IMO Microsoft is laying the groundwork for evidenciary proof that they never intended to extend their guarantee not to sue to anyone that did not have a contractual agreement with them stating so.
IMO, Microsoft is laying the groundwork for a lawsuit against Novell, as Novell has publicly stated that they think that their agreement permits shipping GPLv3 software, and that they will do so. Microsoft states the opposite. And the GPLv3 prohibits distribution if you also have contactual obligations or other requirements that cannot be fulfilled if you distribute. In other words, other contracts, court orders, etc, does not remove any of the requirements of the license.
So if Novell distributes GPLv3 software, claiming that it is protected by the covenant not to sue, Microsoft may sue their "beloved" business partner.
One of the things I've heard is that GPLv3 will create hardware vender lockout. Because of clauses in v3 they won't move to v3. It's hard enough the get hardware venders to release drivers for Linux, with v3 they won't period.
That's funny, since the kernel will stay GPLv2 for the foreseeable future, and hardware drivers are usually in the kernel, so why would drivers be affected by the GPLv3?
the wild and free licensing of ms patents as a result of a fundamental post-contract change made by the other party (SUSE) just won't happen.
Sounds reasonable. My question (and hope) though: I assume that this will make Novell unable to distribute GPLv3 software, as they cannot simultaneously comply with the GPLv3, comply with the Microsoft agreement, and dole out patent licenses to only a select few. Right or wrong?
Oh? Of what? The only one I can think of is BSD software, but those guys want their code to be embraced and extended. Otherwise, they wouldn't have used such a license.
I prefer BSD precisely for that reason, they try to do it by the book, THEN they try to improve. That's why their binaries are easily half the size of GNU's.
I really don't see what you mean. Care to elaborate?
This much rabid "debate" (more like cobras spitting at each other) by people INSIDE the open source community is an indication that maybe GPLv3 gets something wrong?
No, it's not. This is just a rehash of the eternal BSD vs GPL debate, with BSD substituted with GPLv2 and GPL substituted by GPLv3. There are people, like BSD proponents, that think that it is fine for companies to take their code and make it restricted, just like there are people that don't like this.
A debate is a sign of a healthy community. I'd be more worried if there were no debate at all.
That was a compromise to enable some possibly beneficial uses of DRM. The FSF still thinks that it is a bad idea though, it is just that businesses have more bargaining power than a consumer, so they do not require the same level of protection against abuse.
I wish all applications like gimp, xchat, etc installed into home instead of/usr/whatever.
May I ask what the benefits of such a system would be? If all applications went into your home directory, no other user on the system would be able to use them. Home is fine to install the oddball application that only you use, but any application that can be expected to be used by more than one user should be installed in a central location, available for all users.
as a desktop os I kinda like how Apple does things when it comes to install locations.
Do they install applications into your home directory? I cannot believe that they would be that monumentally stupid.
Like I said someone will probably tell me why I'm wrong for wanting this but for the average joe like myself it doesn't make sense.
Do you install all your Windows applications to your desktop, or to the system-wide "Program Files" directory?
Here, the only installer I run at elevated privileges is APT and it is reputed as quite safe.
Whether APT is safe or not is irrelevant, since it only does what it is told by the package being installed. A bad package would be able to make APT do bad things, safe or not safe.
The trust is rather in the repository and its maintainers. We trust them that they know what they are doing, so that their packages won't mess up our systems.
In my opinion, the manager is responsible for the conduct of the employees. Taking responsibility for those working under you is a fundamental part of good leadership.
I agree. The higher responsibilities of managers are part of the reason for their higher salary.
Moshe is founder of the company behind the Xen software, XenSource, Inc. Moshe is also founder of the company Qumranet which is behind the development of the KVM virtualization technology in the Linux kernel.
That's interesting. It doesn't seem to be very common that a founder of one project/company also founds another that competes in the same space.
If an RIAA-controlled computer is on a filesharing network sharing some RIAA-controlled music with the full knowledge and consent of the RIAA, then either (A) the person who downloaded from that RIAA computer has just gotten free, legal music direct from the copyright holder or their authorized agents
Whether the download was legal according to the law is irrelevant, since the RIAA will still send you an invoice for $15000 and a threat of lawsuit if you don't pay. If you cannot afford to defend yourself in a lawsuit, what options do you have except paying (guilty of any crimes or not)?
But it seems that the more complex you make something the more loopholes and potential for abuse you open up.
It may seem to be complex to the layman, but the perceived complexity is mostly made up of meticulously detailed legalese to prevent the loopholes that can occur by using plain English.
there are a lot of holes in it.
Are you a lawyer?
I'm not a legal authority myself.
Well, it seems like you aren't. How can you just make assertions about the license left and right? That you might think (and hope, I guess) that there are holes in it does not make it so.
I can tell you about how almost every clause can be worked around that isn't the same things as the GPLv2 was. The tivo clause, the Novell clause, the patent license clause and all. I can also tell you the downsides from a user purspective and from a person who was attempting to get vendor supported drivers.
