There is not "a" or "the" CC licence, there are 13 or more. Some allow redistribution, and some don't. It's important to differentiate, even if CC don't do so.
FSF have tried all along to achieve compatibility with the Apache licence. The current status is that the patent language is now similar enough for the two licences to be compatible in that respect, but a new problem has been found which would make them incompatible. I expect a solution is being looked for.
This is discussed in the transcript in the section Patent retalisation and the Apache licence (the transcript is split into sections and there is a menu for easy navigation and linking).
Maybe there is a way out of this where Novell could repent, make a promise which would nullify the harms it created, and then we could go back to working together.
Fixing the patent situation is necessary, but it is worth asking for suggestions for the most productive way of doing this.
This also answer feranick's question, below. Maybe Novell, or Novell+MS could make a 2nd deal which would make things ok again.
So FSF is looking for some inspiration, a little creative thinking. If you have any, they're asking for your comments.
Clarity is good for everyone. The text is longer than v2, but it is more explicit and should be clearer. If you see a way to make it clearer, please submit a comment.
No, retrospective changes are not an option, and no, FSF is not trying to do any. "Retrospective" was just a bad choice of words.
The decision is whether the patent deal provisions should apply to all such patent deals, including the Novell-MS one, or only patent deals that are made from now on.
So the question to the community is: Do Novell deserve to be let off?
And the question to Novell is: What promise can you make to earn the communities trust so that they could justify letting you off?
There is no "retroactive" change. That comment refers to the last setence of the 2nd last paragraph of section 11. That sentence, which is in square brackets, would make the ban only apply to deals that are made starting from today, so that deal by Novell and MS would not trigger the ban on distributing the software.
So the public are asked: should Novell be banned from distributing GPLv3'd software?
And, imlicitly, I guess, Novell are asked: What assurances can you give us to win our trust so that giving you this exception is justified?
The question asked is whether the provisions that prevent deals such as the MS-Novell deal should have an explicit exclusion for that deal by Novell. i.e. such deals will be blocked in future, but should people who've already made such deals be prohibited from distributing GPLv3'd software?
Technology solves some problems, and being free to help yourself and cooperate with others solves other problems. If you want both technical superiorty and the freedoms of free software, it's best to use the free software product.
With the technically superior product, you can't do anything to make it free. But with the free software product, you can make and support technical improvements to it - in the directions that you want them.
So the good long term bet is the free software package. Stallman explained this well last November in Tokyo:
Even without the contract, M$ could always find a loophole either through lobbying, or just plain dirty tricks
This defeatist attitude is unjustified. The GPL has fended off Microsoft for almost two decades, and this loophole will be fixed in a few weeks.
As for DRM, DRM only works if the user is prevented from modifying the software. GNU+Linux is great because the user community controls the progress of the software, and individuals each can control their computer. This is what has lead to the lack of annoyances, lack of "click here to buy the full version", lack of pressured upgrades, lack of needless incompatibilities, etc. Accepting DRM means going back to one company having control of everyone's computer, and losing all the things we like about GNU+Linux.
We shouldn't trade tomorrow's victory away for visibility today.
I still can't think of a whole GNU program or module that is non-copyleft, but there might be some non-copyleft code in GCC or Bison.
Some of the output of those programs comes from the program itself - irrespective of the input. No matter what program you're righting, there is a certain amount of basic code that GCC has to add to make an executable of the target format.
So for some files in these projects, FSF has a very broad exception. The purpose is to clarify that using GCC or Bison doesn't create any obligations for what licence to use for the output.
I can see how Novell's deal can help increase adoption of free software in situations such as yours. However, this isn't enough to make it acceptable.
What's happened is that Microsoft has been able to extract a payment for your use of GNU+Linux by proxy through Novell.
Your CIO is scared of MS's patents, Novell pays MS, you pay Novell.
This sets an example to patent holders. It shows that there is a way to make GNU+Linux users pay patent royaltees.
