Slashdot Mirror
Groklaw Guts the Novell/Microsoft Deal
walterbyrd writes "Pamala Jones, at groklaw, totally rips apart the Novell/Deal patent protection deal. From the article: 'Justin Steinman reveals that to market their SUSE Linux Enterprise Server against Red Hat they ask, "Do you want the Linux that works with Windows? Or the one that doesn't?" It's just appalling. Let me ask you developers who are kernel guys a question: When you contributed code to the kernel, was it your intent that it be used against Red Hat? How about the rest of you developers? Is that all right with you, that your code is being marketed by Novell like that? I also have questions about antitrust issues, with Microsoft being Novell's partner in such deals and sales pitches. Nothing speaks louder about Microsoft's true determination never to be actually interoperable than this conference.'"
I don't mean to troll, but with the audience she's tending to, isn't this a bit like preaching to the choir?
..."totally rips apart the Novell/Deal patent protection deal"... Who's Deal?
Are you saying that Pam Jones is an IBM employee? Wasn't that what SCO tried to push?
Typo of Dell perhaps?
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
"Do you want the Linux that works with Windows? Or the one that doesn't?"
... but my enterprise needs computers that work and people who are competent enough to use something like pre-installed Ubuntu (hoo boy, guess they'll have to go back to school for that!)
The one that doesn't, of course.
To me, that's like asking, "Do you want the wrench that works with the Edsel, or the one that doesn't?"
I guess if I was an Edsel mechanic, that would matter. But since the Edsel sucks, and my business isn't repairing other people's Edsel's, I really couldn't care less... Yes, I am being glib, and I understand the needs of "the Enterprise"
If true, that's one hefty typo, considering that A and L are at completely opposite ends of the QWERTY keyboard.
"Pamala Jones, at groklaw, totally rips apart the Novell/Deal patent protection deal."
What's that Novell/Deal? Something along the lines of GNU/Linux?
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Maybe if she didn't keep speaking in terms of competing with RedHat, then she'd appear to be more neutral.
But nooooo... Microsoft monopoly == bad, RedHat Linux services monopoly == good.
Urgh !!! I guess you meant "Well it's rather self-serving that IBM employeeS would ..." since it's all well known that PJ is a TEAM of IBM employees... right ?
... :)
Well I, for one, welcome our new red-dressed overlods
Classic Microsoft - leverage a partnership with a company seen as your enemy, yet try to do so to keep them at the mercy of the guys in Redmond. That's why MS has always tried to do with Apple - prop them up so they can be seen as viable, but make them your bastard stepchild anyway. This is just a more appalling trespass as they managed to get Novell in a position to market the hard work of thousands of contributors, who simply wanted a free viable alternative for those not wanting to be held to MS's will, in a way quite opposite of the motivation of that work.
I've always liked SUSE as a distro, but once the Novell deal went through, I knew it was only a matter of time until the sour taste was just a little too sickening, making it unconscionable to fathom dealing with them for the foreseeable future. There are better distros out there anyway.
Ignorance is the Agent of Fear; Fear Is the Agent of Violence - >1
"Well its rather self-serving that an IBM employee would rip apart the Novell/Microsoft deal"
Isn't it curious that the entire SCO/Microsoft legal team hasn't been able to come up with any evidence for this. But you carry on not commenting on the article and engage in a dishonest and personal attack - TROLL !!
was: Re:Self-serving
davecb5620@gmail.com
But never mind that. Thing is that IBM has a standing relationship with Novell to sell and market SuSE. They also happen to have a similar relationship with Red Hat. But IBM tends to push SuSE more for high-end enterprise stuff than they do Red Hat. I think it boils down to YaST vs. Anaconda/Kickstart. Whatever.
My blog
This is all oriented to the PHBs out there that have been told to "investigate this Linux thing" and are afraid to step out from under the Microsoft umbrella.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
This is just the attitude that will keep Linux out of the main stream. Instead of praising the one organization that is actually gaining market share for a Linux OS, The /. community is branding them unworthy of geekdom. Reminds me of the novices asking for Linux advice being ridiculed and call noobs by the establishment.
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
On the one hand, there is the M$ deal.
On the other hand, there are the Good Things that Novell has done, and does, for GNU/Linux and F/OSS.
On the third hand, there is me, and others like me, that I'm sure wonder about the MPD that Novell exhibits. To whit: I understand and agree that Open-solution based entities should be willing and able to work with proprietary companies. But it seems that in this instance Novell is going about that the completely wrong way, with the completely wrong company.
It's like there is Novell Darkside, and Novell Lightside, and ne'er the twain shall meet.
Maybe these are just the actions of a corporation that is so large that the different divisions inside of it are unaware of what others are doing, a la Sony.
"...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
As disgusting as this might be, it's going to have very little impact on Linux. It's marketing and unfortunately even Free Software is not immune from marketing. RedHat markets as well with slogans like "more than mission critical".
While I can't defend what Novell is doing here, I do want to point out that after buying SuSE, they created an open-source community project around a distribution that was one of the most closely kept. The openSUSE project now releases free SUSE downloads - something SUSE had been against. Novell also bought Ximian which I think has a great reputation in open-source development and Novell has been continuing the work that they have done.
Is it possible that Novell needs this marketing to overcome the fact that it is a late entrant? Maybe, judging by the other things that Novell has done (opening up a formerly closed distro and continuing important work on open-source projects) it is ok to forgive them for this highly annoying example of stupidity? Maybe I'm just naive and this actually is a bigger deal.
To strain your analogy, there happen to be an awful lot of "edsel mechanics" out there.
To be fair to the "edsel mechanics", quite often they are not "edsel mechanics" by choice. For some unfathomable reason, the corporate world is in love with M$ and quite often the poor techie finds himself forced to work on edsels rather then jags.
Stallman isn't anti-capitalist. GPL V2 was written specifically to make it clear that people could make money off of GPLed code. The GPL doesn't try to 'eliminate' capitalism by any stretch. In fact, it creates more capitalistic opportunities than closed source software. The GPL, the way I see it, isn't socialist, but libertarian. It seeks to prevent people from manipulating markets and eliminating competition through the control of software and copyright law.
My blog
How can Novell not care about that? They are benefiting from code that was written by people who are now not protected from patent claims from Microsoft, and Novell is making money from doing a deal with the company threatening them.
Need I say more. This deal is a shame.
-- Cheers!
And it's rather humorous that you've just recounted SCO's slanders about Pamela being a shill for IBM. Even when the Nasdaq is throwing them out, their fraudulent claims continue as ideas in the minds of people who've never looked deeper.
"Before, Linux was this cloud we didn't get. I was high-fiving everyone I could find when Novell bought SuSe. We already won once against Novell." Martin Taylor, Microsoft General Manager of platform strategy link
Did Smith & Wesson want its gun to kill John Lennon (maybe Yoko, but not John!)? Did it ask itself this, and then do anything different? Just kidding about Yoko - her music makes blackboard screeches sound good now.
Introducing the brand new steam motor carriage, courtesy of Stanley Motor Carriage Company! Featuring the latest in horseless carriage technology! Steam powered and built with pride!
Stanley Motor Carriage Company would like to take this time to talk to you about a growing concern for all of us. As you might have heard several NEW companies such as, Ford Motor Company, are selling horseless carriages based around the internal combustion engine. Did you realize that the internal combustion engine would be more accurately named the internal explosion engine! There are literally thousands of explosions an hour happening right in front of the driver every hour. Just imagine what could happen if one of them went wrong!
Stanley, on the other hand, is committed to maintaining our safe steam powered vehicles. Everyone knows that through the magic of steam, clean and safe travel is assured. And of course water won't explode.
Thank you for your continued patronage.
Even windows isn't working with Windows these days... what with Vista breaking so many apps that worked on all previous versions upto XP SP2. Novell making money from big corporate customers is only a very transient issue... once they figure out that Linux can work as well as Windows on servers and web-based services on Firefox-Linux desktops; they will eventually explore other non-tainted distros as well.
For a hospital where I consult, for instance, we have decided to go in with PACS-One deployed on top of Cent OS, not even RedHat. Other corporates will do likewise, once they understand what benefits Linux can bring them. This is a very transient and pyrrhic victory for Microsoft-Novell, and rightly so.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Let me ask you developers who are kernel guys a question: When you contributed code to the kernel, was it your intent that it be used against Red Hat? How about the rest of you developers?
If they wanted to contribute code to a kernel that wouldn't hurt Red Hat, they should have released it under some license that would prohibit competition against Red Hat.
What Ms. Jones doesn't seem to realize is that competition between software companies is a good thing. It leads to more innovation and a better end-user experience (after all look at Microsoft Word. We had only one major office suite and we have the same interface for over 10 years with minimal changes between 98, 2000 and 2003. OOo comes along and despite its small marketshare it still provided the impetus for Office 2007 to actually make real changes to the interface. Same with IE).
all sales are Microsoft sales to some degree now.
Except they're not. Red Hat sales aren't Microsoft sales. Neither are Mac sales. Only Microsoft (which is the majority of sales) and Novell sales. People migrating to Novell due to Microsoft's teeming with them is actually a good thing. This will help get people use to the Linux environment and allow other competitors such as Red Hat to offer better deals then Microsoft which will allow even further migration away from Microsoft. Or it could cause Microsoft to eventually dump its closed-source code and pitch in entirely with open source code. Now these last two options are going to take a long time to come to fruition (with it being doubtful if Microsoft will ever dump its closed source OS), however Linux has been around for a long time and it is only slowly gaining marketshare. If the Microsoft/Novell deal does increase the adoption of SUSE in favor of Windows, then this should actually help people move away from Microsoft in the long run.
My opinion is that Novell offers MonopoLinux
This is the first Groklaw article I've read and if this hyperbole is typical of its offerings I'm amazed so many people listen to it. This is of the quality one would typically find in a slashdot rant. I thought groklaw was actually a well respected website.
Long-term, that is the death of Linux as we know it, if Microsoft were successful in getting everyone to sign such a deal.
That's a pretty big if. Somehow I find myself doubting that Microsoft's fud campaign will manage to do little more then stagnate the small tide of people moving away from Windows for a short time. Eventually if you cry wolf long enough without producing one, people stop listening. If Microsoft doesn't ever go to court but simply continues to keep the fud campaign going year after year, people will stop listening.
But taking other peoples' code and going against their wishes, as reflected in the license
Which part of the GPL v2 says that people should be able to use, modify and distribute their patent infringing code without any repercussions? As I said, the FUD campaign will only work in the short term if all Microsoft does is provide fud.
The Microsoft lawyer there says the company is "very active" in looking for ways to work with the Open Source community without violating GPLv3, arrangements "similar" to the Novell deal. In other words, that type of exact deal is blocked. They are trying to figure out how to get around v3 in some way that is similar but not blocked.
And good luck to them. Personally I hope they fail. But if they don't try, then sometime down the line someone else will. Its better the loopholes be found now so it can be revised early on before v3 gains too much widespread acceptance and we have the difficulty of migrating to v4 that we're seeing with v3.
Of course, the large customers don't understand the implications of this deal to the FOSS ecosystem, but Novell should.