No, don't do that. I don't have time reading and answering page-long posts. My question is just if you told the FSF during the draft process.
I write letter to hardware vendors and manufactuers asking about the compatability with Linux and explaining that it is a "no go" on the purchase if it doesn't work. I write leters (not just email) describing my disapointment... because the vendor hides all the information it can. I do all sorts of things and now it just got harder with the GPLv3...
Now tell me why kernel drivers have anything to do with the GPLv3. The kernel will stay GPLv2 for the foreseeable future, and thus will its drivers. So I claim FUD on this particular point.
you will be surprised at what their fears are with the GPLv3.
That they fear the GPLv3 does not make their fears based on reality. They could just have read to many "analyses" by ignorant tech analysts such as Laura Didio and Maureen O'Gara.
this brings back to the argument who is better the native quad core vs 2 x dual core (though in an engineering standpoint, the native quad core will be better
From an economy angle, the MCM (Multi-Chip Module) is better than an integrated quad-core, since less cores need to be discarded. If an error is detected in one core out of four in an integrated quad-core, the entire chip will be discarded, while with an MCM, only one of the two chips will be discarded.
The higher rate of discarded processors with integrated quad-cores would translate to higher prices.
One difference is that the RIAA can lurk on filesharing networks, sending you an invoice if they see your IP address, but there is no way that they can know if the radio stream is saved to the harddrive when a user listens to a webcast. It is thus completely safe from a legal standpoint.
So if Red Hat fucked up Xen (not saying they did though, it's just an example), would you want credit for the fuckup? That's what could happen if derivatives are allowed to use the original name.
A name or a brand is often used as a stamp of approval. To say that your OS is a Unix system requires that you get a stamp of approval from The Open Group. To say that your virtualization software is Xen you need a stamp of approval from XenSource. And for the same reason, CentOS cannot be called Red Hat Enterprise Linux, even though it is virtually the same. Red Hat has made clear to CentOS that they must remove all references to Red Hat in the artwork, so that users won't think that Red hat is at fault if CentOS breaks (not that I think it will). This isn't about Red Hat not wanting credits for its work (references to RH are kept in the source, as required), but rather about protecting Red Hat's good name.
It is because he sees the device as still being owned by the phone company, or the TiVo still being owned by TiVo. Then the GPLv3 restricts their "usage", i.e. running the software in a DRM:ed environment in the hands of the customer.
I don't agree with this interpretation, but it is the one I think he most likely subscribes to.
I think the worst part about the GPLv3 is that when Jerimy alison was asked a fundemental question the answer was check with a lawyer. Can you really expect a license to b effective when you need a lawyer to understand it?
That is because lawyers have experience dealing with these issues in court, so they (hopefully) can answer with a high probability how a court would reason about the license. If you write a license in common english, most common people might probably get what you mean, but it is highly probable that some lawyer could find a loophole to exploit for his employer's benefit. That is why licenses, just like contacts and other texts with legal significance have to be written in a very detailed and meticulous way (called legalese) that (ideally) eliminates the possibility of other interpretations than the intended one.
Slashdot Mirror
Like they ever tried. Not.
IMO, Microsoft is laying the groundwork for a lawsuit against Novell, as Novell has publicly stated that they think that their agreement permits shipping GPLv3 software, and that they will do so. Microsoft states the opposite. And the GPLv3 prohibits distribution if you also have contactual obligations or other requirements that cannot be fulfilled if you distribute. In other words, other contracts, court orders, etc, does not remove any of the requirements of the license.
So if Novell distributes GPLv3 software, claiming that it is protected by the covenant not to sue, Microsoft may sue their "beloved" business partner.
IANAL though.
That's funny, since the kernel will stay GPLv2 for the foreseeable future, and hardware drivers are usually in the kernel, so why would drivers be affected by the GPLv3?
Sounds reasonable. My question (and hope) though: I assume that this will make Novell unable to distribute GPLv3 software, as they cannot simultaneously comply with the GPLv3, comply with the Microsoft agreement, and dole out patent licenses to only a select few. Right or wrong?
Oh? Of what? The only one I can think of is BSD software, but those guys want their code to be embraced and extended. Otherwise, they wouldn't have used such a license.
I prefer BSD precisely for that reason, they try to do it by the book, THEN they try to improve. That's why their binaries are easily half the size of GNU's.I really don't see what you mean. Care to elaborate?
Well, he also called Steve Ballmer a fascist, so it evens out. :)
No, it's not. This is just a rehash of the eternal BSD vs GPL debate, with BSD substituted with GPLv2 and GPL substituted by GPLv3. There are people, like BSD proponents, that think that it is fine for companies to take their code and make it restricted, just like there are people that don't like this.
A debate is a sign of a healthy community. I'd be more worried if there were no debate at all.
That was a compromise to enable some possibly beneficial uses of DRM. The FSF still thinks that it is a bad idea though, it is just that businesses have more bargaining power than a consumer, so they do not require the same level of protection against abuse.
