicly a bunch of complicated restrictions on propagating and conveying, the gplv3 does not even try to prohibit such activity. Not that it would do any good if it did try to prohibit such activity.
The other way to go, is to say, that Microsoft's activity with the coupons is indirect infringement. Indirect infringement is not in the statute, it is judge made law. A recent court decision on a totally unrelated matter seems to block this path.
In a totally different case, with a totally different fact picture, Capitol Records, Inc., et al., vs Debbie Foster and Amanda Foster, Lee R. West United States District Judge says:
First of all, what's Cisco's problem with the GPLv3? Second of all, what TiVo did was always wrong. The GPLv3 only gives legal weight to the ethos that existed all along.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Well, Microsoft is pathological. But the question remains: if BSD is really so superior, why are so many companies (not just the "big guns" like Novell, Red Hat, and IBM, but also ones like Trolltech, MySQL, etc.) betting the farm on the GPL instead?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
As time went on and they found themselves needing support from the content creation and distribution industry and to survive in the business they have to promise that they are not enabling copyright infringement via their device and while anyone can run anything on their hardware they simply cannot do that. This came to a head in DirectTV deal where they were forced to add encryption to the boot process. Mind you this was a feeble attempt at quashing fears in the industry but without it and DTV deal, tivo would have been out of business long ago. Even today, on the latest and greatest of tivo devices you still have ability to run whatever you want. They don't make it easy, but it is not impossible either.
Personally, with all this talk about this being good for the users, as a user I would rather have non-hackable tivo than no tivo at all.
Linksys: sure, they were a good member of the free software community with their home routers. Nothing they did would be in conflict with the GPLv3. So why not?
Last I checked (and this could be wrong like my F5 info) You still had to do some exploit to get a linksys router to load and run custom code, they do not ship easy instructions or root passwords or anything to get into it, which is against the GPLv3 just like Tivo.-Em
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
This must be slashdot.
You forgot chair-throwing!
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
First of all, what's Cisco's problem with the GPLv3? Second of all, what TiVo did was always wrong. The GPLv3 only gives legal weight to the ethos that existed all along.
I was under impression linksys products required a hack via insecure web form to get into the os to replace it, but apparently thats no longer the case.So, what did Tivo do that was ALWAYS wrong?
-Em
RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
"But I am :)"
...proof? your website seems to be a linkfarm and although you seem to know what you're talking about, I don't see any evidence of this...I'm trying to take you seriously, that's all.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
The expiration date on the grandfather clause has expired. If Linspire agreed to this deal without excluding GPLv3 software, Linspire would be in violation of GPLv3. Thus, the exclusion of GPLv3, from the deal is to protect Linspire, not Microsoft. Microsoft does not give a *%$#, it has not and does not agree to any version of GPL, so GPLv3 terms are not relevant to Microsoft.
As far as I can tell from looking at the installation page for one of the replacement firmwares, there's no hack involved.
Disabling the hardware from running user-modified (and therefore, unsigned) software.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
> No one has ever come up with some on point case law showing that distributing coupons is the same thing as "distributing software" within the meaning of Title 17 section 106.
That might be because no one ever claimed that. But distribution is NOT the only thing copyright covers. Look under the exclusive rights section sometimes. You can become a party to some infringement without actually distributing the work. Just look at your own three reasons!
(1) direct infringement by third party;
Yup, when you redeem a SLES voucher for GPLv3 code, you do so without permission. That's direct infringement because of that "nothing else permits you" clause you may or may not have read.
Others have pointed out that this may not be the case for audio CDs (and video games, I think), but that doesn't apply here.
(2) knowledge by the defendant that third parties were directly infringing; and
After all the news stories about this, they had to know that the GPLv3 forbids the voucher deal. They even published a press release about it. This one is well-covered.
(3) substaintial participation by the defendant in infringing activities.
They SOLD the voucher, effectively selling the infringing copy (even if they didn't personally copy it). Now, IANAL, but that seems reasonably substantial to me.
Just how shaky do you think this is when you're quoting the very reasons that forbid this?
It just has to be believable - believable enough. Such and such person took someone's lunch money, and uh... it was lost, or there was a 95-year-old widow who needed groceries or whatever.
The desired end goal is this: You give Microsoft money. That's all there is to it. Whether it covers anything or not is besides the point. The point is that Microsoft gets your money. And, as long as they get your money, everything is peachy keen, so it doesn't matter what anything covers because nothing will happen as long as you pay up.
Basically, more or less.
