another option will become open once GPLv3 is finalised, and once a Solaris kernel is available under GPLv3.
At that point, Solaris becomes another Free Software platform to run the GNU System (which is the right name for "GPL userland"). Right now, today, it's a platform to run it, just less free.
If Microsoft/Novell and various other companies are such a dire threat, why haven't the BSDs been destroyed yet?
Well, even though you get really nastily uncivil later in your posting, I will answer this one.
BSD is not a threat to Microsoft in the way that Linux and other programs under the GPL are. The reason is that the GPL is a specific deterrent to the "embrance and enhance" strategy that Microsoft would otherwise use. It prevents Microsoft from adding differentiating value that it will not share on the same share-and-share-alike terms as the original developers. Microsoft already incorporates the BSD networking stack, which is not differentiating software. They took a different approach with Kerberos, however, taking an open specification and its software and adding noninteroperable details under an odious license.
Now, regarding the name-calling, I'll attempt to sift out a few facts from the nasty stuff and attempt to answer them. First, I have a lot of contact with big IT customers through my work. Some of my customers have been directly threatened by Microsoft. This has turned a lot of them against MS, and they think they have a good defense, but they can not entirely discount the threats. MS is still lobbying very strongly for software patenting to become enforcible in Europe, and their only reason, as far as I can tell, is to fight us. I can't say that they will not act against us, indeed, given the political initiatives they are pushing, I believe they do indeed plan to do so. It's in part a question of whether they can get the law they want everywhere they want it, or not.
I think you are trying to imply that RMS, and through him FSF and Free Software are a repressive culture. I know RMS for quite a long time now. There is one thing I am sure about where he's concerned: he is entirely self-consistent. Richard really lives for your freedom, and he lives the way he would have you live. The biggest frustration in his life is that Richard is not able to construct the mental bridge between him and you necessary to convince you that this sort of freedom is so important. So, I help him do that with some people, but I am entirely independent of FSF and that is always my personal choice rather than an obligation. Richard is also helped by many other very smart people. Eben Moglen is really brillant, for example, and Peter Brown is able to work with people in ways that Richard never could, and there are literally 1000 others helping him. FSF is not just Richard any longer, and never will be.
Now, let's get to the nasty part. You called me a coward. If I have read your web site correctly, you admit to being autistic. So, I am not sure if I should revile you for calling names, or if I should shrug it off because your brain wiring does not allow you to appreciate my bravery as someone else might. But I really don't have time to dwell on being angry at people, so I'll shrug it off. I would like, however, to see you do as much as I do to fight for what I think is right.
Well, they don't stop Microsoft from spreading FUD, or from attempting to sue someone. They stop someone from explicitly using our software and its users to help them do so. And they help assure that everyone who uses or distributes our software will be in the same boat regarding software patents, which will help us solve the software patent problem. And since a tremendous amount of new and existing software development is under GPL, this is really significant.
Regarding complexity, you should acknowledge that the main purpose of the license redesign was to come up to sync with changes in law, and to make clear things that weren't clear before. There were a lot of things that were ambiguous in GPL2, that are much more clear in the draft. This cost about 2300 words, but will eliminate lots of arguments.
The specific language in paragraph 5 of the patent section gives a particular kind of patent deal, and then has in brackets as proposed text language that excludes anyone who did it before March 28 2007 from having the terms apply to them.
You never appeared to actually demonstrate that there was no clause requiring you to give up your keys, and given that Linus appeared to believe there was, I'm taking Linus's word over yours.
Well, you never demonstrated that you aren't beating your wife, and I say you are! Now the burden on you is to prove that you're not. What, you're not married? Prove that, too! I say you're beating the poor woman!:-)
You have the new license draft. Do you see any thing that says you have to give up keys? Show me the language, and tell me why you think it says so.
Sorry, but "Linux said so before he even saw this draft" isn't going to hold much water.