So it encourages patent holders to launch FUD campaigns and then similarly shake down the GNU+Linux distros for protection money.
This creates a fuedal society with dependence - each user has to seek the protection of someone (like the way your company is seeking, and paying for, protection from Novell).
So, what can you do?
You could try to point out that free software is safer in some ways. If you use Microsoft and someone says you infringe a patent, your options are limited. With free software, you can remove the offending feature. A court may still rule that you have to pay costs to the patent holder, but if you were using Microsoft, the patent holder could deny you a patent and you'd have to remove the software altogether from your infrastructure. Or the patent holder could ask for an ongoing patent royalty payment. Free software lets you avoid those two problems.
You could also point out the lack of precedent of patent holders successfully attacking free software.
You could point out that if a patent holder does start attacking GNU+Linux users, they will face the legal force of a large consortium of companies and groups such as FSFE, FSF, SFLC, PubPat, etc.
But maybe those arguments will all fail and your CIO might go back to Windows. By your CIO's logic, (s)he'll let the company move back to GNU+Linux if the patent problem goes away. One way to make that happen is to help the campaign against software patents.
We're back to the original point. So to avoid the problem of software patents, it would help if you shouldered some of the burden of solving the patent problem. So instead of giving money to Microsoft (by proxy through Novell), you are movtivated to give money to FSFE, FSF, FFII, etc. That's the better long term outcome, isn't it?
FSF isn't against Novell being able to redistribute GPLv3 code. FSF's deal is that you can't profit from harming the community and still distribute GPLv3 code. So the outcome is that Novell is going to have to go back to Microsoft and renegociate their deal. (Unfortunately for Novell, MS has a history of shafting its business partners.)
(Deals can always be renegociated in the case of "frustration of contract" - for example if you contract me to build a boat for you, and I build it but it sinks before I hand it over to you, then we have to renegociate because it has become impossible for me to fulfil my side of the deal.)
Making deals with MS can be ok. Red Hat did it recently - they're collaborating on some technical issue. That deal is no problem. You can even run Microsoft software on GNU+Linux systems. That's no problem too (although it would be better to reject the MS software, but that's another issue).
The only thing that FSF is going to prevent is the practice of profiting from harming the community. Novell will have to stop that - or they can't distribute GPLv3'd software.
But Novell isn't the only distro. There's Red Hat, and Debian, and gNewSense.
Well, I can't think of any GNU software that is not copyleft, but I know a prominent example of GNU software that is weak copyleft rather than strong copyleft: GNU libc. And I know an example of software which is not in the GNU project but for which Stallman agreed that a non-copleft licence was best: Ogg vorbis codec.
There are reasons that can make it better to use the Library GPL in certain cases. The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Library GPL for that library.
(The "Library GPL" is today called the "Lesser GPL" - it's the GPL's weak copyleft sibling). If GNU libc required that software that is built on top if it be free software, that would have encouraged the proprietary companies to write a competing libc or to port over the BSD libc - and then the system's libc would have been completely proprietary. So using weak copyleft is somewhat admitting that you can't win a certain battle right now, and it's a decision to take what you can win rather than lose completely.
The reason for endorsing the use of a non-copyleft licence for the Ogg vorbis codec was that the goal was to maximise adoption. Vorbis had to displace the entrenched MP3 format, so any inconveniences or legal problems would impede that goal. So Stallman agreed that the developers should use an X11 style permissive licence.
In 1983 when there were no free software compilers, Stallman didn't have the option of saying "Well, I won't ship a compiler in the 'base' configuration, therefore I don't need to write one".
It's essential for developing an operating system.
Stallman wrote a compiler, and now every BSD developer can use it - and they can be glad or surely about it, as they choose.
Novell benefits from Microsoft's patents becoming more dangerous because Novell is the only GNU+Linux distro that is protected from those patents, so if people are afraid of Microsoft's patents, they might run to Novell to benefit from the protection.