The nice thing about this situation is that you can basically (more or less) tell them to go bother someone else. Everyone knows these patent cross-licensing deals are silly, and Linux just happens to be physically incapable of entering into them. That's the way Linux is, and the sooner people realize that, the sooner they'll realize it. Whether they realize it or not isn't going to change the fact that Linux is not "cross-licensable".
Why is this surprising? Linspire is not a static object. If it can change and adopt new licences—GPLv3 in this case—why can't Microsoft change its convenant?
Although I dislike DRM and patents, the way in which many GPLv3 advocates treat Microsoft makes me uncomfortable. They have their rights too. Whether their rights are legal/moral or not should not be judged by just advocates of FOSS.
It's more like a series of tubes...
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
I DO have problems with software patents. Software should not be patented, neither should business methods.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It's only less of a target because it has a smaller userbase... SELinux
I'm sort of cool on the whole GPLv3 thing, because of the preamble that unjustly tries to rename Linux against the wishes of the core developers.
But...
If the license really bothers Microsoft, then it must be good.
Hmmm. Tough decision...
Samba had been encoding/decoding network packets in a very manual way, with a collection of ugly macros to do the job. Samba-TNG was forked largly to switch over to doing RPC via IDL (an Interface Devinition Language, which gets processed at build time to produce *.c stub/wrapper functions to do the marshalling and unmarshalling).
The main Samba team learned their lesson. They switched to an IDL for Samba 4. Samba-TNG has been a very close clone of the Microsoft implementation, warts included. Samba 4 is far better.
Thus Samba-TNG has served it's purpose: teach the Samba developers that IDL is a good idea. Done. Mission accomplished.
"GPL2 or later versions of GPL" doesn't mean "GPL2 AND later versions of GPL".
Oh, and you don't know what "implicit" means either, genious.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
GPL does something BSD doesn't. It levels the technology playing field, forcing companies to compete on services rather than products.
Let's say I produce a brilliant product which once installed doesn't require a great deal of service. There's no sense in me basing it off a GPL project because then I'd have to make the source code available to everyone, and Fred down the road could undercut me because he isn't doing any development.
Now, change that business model slightly. Let's say I contribute to a product, but my main business model is based around selling services and consultancy to go with that product. Now it doesn't matter so much if I use a GPL product because I'm going to make most of my money from charging consultancy fees to adapt it to specific businesses. In fact, there's something to be said for the GPL because it means that the product will wind up with my name all over it - so anyone who wants consultancy may well think of me first.
If MS aren't involved in the distribution (else they are bound by GPL2 rules on patent included by patent owners in GPL code) then how can they say that they are not accepting GPL3 terms? It doesn't mnatter! It's if *Linspire* accept GPL3 terms. MS aren't involved (according to them) so they get no say.
It's like me saying "I do not agree to abide by the publishing limit of the new Harry Potter before the official release date". It doen't matter: I don't have a right to release the book at all.
By stating they aren't bound by the GPL3 provisions means that they are admitting the possibility they are a part to the copyright distribution and are therefore bound by the GPL2 provision that code included under patent is licensed for GPL use.
Why will hardware developers not go for GPL3 if they are willing to go for GPL2? Under GPL2 the patent owner (the driver developer) already gives license to GPL use of their patent. So no change there. Driver writers can't sign and enforce signature use because they aren't writing the entire hardware box, just a component of it.
So, really, why would device drivers refuse GPL3 when they are happy with GPL2?
"Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 19 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"
will mean that MS's interoperability patents get released under the GPL.
I don't think "wild" even covers that idea...
I wonder which part of "GPLv2 or later" Microsoft's lawyers are unable to comprehend.
Do they even realize of most free software today is licensed this way? Would someone do an analysis of everything in Linspire and publish a report of how much of it falls under the "...or later" clause?
You aren't remembered for doing what is expected of you
After I submitted that, it also occurred to me that you can find my dissertation in downloadable form (I forget where I found that), various versions of my paper on the economics of open source (which was ultimately published in netnomics), and listings of my presentations at past international society for computational economics (or whatever it's calling itself this year; it seems to change almost every year, sometimes including "finance").
I'd show you the little plastic card in my wallet identifying me as a member of the NV bar, but . . .
hawk of the many suffixes
"I'm not a lawyer, yet."
INALY!!
Companies bet the farm on GPL'd code for several reasons:
1. The GPL is better for businesses that intend to write or alter software. The GPL limits the use of the code in other products and forces changes out into the open. If IBM modifies the Linux kernel, those changes are public and Novell could pick them up. Similarly, if they release code they get the changes back.
