Versions of Microsoft applications change the UI between versions so even if they do end up working at a Microsoft shop they'll adapt better to the changing UI's between versions.
Not to mention the fact that the version of Word taught in school will be dead long ago when the kids graduate ten years later.
How come you can convince anybody to pay any, even miniscule price, if one can have a better product without paying a single $ ? M$ simply has much better product for the desktop, period.
You are completely wrong. Those deals are never about paying $$$ versus getting for free. These large users almost always want support contracts, and those are never free, although often cheaper than list-price Windows with support contracts. This isn't about MS having a better "product for the desktop". It is about costs of migration and the support contract being undercut by Microsoft when they fear losing a large customer. In addition, convincing a customer that has gone public about a possible migration to Linux to remain with Microsoft enables Microsoft to spin it in the direction of "the migration failed, and they are going back to (or staying with) Windows".
The fact is, if the FSF or the GPL wanted to stop people from making deals with micrsoft it would have placed that in writing.
This isn't about stopping people from making deals with Microsoft. If the patent agreement hadn't been a part of the deal, I would be much less concerned about it. The patent agreement enables them to claim that Novell recognizes that Linux infringes Microsoft patents, and it enables Novell to say that Novell-supplied F/OSS is the only F/OSS safe from Microsoft litigation. That is not in the interest of the F/OSS community, and that is why the deal is so heavily critisized.
And to do so they are attempting to read something that isn't even there into the GPL?
It isn't there because that part hasn't been included in the GPLv3 draft yet. Yet, the FSF has claimed it is working on including such a clause that forbids vendors with this or similar agreements from distributing programs licensed under the GPLv3. We can't analyze it yet, 'cause it isn't there.
Notice how this comes up and from the outside it look like some socialist agenda trying to viraly strong arm the way a business operates?
Your bias is quite clear from this statement.
If a business would violate a license outright, would you disagree that some strongarming by the licensor would be in place? Or are businesses untouchable entities that can do what they want, and nobody can tell them what to do?
To any company looking to switch instead of paying microsoft again, this assertion of somethig that isn't even there seems reason enough to stay away from GPLed products.
If they could end up distributing software, this might be an issue. If they are only considering it for inhouse use, they can always do what they want with it, and would not have to be worried at all. After all, use of the software is one of the four freedoms, and nobody have to be worried that this freedom would evaporate.
Indeed, which is why the many open source programs that require you to agree to the GPL on installation (of the binary only release!) really get my goat.
My theory is that they do that so that people understand that the software is copyrighted even though it is free of charge. Some people tend to believe that free software is public domain, and that you can do anything you want with it, such as including it into proprietary derivative works. Those people need to realize that it is not, and that is usually when they start complaining about the GPL and the "unfairness" of not letting them use it in derivative works without also distributing the source under the GPL.
I really don't get the US party colours. In the cold war, the Soviets were the red and the allies (NATO) were the blue. In the US, the left on the political scale (Democrats) are blue, while the right (Conservatives) are red.
In Sweden, where I live, the conservatives are blue, the liberals are light blue, the social democrats are red and the left party is a little bit darker red.
You can read the current draft of the GPLv3. It is on thier website [fsf.org]. Look for your self. If no one changes anything, this is what will be the GPLv3. Look for your self and tell me were the deal places them in violation of anything.
We can read it and make up our mind about what is probably meant. But since court decisions do not always fit into common sense, we can have no certainty that a court will interpret the license the same way that we do. A lawyer usually have court experience, and can with some credibility, at least more than you or me, assert how a court will probably interpret this. Still lawyers are not guaranteed to read it the same way as a court, it is just that the lawyer has a larger probability of understanding it the same way a court would.
And if you need to be a lawer to interpret the GPL draft, then I'm betting "I didn't know" will be an afirmitive defense in any actions on violators. Especialy if the wording doesn't imply it in any way, shape, or form. I mean, how free can you be when you need a team of lawers interpreting the GPL just to use the so caled free software. lol, this is insane.
Why would this be insane for the GPL when this is the case for the law? "I didn't know" isn't an affirmative defense in any country I know of. You are required to know the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, why would it be an excuse when dealing with software licenses.
Of course all changes to the GPLv2 programs can be moved to GPLv3 but not the other way.
Good point. AFAIK, all GNU software is licensed with the "GPLv2 or any later version" clause. Would it be possible for contributors to a GPLv2 fork to license contributions under a "GPLv2 only" license? If possible, such a migration of all changes could be hindered, but if not, the GPLv3 version can (as you said) always have all changes to the GPLv2 fork, but not the other way around. I'd say this almost ensures that the GPLv3 version can stay current with or even ahead of a GPLv2 fork.
How many gcc contributors are gplv3 zealots, and how many are compiler zealots? I bet more of the latter.
I agree, but you forgot one question: How many are anti-GPLv3-zealots? That is: How many will care about staying with GPLv2 so much as to support a fork if/when the gcc project is moved to GPLv3? As you said, which I agree with, most are probably compiler zealots (if there is such a thing, compiler nuts would possibly be a better phrase).
If you are talking about TCPA, then I guess that some people fear that one day
A TCPA-like system that only allows certain approved versions of software already exist in the embedded space. The TiVo is the prime example, as it is one of the main reasons for including the DRM clauses at all. It refuses to run versions of the (free) software that is not signed (approved) by TiVo. This way of locking up free software so that it cannot be modified and made to run on the same device, is what the FSF primarily wants to stop.
The very idea of sneaking in some sort of "thou shalt not make deals with MS" or generally "though shalt toe the party line"
I don't think that the FSF would have cared about the Novell-MS deal if it hadn't included the "we will not sue each others' customers" part, as that could empower Microsoft to claim with some credibility that Novell-supplied free software the only "safe" free software. The problem is that this software would hardly be free anymore.
Or the deal between Microsoft and Novell would have to be such that every patent implemented by Novell, and distributed as part of a software package covered by the GPL, would have to be transferable to (or at least free to use for) every person who receives a copy of said software package. If the italicized part means that every user would be required to ask Microsoft for a free license, then the software cannot be distributed under the GPL (as far as I have understood it). Licensing software under the GPL requires that any patent license is redistributable to subsequent recipients of the software, without asking the patent holder.
The WORST anybody can claim about the deal is that Novell got a lot of money for ALLEGEDLY allowing Microsoft to POSSIBLY say in some FUTURE patent court case that the Novell deal SUPPORTS their contention that Linux infringes their IP.
Did you miss that Steve Ballmer essentially said exactly that just a few days after the agreement was signed, and that the SUSE distribution is the only distribution safe from Microsoft litigation, as it does not have the "undisclosed balance sheet liability" that the rest of the distributions have? This could be considered an unfair advantage in the marketplace for Novell-supplied distributions of Linux, and could drive a lot of businesses over to Novell from the other distributions.
If you want to license it both under the GPL and to a company under a proprietary license, you have the right to do that provided your licenses do not conflict.
Could you elaborate on what would constitute such a conflict? The only problem with dual-licensing that I see is if you accept contributions without requesting copyright assignment. The problems has already been solved in some way, e.g. by MySQL, although I don't know which method they use.
Users want freedom. They do not want to be locked in.
That's users who know about the issue. A great manu users (I'm really tempted to say lusers) could not care less about their software freedom or about avoiding lock-in. They don't know the difference between the computer and Windows, and have painfully leared to do the necessary tasks step by step. All they care about is that the interface is pretty with a lot of bells and whistles, so that they can be "Wow:ed".
Are you a lawyer? Because the FSF has lawyers, e.g. Eben Moglen, to make sure that its intentions are correctly spelled out. And that includes spoiling the Novell-Microsoft agreement. If you are not a lawyer, I cannot see how you could assert anything about the yet unpublished GPLv3. The section about spoiling the Novell-Microsoft agreement isn't even in the draft yet.
A driver implemented as a module is NOT part of the kernel
I think you are wrong, since a module becomes part of the kernel when loaded. If you were right, why would the kernel complain that a non-GPL module taints the kernel?
Re:security through obscurity just another layer
on
Security — Open Vs. Closed
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Without security through obscurity, you can do things like keep OpenSSH patched, use very good passwords, disallow root logins, restrict logins to certain users
Not to mention disable password logins altogether, and only allow logins using a key pair (known as public key authentication in SSH terminology). This makes a password guessing attack impossible, and an attacker must either guess (or obtain in another way) your private key, or find a security vulnerability in the software itself. This approach is somewhat more cumbersome to administrate though, but very secure.
But it is true that if you are on trial for a crime in Minnesota, there's a precedent for the mere fact that you have PGP software on your computer to be used against you as evidence for the prosecution--despite the prosecutor's witness himself saying that PGP capable software is already available in OSX.
So, if you're on trial in Minnesota, you'd better not be using a Mac? Or Linux, since many distributions also include GnuPG.
Conclusion: Use Windows to be safe. It's encryption software is bad enough to not make you go to jail.
You're all about users rights, but what about my rights as a developer or music producer?
That's why we have laws. Do you feel that you have a right to make peoples' computers obey you (using DRM) instead of them? It is not your computer, and you have no right to force it to obey you. If someone infringes your work, take them to court. The court system is made up of hopefully intelligent people, or at least people more intelligent than any DRM system can ever be. People can make reasonable judgements that DRM systems cannot. DRM systems see everything in black or white, with no grey areas, such as copying for your own use (in your car, on your iPod, etc. Demanding that people buy new copies for such uses is just unreasonably greedy.
As far as balooning base system requirements... who runs just a base system? What difference does it make whether the base system is 200MB or 50MB? Why in the world would you consider migrating just because the base install is getting bigger?
Now I'm not really sure what you mean with base system, but the ability to run small Linux systems is essential to the embedded market. I have a Linksys NSLU2 that in its default configuration runs Linux off an 8MB flash drive.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention the fact that the version of Word taught in school will be dead long ago when the kids graduate ten years later.
You are completely wrong. Those deals are never about paying $$$ versus getting for free. These large users almost always want support contracts, and those are never free, although often cheaper than list-price Windows with support contracts. This isn't about MS having a better "product for the desktop". It is about costs of migration and the support contract being undercut by Microsoft when they fear losing a large customer. In addition, convincing a customer that has gone public about a possible migration to Linux to remain with Microsoft enables Microsoft to spin it in the direction of "the migration failed, and they are going back to (or staying with) Windows".
This isn't about stopping people from making deals with Microsoft. If the patent agreement hadn't been a part of the deal, I would be much less concerned about it. The patent agreement enables them to claim that Novell recognizes that Linux infringes Microsoft patents, and it enables Novell to say that Novell-supplied F/OSS is the only F/OSS safe from Microsoft litigation. That is not in the interest of the F/OSS community, and that is why the deal is so heavily critisized.
And to do so they are attempting to read something that isn't even there into the GPL?It isn't there because that part hasn't been included in the GPLv3 draft yet. Yet, the FSF has claimed it is working on including such a clause that forbids vendors with this or similar agreements from distributing programs licensed under the GPLv3. We can't analyze it yet, 'cause it isn't there.
Notice how this comes up and from the outside it look like some socialist agenda trying to viraly strong arm the way a business operates?Your bias is quite clear from this statement.
If a business would violate a license outright, would you disagree that some strongarming by the licensor would be in place? Or are businesses untouchable entities that can do what they want, and nobody can tell them what to do?
To any company looking to switch instead of paying microsoft again, this assertion of somethig that isn't even there seems reason enough to stay away from GPLed products.If they could end up distributing software, this might be an issue. If they are only considering it for inhouse use, they can always do what they want with it, and would not have to be worried at all. After all, use of the software is one of the four freedoms, and nobody have to be worried that this freedom would evaporate.
My theory is that they do that so that people understand that the software is copyrighted even though it is free of charge. Some people tend to believe that free software is public domain, and that you can do anything you want with it, such as including it into proprietary derivative works. Those people need to realize that it is not, and that is usually when they start complaining about the GPL and the "unfairness" of not letting them use it in derivative works without also distributing the source under the GPL.
I really don't get the US party colours. In the cold war, the Soviets were the red and the allies (NATO) were the blue. In the US, the left on the political scale (Democrats) are blue, while the right (Conservatives) are red.
In Sweden, where I live, the conservatives are blue, the liberals are light blue, the social democrats are red and the left party is a little bit darker red.
That's news to me. Care to provide a link?
We can read it and make up our mind about what is probably meant. But since court decisions do not always fit into common sense, we can have no certainty that a court will interpret the license the same way that we do. A lawyer usually have court experience, and can with some credibility, at least more than you or me, assert how a court will probably interpret this. Still lawyers are not guaranteed to read it the same way as a court, it is just that the lawyer has a larger probability of understanding it the same way a court would.
And if you need to be a lawer to interpret the GPL draft, then I'm betting "I didn't know" will be an afirmitive defense in any actions on violators. Especialy if the wording doesn't imply it in any way, shape, or form. I mean, how free can you be when you need a team of lawers interpreting the GPL just to use the so caled free software. lol, this is insane.Why would this be insane for the GPL when this is the case for the law? "I didn't know" isn't an affirmative defense in any country I know of. You are required to know the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, why would it be an excuse when dealing with software licenses.
The key is protected by a good passphrase
don't forget to screenlock your machine whenever you step out of sight of itI already do, since I started using *nix in 1998.
Good point. AFAIK, all GNU software is licensed with the "GPLv2 or any later version" clause. Would it be possible for contributors to a GPLv2 fork to license contributions under a "GPLv2 only" license? If possible, such a migration of all changes could be hindered, but if not, the GPLv3 version can (as you said) always have all changes to the GPLv2 fork, but not the other way around. I'd say this almost ensures that the GPLv3 version can stay current with or even ahead of a GPLv2 fork.
I agree, but you forgot one question: How many are anti-GPLv3-zealots? That is: How many will care about staying with GPLv2 so much as to support a fork if/when the gcc project is moved to GPLv3? As you said, which I agree with, most are probably compiler zealots (if there is such a thing, compiler nuts would possibly be a better phrase).
A TCPA-like system that only allows certain approved versions of software already exist in the embedded space. The TiVo is the prime example, as it is one of the main reasons for including the DRM clauses at all. It refuses to run versions of the (free) software that is not signed (approved) by TiVo. This way of locking up free software so that it cannot be modified and made to run on the same device, is what the FSF primarily wants to stop.
I don't think that the FSF would have cared about the Novell-MS deal if it hadn't included the "we will not sue each others' customers" part, as that could empower Microsoft to claim with some credibility that Novell-supplied free software the only "safe" free software. The problem is that this software would hardly be free anymore.
What number of applications do you consider "lots of apps"? Is it at all comparable to the entire suite of GNU software?
Did you miss that Steve Ballmer essentially said exactly that just a few days after the agreement was signed, and that the SUSE distribution is the only distribution safe from Microsoft litigation, as it does not have the "undisclosed balance sheet liability" that the rest of the distributions have? This could be considered an unfair advantage in the marketplace for Novell-supplied distributions of Linux, and could drive a lot of businesses over to Novell from the other distributions.
I guess that's where his problem is. It is possible that he views the hardware as his hardware even after it has been sold to the consumer.
Could you elaborate on what would constitute such a conflict? The only problem with dual-licensing that I see is if you accept contributions without requesting copyright assignment. The problems has already been solved in some way, e.g. by MySQL, although I don't know which method they use.
Sure, since as everyone knows, the only reason to dislike DRM is because you want to pirate software/movies/music/etc.</sarcasm>
That's users who know about the issue. A great manu users (I'm really tempted to say lusers) could not care less about their software freedom or about avoiding lock-in. They don't know the difference between the computer and Windows, and have painfully leared to do the necessary tasks step by step. All they care about is that the interface is pretty with a lot of bells and whistles, so that they can be "Wow:ed".
Are you a lawyer? Because the FSF has lawyers, e.g. Eben Moglen, to make sure that its intentions are correctly spelled out. And that includes spoiling the Novell-Microsoft agreement. If you are not a lawyer, I cannot see how you could assert anything about the yet unpublished GPLv3. The section about spoiling the Novell-Microsoft agreement isn't even in the draft yet.
I think you are wrong, since a module becomes part of the kernel when loaded. If you were right, why would the kernel complain that a non-GPL module taints the kernel?
Not to mention disable password logins altogether, and only allow logins using a key pair (known as public key authentication in SSH terminology). This makes a password guessing attack impossible, and an attacker must either guess (or obtain in another way) your private key, or find a security vulnerability in the software itself. This approach is somewhat more cumbersome to administrate though, but very secure.
So, if you're on trial in Minnesota, you'd better not be using a Mac? Or Linux, since many distributions also include GnuPG.
Conclusion: Use Windows to be safe. It's encryption software is bad enough to not make you go to jail.
That's why we have laws. Do you feel that you have a right to make peoples' computers obey you (using DRM) instead of them? It is not your computer, and you have no right to force it to obey you. If someone infringes your work, take them to court. The court system is made up of hopefully intelligent people, or at least people more intelligent than any DRM system can ever be. People can make reasonable judgements that DRM systems cannot. DRM systems see everything in black or white, with no grey areas, such as copying for your own use (in your car, on your iPod, etc. Demanding that people buy new copies for such uses is just unreasonably greedy.
Now I'm not really sure what you mean with base system, but the ability to run small Linux systems is essential to the embedded market. I have a Linksys NSLU2 that in its default configuration runs Linux off an 8MB flash drive.