So when Microsoft's patents are more dangerous, Novells advantage is more prominent.
So we've lost one ally (or should-be ally) in the long-term fight against software patents. What if we also lost Red Hat and Sun and the other companies that love our software because it lines their pockets? What would our chances look like then in the campaign against software patents? The campaign against DRM? The campaign against proprietary formats? etc. etc.
What Novell did was not bad for Novell's business (if we ignore what it did to their status in the community, and that GPLv3 is going to create big problems for Novell now). For a dog-eat-dog mindset, it was a smart move. But the relationship between the free software community and the companies that profit from free software is not meant to be dog-eat-dog - it's supposed to be solidarity. That's how we win, together.
So GPLv3 will say: "No giving in - no selling out". If some code violates a patent, we try to get the patent thrown out, or we ditch that piece of code. GPLv2 said that too, but Novell found a loophole. That will be closed.
No, Novell can't replace the GNU bits with BSD bits - even the BSDs don't do that!
Every BSD is GCC built and ships GCC to their developers.
Also, there's no BSD replacement for GIMP, and replacing Glibc and replacing it with a BSD libc would be very hard. An operating system's libc has to marshal between the kernel and the userspace - Glibc has been doing this for 15 years for Linux and the GNU userspace. A new libc would be a world of problems.
Anyway, other packages such as SAMBA would still be out of bounds (they've said they're moving to GPLv3 too).
Oh, and as for Stallman being surrounded by sycophants - his main job is travelling and giving speeches and answering emails - he hears criticism and questioning every day.
The whole GNU project will use it. That means Glibc, gcc, parted, GIMP, parts of GNOME, gdb, binutils, coreutils, bash, gettext, aspell, grep, gzip, findutils, cpio, make, grub, etc.
The SAMBA project have also said they'd be using it, and MySQL sound like they will be too. Sun might or mightn't. Some others will too, surely.
All of the GNU project will move to GPLv3. That's glibc, gcc, gdb, binutils, coreutils, bash, grub, grep, cpio, readline, make, gettext, GIMP, aspell, parted, parts of GNOME, etc. etc. etc.
Also, SAMBA said they'll be moving to it, and MySQL said they expect to move to it. Sun might, or might not, use it too.
The point you make in the first paragraph is correct. Stallman points this out:
We keep looking for ways to protect the users from the danger of software patents, but there's only a limited amount that any software licence can do this. The thing that makes software patents so dangerous is that somebody that you've never heard of and with whom you have no relationship whatsoever can have a patent covering a technique that you implemented, and sue you for the code you wrote.
This is precisely why software patents are so bad, and since you have no relationship with that person, there's no opportunity for any licence on your software to have any effect on him. So all we can do is get rid of a small part of this large danger for all software developers.
Using GPLv2 is not an option for Novell because they don't own the software they package and redistribute.
When developers switch future versions of their software to GPLv3, Novell will not be able to incorporate the changes in those new versions.
So if Novell wants to avoid GPLv3, they will have to forever stay with Glibc 2.5, GCC 4.1, coreutils 6.7, and old versions of GIMP, emacs, bash, gdb, etc. etc.
One goal is to divide the free software community. With the Novell deal, Novell no longer has an interest in helping the community to fight MS's patents. Worse, Novell now benefits from Microsoft's patents getting more and more dangerous. To fight the patent problem, we can't afford to lose any friends....not the Novell was much of a friend in the anti-swpat campaign, but if MS is allowed to buy on free software distributor, they can buy others.
And another motivation a little more base: extortion. Microsoft has been in stagnation for a long time and it now scrambling to slow everyone down to prevent their demise. It would be a clever long term strategy to find a way to profit from the free software operating system that will probably replace theirs.
Slashdot Mirror
There is not "a" or "the" CC licence, there are 13 or more. Some allow redistribution, and some don't. It's important to differentiate, even if CC don't do so.
Stallman has explained this.