May I ask what the benefits of such a system would be? If all applications went into your home directory, no other user on the system would be able to use them. Home is fine to install the oddball application that only you use, but any application that can be expected to be used by more than one user should be installed in a central location, available for all users.
as a desktop os I kinda like how Apple does things when it comes to install locations.Do they install applications into your home directory? I cannot believe that they would be that monumentally stupid.
Like I said someone will probably tell me why I'm wrong for wanting this but for the average joe like myself it doesn't make sense.Do you install all your Windows applications to your desktop, or to the system-wide "Program Files" directory?
Whether APT is safe or not is irrelevant, since it only does what it is told by the package being installed. A bad package would be able to make APT do bad things, safe or not safe.
The trust is rather in the repository and its maintainers. We trust them that they know what they are doing, so that their packages won't mess up our systems.
I agree. The higher responsibilities of managers are part of the reason for their higher salary.
That's interesting. It doesn't seem to be very common that a founder of one project/company also founds another that competes in the same space.
Whether the download was legal according to the law is irrelevant, since the RIAA will still send you an invoice for $15000 and a threat of lawsuit if you don't pay. If you cannot afford to defend yourself in a lawsuit, what options do you have except paying (guilty of any crimes or not)?
It may seem to be complex to the layman, but the perceived complexity is mostly made up of meticulously detailed legalese to prevent the loopholes that can occur by using plain English.
there are a lot of holes in it.Are you a lawyer?
I'm not a legal authority myself.Well, it seems like you aren't. How can you just make assertions about the license left and right? That you might think (and hope, I guess) that there are holes in it does not make it so.
I can tell you about how almost every clause can be worked around that isn't the same things as the GPLv2 was. The tivo clause, the Novell clause, the patent license clause and all. I can also tell you the downsides from a user purspective and from a person who was attempting to get vendor supported drivers.No, don't do that. I don't have time reading and answering page-long posts. My question is just if you told the FSF during the draft process.
I write letter to hardware vendors and manufactuers asking about the compatability with Linux and explaining that it is a "no go" on the purchase if it doesn't work. I write leters (not just email) describing my disapointmentNow tell me why kernel drivers have anything to do with the GPLv3. The kernel will stay GPLv2 for the foreseeable future, and thus will its drivers. So I claim FUD on this particular point.
you will be surprised at what their fears are with the GPLv3.That they fear the GPLv3 does not make their fears based on reality. They could just have read to many "analyses" by ignorant tech analysts such as Laura Didio and Maureen O'Gara.
I have two suggestions for you:
Sure they can. They just have to make sure that the customer has the same freedom with his/her particular device.
From an economy angle, the MCM (Multi-Chip Module) is better than an integrated quad-core, since less cores need to be discarded. If an error is detected in one core out of four in an integrated quad-core, the entire chip will be discarded, while with an MCM, only one of the two chips will be discarded.
The higher rate of discarded processors with integrated quad-cores would translate to higher prices.
I don't think so, since KVM requires a VT-capable processor. Not every system has such a processor yet.
One difference is that the RIAA can lurk on filesharing networks, sending you an invoice if they see your IP address, but there is no way that they can know if the radio stream is saved to the harddrive when a user listens to a webcast. It is thus completely safe from a legal standpoint.
So if Red Hat fucked up Xen (not saying they did though, it's just an example), would you want credit for the fuckup? That's what could happen if derivatives are allowed to use the original name.
A name or a brand is often used as a stamp of approval. To say that your OS is a Unix system requires that you get a stamp of approval from The Open Group. To say that your virtualization software is Xen you need a stamp of approval from XenSource. And for the same reason, CentOS cannot be called Red Hat Enterprise Linux, even though it is virtually the same. Red Hat has made clear to CentOS that they must remove all references to Red Hat in the artwork, so that users won't think that Red hat is at fault if CentOS breaks (not that I think it will). This isn't about Red Hat not wanting credits for its work (references to RH are kept in the source, as required), but rather about protecting Red Hat's good name.
It is because he sees the device as still being owned by the phone company, or the TiVo still being owned by TiVo. Then the GPLv3 restricts their "usage", i.e. running the software in a DRM:ed environment in the hands of the customer.
I don't agree with this interpretation, but it is the one I think he most likely subscribes to.
BSD fanboys use to say the same thing about the GPLv2, compared to their beloved BSD license.
That is because lawyers have experience dealing with these issues in court, so they (hopefully) can answer with a high probability how a court would reason about the license. If you write a license in common english, most common people might probably get what you mean, but it is highly probable that some lawyer could find a loophole to exploit for his employer's benefit. That is why licenses, just like contacts and other texts with legal significance have to be written in a very detailed and meticulous way (called legalese) that (ideally) eliminates the possibility of other interpretations than the intended one.
Another technically brilliant guy that beats them both by far in obnoxiousness is Theo de Raadt.
I do some transcoding, but I went with the C2D E6320 anyway. It is still nearly four times as fast as my previous Athlon XP 2800+. :)