2. Linux is a buzzword and thanks to companies like IBM has been used in advertising. Executives and marketing types can market "Linux" with their products. BSD doesn't have the same buzz either as a license or in the OS sense. That is starting to change, but it's not huge yet.
3. Hardware vendors are just starting to support some BSD derived operating systems. FreeBSD gets binary blobs from Intel and NVIDIA now. They like binary blobs so much that they added a binary blob loading mechnism to make intel happy. This puts FreeBSD on par with Linux. However, many people don't realize there are binary blobs to suppor their latest NVIDIA card and they are limited to i386 last I checked. Intel has done a lot of nice things with open source, but their wireless policy sucks. Point is, Linux has the advantage of open and close sourced drivers plus the newer BSD code can be downgraded to GPLv2 for linux drivers.
4. Trolltech and MySQL couldn't make money with the BSD license.
different licenses benifit different companies.
The BSD licenses primerally benifit those who don't want to give much back.
The GPL primerally benifits library developers as (at least if you follow the FSFs interpretation) its restrictions are effectively far nastier for library users than for users of other types of software.
Afaict companies like redhat and IBM make the bulk of thier money out of support and the GPL ranges from inconsequential to an annoyance (think of the large number of distros that freeload off RHEL) for them.
I suspect the GPLs dominance over BSD has a lot to do with it's viral nature, if you are agnostic about license issues but see an interesting GPL library your app will have to be GPL even if that doesn't represent what you belive in.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Not sure what you are saying...? Linux > Vista > SELinux? Or Linux > SELinux > Vista? Either way, SELinux is a subset of linux, so Vista would still only be more secure because of its obscurity.
But agreed, if you can get SELinux to be useful (I don't think it is yet intuitive, and not everyone running linux is going to go the SELinux way as there are other solutions that are 'good enough').
__________
Okay, before this becomes a flame, I don't know if Vista actually is less secure or has less users. Just answering a troll/flamebait cos i thought at the time it was funny. Retrospect hasn't vindicated my initial intent. Just be grateful I am not basing a career on my "talents"
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
The S3 can still be hacked mind you however you must unsolder an EPROM, flash another, solder a socket, and then proceed with hacks - same with soem of th elater S2 boxes - yuck! However since they have apparently removed some of the code in the S3 rather than just turning it off like they did with the DTIVO there's not too much going on last I checked the DealDatabase forums. Actually, some of the coders seem to be lying a bit low on this too since no one wants the CableCard twits to go nutz and pull the S3 certificate
Frankly right now TIVO is a mess! I enjoy my DTIVO and all but the HD stuff is ugly so I'm sitting tight watching Sd on an HD set...
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
I was refering to SELinux being the solution for optimal security in with Linux (in response to the comment about Linux isn't attacked that much because it has a small market share). You got lots of tools that just does everything automatically for you with SELinux like audit2allow, audit2why (that really dumbs down the AVC messages), and semanage etc., you just do something like "cat /var/log/messages | egrep "(xxx|sshd)" | audit2allow -m newModule" and there you have it, a new module for your needs, just for giving a quick example.
If you thinkn that SELinux is just too hard then you probably don't need a really really secure Linux based system.
IMO Vista's closed-sourceness will always make so that the best zerodays will remain in the dark and all you have is Microsoft's word for it, of how secure it is etc.
Ha ha! I was refering to Vista had the smaller user base...
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
.... when you distribute code.
It is not as complicated as some make want us to believe.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The only thing missing in the equation for the x386 architecture would be drivers, but the considerable muscle of Sun may persuade manufacturers to be more amenable to providing drivers for Solaris, even if it is GPLed v3, thant they have been so far for Linux. Most userland tools have been ported already, are easy to port, or may even run under binary compatibility mode without alterations.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And lest not forget a worldwide community of developers and users that would dig out any prior art in order to invalidate any MS alleged patents?
Honestly, this is a battle MS should not want ot fight. If they do, they will really do so at their own peril (I don't see much public goodwill towards MS as the monopolist suing the competition, most patents would be invalidated, and the ones with any legal basis would see a US only version of Linux been released with any "infringing" stuff removed, while Europe and other places with sane patent law just ignore the whole issue).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The GPL applies to software.
MP3 files are not software.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The only thing Novell needs to do is flush the agreement with MS down the toilet, where it belongs, and behave in the future. After all many people there (SuSe and Mono former people) have contributed to the free software effort and should not be punished if at all possible just because the PHBs had a moment of monumental stupidity.
As for Linspire, they can go to the moon as far as I am concerned.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.