It's not the Apache patent clause that now bars compatibility, it's an indemnity clause.
GPLv3 has been made compatible with Apache's patent clause.
FSF have tried all along to achieve compatibility with the Apache licence. The current status is that the patent language is now similar enough for the two licences to be compatible in that respect, but a new problem has been found which would make them incompatible. I expect a solution is being looked for.
This is discussed in the transcript in the section Patent retalisation and the Apache licence (the transcript is split into sections and there is a menu for easy navigation and linking).
That question does not exist in isolation.
Maybe there is a way out of this where Novell could repent, make a promise which would nullify the harms it created, and then we could go back to working together.
Fixing the patent situation is necessary, but it is worth asking for suggestions for the most productive way of doing this.
This also answer feranick's question, below. Maybe Novell, or Novell+MS could make a 2nd deal which would make things ok again.
So FSF is looking for some inspiration, a little creative thinking. If you have any, they're asking for your comments.
Clarity is good for everyone. The text is longer than v2, but it is more explicit and should be clearer. If you see a way to make it clearer, please submit a comment.
Here's some suggestions for how to increase simplicity.
No, retrospective changes are not an option, and no, FSF is not trying to do any. "Retrospective" was just a bad choice of words.
The decision is whether the patent deal provisions should apply to all such patent deals, including the Novell-MS one, or only patent deals that are made from now on.
So the question to the community is: Do Novell deserve to be let off?
And the question to Novell is: What promise can you make to earn the communities trust so that they could justify letting you off?
(I've also clarified this above.)
There is no "retroactive" change. That comment refers to the last setence of the 2nd last paragraph of section 11. That sentence, which is in square brackets, would make the ban only apply to deals that are made starting from today, so that deal by Novell and MS would not trigger the ban on distributing the software.
So the public are asked: should Novell be banned from distributing GPLv3'd software?
And, imlicitly, I guess, Novell are asked: What assurances can you give us to win our trust so that giving you this exception is justified?
GPLv3 cannot be retroactive.
The question asked is whether the provisions that prevent deals such as the MS-Novell deal should have an explicit exclusion for that deal by Novell. i.e. such deals will be blocked in future, but should people who've already made such deals be prohibited from distributing GPLv3'd software?
That's the question asked.
Technology solves some problems, and being free to help yourself and cooperate with others solves other problems. If you want both technical superiorty and the freedoms of free software, it's best to use the free software product.
With the technically superior product, you can't do anything to make it free. But with the free software product, you can make and support technical improvements to it - in the directions that you want them.
So the good long term bet is the free software package. Stallman explained this well last November in Tokyo:
So this is good news.
This defeatist attitude is unjustified. The GPL has fended off Microsoft for almost two decades, and this loophole will be fixed in a few weeks.
As for DRM, DRM only works if the user is prevented from modifying the software. GNU+Linux is great because the user community controls the progress of the software, and individuals each can control their computer. This is what has lead to the lack of annoyances, lack of "click here to buy the full version", lack of pressured upgrades, lack of needless incompatibilities, etc. Accepting DRM means going back to one company having control of everyone's computer, and losing all the things we like about GNU+Linux.
We shouldn't trade tomorrow's victory away for visibility today.
I still can't think of a whole GNU program or module that is non-copyleft, but there might be some non-copyleft code in GCC or Bison.
Some of the output of those programs comes from the program itself - irrespective of the input. No matter what program you're righting, there is a certain amount of basic code that GCC has to add to make an executable of the target format.
So for some files in these projects, FSF has a very broad exception. The purpose is to clarify that using GCC or Bison doesn't create any obligations for what licence to use for the output.
HTH.
Ok, I see your situation better now.
I can see how Novell's deal can help increase adoption of free software in situations such as yours. However, this isn't enough to make it acceptable.
What's happened is that Microsoft has been able to extract a payment for your use of GNU+Linux by proxy through Novell.