What concerns are these? Given this is my first article from groklaw all I'm seeing is
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
Just kidding. I was going for +1 Funny with my first post rather then a +1 Serious.
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
Groklaw served its purpose - SCO has been defeated and our victory was glorious.
This seems like PJ is desperately grasping at straws, trying to find another issue to keep her and her site relevant.
Developers are free to join a project to help improve it, they are also free to abandon such projects enmass to equally stifle the products development and therefore screw those companies who are relying on the developers efforts to bring to market a good product!
Yeah... Let's see you tell upper management that they need to pay to retrain the entire user base so that they can use *your* desktop operating system of choice rather than the desktop OS that both the company and everyone else in their business space has been using successfully for over a decade. Let's see you do that so you can get fired. Sounds like someone is still in school and has never had a real job. Trust me, kid, when you get out into the real world your thinking is going to get much more realistic.
Fair enough. And just as soon as Novell get of their arses and write their own operating system, they can market it however they like without fear of criticism.
But until that glorious day should come, I would urge them to show a little more respect for the people whose hard work makes it possible for them to bring a product to market.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
How did the Edsel / Vista thing get in this conversation?
* Carthago Delenda Est *
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
BSDL is libertarian, GPL is socialist. GPL creates the _illusion_ of more capitalistic opportunities than closed source. It's in very narrow fields that it isn't true; for example if you're in the hardware business, it might be a plus.
If you're a mediocre doctor you want a socialist medical system, so that you can reap the benefits of the illusionary value of you profession instead of your actual medical skill. If you're a great doctor, you want a libertarian so that you can reap the benefits of your own skills. The same with BSDL vs. GPL. If you're skilled you probably prefer BSDL as you can reap the benefits of your skills. While the GPL, you can reap the benefits of others, _combined_, efforts.
So, from a strict capitalistic view: socialism is the belief that common men together brings greater benefits than those of geniouses. I'm not arguing against it in the common case. However, without the works of great inventors like Håkan Lans we wouldn't be where we are today. Yet, socialist assholes want to take his stuff and not reward him for it. So, in the end we might not great expensive advances but a lot of free mediocre stuff.
Microsoft has some emerging issues it has to deal with:
.NET and Silverlight competing with Flash and AJAX web apps, XML markup base for Microsoft's new standards such as OOXML and XPS, IIS7 configuration XML files etc.)
:)
- the threat of a free OS commoditizing what they worked so hard to keep unique in Windows
- the emerging of accepted open standards that turn Microsoft's proprietary alternatives against themselves and wall them from the rest of the world
- the emerging of plenty of companies ready to deliver free OS components and support to Microsoft's corporate customers (which will directly affect Microsoft's bottom line and the industry trends in adoption of Windows)
Microsoft's business strategists have done a careful and detailed analysis of their situation and arrived at the infamous "patent deals". They have drawn the decision chart and figured, there's no way for them to lose, no matter how the market or their competition moves.
Possible outcomes & side effects:
- The patent threats split Linux community and cause unrest in corporate clients who consider adopting Linux for their servers or even desktops.
- Novell and the other distros in the patent deal are rejected by the community and Microsoft eliminates one of its more dangerous competitors should Linux' adoption really take off. -OR-
- Red Hat and the other distros OUT of the patent deal get destabilized and abandoned by the corporate clients and Microsoft gets to "coown" the Linux code together with Novell by means of the patent implementations all over the code. They can't just buy Novell now since it'll destabilize their Windows brand, and cause antritrust lawsuits. But should Windows go down next 5-10-15 years, you can be sure Microsoft will be talking to merge with Novell and offer their Linux distro with all the windows IP in it.
In essense Microsoft either gets to split the OSS movement, eliminate some of their stronger competirors, and improve the Windows brand and adoption, or gets a second route to quickly enter the market with Linux OS should Windows go horribly down, by utilizing all their Windows IP inside the Linux system.
What about standards:
- Where Microsoft has their own standard opposed to an open competing standard, they try to promote it to a full standard (OOXML, Exchange server integration with SUSE, ActiveDirectory integration with SUSE etc., XPS)
- Where Microsoft doesn't have their own standard, they adopt the publicly accepted standard, and extend it in attempt to create added-value dialect (RSS with own extensions in IE7,
So Novell's deal helps Microsoft make better penetration of Microsoft standards and technologies as something that comes standard with Linux. We're talking about Mono, Moonlight, Exchange integration, Samba integration and all those technologies which might have alternatives outside the Microsoft world.
This is marked to the public outside as interoperability effort. It sure is improving interoperability, but at the cost of putting more and more MS IP in Linux's distributions.
So was Novell wrong to sign the deal? If they had the pure intention to move the OSS community and help Linux as a whole, it was wrong. But as a company that competes against *OTHER* Linux distro companies, it was half right.
Right now if you see above all the outcomes from this deal (which are all good for Microsoft) there's 50/50 about who will survive (the non-patent deal Linux companies, or the patent deal Linux companies). Novell and RedHat are on the opposite sides of a gamble that'll play out in the next years.
While they're the gamble players, Microsoft is the casino. Never mind who wins, the casino always wins. Good job, MS
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
By making you redistribute your changes under the GPL, that's what the GPL does. The BSD license is libertarian: "Do what you want with this."
Software is probably the only place in the universe such a theory could work, too. Because you can make a copy of software and leave the original intact. You can't do that with any other type of resource, so the "from each according to his abilities" and the "to each according to his needs" parts of communism fail - demonstrably and miserably.
But because in the software world, making a copy doesn't disturb the original in any way, that concept does not fail at all - it actually works really well. All because one can take a software resource without actually taking it from someone else.
I guess you voted for Bush. Two times.
Beyond perceived deceptions and the toying of Microsoft, Novell is making money off open source developer's backs, so is RedHat, so a myriad of other companies that deal with any open source offering. I think if the article didn't pinpoint the Microsoft deal, its context could be expanded to cover the point of why people work hard for free and others make money. That doesn't seem ethical either. If open source falls it's not going to be solely because of Microsoft. It's going to be because the companies who make money from open source will gradually drive away the good developers who got nothing from it. Sure the odd developer will be picked up and paid for the effort but overall the synergistic nature of open source cannot support this load.
Dude, the keyboard isn't flat, it is an oblate spheroid. Flat keyboard are so 1490's :)
Not to defend Suse/Novell, but if Suse claims its distribution offers better Microsoft interoperability than Red Hat's distribution, that certainly seems to be within Suse's rights.
Does Pamela not think Red Hat slammed Suse's product before the Microsoft agreement?
I'm sure Linux vendors and promoters have used sales pitches claiming Linux is better than other open source operating systems like various BSD variants and Solaris. And I am sure the reverse is true.
The amazing thing is that CmdrTaco has enough time on his hands to change the OP title to something more appropriate (compared to how it appears in the Firehose), and expands the link to contain more words, but can't be bothered to fix the three other typographical errors that all occur within the first 10% of the OP.
Why would any uninterested party say anything about anything?
I want a Linux that works with Windows.
But if I invest in Novell's (Suse) Linux(TM), will my Windows work with Linux? Or will I have to buy the Novell version of Windows for that to happen?
Those of us old enough will remember when Microsoft had certain licensing deals with Compaq, and if you bought a Compaq server, you also had to buy Compaq Windows NT, which was quite a bit more expensive than the Redmond version. If you tried to get around this by just buying the server and installing Microsoft's Windows NT, you'd find yourself with a dead machine - the BIOS actually checked the Windows version, and if it didn't have the Compaq magic number, would refuse to continue loading it.
I can foresee a time when Windows will check to see if it is connecting to an "authorized machine" - presumably, to improve security - and that it will simply fail to connect to a Linux box, unless it is running an MS-approved version. (aka, Suse).
The only reason why Microsoft tolerates Novell is because they realize that Linux has replaced UNIX in a lot of corporate environments. As soon as Linux becomes widely used on the desktop, Microsoft will treat Novell as they've treated all of their past partners. Novell seems not to understand this - they can market their version of Linux only to the extent that Redmond blesses it, and that is truly sad.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
That would be libel...
Of course back in 1920 who knows what would have held up in trial, but that is probably a line more likely to be said by the Stanley salesman with a nod and wink.
Just using the obligatory auto analogy to illustrate how marketing has always worked.
Huh? Is the free in free software something that carries the You are as free as I let your be type freedom? I mean we can redefine freedom to mean you can't use it either. I guess that would make it more free for some, wouldn't it? Well, maybe if they said it would.
As for those who made it? Novell/SuSE has planted a lot of code there. You would think that someone wanting respect from a company over code that company wrote would be willing to give some respect in it's own right. I Imagine that if the Free software community didn't want supported interoperability with MS software or large companies marketing their software, they would have wrote something in the license to make that point. They haven't so I don't see why doing so isn't respecting anything.
Maybe this respect your talking about is something only you and a handful of others want but never had it written into a license being used? Is this more of a case of the GPL being overtaken by zealots and losing practical meaning? Meaning that can only be interpreted to those with the loudest voice? Or is it a case of misguided people injecting their personal preferences and a website struggling to stay in the highlight now that they purpose is starting to go away? I would expect Groklaw to move onto other things now that SCO is going the way of the Dodo bird, But this type of made up sensationalism is just garbage from the get go.
Wouldn't it have to be untrue to be libel?
The only way that statement would be untrue is if it were an engine mounted in the rear. Then it would be thousands of explosions behind the driver.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
They want Linux split to be able to taint the product, Microsoft got what they wanted. Novell stupidly falls into the trap.
For someone who's sucked more out of the community than has made any contributions, your opinion is worthless.
I see you have a complex about the Industrial industry ;)
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
Yet Another Dumb Automotive Analogy.
"my enterprise needs computers that work and people who are competent enough to use something like pre-installed Ubuntu".
I really hate to point this out but Windows 2000 and XP do work. In an enterprise setting where they are behind a fire wall and locked down correctly Windows XP and 2K work pretty well. Add in the huge amount of custom software that many enterprises have written over the years in VB and you have a system that works well for many companies. So yes Linux is technically a better OS than Windows XP/2K but Windows isn't an Edsel.
I am interested just how Suse works better with Windows than other Linux servers do. This could be nothing more than marketing spin or Novell does have access to some hooks that other Linux providers don't
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Nice self-deprecation, although I did read your (now modded down) post below that claimed PJ was an IBM employee. So, I find your claims of this being the first Groklaw article you've read somewhat suspect.
No sig, sorry.
Hi Linus,
This one is a short letter. My expresso awaits for me. Its reallty this simple bro: take away from Novell the right to use the Linux trademark. Just threaten them to do so, theyll start behaving right away.
This are not just my 2 cents, im pretty shure most here will agree to me that this course of action is legal, tough and will get all vendors to play decently.
NO SIG
Free software doesn't enter into it. They are free to do as they please within the terms of the licence. However, they might nevertheless be wise not to aggravate the community of developers who produce so much of the code they sell. And if they do deliberately set out to subvert the clear intent of those developers as reflected in their choice of licence, well they needn't act all baffled when people get angry with them.
They had plenty until they decided to do an end run around the terms of the GPL. They might have plenty again if they stop. In the meantime, it's not their code to do with as they please, and until they understand that, they may find respect a little harder to come by.
See, a lot of the people getting upset are the people who wrote the code. I think they're entitled to an opinion on the subject, and I don't really think you can dismiss them as zealots.
Like Jeremy Allison said - if we found a loophole that let us sell MS office legally, do you suppose Microsoft would be happy? Or slow to close it? Why then do Novell suppose free software developers would feel any differently?
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Novell has contributed more code to the Linux kernel than all the ranting GPL sychophants on groklaw put together. And I don't recall you people showing Linus much respect either whenever he hasn't marched to your drumbeat.
You are confusing marketing with fraud.
Its an understandable mistake considering the level of fraud that is used in marketing but they are still not the same thing.
Red Hat usually does put forth an effort to counter marketing FUD like this so I to expect to see a response. But its also nice to see such questionable marketing tactics criticized in the media and by a popular blogger.
"She's a paralegal who works for a law firm."
I think this is out of date. She now states that she is a journalist.
From your use of the phrase "ranting GPL sycophants" I'm guessing that you don't spend much time reading Groklaw. Do yourself a favour - go lurk for a week or three. I doubt we'll convince you of anything, but you might get enough background to at least come up with a plausible smear.
And I don't care how much code Novell have contributed. They can take their code and try running it without the rest of the kernel and see how well that works. I'd have no problem with that. Hell, I'd sell tickets. But if they're going to use code written by other people, then I'll thank them to respect the terms of the licence under which they do so - both the legal obligations thus imposed, and the intent of the developers in releasing their work under the GPL.
That doesn't seem terribly unreasonably to me. Apparently it does to Novell. Which is, of course, the problem.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
The one that doesn't. The one that does will be loaded down with all sorts of bloat to cope with 20 years of shitty programing by 3rd rate "engineers" who's design briefs consist of a calendar with launch dates on it. Being compatable with that dog pile is no way to make a quality product. Which isn't a big deal for Novell, obviously.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Nice analyses, except for one thing: it's only relevant for the USA. In the rest of the world, there is no patent question. In Europe, for example, MS is forced to open up their protocols, US patents or not. Even if the Novell/MS deals blows all American Linux-companies out of the water because of the patents, Linux will be legally used & developed all over the world. Novell GPL'ed Suse completely, so any Suse/windows compatibility will be used by all. If MS tries to prevent this, it will be kicked in the nuts by the EU. China and India will just laugh.
I really think MS made the big mistake here. They didn't expect the verdict in the EU antitrust case. They didn't expect their clients to almost pay for a downgrade to XP. They didn't expect the resistance against OOXML to have any succes. They didn't realise the windows-linux interfaces could be developed and out of the bottle this fast. Linux only got better, and 96% of the worlds population doesn't give a shit about the IP threat.
Trust me, I work for the government.
The openSUSE project now releases free SUSE downloads - something SUSE had been against.
No they required a high level of technical skill to install Suse.
I do not use Suse after Mickey$oft mettled with it.
...then he invented the O/S...then he invented the internet...then he invented windows...now he has invented linux...very interesting indeed.
Hedghog
Given that the license is largely the brainchild of Richard Stallman who has emphasized again and again that what's interesting to him is FREEDOM I'd say that the license is explicitly and intentionally designed to promote that freedom. I highly doubt that the propping up of patents which restrict that freedom was part of the intent.
See, a lot of the people getting upset are the people who wrote the code. I think they're entitled to an opinion on the subject, and I don't really think you can dismiss them as zealots. I don't understand why they would be upset? They wrote the code and used a license that allowed this. Unless it is a problem where not as many people as we are led to believe are upset and all this FUD from zealots is lillte more then a campaign to get them upset. So far everything I have heard accused is the result of someone's imagination.I'm not sure Jerome Allison is a good source to be quoting on this. He has made a very stupid move in using the GPLv3 for a project that works with MS software. Not only are they directly liable now for any patents they might have been brought into the GPLv3 versions of Samba, they have opened themselves up to the possibility of MS changing their product licenses in a way that makes everyone a mini-novell which of course means the GPLv3 would stop them from distributing code licensed under the GPLv3. But Samba needs the MS software to test against so they will/could end up in a situation where they have to pack pedal, ignore the GPLv3 license or even wilt away into non-existence.
As for selling code, nothing in the GPL stops anyone from doing so. There are lots of people doing this right now. They presented the code as GPLed which would allow this to happen so why should anyone be outraged once it happens? And no, this isn't directly comparable to MS office Code. The two couldn't contrast differently. One is marketed in a closed way making you expect to have to pay for it. The other is marketed behind buzzwords like free and open source. It actively makes the claims that you can take it and make money from it, it actively makes claims that you can change it and use it outside the original context.
I don't think I need to explain which is which but I will says that you should represent something one way and then complain when it get used that way. If you don't like it, use a different license. And if you want to impload by shooting yourself i the foot during the process, fine. just don't complain when others aren't committing suicide alongside you and don't complain when they laugh at you later.
I'm wondering if Microsoft wants anything to be interoperable. We practically have to pull strings to get different version of MS Office to work with itself. XP and Vista have serious issues when sharing resources (such as printers). Vista network and audio step on each other for performance. These are just a few examples of Microsoft's own products.
Sheeesh you think s/he could keep her lies straight ;)
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
-- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
Yep, that's exactly it. The FOSSie community is in love with IBM because they are giving them the anti-MS hate speech they so crave (as well as throwing several tons of money and an armada of lawyers behind it)... but at the same time are ignoring how IBM is seeking to own Linux (just like they will probably end up owning the OLPC). Control = Ownership, even if you want to leave a thin veneer of independence onto it.
The FOSSie community pays absolutely no attention to the fact that huge corporations are using them as a stick to try beating MS. But if MS were to just vanish... the FOSSie community has already sold it's soul, and has squandered any real claims to freedom in their all-consuming, hatred-driven "war" against all things Microsoft.
The day teh Lunix community rejects goofballs like Stallman and corporate overlords like IBM and Sun is they day they can start claiming some kind of real and meaningful freedom. But of course, they never will, because it would mean they have to do for themselves and stop making excuses... and over a decade of blaming Microsoft for all of teh Lunix's shortcomings never trained them for manning up and being their own guy.
Does anyone have a citation for this quote? There is no link to it from Groklaw. I searched Google for both the quote, and also for Justin Steinman to see if I could find it printed anywhere. I could not find anything. Other than Pamala Jones' I cannot find anyone elses reporting this statement. I do remember an article last week, but in it Mr Steinman does not say that Red Hat does not work with windows, only the Suse is reccomended by Microsoft. Saying he is dissing Red Hat is quite a jump from there.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
Novell joining msft to clearly defy the intent and spirit of the GPL is your idea of "marketing" ? At best, and mean at the very best, this sneaky deal is borderline legal.
Lets say, hypothetically, that I had a patent that I'm reasonably sure that Microsoft had violated, and would stick in court. Would I immediately go to the courts and demand compensation from Microsoft? Risk being litigated into the ground? Or would I instead turn against their customers, picking them off one by one, generating precedence, terrorizing their userbase and turn the market upside down? Yet we're not seeing this happen. Instead what we do see is people turning to the ones with the big bucks and making a licensing deal. Quick returns and all that.
Well, that's just my 2 cents.
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
The GPL is about as communist as:
"We The people"
or
"E Pluribus Unum"
Ever here of an old fashioned frontier barn raising?
Let's see about this "Windows just works" thing - yes, Windows apps are generally quite stable these days, and the system rarely bluescreens. However, on my 1 GB laptop with XP, running quite a few browser/office apps but nothing unusual, and fully patched as a corporate laptop, I have had the following issues
- have to forcibly reset the system every few weeks when it completely locks up - most recently this morning when I tried to do a standby and the whole system locked up
- install a new ATI driver to solve a bluescreen a few weeks ago - seems OK now, but I've never had a video driver crash on Linux
- on Saturday, found that every time I tried to run Windows Explorer, it crashed, taking down the main Explorer task bar - so I couldn't even browse filesystem to see what is wrong! Luckily I could work around this to discover that a particular copy protection DLL, which put itself in the temp directory, had been deleted by temp file cleanup, causing the crash. But why doesn't Explorer lock such DLLs? Of course, the copy protection DLL wouldn't be needed with open source apps, so this is something of an app bug.
- every few days I have to restart because Windows says 'insufficient memory to complete operation' - this is on a 1 GB box with a huge pagefile, and I'm only using 1.5-2 GB total! What on earth happened to virtual memory???
Meanwhile on my Ubuntu box, the admin is really zero now I'm using Feisty - my HP printer was discovered on the network by the HPLIP setup tool, and just worked. The only lockup I had was when Google's Picasa went mad and used 100% CPU, and even then I could kill it from an SSH login, so I didn't even need to restart X.
The point is that Windows does work, but it takes a huge amount of effort to keep it working, unless you have a very vanilla or locked-down system where you run only one or two apps and don't install third party software. Linux, and particularly Ubuntu or other distros with good package management, enables you to install a huge number of apps very easily *and they keep working*. My uptime on my Ubuntu box is regularly up in the months, but on my Windows box it's down to a few days, mostly due to the lockups.
BTW my Windows laptop above is behind a firewall but it isn't locked down fortunately. I'm sure a locked down Windows box is stable, but with Linux you can have a configurable, extensible system that can still be centrally administered for the core components and apps.
SuSE's whole 'we work better with Microsoft' is mostly marketing spin, and the Novell/Microsoft deal is incredibly dangerous. SuSE does apparently work well with MS networks, but so do some other distros, and there's nothing (apart from this sort of patent deal) preventing any distro picking up on SuSE's improvements.
Microsoft is not doing the Novell deal to help the Linux world - over time it will try to limit and encumber Linux with all sorts of required licenses, to control more and more of the Linux ecosystem.
Thomas Edison used to give demonstrations of the evils of Alternating Current by electrocuting horses for crowds. He used it to create fear of George Westinghouse's AC versus Edison's Direct Current equipment.
A little before 1920, but the same idea.
What planet have you been on man?
For one thing, I don't believe you, this statement really makes me question your intentions.
"better ways of doing things eventually just replace the inferior things" - Linus Torvalds 09-08-07
What would the possible marketing effects of having a public deal with Microsoft be for Novell? Would you not expect that they would exploit any such deal based on interoperability? Of course they are going to market it that way.
This is an obvious marketing approach that was visible with the first mention of a deal with Microsoft.
What part of "unintended interpretation of the GPLv2" do you not understand? Novell used a loophole, one that is now hopefully closed in the GPLv3. And when someone finds and uses a loophole to step around one of the main points of a license, people are rightly upset.
Please elaborate on this end run around the GPL.The GPL requires that patent licenses are sublicenseable without royalties to any recipient of the covered code, while Novell and Microsoft sidestepped that requirement by providing patent covenants to each others' customers. Microsoft provided a covenant to Novell's customers and vice versa. Since Novell does not give a non-sublicenseable patent license to their own customers, they might abide by the letter of the GPLv2, but most certainly not the intent.
Yes, Novell is presenting the main thrust of the Microsoft-Novell deal as being interoperability. But another way of stating the same thing is "embrace, extend, and extinguish". Microsoft has focused on competing with Open Source. In typical Microsoft fashion competing with Open Source means destroying Open Source. Part of Microsoft's attack on Open Source is that Microsoft paid Novell to participate in a plan to embrace, extend, and extinguish Open Source. Open Source is a producers co-operative and Novell is a member of that co-operative. If this attack succeeds in destroying the Open Source co-operative then Novell will end up in the position of having no product to sell.
Open Source has no choice but to defend itself against Microsoft's attack. In particular we have to defeat the Microsoft-Novell agreement. If Novell insists on hugging Microsoft then Novell runs the danger of becoming collateral damage in the war between Microsoft and Open Source.
Since Novell is being paid to help Microsoft embrace, extend, and extinguish Open Source then all of Novell's actions become suspect. Novell actively campaigned for OOXML in the fight between ODF and OOXML. Novell tried to get one of their employees appointed as head of standards at the Linux Foundation. Novell is actively introducing Microsoft proprietary standards into Open Source code in the Mono project and the Xen project. And there is the major problem that the Microsoft-Novell agreement is an attempt to use Microsoft's patent portfolio as a bludgeon to impose a Microsoft tax on all of the other distributions starting with Red Hat as the first intended victim.
Novell has contributed a lot to Open Source. But since the Microsoft-Novell agreement we are forced to view every Novell action through the lens of suspicion. As an example:
Novell has recently announced that a Novell employee will be paid to work full time on coordinating projects to write open source device drivers for Linux. On the face of it that is a great idea and a valuable contribution by Novell to Open Source. On the other hand the Microsoft astroturf gang made an effort about two years ago to promote the idea of writing Linux device drivers to Windows interface standards. That way the same driver could be used in both Windows and Linux. We ignored the idea.
So now we have to question Novell's motives in paying to support Open Source device driver projects. We cannot blindly trust Novell to be acting in Open Source's best interest instead of carrying out their embrace, extend, and extinguish obligations under the Microsoft-Novell agreement. Are they working on device drivers in a good faith effort to contribute to Open Source or are they trying to introduce device drivers written to Microsoft proprietary standards into the kernel?
----------------
Steve Stites
That's a bit like saying that if people don't want their computers to be rooted, they shouldn't install software that contains exploits. People don't install software thinking "this has got security holes, but that's all right because I really want spammers to take over my box". The tend to find out about the exploits the hard way, and they often get quite upset when someone makes use of these exploits.
Similarly, Novell and MS found an exploit in the GPL. They used it to do something with a lot of people's code that they didn't think possible when they released under that licence - they added rights that couldn't be passed on downstream, effectively adding a proprietary layer over the GPL. People got upset about that for much the same reason as they get upset when their PC gets rooted. The fact that it could be done didn't mean it should have been done, nor does it imply any moral justification for doing so.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Pamala Jones, at groklaw...
Is she any relation to Pamela Jones?
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
To start with, Novell is not selling the kernel as better than Red Hat's, as it is the same. What they are selling is that the SUSE distribution, that has some thousands of packages besides the Kernel (including propitary code) is more compatible with Windows than others.
If you live in a submarine, then maybe you don't care about interoperability, but most companies do because they have a mix environment.
please, stop treating us as UNINFORMED IDIOTS!
I wouldn't want the code I've contributed to be used against another Linux distribution. The bottom line is I don't think we should have to pay for interoperability, it's something that should be expected due to standards and what not. Is that not the whole reason standards were put in place, to make it so that applications could implement them and freely exchange the information?
"Marketing involves half-truths, white lies, one-sided comparisons with competitors, massive amplififcation of small features, and a big dose of out-and-out bullshit. "
A this is different than a typical geek argument on Slashdot in what way?
Please read Pamela Jones' referenced article. The quote you are asking about is taken from a netcast linked in the first paragraph in Pamela's article. The page with the link to the netcast is here, clicking on this link will launch the mp3 file with that netcast. Those same links are pasted in their respective orders below, in case any one needs to copy and paste:
http://www.peapodcast.com/msc-oss-sig/index.html#osssig-2007-09-26-18-00-48
http://www.peapodcast.com/msc-oss-sig/MTLC-MS-Novell-2007-09-26.mp3
One thing that I really liked about this netcast: At one point, one of the Microsoft guys makes a huge concession, without really realizing it, because he states it so much as a matter of fact, and so much as an after thought. He says something like, "yeah, most of the students coming out of university are trained on Linux. I was a computer science student, and so I appreciate how great it is to be able to see the source code."
As IBM said in its GNU Linux commercials, "the future is open."
Another interesting thing: one of the Microsoft guys says "We've got the largest Linux server farm west of the Rockies!" All of these quotes are summaries, not verbatim quotes. Listen for yourself if you want the exact quote.
And yet another interesting quote by one of the Microsoft guys. "We walk around talking to our engineers, and they say, 'open source is such a cool way to get feedback. No wonder developers like to work in an open source environment.' " Again, that is a summary. Please listen for yourself to get the exact quote.
Proof that the Negation in a statement eventually gets dropped from memory! Paula Jones is not an IBM employee.
So yes, under the GPLv3, if Novell distributes something that Linus put into the covered work, that happens to be patented by MS, Even is MS distributed it, it doesn't negate their claims. At least with the GPLv2 the idea was that once MS distributed the infected works after knowing about it, they would have effectively given the license away. In the GPLv3, it is whoever contributes it to the covered work or places it under the license. and you cannot tell me that is a loophole, they specifically created the rule with this intent.
People just want to start pointless arguments.
Who cares if Novell wants to run attack ads against Red Hat? Where does it say in OSS that companies built on it have to love each other?
If the ads don't help Novell's pocketbook, they'll go away. If they do help, a Linux company get more business and Linux gets into more shops. That's a plus for Linux. If the ads work, Red Hat will try to become more interoperable with Windows. That's also a plus for Linux.
At the moment, some companies running Linux and Windows want interoperability. Eventually they're going to see that it's a waste of time and money - i.e., that Windows is a waste of time and money - and they might as well switch to Linux entirely. Then the issue becomes moot - and Linux wins again.
The problem with PJ is that she's too much into the adversarial nature of law. Everything is a big moral issue and needs to be fought over.
Ignore all of this. It's a non-issue. Microsoft is still losing against Linux and will continue to do so for the next ten or fifteen years until there is no Microsoft.
Relax and enjoy the show.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
And while people don't install software thinking this has a known security hole but I don't care, developers do look at the license they are releasing their code as and say I understand what this means and I am releasing this product under this license.What exploit is that? You mean offering protection to a certain company based on their possible infringements on a patent? That isn't an exploit at all. If it was, they would have attempted to clarify it in the new GPLv3. They don't close it because I can offer protection to Novell and their customers only for any patent related items discovered in their products without an issue. You can by insurance still to protect your direct customers from patent lawsuits without passing it on to others downstream of them. I'm actually kind of concerned at what your considering a loop hole and fair. It seems that it is nothing connected to reality.
So yes, Please explain this loop hole and actually show a loop hole. Not something vaguely related to becoming partners with MS. in whihc the GPLv2 in no way forbid.
Need refs plz for us drawfags.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
You mean, you'd rather have a monopoly generated by a company who has never heard of the terms "fair fight" and "legal requirements", who believe that 100% marketshare isn't good enough, and who feel that the only effective strategy against competitors is to crush them into the dirt and/or steal their technology?
I dunno, it seems to me that Red Hat has been a lot more open than Microsoft when it comes to code and selling; EVERYTHING Red Hat sells is FLOSS.
PJ's a l33t pwnrogue!
Because they're bored?
Ah, good, that gives us a way to resolve this. Because, since you seem so sure of your facts, I'm sure you'll have no problems at all providing a list of occasions where the GPLv2 had been circumvented prior to this. I mean there was all the cases Harald Welte brought... except he won them. Or maybe the suit Daniel Wallace brought against the FSF... only he lost that.
Still, I'm sure you must have some basis for making such a claim. I mean it's not as if you'd stoop to making things up. I hope.
No, I mean offering rights to your customers that they cannot in turn pass on to anyone to whom they distribute the software. The GPLv2 says:
So this would stop Novell from saying "you can have the software, but we hold the patents and we'll sue if you use it". The wording is clear. The exploit lay in Novell and MS realising that they could do a deal whereby MS offered the patent protection to Novell's customers but not to downstream recipients.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
This has to do with sneaky under-handed deals, defying the spirit of the GPL, stealing the work of volunteers, and assisting msft with their illegal activities.
I'm a huge corporation. I decide to file a law suit against you for no good reason. You can either settle, and leave yourself nearly bankrupt, or you can fight and certainly go bankrupt - not to mention spending the next ten year in court. BTW: unless you have about $100 million you don't need, you can forget about suing me back.
That is all perfectly legal. So it would be cool with you, right? Nothing unfair, or unethical, about it, correct? The USA "justice" system is designed to allow this kind of massive abuse.
The analogy I provided is very similar to the way msft, bsa, riaa, and the mpaa, operate. And this msft/novl deal is designed to fully exploit the borked US system.
And BTW, in case you cannot follow a thread, the context is in Novell somehow using other people's code in a way they didn't want it to be used. Of course this hasn't happened and you seem to be wanting to take it for a walk around the world for some reason. Lets stay on the topic at had though. I personally don't care about those other situations enough to comment on them. Um, that is pertaining to the software. And even with the Novell-Microsoft deal, that was happening. You see, NoOne... Let me repeat that, NO_ONE_ has ever shown a patent liability to be present in the current offerings that Novell is giving that isn't correctly identified and separated properly. And to this, anything MS promises to anyone over nothing would be passed down.
So No, that was not happening. And companies can to this day still indemnify their customers and protect them form lawsuits without passing this protection down to downstream users. Bruce Perrens himself said that they were preserving this ability. So the entire ordeal hinged around MS making a deal with Novell, Not anything to do with patents. The GPLv3 specifically allows the same deals to happen outside the context of microsoft or a software company. Novell has never done anything remotely close. any instances where you think they might have exist only in your head. Novell was working with MS on inter operating with MS products and according to Novell, the patent protection was to cover that stuff which would be separate from any GPL stuff. You have nothing except your imagination to think otherwise.
when confronted with the patent issue, Novell expressly proclaimed that there was no patent issues in Linux that they knew of and did not intend to put any there. This is a clear example of Novell getting ditched on because they were making a deal with Microsoft and could have produced stuff that would actually make it easy for someone or some company to switch to Linux. Even if they had to pay for the tools to make this easy. Nothing in the GPLv2 stops this or implies it should never happen. It is something completely allowed by the GPL and anyone upset over their code being used in this way should take another look at the licensing they pick. It is that simple.
That's a truly odd criticism from someone who felt he needed to dismiss Jeremy Allison's insights into the mindset at Novell (where he worked at the time) by raising the Samba teams' subsequent migration to GPLv3.
But, to drag you back to the point: you seemed to suggest that devs who released under GPLv2 had no basis for complaint, since the GPL had already been shown to contain loopholes. So come on: let's have a list of them.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Jeremy Allison has no idea, or hasn't publicly stated one that doesn't exist in someone's head about anything Novell has done in which violates the GPL. His actions on potentially sabotaging Samba show this lack of insight. And with that, the context is still within what Novell has done. What loopholes are we talking about. So far people say "look at what Novell did" but Novell didn't do anything outside the GPL nor did they do anything that is expressly prohibited by it. You cannot say that having microsoft protect Novell and their customers from lawsuits is a loophole, RMS or was it Bruce Perens, Anyways, one of them specifically said it was perfectly fine to indemnify your clients. You can do it yourself or with Opensource insurance programs and so on. It is the same thing as Novell did and they wrote the GPLv3's anti Novell clauses to specifically allow for this.
So again, what loopholes are you talking about? It seems to me that the so called loopholes are nothing but people looking at how their code is being used and saying I wish it wasn't used like that. And if that is the so called loophole, then yes, they have no basis for complaint. They knew that "Evil company of the month" could potentially use their code. They know that because the GPL doesn't place restrictions on anything concerning who uses the code. They chose the license that allows the military to take the code and power their baby killing robots after making a deal with google and microsoft. Objections to that aren't loopholes by any means.
So what specifically are these loopholes? The GPLv2 is a pretty clear and concise piece of work. There isn't room for any loopholes. Tivo isn't even doing a loophole since there is no mention of making sure we could use your calculator as a desktop or turn your appliance into a general purpose computer in the GPLv2. There is this mythical Spirit of the GPL but that changes randomly depending on how smooth RMS's movments are in the morning. But this Mythical Spirit isn't in the GPL license. There is no mention of it or orders to follow it blindly. The GPLv3 isn't even within the same spirit as the GPLv2 is on paper.
So again, what are these loopholes? I ask this so many times because no one ever wants to name specifics. It is just a buzzword "loophole" to incite bad feelings. Well, according to anything that took place with Novell, there aren't any loopholes that where being exploited and if developers are pissed that their code was being used in this manor, then they should be using a different license.
Let me refresh your memory
Remember that? In particular you said:
So where are these known security holes in the GPL to which they alluded. The ones that the GPL devs apparently knew full well about and therefore deserved everything they got?
C'mon, enough messing about: Pony up, or stand revealed as a bullshitter who pulls facts out of his ass whenever he can't think of a fitting response.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
I'm the one that said your analogy was whacked and far off base. It was a response to what you said. I said to be more accurate with your analogy, you would have to be using something that wasn't updated with known problems because you can read the GPL and see exactly what it does and what it prohibits. The same can be said with well documented software that has secirity problems that are documented quite well also. If you install that, then your analogy would be more appropriate.
But lets go a little further back to keep the proper context. I said
You replied with the same as above.
Do you see the context there? I said they can see everything they are getting into to and if they have a problem with it, they shouldn't be using a license that allows it. You attempt to throw this into a bug riddles software analogy and I said to be more accurate, you would have to define all the bugs and exploits and make them known before the person installs it. I also say that your analogy cannot compare to the situation. The first part of my counter analogy says it is nowhere near the same thing as you attempted to indicate. I even justified the statement with
Do you see the point there? People don't just place their code under a license without looking to see what the license does first. They know full well what it does when they place something under it. If they don't then it is their own fault, not a loop hole.
And to date, you have yet to show a loophole that Novell use but you seem to be blindly accepting the idea that there was one. Are you one of those people who release code under a license they have never read and have no idea what it allows?
If you could carry a thought in a basket, you would clearly see that I wasn't claiming the GPL had security holes. I said that in order for your analogy to be as accurate as possible, you would have to inject those conditions.
But to the point of your question, what the developers knew full well about is "the ways other people can use their code when it is placed under the GPL". That is what they know full well about. Novell didn't use the code in anyway not specifically authorized by the GPL. You and other seem to think that throwing the buzzterm loophole around makes it better somehow. I haven't been able to find one instance of a loophole or any way that Novell has violated the GPL. And more specifically, there isn't one instance pertaining to the deal with Microsoft. You are the one claiming the loopholes are there and were abused. I asked you to name them so do it.
c
And I asked you to tell us all what those known problems might have been. I'm still waiting, I notice.
So if someone finds a buffer overflow in openssh and roots my box, it's my fault because the source code is there for me to read? Do behave.
Done that already.
The GPL is designed with the intention that all rights conveyed can be passed on downstream. Novell and MS figured out that they could circumvent that intent by doing a deal whereby MS offer patent protection direct to Novell's customers.
What part of this is unclear?
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Right. And now all you need to do is point out the prior exploits of the GPL that existed prior to the MS-Novell hack, and I'll concede you might have a point.
Take your time. We have a few days yet before they lock the discussion.
I does. The MS-Novell was specifically exempted, mainly so the automatic patent licencing clause would come into effect if MS continued the deal with GPLv3 software.
Show me where I said anything of the sort, first. I'm beginning to think you're arguing with a version of me in a parallel universe. You certainly don't seem to be reading the same posts as the ones that I write.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Lol.. You must be a complete moron. There are no exploits in the GPLv2 at all. It is all in black and white. That is the point ou cannot seem to get. There is nothing implied in the GPLv2 that it doesn't do. There is nothing restricted by the GPLv2 that it doesn't specifically restrict. In other words, there are no loopholes, exploits, or otherwise stuff that someone can do to get around the GPLv2. The point is, you know exactly what it does or doesn't do. So don't complain that it didn't do something that it doesn't make a claim to and don't complain when a company uses something within the scope of the GPL that you dislike.
That would be real nice if the automatic licensing clause actually effected Microsoft. The fact is, it only effects the person who put the patent related material under the GPL. It in no way forces Microsoft to give up on it's patent claims when it or an agent working for them have not placed the patent related material in it. It is ironic that not only to you see ghost provisions in the GPLv2, you also see things that don't exist in the GPLv3.
Implied means I am reading into what you are saying. You implied that the GPL was viral when you made this statement
And again when you made this statement
First, the GPL only imposes rights and obligations when you place something under it. When Novell or anyone for that matter take a GPL covered work, the act of redistributing it doesn't carry any extra rights they might have. That is unless they added something to the covered works then they did in fact give extra rights. In niether GPL, the mere act of distributing the software does not, in anyway, mean that you have to give extra permissions or rights they you might hold. The part that is supposedly going to mess with Microsoft doesn't imply anything of the sort either.
The GPLv2 specifically says 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. Do you see where it says you get the rights from the original licensor and not some poor slop who can be tricked into distributing it and thereby giving up their other rights? As long as Novell gave the same rights given to them by the original licensor and gace the rights they have for the stuff they place under the GPL, the MS deal doesn't undermine anything in either GPL. Novell has never done anything counter to the GPL and has never stated any plans to do so.
And when you read the GPLv3, where they supposedly fixed the problem, you c
Oh really?
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Talk sense? All you have done was insist on talking my statements out of context, insist on taking the GPL out of context and claim that this out of context BS is proof of Novell breaking the GPL with a loophole that doesn't exist.
I asked you for your evidence and you cannot even point to a specific clause that was violated. Instead you took something that it clearly spelled out in the GPL and took it out of context to make a claim you couldn't even support.
Maybe we have progressed passed your level of proficiency and you should send the next cult member over to speak. It appears that you just repeat what others tell you and attempt to confuse the situation so it would be nice to hear it from someone qualified enough to tell it. (Which you are sadely mistaken if you think that is you.)
Perhaps you should focus more energy on keeping your mouth shut and less on spreading half baked lies and unsupported rumors. It isn't like the GPL isn't in black and white where you or anyone for that matter could read the damn thing and verify what they are being told. I'm willing to bet that if you at least done that, we wouldn't be having this conversation. So I guess I should leave you with something to think about over this. If your attempt to slide through life by being intellectually lazy doesn't get you the happiness your looking for, then stop being that way and you will find your not appearing as stupid as people think.
Because no part of it has been violated. That's why they call them loopholes - because they allow people to do things under that were not intended. If they had violated the licence then they would forfeit their rights to distribute, and people would be taking legal action, as opposed to just getting angry.
Perhaps you should spend less time calling the Kettle black, Mr. Pot.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
In order for there to be a loophole, Novell would have had to do something that would have otherwise been prohibited. This has not happened. You made a claim about not giving rights to stuff they distribute but the fact is they did give all the right given to them or that they had when adding something themselves. The MS deal doesn't give extra rights the need to be passed on under any reading of the gpl. In fact, both GPL specifically allow the same deal or types of deals as long as the company isn't in the business of distributing soft ware. If they happen to just be a patent holding company or an insurance company that arranges the deal, it is expressly permitdby even the new GPLv3.
You cannot act like it was a loop hole when the new GPL only address the MS deal and then read too much into it in the first place. BTW, did you know that the coverage offered was only for stuff Novell created in accordance with their deal to inter-operate with MS products? The Anti Novell clause doesn't even effect Novell unless it released those things GPLv3 with or without the date change that they knew they couldn't enforce if it wasn't there. And knowing that they couldn't force a contract clause, they decided to put a date in to make it appear elective and then King RMS came out proclaiming his leniency on Novell as if it was his mercy and kindness that caused it to happen.
But if they released them GPLv2, then they would have given a license to any patent material just like the license suggest. When you give the work coverage of a license that guarantees downstream users the ability to use it as if it was their own.
so I guess I should ask, What part of the GPLv2 insinuated that the Novell deal couldn't be done but Novell and Microsoft found a way around it. we already know that section 6 says that copyright holders give you rights and you need to pass them down to others. It says nothing about Novell, or Novell's customers getting other perceived rights and having to pass them on as if the license was viral in nature. And that is the implication being made when you and other say Novell had other rights and they didn't pass them on making it somehow a loophole in the GPL.
I keep asking you to point to the GPL where this loophole is because you won't find it. You won't find a reference indicating anything supporting your position. In fact, if you actually look, you will find that your position is completely wrong. And judging by your floundering attempts to take things out of context and divert the conversation to these out of context places, I would say you know full well that your position is bogus. You are attempting to hide this and continue spouting inaccuracies because it is what you were lead to believe. Perhaps I am spending too much time on this. But it is because of the purposeful reasoning behind the inaccuracies you are spouting I do so. You see, If the GPLv3 was such a great license and needed, we wouldn't need stuff to be distorted and taken out of context to drum up support for it. And people like you who have seen it working in one effort are attempting to continue it in another. So yes, there is a point to this that is a sense of justice. And if I am the pot calling the kettle black, it is only because the kettle is claiming it is white and full of good stuff when it only has washed out laundry watter in it.
A quick google suggests that most people would disagree
http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=0&oi=define&q=http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dloophole&usg=AFQjCNHPCaAJ01glS5AELw79WUUUhseqFg
http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=8&oi=define&q=http://news.firstdata.com/glossary.cfm%3FFirstLetter%3Dl&usg=AFQjCNGXtcEDeYJXD0_QREtv3KAkjsHJvA
But hey, why let a little thing like correct definitions get in the way of a good rant? You're not above inventing facts, the fact that you make up your own definitions really shouldn't surprise me
Careful now: you almost sound coherent. And you're very close to being right as well. In fact what happened was the Microsoft and Novell in partnership did something that would otherwise have been forbidden by the licence: they offered rights in respect of the software to Novell's customers that those customers could not then pass on if they chose to redistribute. So you're exactly right, except that your analysis fails to take into account that the violation may be a joint effort.
Oh, and while we're on the subject of making up definitions, explain how not being allowed to impose restrictions on the software's redistribution is "poisonous" and "viral". Those words: I don't think they mean what you think they mean.
Give my regards to Bizzaro World
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Yes, lets look at these definitions of a loop hole despite them having the same meanings as the words I used. In the first link, it says: (an ambiguity (especially one in the text of a law or contract) that makes it possible to evade a difficulty or obligation) and in the second: A technicality that allows a person or business to avoid the scope of a law without directly violating the law.
You have not showed the place of the difficulty or obligation Novell and Microsoft were avoiding as well and not showing the scope of a law (in this case the GPL) that Novell or Microsoft used a technicality to get around without directly violating it. It would be prudent that if you are claiming something to the sorts of a loophole that you know what they are getting around and where in the document it supposedly denies this action. My point is there there is nothing to support your supposition of anything they are attempting to get around.
My definition has the same exact meaning as the ones you linked to. If it is impossible for you to read the meaning of something said, then I don't think you are in a position to interpret the meaning of anything concerning the GPL and possible loopholes. And to note, My definition was A loop hole is something the violates the license but doesn't give punishment because of accidental wording and so on.. In other words, it is something being used to get around a clause in the license that doesn't directly violate it but would if that mistake wasn't present. and yes, that fits the definitions you linked to to a tee.
lol.. I have been asking you to show what and where this is. If the idea is coherent now, then you should have no problem presenting it. Instead you have eluded this and went so far as implying that the GPL takes rights you might have outside the specific scope of the license. This is where the "viral" comes into play. I don't remember using the wording Poisonous but if I did, it was not in describing the GPL. It doesn't do this., It doesn't take rights specifically not protected or implied in the license and it isn't viral in this manor. You receive rights by the original licensor and you must pass those rights on. You have no obligation to pass on any extra rights you might posses.
If the idea that you must pass the extra rights on is true, then why doesn't the GPLv3 correct it? It doesn't you know. It does nothing but restate the previous position on having to pass down the rights given to you by others. And in both GPL versions, if you add something, you have to give everyone the rights that the GPL attempts to retain. Nothing more and nothing less. There is even a clause that allows ME to take the extra rights that you might place into a covered work away when I use it according to the GPLv3 license.
I don't think we are making up definitions as much as you are failing to comprehend the situation even in
Yes I have. Repeatedly.
So: Novell is prohibited from licencing MS' patent portfolio directly and then sub-licencing them to its customers, because it would need to pass on the right to sub-licence the patents to its customers in order to remain in compliance with the GPL.
So instead, they did a deal whereby MS licenced its portfolio to Novell, but instead of Novell sublicencing the package, MS offered patent protection direct to Novell's customers. Since MS were not the ones distributing, they can claim not to be bound by the licence, and therefore Novell's customer get a right that they cannot themselves pass on.
No. No it doesn't. This is what you said:
If it violates the licence then the consequence of violation (in this case loss of rights to distribute) follow automatically. If it doesn't violate the licence but nevertheless subverts the intent of the licence, we call it a loophole. Just because your definition uses a lot of the same words as the ones in dictionaries, that doesn't mean that it means the same thing.
I assume you picked that particular form of words because you don't want to have to concede that GPL developers might have any other cause for complaint other than licence violation (which hasn't happened, of course). However, and jsut so we're clear, when I say loophole I mean to use the definition. here.
So: now we're clear on what I mean by "loophole" and I belive I've adequately described how the MS/Novell pact amounts to exploiting a loophole in the GPL, as per that definition. I now leave it to you to formulate some witty and erudite riposte, which based on experience so far, I have every confidence will involve the words "lol" and "moron". Take it away, maestro.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Oh my god, you seriously don't know much about context do you. You took something in the preamble as a meaning not spelled out in the license or the context of the license. The preamble does nothing legally but spell out the attempt of the terms in the license. The license starts at the section 0: and explains what those rights are. as a matter of fact, the preamble actually says that if you read a little further down the list.
The GPLv2 and v3 for that matter is very specific in what those rights are. They don't contain anything you might acquire later that isn't directly related to something you did not put into the covered works. In order to find this, you need to look at the binding parts that start after the label TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
Section 6 of the GPLv2 specifically says, Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
This means that when you distribute something, you give the rights given to you only to the downstream users. and that you cannot restrict them in their same rights. It doesn't say that if somehow you acquire a right outside this that you have to place it in there too. To do so would be that viral thing we talked about.
In section 0:, it says Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. Now section 2 says that if you modify a work or publish one under this license, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. which would mean that the MS deal would force coverage to everyone downstream if novell modified something or created something and placed it under the GPLv2
But with or without the MS deal, this would be the same. So nothing has changed with the deal. And seeing how you pass on the rights given to you on anything you didn't change or create, then the MS deal doesn't do anything either.
But to address your concern more specifically, why does the fix in the GPLv2 only concern deals made with companies in the business of distributing software? Well, the answer is because there is a business model already in existence that allows patent holding companies and other companies like Nokia as well as insurance deals to indemnify your customers without passing anything on to downstream users. SO why is it that this is now bad, but they specifically left these other players do the exact same thing as MS was with Novell? I mean your not going to tell me that the FSF and their lawyers are so stupid that they created a loophole in the GPLv2 and failed to fix it properly in the GPLv3 because they are inept or something are you? well, of course your not. And for good reason, Because you know as well as I do that the part in the preamble you are talking about doesn't say what your making it to say and it doesn't pertain to the context of the terms and conditions of the GPL when you say it that way.
The MS-Novell deal was only a problem because the evil MS was involved and the FSF needed to drum up support for the GPLv3.
Which is a shame really, because based on what I've read so far, I'm certainly not going to learn any thing of it from you.
Here, contextualize this:
Yes, I will involve the words lol.. and probably moron too.
Anything other than address the point, huh? No change there, then.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Actually, it looks like you won't learn it from anyone. The section you are talking about now, section 7 has nothing to do with what your attempting to claim. You are attempting to claim the GPL does more then what it does, section 7 merely states that if a court stops you from doing something the GPL requires you to do, you are not released from it's obligations. In other words you cannot use the GPL.
And how this is out of context yet again, is because the GPL says you have to do X, Y, and Z if you do A, B, or C. Your claiming that is says you have to do Q, R,and S too and you are attempting to use section 7 to prove it. But what it really means is that if you cannot do X, Y, or Z, you cannot do A, B, or C either. You are not released from your obligations. Not that newly appearing and mysterious obligations somehow appear.
Now, seeing how the copyright holder who put the code or work under the GPL is the person who gave you the rights passed on, then you having a patent license that you cannot forward to others doesn't effect your use of my code. I am the one who told the world they have a right to it and the GPL simple states that you must pass that right I gave you to everyone you give the covered work to. If it turns out that Microsoft owns the patent in question, you having a license doesn't mean that you are now forced to give it to everyone. You see, that would be viral, it would be me doing something that forces you to give something up by association and not of your own free will. Not only does the GPL not do this, it couldn't do this and stand up in any court of law. You cannot trick people out of their property. Neither the GPLv2 does this or the GPLv3.
Now if You, with the patent license, placed a work under the GPL and it is covered by either GPL license, they you did give everyone a license whether you intended to or not. But you simply redistributing my stuff doesn't steal anything you might have. And section 7 does nothing to claim it does.
I know this is hard for you. I don't think it is hard because your an idiot. In fact I think it is hard because you have been lead to believe the GPL did something it didn't and you are having trouble find clear evidence that it does. Your having the trouble because it doesn't do what your claiming.
well, we have had how many transactions now, 5 or 6 in this thread and you waited until the last two to say anything constructive even though you are still wrong. What am I supposed to think?
If you read sections 1 and 2, specifically 2b, you get the idea of the GPL. To paraphrase, sections 1 says you can copy and distribute the work unmodified as long as you make the source available, section 2 says if you change or modify the work, you have to do extra stuff, specifically, 2b: You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
This section 2b clearly states that if you modify the covered work, you have to make sure third partied can use it in the way the GPL allows. This is why if Novell released something after the MS deal, and a MS patent or copyright covered it, they would be giving it to everyone. But if all they were doing is redistributing the covered work unmodified, then all they are obligated to do is pass the license and the rights given to them by the copyright holder down to the third parties they are distributing to. They are not under any obligation to tack anything extra on and they are not under any obligation to make sure that anyone has more rights then what was given to them when they obtained the material.
The GPLv3 says the same thin
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Lol.. That only applies when you are adding the patent related code to the covered work.
That like say 2 apple plus 2 oranges equal 4 apples. It doesn't you know, it equals 4 pieces of fruit but they are simple different. This is why context is important. You are talking about something completely out of context. I believe you are referencing section 7 that says if you are adjudicated and a a condition make it so you cannot fulfill the requirements of the license you cannot distribute the program. The patent lawsuit would refrain you from giving the patent related materials out. It could cause you to only be able to license the covered work to a specific person and not the down stream users. This would be an extra restriction. But the difference between this and Novell is that Novell never imposed restrictions.
Actually MS never did either. They did however, make claims that MS patents where in Linux. But they never said this is mine, you cannot use it. They never said Novell, you can only let these people use it. Novell never did anything of the sort. Nobody in the MS-Novell deal placed restrictions on anything. If they had, then they couldn't distribute something. but you are putting the cart before the horse and taking things out of context in order to attempt to make a case that doesn't exist.
Also, the part you copied specifically states an added restriction with a patent license. Nothing in the Novel deal added restrictions. And of course if Microsoft named something that had a patent they owned, the GPL would have stopped Novell from distributing it. The deal would have protected Novell's clients or customers from lawsuits but the GPLv2 would have prohibited Novell from distributing the covered work with a restriction on it.
I think what your not understanding is, that the GPL does nothing to impose obligations on someone that doesn't change the code except to make sure they give the source out. And when you do change or add something, you are only responsible for what you have changed or added. The GPLv3 has done nothing to change this _at_all_. So when I receive a piece of code, I receive certain rights from the person who licensed it under the GPL. When I forward that code to someone, I forward the right they gave me, nothing more. When I add or change something, I have to make sure I give the same rights that where given to me by the covered works. Obviously, if I have to place a restriction on the code, the GPL forbids me from distributing it. If I don't place restriction on it, then it does nothing to claim I have to add rights to something outside what is specifically spelled out in the GPL (either versions). Now for some reason, when they supposedly fixed the GPL and brought version 3 out, it only forbids me from making a deal with a company that sells software. I can make a deal with Samsung to not sue me or my customers if anything related to their patents is found infringed on when I distribute some GPLed software. I can make a deal with an insurance company to protect my customers and myself if the same ever happens, but if MS is involved, I cannot distribute the work that is covered. And the only reason for this distinction is to get support for a failing license that was being pushed out.
The GPLv2 already protected us from patent laden software. It already protected us from people submarining patents into software. It already protected us from anything imaginable that could have happened with the Microsoft-Novell deal. But nothing came from that deal that violated any terms of the GPL, expressed or implied. And nothing happened that would be considered a loophole. The idea of securing the freedom of a lawsuit didn't mean Novell could still distribute the stuff. You pointed out that they wouldn't be able to distribute it if they couldn't without extra restrictions. But in order for them to have violated anything or taken advantage of a loophole, they wold have had to placed restrictions somewhere in the mix. Neither MS nor Novell had done so. MS made some wild accusations with no disclosure to rattle your brain, the FSF used you like a tool, and you followed blindly looking at everything out of context. Your still attempting to do so with your last post.
And it says that where, precisely? Not in anything I've quoted, I'm reasonably sure of that.
It doesn't use the word "added" anywhere that I can see. Is this another "context" thing?
And it says that where, exactly?
I do believe you're making stuff up again.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Thats because you don't know how to understand context. You are taking a specific part of something bigger and saying "see, I'm smart, I found this" when that isn't the case. Look at the document as a whole, not a bunch of one liners. This is how religion and the bible got screwed up.
It doesn't specifically say you have to give other right you might have if you breath on the GPL yet you are attempting to make that case too. If you use GPLed works and distribute them, you have to pass on the right given to you. It you add something under the GPL, they you have to give rights. Section 7 says that if for some reason, you cannot give or pass those rights on, you cannot use the GPL. Nothing outside the license negates your obligations to the GPL. The specific part you quoted says that if a court or someone stops you from giving a patent license to everyone, then you cannot use the GPL for the code related to the patent license. But unless you are puting something into the GPL, you are giving a patent license in the first place. and you find that out but the context of the rest of the damn document. Anything that says "for example" in the beginning doesn't have any binding effects. It is an explanation of other effects. And you have to keep it in context with those effect. Section 7 needs to be kept into context with the rest of the GPL. It has no provisions outside saying that if you cannot follow the res of this license for whatever reason, the thing cannot be GPLed. Look elsewhere for your proof, section seven, even though it mentions patents, doesn't provide what you are attempting to claim.
Oh my God, how fucking stupid are you? I mean do you think you are going to win this argument by running in circles and action as fucking stupid as possible? One of these days you are going to be the sad victim of your own ignorance and I will sit back and laugh. MY God, I have never met anyone so fucking stupid as you.
I reference section 6 originally to show that the context of the GPL and to prove what I said about not imposing anything on you if you don't add anything to it. And not only did you ignore it then, you are now attempting to bring it back to claim I am wrong because of the same damn section that you ignored before. I have to ask, did you even read my original comments on that? Or where they too complicated for you to understand so you ignored them? I could just go back in our conversation history and copy/paste the exact same comments I made earlier if you want. Of course I'm having a hard time believing that you are so incompetent to hit the parent button that you haven't done so already. In this case, I have to believe that you are just too fucking stupid to understand them so I will dumb it down a little and restate it just for you. And trust me, that smile on your face because I basically just said you are special isn't really a good thing.
Section 6 says: Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.
Now lets examine this. It says
Program) Ok, here is where
Oh really? You said:
'kay? Now I quoted:
Emphasis mine. So, in direct contradiction to what you said, as quoted above, we see that
So what you said is directly contradicted by a specific clause of the GPL. I don't know if this means you're a fool, a liar, or just away with the fairies, but I do know that you're not telling the truth. Not for the first time either.
Probably not, no. Chuckles, you part company from reality so fast in your replies that it's rarely worth wading through screenfuls of invective and logcal fallacies, just on the off chance you may have been sure enough of your facts to stop lying. If you want people to read your stuff closely, you're going the wrong way about it.
About as stupid as it's possible to get whilst still being smarter than you are, bizzaro-boy.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
And this is the context thing you seem to be missing or having severe problems with. You see, it specifically says that the original licensor places those obligations/restriction and you must preserve them. You are not adding anything, just preserving what others have placed there. It isn't until you add content to the work or place a work under the license are you giving anything concerning the GPL's rights and restrictions. Not only is it this way in the GPLv2, they have done nothing to change this in the GPLv3.
Lol.. It means I can place things into context and call bullshit when you are purposely skipping over stuff to pick and choose which words best fit what you are attempting to make it say. Well, here is some news for ya, A sentence is supposed to be a complete thought or statement. When you group several of them together, you get a more detailed thought. And when you are using thee thoughts to dictate and specific idea relating to a specific thing, it is called a clause.
I could pick and choose words to loose the context too. And when I do I can change the entire meaning of the sentence and all. Look, you said So what you said is directly contradicted by a specific clause of the GPL. Now If I only pay attention to So You said it directly contradicted the GPL Those are your words, Well, outside the "it". But that isn't what you said or meant. And that is what you are doing when you are scrambling the words in the GPL to make them fit your claims. They don't work on their own.
I can tell your just brainwashed. I suspect you would have to be i order to make the claim that the Novell-MS deal was a loophole or that it violated the spirit of the GPL or anything. I find it highly ironic that the GPLv3 doesn't forbid the same deals if the third party isn't one that distributes software. It seems that the entire problem with this was that it had MS connected to it. The proof is in the fix, And yes, I was asking when they were creating the GPLv3, why they left it open to other not distributing software. I was told that it was because it was desirable to have the ability to do the same things with other companies. When I asked them to clarify what was specifically undesirable about MS, they refused to answer any more questions.
Now you are still brainwashed. You are making claims that aren't there. The GPL (all versions) isn't a license that allows you to place conditions on other peoples works. It allows the author or copyright hold to place them on it and gives you certain rights as long as you ensure the conditions the _Author_Places_On_The_Work_ remains there after you distribute it. You don't place anything on it unless you add something to the work. Your line of reasoning didn't work with IBM and SCO and it doesn't work with others.
There is your disconnect with reality. One of these days, you should start paying attention in life and you should learn how to keep things in context. In 5 years, you will probably have learned something and when looking back
And the "you must preserve them" would not be a restriction placed upon you because ...
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Maybe you don't know what a license is in relation to the GPL and copyright. Maybe you think that because the program contains something called the GPL and you have to give a copy of the GPL along with the program when you distribute something covered by it, they you are the licensor (Which you are not). Well, this isn't true at all. The GPL notice you are passing with the program is just the notice that the original licensor placed something under the terms of the GPL. It in no way makes you a licensor unless you add something. Maybe you wouldn't think it was bizzaro if you would open your damn eyes and read what is in front of you. It isn't a big secrete. Just look for yourself and this time, don't pick words out of sentences and don't pick sentences out of paragraphs that only remotely support your idea if you ignore everything else around them. If you read the entire thing, keep everything into context and listen to what others are telling you, there might be hope for you yet. (it's that group things again, I'm sworn to help the terminally stupid to stop hurting themselves.)
See? This is why you have a problem with people taking you seriously. I ask you why your words do not imply an obligation. This didn't seem an unreasonable enquiry to make; the words "you must" are, after all, conventionally taken to suggest an obligation. In response, I get abuse, and a straw man argument based on construing my question as an assertion. At one time, I suppose, I'd have taken great pleasure in going through such stuff line by line, and picking apart the fallacies and contradictions, but I don't have so much time to spare these days, so I pick and choose.
The sad thing is that if you'd only have the stones to square up to it and say "ok, I phrased that poorly, but I don't think it invalidates my underlying point, which is..." then you'd get a deal more respect from your correspondents, and you might even get some of that reasoned debate for which you suddenly seem so desperate.
Yes. "You must". The licence imposes that obligation. It's not my fault if your own words undermine your point. You are occupying an untenable position.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
As for reasoned debate, I'm past that with you. I'm stuck on getting you to follow simple ideas and thoughts other wise knowns as sentences and paragraphs. If you could do that, you would clearly see that Novell and their deal with MS done nothing to violate the GPL and to has nothing to do with a loophole. And not only that, but the idea of the GPL taking anything it can use to support the rights someone else gave you isn't only not in the GPLv2 as you claim, it isn't in the GPLv3 either as you are attempting to infer.
You know, somehow every time you criticise me, it's for something you do all the time. I don't recognise myself in these descriptions of yours, but I certainly recognise you.
You didn't explain a thing. You just tried to weasel out when I called you on your attempt to rebrand "black" as "white".
You get abuse because you only listen to what you want to listen to
Nah. I think I get abuse because you want to silence criticism of Novell, and the only way you can think of to accomplish this by trying to intimidate anyone who dares question their integrity. I mean your writing style resembles the manner of a school bully seeking to humiliate the class nerd, and your content is similar to what you might get if you took a keen but slightly dim student and told him to go throught wikipedia's section on logical fallacies and try and write a letter that made use of all of them. Further more, you write as if you are being terribly, terribly clever by doing these things, as if no one on Earth could possibly be bright enough to notice what you were doing.
And then you wonder why people only skim these spiteful little screeds of yours. I ask you...
Do one thing for me: point me at the bit of text where I said "Novell has violated the GPL". I recall saying it hasn't several times, I don't once recall saying it has. Find me that quote, and I'll admit that it's possible that I'm the borderline psychotic here rather than your nasty little self.
Only see if you can find a place where I write it, rather than where you draw the inference based on other things that I also haven't said. There's a good fellow.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Lol.. This is because When I call you stupid for not being able to look at the context words are being presented in and keeping them in that context, you take my words out of context. You don't recognize yourself and want to blame others is the trait that makes you stupid. If you were just ignorant, or maybe foolish, you would be able to see your mistakes and move one with a better understanding. It is the truly stupid people who refuse to see things for what they are, refuse to learn when something is pointed out, and even goto the point of taking special measure to remain in their ignorance. Well, maybe Stupid isn't the right word. It seems that you show some inteligence in a bad way when you attempt to twist things in order to keep your idea alive and rationalize your position. A truly stupid person probably wouldn't be able to attempt that. However, I'm not sure if I could come up with the proper wording for you outside that.
There is no attempt to rebrand black and white. the wording is there for you to read and understand. All you have to do is not take it out of context. When you leave things in the context they were meant to be in, they don't end up saying things they don't say and you won't go around making a fool of yourself attempting to claim they did. In fact, you are the one perverting black and white, you are the one that is twisting things to get your own meaning from it.
My post that you brought it up from said
Then after you attempted to take my words out of context, I replied with
If that isn't an explanation enough, then you shouldn't be able to understand anything. I suspect that you did understand everything but are refusing to admit it in order to maintain your position. All though this ordeal you totally ignore anything relevent and attempt to twist things, including my own words if you think it lends support to your position. You also change the subject in order to get away from the points you were wrong on. Here you have changed it from Novell not violating anything in the GPL with the MS deal and that it is not or was not a loophole to me criticizing you for not paying attention.
Shan't have to look far.
mmm... which would be valid if I was using your bizzaro world definition of loophole. As it is, I defiine a loophole as something that lets you act contrary to the intent of a law or licence whilst remaining in compliance with its terms. I spelled out the definition that I was using so that you would be in doubt as to what I mean by the term, even if the habitual usage on bizzaro world was different.
So, using my definition, it necessarily follows that there is no GPL violation. Had there been a violation, the term "loophole" (as I use it) would not apply. You know all these things, and yet you persist in mischaracterising my position as one in which Novel and MS have violated the licence.
I do believe that's what they call a Straw Man fallacy.
I am impressed. You actually thought. Good show. Keep it it.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
So to date, You have taken definitions of loophole out of context, you have take MY own words out of context, you have taken the preamble of the GPLv2, sections 6 and 7 out of context, all to support this little fantasy you have. And you refuse to look at anything that shows you wrong. There is no loophole.You cannot have a loophole unless there is something otherwise forbidden. It is that simple. The definition of a loophole explains this clearly. A loophole isn't a lasso or how you tie your shoes, it is a specific thing with a specific definition and in that definition it says something has to be contrary to what the action is that is being called a loophole. You cannot seem to keep this in context and are claiming that just because you call it a loophole, it is. This isn't the case at all. And when you attempt to point something out that may be contrary, you cannot do it unless you ignore all the words around what you are citing and take those words out of context too.
I suggest you either show where the Novell-MS deal is in violation or runs contrary to the GPL or you stop using that term.Lol.. No. Thats called explaining. The straw man falacy deals with situations that aren't true. What I explained is true. Your the one creating the fallacy, You cannot even show where the GPL would otherwise forbid the acts Novell did without twisting words and taking things completely out of context. Apparently, it doesn't take much to impress you. You were duped enough to be a troll about the Novell-MS deal.
Oh, do pay attention. It doesn't forbid the deal. I never said it did. I've said several time that it does not, in fact, forbid the deal. I even asked you top say where I did, and it took you three paragraphs of confused and faulty logic to even find a way of suggesting I might have meant it. And even when I say "no this is not a something I intended to convey; it is not an implication I ever sought to make", even then you still insist on misrepresenting my position; you still pound away on the same tired, plodding, sorry, little argument.
I guess it's true what they say: If all you have is a hammer, everything does indeed look like a nail.
And how is the weather on Bizzaro World this morning? Rain falling up, is it? Clouds shining brightly, perhaps?
And for once I find myself forced to agree. For instance, I was just now briefly impressed with you (however minimally) and if you were any less impressive, they'd need to found a whole new branch of mathematics to handle the smallness of the quantities involved.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
You see, we have been over this I don't know how many times. There cannot be a loophole unless there is something that isn't supposed to be happening. That is the very premise of a loophole. So if there is nothing that would other wise be forbidden, then there is no loophole. Yet you want to claim on without the other. It cannot happen. And in your meager attempt to show where the GPLv2 actually forbid the deal, you ended up taking everything out of context and ignoring everything around it. This is really something coming from someone who cannot keep things into context and go around manipulating definitions to mean what ever he wants. If I take the same point of latitude with words and context as you do, it would probably mean you just called me a genius.
Anyways, keep up the good work, Your showing everyone just how fucked the reaction to the Novell was and reinforcing my position that it was little more then a tool to gather support for the GPLv3. How does it feel to be a tool that was lied to?
Please rewrite that so it makes sense. Use nouns instead of pronouns.
Klaatu barada nikto, Gort
Yep, and you haven't learned a thing.
Uh-huh
That's too far a stretch. You're assuming that everything that the licence is supposed to prevent emobied by the legal interpretation of the licence. Which, if true, would mean that Richard Stallman wanted the licence to be used this, which seems not to be the case.
This is the trouble with limiting the intent of the licence to the measures that turn out to be enforceable. You might as well argue that if anyone ever finds a buffer overflow in openssh, Theo de Raadt must have wanted it to be there.
Speaking of logical fallacies, as we recently were, did you ever get around to looking up the Straw Man fallacy? You know perfectly well that I am not claiming that the GPL has been violated, and yet here you are again, harping on this same tired refrain.
I suppose it's true what they say: if all you have is a hammer, everything does indeed look like a nail.
You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Specifically, I don't think it means "OMG! I been caught contradicting myself. But if I scream 'you don't understand context!!!' fill two paragraphs with random insults, and then resume arguing on an unreleated point, perhaps no one will notice". Because that's how you been using it.
Oh, and on the subject of context: if I can quote an entire paragraph of yours, and still take your words out of context, then humbly submit that it's your own stupid fault for writing such disjointed, disorgansied and incoherent drivel. Grow up a bit and accept some responsibility for your own communications.
ri-i-i-ght, because you have been so careful not to misrepresent my viewpoint in any shape way or form, right?
I don't know. How does it feel, bizzaro-boy?
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
yea, I got a little carried away with how stupid you were so I figured saying it like that might have a little more effect on you. Obviously it did, but it wasn't what I had hoped for.
Ok, you ready? The cannot be a loophole if the deal didn't do something that would otherwise have been against the GPL. The mere definition of a loophole requires something to be present that would have otherwise not been allowed. If there is nothing meeting this criteria, then there is no loophole. Plain as that.
Nope, I'm not some robot from space. And I'm not your enemy either.
If by not learning a thing you mean I don't pick and chose words in order to distort a document that if otherwise clearly spelled out, then your right. I just wish you would stop it.
Lol.. You cannot instruct someone to follow a license that isn't spelled out in black and white for them. No court in the land would respect a license that can only be interpreted in Richard Stallman's head. The license has a legal meaning and no twisting of interpretations or 13 years later comments like "I meant it to say this instead" can change that meaning. The license is intended for people who might have no idea who RMS is or even care that he walks the earth. The letter of the license is all that matters. Stallman's intent of the license, however much it has changed over the years means nothing at all. Anyone using the license would have to accept the terms of the license not Stallman's new world view. If he meant to be the single interpreter and arbitrator of the license, he could have put a clause in declaring that. He didn't so it goes at face value just like any other license.
This isn't a matter of only what is enforceable. This is a matter of putting something in black and white and only expecting the words written to be enforceable. To make your openssh comparison more accurate, Theo would have to know the buffer overflow was there and release the version anyways. Why? Because when you read a locense or place something into a license, you set in stone what you expect out of other and what they expect out of you. None of this changing your mind later BS. None of this, Oh I didn't want that to happen BS. If you had any reservations about it at all, the license should say no to it. And then if someone found a way around it, it would be a loophole.
But more to the point, The GPLv2 as well as the GPLv3 does nothing to stop the types of deal MS and Novell made if a company other then MS was involved. the GPLv3 does stop them when you make a deal with a company in the business of distributing software though. But it says nothing to stop Novell from making a deal with Nokia (a hardware company), or a deal with some insurance agency to indemnify your direct customers of any damages in the case of a patent issue. And last I heard, the wording was crafted to specifically allow those deal to happen.
I said "use nouns" not "omit the pronouns"
And the third thing you were not was "making any sense". Of the three, guess which inference I intended you to draw.
which would make a loophole a logical impossibility. The only way to have a loophole under your definition is to violate the licence. But violating the licence brings the consequence of no longer being allowed to distribute. And since there is a consequence, it cannot then be a loophole.
All of this makes your definition rather less than useful. But in any case, I've told you the definition that I am using. Are you afraid to discuss what I actually mean? Or do you somehow feel that you can score a "point" just by disputing a definition. That strategy doesn't really work outside of the schoolyard, I'm afraid.
SOMEBODY KICK THE JUKE BOX! THE RECORD'S STUCK AGAIN!
The only mental problem I have is my seeming inability to walk away from this increasingly pointless exercise. Still, since you raise the subject, there's something that I've been mention. Have you considered seeking psychiatric advice? I mean, seriously. You read only what you've already decided is written down, you don't appear to respond to any external stimulus, but only react to things from inside your own head. That all sounds to me quite a lot like your basic schizophrenia. And judging from the way you react to cognitive dissonance, I don't think paranoid schizophrenia is out of the question, either.
The thing about that is that the condition can be kept in abeyance if you catch it early enough, but as you get older, the neural pathways tend to set and it gets harder to bring about the change.
I know, I expect people say this to you all the time, and you're bound to dismiss it as just a ploy on my part. Still, when the argument is over, and the dust has settled, why not go and check it out? You could be saving yourself from spending the second half of your life in an institution.
that bizzaro boy comment is likely a childish sign of gratitude,
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Bizzaro-boy, let me share something with you.
When I was a young boy, my family, like many families had a pet dog. He was good dog on the whole, and I was very fond of him. He did however like to bark, and sometimes that grew wearisome.
And, as children will sometimes do, I one day found myself wondering about the dogs perspective on family life. Did he, I wondered, yearn to take a deeper part in the daily discourse of the family? Could it perhaps be the case that his incessant barking was his attempt to join the daily conversation?
And, young as I was, I thought this to be terribly sad. How tragic to yearn so desperately to communicate with humans, and yet to find oneself hampered by such a sadly limited vocabulary, and by a brain woefully unsuited to such forms of cogitation.
And I'm not even sure why I'm telling you this now, save that for some reason, the memory keeps surfacing in my mind. I read your posts, and I find my mind recalled to our old family dog, and how all he could do, day in and day out, was bark, bark, bark, repeating the same forlorn doggy syllables, over and over again.
Hark! I hear dogs, barking.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
And yet you went off in another direction completely side skipping the point that there is no loophole. Not by definition, Not be the actions of the deal and not by the wording of the GPL. No loophole at all.
Tell me, does bouncing off topic and wondering about your dog or ripping down the page to something totally irrelevant give you some sort of satisfaction? I mean, being right and knowing what your talking about gives the same types of satisfaction to many. It you actually look at the problem of the Novell-Microsoft deal, You too can be right in what you say. You just need to get off the loophole kick and take things at face value. If you don't like the idea of the MS-Novell deal then say so. But you don't have to make stuff up in order to express that. The FSF spread a lot of fud, Including the idea that the PGLv3 would somehow trap MS and swindle them out of their patents. They did this in order to get support for the failing and widely rejected GPLv3 license. I'm sorry you believed them and are stuck repeating the BS they were saying. Sometimes you have to open your eyes and look for yourself.
I don't like the GPLv3. Not because of anything in it (well, I don't like the anti Tivo clauses that don't effect commercial err business devices that also won't stop Tivo from doing what it is doing), but because of the way we were lied to over the Novell-MS deal. They did it only to gain support for the GPLv3 license that was changed drastically in order to keep the support. I'm not a fan of Novell's. I don't even use their software except for a couple old Netware 4 boxes that refuse to die. I'm not a fan of microsofts, I do have to use their stuff more often because it is one of the things I support. I will tell you what I am a fan of though, that is being honest, both intellectually and physically honest. You cannot be honest in saying there is a loophole Novell and Microsoft are exploiting. The GPL says what it says and that is all that matters. Nothing RMS or bruce perrens or the hack of a lawyer eben moglen thinks matters on this. They can change their mind all they want but without changing the GPL license it doesn't amount to a hill of beans unless they change the license to reflect that.
And to add insult to injury, they only closed the part they didn't like about the MS-Novell deal to software companies. They left it wide open to do the same thing with non-software companies. This is going to be quite a surprise when Novell or redhat or any linux provider makes a deal with IP Innovation LLC to indemnify their customers if a patent lawsuit happens. and in case you don't know, "IP Innovation LLC" is the holding company filing suit against redhat and novell right now over gui linking on a desktop. And as long as neither of them place anything that might be infringing under the GPL, Neither GPL license stops them form making a deal and not offering the protection to downstream users. It could be the exact same deal as MS made with Novell and they purposely left is open if the company isn't in the business of selling software. Now we have a patent troll that isn't in the business of selling software and any company can make a MS-Novell like deal with them in order to continue using GPLed software.
Well, Now I have strayed off topic a little. but there is no loophole, never was.