Nobody wants to stop indemnification. What they want to stop is a protection racket where the patent holder is paid in advance not to sue. If you have a nice arsenal with which to threaten Microsoft, and you are thus secure in the knowledge that MS won't sue your customer, that's fine. In fact, I'd like you to help when MS sues someone else.
Novell maybe. You won't see IBM and Red Hat touching that with a 10-foot pole. They have no reason to become antagonistic to their own developers, and they're smarter than that.
Section 3 says you have to give others the right to break any means of preventing modification of the product, even for non-User-products. So, they have to figure out for themselves how to install the software, but you can't use the law to enforce lock-down of the software. It really takes just one person to figure out how it's locked down, and then that can be published on the net, all legally.
What if you lived in a wooden house, and a fire broke out, and you called 911 and they said "well, work to build fire-proof houses!"
Sure, we need to work to fix the patent system. I am involved in that, rather deeply. I'm about to turn 50 and if I survive to be 70 I may still be working on that. We need a house for Free Software to live in today. If we neglect its needs now that will hinder, rather than help, the fight to reform patent law.
If GNU stuff goes GPL3 and then everything that touches it has to go GPL3 then the community will just fork off the GPL2 versions and continue going with the Linux kernel under GPL2 and userland still under GPL2.
It doesn't work that way. The license on the kernel doesn't effect the rest of the system. The license on the C library would be LGPL3, which isn't harmful to anyone but Novell as far as I can tell - Tivo might have to make some changes, but they would be able to live with GPL3. The license on GCC and the rest are the same, it doesn't hurt you unless you're out to do something really developer-hostile. I can't see that the community are going to be motivated to fork away from viable projects using GPL3.
I think we're not really protecting the freedom of GPL code if we allow some people to be licensed to run the code and some not to be. That's the point of the GPL2 language to put everyone in the same boat regarding patents. But we saw that the language was not sufficient because someone constructed a loophole around it. We can't assure that we can protect against all loopholes, but we can try our best and revise when necessary.
The Novell-Microsoft deal really strikes at developer motivation. Why write "free" software if Novell and Microsoft license their own users and go around threatening to sue or actually suing everyone else? Do you want to reward them by writing more code for them to use?
but it isn't possible to run a gpl2 userland without the linux kernel.
Say what? Where do you think it was developed before Linux came along?
On Sun. RMS used to program on a Sun. GNU LIBC existed before it was ported to Linux. GCC did. Emacs did. Most of the userland did. Linus Torvalds did the last part, not the first.
I can think of a lot of kernels besides HURD and Minix. You could start with BSD and Solaris, but that's hardly the end of the list.
I'm going to have to correct myself. The specific sentence in square brackets, which means it's proposed but not accepted, would exempt anyone who has made a Novell-Microsoft-like agrement before today from enforcement of the terms even on GPL3 software. So, FSF is really asking "should we let Novell and Microsoft off, and just apply this to future violators?" I don't think they'll do that.
While User Products are now going to be required to come with information on how to change the software, that doesn't mean you get to Tivo-ize in non-user products. The DRM provisions apply equally to non-user products. What the User Product terms mean is that you don't have to tell people with non-user-products how to construct a JTAG cable to reflash the product. You can make them figure that out by themselves.
It's an attempt, sure. It's a noble effort even, and I'm as opposed to software patents as the next developer who works on GPLed software for a living. But I think that it is a failed attempt.
It's based on the principle: we must all hang together or we will surely hang separately.
I disagree. The terms of the license might be able to prevent Microsoft from distributing your software, but they can't put any restrictions on the benefactor of Microsoft's covenant without devolving into silliness.
Actually, they really could, as long as there is a contract or agrement to shield users between the party making the covenant to users and the partner who is doing the distribution of GPL3 software.
But in this case it's even more clear, since Microsoft is distributing coupons that can be redeemed specifically for a copy of the software. That involves Microsoft directly in distribution. They made a legal goof there.
I don't think they have to worry about adoption. They have all of the FSF-owned software going to GPL3, which means that you can't really make a distribution without accepting GPL3. And most likely things like Samba, MySQL, Solaris and other Sun offerings, essentially anything owned by people who don't want the trick that Novell and Microsoft pulled to apply to them. I think that will be a lot of people. In the end, it might even be the kernel team. But that will take 1 to 2 years to play out.
Tivo could live with a GPL3 kernel if they wanted to. I've explained how here. Novell? The big problems for them will be GNU LIBC, which everything uses, Samba, and many other programs. They run the risk of either falling behind or having their expenses jump significantly. But I hear the Linux business is up for sale, anyway, and that they will eventually break the company into several pieces. That's why it's called SuSE now, instead of "Novell Linux".
Linus specificaly stated that he is against using GPL v3 in its current form.
Actually, he probably meant draft-2 form. The current form didn't exist when he said that:-).
Besides, specific objections are more helpful. Like he is against some DRM-related terms. I have gone over some of those terms here, you might find that useful.
The provisions in section 11 say, essentially, that you can't transfer the grant of patent license to your customers when distributing GPL v3 software.
You don't have that right. You can transfer a patent license to your users as long as you do so to everyone. The point is that you can't create privileged groups like "people who have paid lots of money for protection" who have more rights than others.
I don't see how this is anti-user. It's an attempt to assure that everyone has a right to run the program.
While you can't prevent Microsoft from doing this, you can use terms of your license to prevent Microsoft and its partners from distributing your software once they do this. And in this case, MS has a written covenant to the Novell customer, which is ample evidence to show a judge. In addition, the actual terms of the agreement will come out with the 10-Q report for Novell, and that's evidence too.
You missed the part about "upgrading Linux to GPL3". Some people out there think Linus controls the license to all of what goes into a distribution, not just the kernel.
Everybody: Linux is just the kernel. Linus does not control anything else, and has less than absolute control over that.
Yes. What RMS was asking for was whether GPL3 code should include pernicious terms, from the start, that apply to people who had already committed a deal like the Novell-Microsoft one on GPL2 code but not yet on GPL3 code. The other option is to wait until said scoundrels commit the same deal on GPL3 code.
Slashdot Mirror
At that point, Solaris becomes another Free Software platform to run the GNU System (which is the right name for "GPL userland"). Right now, today, it's a platform to run it, just less free.
Bruce
Well, even though you get really nastily uncivil later in your posting, I will answer this one.
BSD is not a threat to Microsoft in the way that Linux and other programs under the GPL are. The reason is that the GPL is a specific deterrent to the "embrance and enhance" strategy that Microsoft would otherwise use. It prevents Microsoft from adding differentiating value that it will not share on the same share-and-share-alike terms as the original developers. Microsoft already incorporates the BSD networking stack, which is not differentiating software. They took a different approach with Kerberos, however, taking an open specification and its software and adding noninteroperable details under an odious license.
Now, regarding the name-calling, I'll attempt to sift out a few facts from the nasty stuff and attempt to answer them. First, I have a lot of contact with big IT customers through my work. Some of my customers have been directly threatened by Microsoft. This has turned a lot of them against MS, and they think they have a good defense, but they can not entirely discount the threats. MS is still lobbying very strongly for software patenting to become enforcible in Europe, and their only reason, as far as I can tell, is to fight us. I can't say that they will not act against us, indeed, given the political initiatives they are pushing, I believe they do indeed plan to do so. It's in part a question of whether they can get the law they want everywhere they want it, or not.
I think you are trying to imply that RMS, and through him FSF and Free Software are a repressive culture. I know RMS for quite a long time now. There is one thing I am sure about where he's concerned: he is entirely self-consistent. Richard really lives for your freedom, and he lives the way he would have you live. The biggest frustration in his life is that Richard is not able to construct the mental bridge between him and you necessary to convince you that this sort of freedom is so important. So, I help him do that with some people, but I am entirely independent of FSF and that is always my personal choice rather than an obligation. Richard is also helped by many other very smart people. Eben Moglen is really brillant, for example, and Peter Brown is able to work with people in ways that Richard never could, and there are literally 1000 others helping him. FSF is not just Richard any longer, and never will be.
Now, let's get to the nasty part. You called me a coward. If I have read your web site correctly, you admit to being autistic. So, I am not sure if I should revile you for calling names, or if I should shrug it off because your brain wiring does not allow you to appreciate my bravery as someone else might. But I really don't have time to dwell on being angry at people, so I'll shrug it off. I would like, however, to see you do as much as I do to fight for what I think is right.
Bruce
Regarding complexity, you should acknowledge that the main purpose of the license redesign was to come up to sync with changes in law, and to make clear things that weren't clear before. There were a lot of things that were ambiguous in GPL2, that are much more clear in the draft. This cost about 2300 words, but will eliminate lots of arguments.
Bruce
The specific language in paragraph 5 of the patent section gives a particular kind of patent deal, and then has in brackets as proposed text language that excludes anyone who did it before March 28 2007 from having the terms apply to them.
Well, you never demonstrated that you aren't beating your wife, and I say you are! Now the burden on you is to prove that you're not. What, you're not married? Prove that, too! I say you're beating the poor woman! :-)
You have the new license draft. Do you see any thing that says you have to give up keys? Show me the language, and tell me why you think it says so.
Sorry, but "Linux said so before he even saw this draft" isn't going to hold much water.
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
That was part of Microsoft's intent. The Novell deal is meant to demotivate people from writing more Free Software. We gotta fight it.
Bruce
Sure, we need to work to fix the patent system. I am involved in that, rather deeply. I'm about to turn 50 and if I survive to be 70 I may still be working on that. We need a house for Free Software to live in today. If we neglect its needs now that will hinder, rather than help, the fight to reform patent law.
Bruce
It doesn't work that way. The license on the kernel doesn't effect the rest of the system. The license on the C library would be LGPL3, which isn't harmful to anyone but Novell as far as I can tell - Tivo might have to make some changes, but they would be able to live with GPL3. The license on GCC and the rest are the same, it doesn't hurt you unless you're out to do something really developer-hostile. I can't see that the community are going to be motivated to fork away from viable projects using GPL3.
Bruce
The Novell-Microsoft deal really strikes at developer motivation. Why write "free" software if Novell and Microsoft license their own users and go around threatening to sue or actually suing everyone else? Do you want to reward them by writing more code for them to use?
Bruce
Say what? Where do you think it was developed before Linux came along?
On Sun. RMS used to program on a Sun. GNU LIBC existed before it was ported to Linux. GCC did. Emacs did. Most of the userland did. Linus Torvalds did the last part, not the first.
I can think of a lot of kernels besides HURD and Minix. You could start with BSD and Solaris, but that's hardly the end of the list.
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
It's based on the principle: we must all hang together or we will surely hang separately.
Bruce
Actually, they really could, as long as there is a contract or agrement to shield users between the party making the covenant to users and the partner who is doing the distribution of GPL3 software.
But in this case it's even more clear, since Microsoft is distributing coupons that can be redeemed specifically for a copy of the software. That involves Microsoft directly in distribution. They made a legal goof there.
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Actually, he probably meant draft-2 form. The current form didn't exist when he said that :-) .
Besides, specific objections are more helpful. Like he is against some DRM-related terms. I have gone over some of those terms here, you might find that useful.
Bruce
You don't have that right. You can transfer a patent license to your users as long as you do so to everyone. The point is that you can't create privileged groups like "people who have paid lots of money for protection" who have more rights than others.
I don't see how this is anti-user. It's an attempt to assure that everyone has a right to run the program.
Bruce
Bruce
Everybody: Linux is just the kernel. Linus does not control anything else, and has less than absolute control over that.
Bruce
Bruce
Oh darn, sorry wrong URL. Try here