Your CIO is scared of MS's patents, Novell pays MS, you pay Novell.
This sets an example to patent holders. It shows that there is a way to make GNU+Linux users pay patent royaltees.
So it encourages patent holders to launch FUD campaigns and then similarly shake down the GNU+Linux distros for protection money.
This creates a fuedal society with dependence - each user has to seek the protection of someone (like the way your company is seeking, and paying for, protection from Novell).
So, what can you do?
You could try to point out that free software is safer in some ways. If you use Microsoft and someone says you infringe a patent, your options are limited. With free software, you can remove the offending feature. A court may still rule that you have to pay costs to the patent holder, but if you were using Microsoft, the patent holder could deny you a patent and you'd have to remove the software altogether from your infrastructure. Or the patent holder could ask for an ongoing patent royalty payment. Free software lets you avoid those two problems.
You could also point out the lack of precedent of patent holders successfully attacking free software.
You could point out that if a patent holder does start attacking GNU+Linux users, they will face the legal force of a large consortium of companies and groups such as FSFE, FSF, SFLC, PubPat, etc.
But maybe those arguments will all fail and your CIO might go back to Windows. By your CIO's logic, (s)he'll let the company move back to GNU+Linux if the patent problem goes away. One way to make that happen is to help the campaign against software patents.
We're back to the original point. So to avoid the problem of software patents, it would help if you shouldered some of the burden of solving the patent problem. So instead of giving money to Microsoft (by proxy through Novell), you are movtivated to give money to FSFE, FSF, FFII, etc. That's the better long term outcome, isn't it?
I know BSD uses BSD libc, that works for BSD. Porting it to Linux would be hard.
As for uClibc and dietlibc, they cannot run most or all apps that GNU libc can run. I don't know who's told you that, but it's a whopper.
Hmmm, there's still some misunderstanding.
FSF isn't against Novell being able to redistribute GPLv3 code. FSF's deal is that you can't profit from harming the community and still distribute GPLv3 code. So the outcome is that Novell is going to have to go back to Microsoft and renegociate their deal. (Unfortunately for Novell, MS has a history of shafting its business partners.)
(Deals can always be renegociated in the case of "frustration of contract" - for example if you contract me to build a boat for you, and I build it but it sinks before I hand it over to you, then we have to renegociate because it has become impossible for me to fulfil my side of the deal.)
Making deals with MS can be ok. Red Hat did it recently - they're collaborating on some technical issue. That deal is no problem. You can even run Microsoft software on GNU+Linux systems. That's no problem too (although it would be better to reject the MS software, but that's another issue).
The only thing that FSF is going to prevent is the practice of profiting from harming the community. Novell will have to stop that - or they can't distribute GPLv3'd software.
But Novell isn't the only distro. There's Red Hat, and Debian, and gNewSense.
Well, I can't think of any GNU software that is not copyleft, but I know a prominent example of GNU software that is weak copyleft rather than strong copyleft: GNU libc. And I know an example of software which is not in the GNU project but for which Stallman agreed that a non-copleft licence was best: Ogg vorbis codec.
The reason for GNU libc using a weak copyleft licence is tactical. From "Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library":
(The "Library GPL" is today called the "Lesser GPL" - it's the GPL's weak copyleft sibling). If GNU libc required that software that is built on top if it be free software, that would have encouraged the proprietary companies to write a competing libc or to port over the BSD libc - and then the system's libc would have been completely proprietary. So using weak copyleft is somewhat admitting that you can't win a certain battle right now, and it's a decision to take what you can win rather than lose completely.The reason for endorsing the use of a non-copyleft licence for the Ogg vorbis codec was that the goal was to maximise adoption. Vorbis had to displace the entrenched MP3 format, so any inconveniences or legal problems would impede that goal. So Stallman agreed that the developers should use an X11 style permissive licence.
In 1983 when there were no free software compilers, Stallman didn't have the option of saying "Well, I won't ship a compiler in the 'base' configuration, therefore I don't need to write one".
It's essential for developing an operating system.
Stallman wrote a compiler, and now every BSD developer can use it - and they can be glad or surely about it, as they choose.
What about the compiler that all the BSDs use, could you port that over? Thanks.
Novell benefits from Microsoft's patents becoming more dangerous because Novell is the only GNU+Linux distro that is protected from those patents, so if people are afraid of Microsoft's patents, they might run to Novell to benefit from the protection.
So when Microsoft's patents are more dangerous, Novells advantage is more prominent.
So we've lost one ally (or should-be ally) in the long-term fight against software patents. What if we also lost Red Hat and Sun and the other companies that love our software because it lines their pockets? What would our chances look like then in the campaign against software patents? The campaign against DRM? The campaign against proprietary formats? etc. etc.
What Novell did was not bad for Novell's business (if we ignore what it did to their status in the community, and that GPLv3 is going to create big problems for Novell now). For a dog-eat-dog mindset, it was a smart move. But the relationship between the free software community and the companies that profit from free software is not meant to be dog-eat-dog - it's supposed to be solidarity. That's how we win, together.
So GPLv3 will say: "No giving in - no selling out". If some code violates a patent, we try to get the patent thrown out, or we ditch that piece of code. GPLv2 said that too, but Novell found a loophole. That will be closed.
No, Novell can't replace the GNU bits with BSD bits - even the BSDs don't do that!
Every BSD is GCC built and ships GCC to their developers.
Also, there's no BSD replacement for GIMP, and replacing Glibc and replacing it with a BSD libc would be very hard. An operating system's libc has to marshal between the kernel and the userspace - Glibc has been doing this for 15 years for Linux and the GNU userspace. A new libc would be a world of problems.
Anyway, other packages such as SAMBA would still be out of bounds (they've said they're moving to GPLv3 too).
Oh, and as for Stallman being surrounded by sycophants - his main job is travelling and giving speeches and answering emails - he hears criticism and questioning every day.
The whole GNU project will use it. That means Glibc, gcc, parted, GIMP, parts of GNOME, gdb, binutils, coreutils, bash, gettext, aspell, grep, gzip, findutils, cpio, make, grub, etc.
The SAMBA project have also said they'd be using it, and MySQL sound like they will be too. Sun might or mightn't. Some others will too, surely.
All of the GNU project will move to GPLv3. That's glibc, gcc, gdb, binutils, coreutils, bash, grub, grep, cpio, readline, make, gettext, GIMP, aspell, parted, parts of GNOME, etc. etc. etc.
Also, SAMBA said they'll be moving to it, and MySQL said they expect to move to it. Sun might, or might not, use it too.
The point you make in the first paragraph is correct. Stallman points this out:
Quoted from here (scroll to the audience member's 2nd intervention): Stallman speaking in Bangalore
Using GPLv2 is not an option for Novell because they don't own the software they package and redistribute.
When developers switch future versions of their software to GPLv3, Novell will not be able to incorporate the changes in those new versions.
So if Novell wants to avoid GPLv3, they will have to forever stay with Glibc 2.5, GCC 4.1, coreutils 6.7, and old versions of GIMP, emacs, bash, gdb, etc. etc.
> FUD and misdirection I should think.
Surely, but I think there's more to it.
One goal is to divide the free software community. With the Novell deal, Novell no longer has an interest in helping the community to fight MS's patents. Worse, Novell now benefits from Microsoft's patents getting more and more dangerous. To fight the patent problem, we can't afford to lose any friends. ...not the Novell was much of a friend in the anti-swpat campaign, but if MS is allowed to buy on free software distributor, they can buy others.
And another motivation a little more base: extortion. Microsoft has been in stagnation for a long time and it now scrambling to slow everyone down to prevent their demise. It would be a clever long term strategy to find a way to profit from the free software operating system that will probably replace theirs.
For background, some links: