They are going to say, "Why should some long hairs from Massachussets be able to disrupt my data center?
Because you use their software, and your distributor have creatively sidestepped the license that this code is released under.
I'm going to go with a product where there are market forces in place to give me some stability.
Such as a monopoly. Fine, but don't come howling to me when Microsoft decides it is time for another round in the treadmill.
FSF's goal is that no one sells code.
Did you even read the license? Selling GPL software is fine, you just have to provide the source, and the source has to be licensed under the GPL too.
But I've never thought GPL was "free". If your software is free, let me do whatever I want with it. Seriously. Don't tie in clauses preventing certain uses that go against your morals. If it's free, let it be free. Otherwise call it what it is, but don't use the word "free" to do that, since it's clearly not free in a "free to use however you want" way.
And no country is free, because we are not free to kill other people. The GPL is free, in the sense that those restrictions it applies only serve to ensure the continued freedom of the program, including derivative works. The BSD is more free in that you can do almost anything you want with such code, but it is less free in that derivative works do not have to be free.
So what you're saying is that the community should shed all those irritating principles so that it can enter the limelight for a while?
I'd say that if you show the world that you are ready to appease those that try to sidestep the rules that you have set for your code, there will be an endless stream of other people that will take advantage of your willingness to be buttfucked. You might be willing to bend over, but not everyone is.
The four freedoms apply, and the license cannot be revoked for existing code. What this is all about is that future releases of GNU software may be released under a license that prohibits deals like the Novell-Microsoft agreement. Novell may thus be unable to distribute future releases of GNU software, which would have serious repercussions for their ability to maintain their Linux distribution.
What should they say? They have already said everything there is to say about the case. They are quiet on it now, but they have been much more vocal in the past. Right now, they, like everybody else, are just waiting for the case to reach the dustbin.
There could be problems for them to forget such a pledge. There is a legal term called promissory estoppel, and that may apply if they choose to "forget" the patent pledge. But IANAL...
I use Free Software because I like it being free; and I write and improve it because I want it to be helpful to others as well. If my Free Software can be used by a third party (in this case FSF) to punish a fourth party on (mostly) political grounds... well this is disheartening to say the least. Even if they find a legally valid way to do it, they are at the same time negating the very essence of Free Software.
If you retain copyright to your code, the FSF cannot do anything about it. The FSF is simply considering to use the software that they own copyrights for to try to disrupt Novell for signing the agreement with Microsoft. If you prefer the GPLv2, it is not going away, and you can continue to use it even after the GPLv3 is finalized.
To sum it up: The FSF is free to change the license on future releases of software that they own copyrights for. They can not use your code to punish Novell.
I think the danger here is that Redhat may soon become a GNU/Linux monopoly.
Red Hat? I sure use Red Hat, or rather Fedora and CentOS, but around me everyone is singing Ubuntu, Ubuntu, Ubuntu. I'd rather think that the one in danger of becoming a "monopoly" is Ubuntu, and its derivatives. Anytime you mention that you use Red Hat, a bunch of people invariably ask why you are not using Ubuntu instead, and then starts to sing the Ubuntu song.
He cannot make the kernel GPLv3 even if he wanted to. There are a lot of contributors, and all copyright holders have to agree to change the license on their parts to GPLv3, or there can be no change. The alternative is stripping out the parts from those that resist a license change and rewrite them, but that could be a very large task with little or no gain.
So if you answered yes to Q1 and Q2, its not a case of IF theres patent infractions, its a case of THERE ARE patent infractions.
No, it's not. Nobody knows if there are patent infringements until a court says so. That's why OSRM said that Linux might infringe on these patents. You can still trust them without admitting any patent infringement in Linux.
To me it would look like Novell believes that MS has a lot of Novell IP in their software. The flow of payments make that appear even more so.
To me, the flow of money just indicates that the ability to claim that Microsoft patents are infringed in Linux are of great value to Microsoft, and the agreement increases the credibility of their claims. Microsoft pays for the ability to say that "Linux infringes our IP, and Novell agrees". Microsoft can argue that Novell signed the agreement in part because they recognize that Microsoft IP is infringed in Linux. Why would they otherwise do this?
Of course, Novell could have signed this agreement even if those Microsoft claims were baseless, since it gives them a lot of money, and also creates a belief that Novell F/OSS is safe F/OSS while their F/OSS competitors provide unsafe F/OSS, which would give them an edge in the marketplace.
Of course the CP is for copying files. And the kernels I use have it there when I download and istall the it.
You mean that your kernel source contains the source of cp, to use our previous example? I just checked the source of the latest vanilla kernel (2.6.19.2) and it is nowhere to be found.
It is that simple, the GPLv3 forces the inclusion of all system libraries in the source release for coresponding code.
And you conveniently just happened to not read the following?
The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, except its System Libraries, and except general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work.
IANAL (are you?), but I interpret that as "cp and other generally available free tools, such as gcc, gmake, etc, does not have to be included in the source code".
It attempts to convey it license coverage to the license of the libraries and it is in conflict with the GPLv2.
I really don't understand what you mean. The kernel is and will stay GPLv2, and thus it will not be bound by this paragraph, regardless of interpretation.
You cannot further restric the licensed stuff covered by GPLv2. It becomes incompatible. So in essence, you build something based one a GPLv2 work and release it GPLv3, you are violating the GPLv2 license. You don't believe me?
In this, I agree. The GPLv3 will add new restrictions that cannot be accepted by the GPLv2, and code licensed under the GPLv2 but doesn't include the "or a later version" part (such as the kernel) cannot be used in a GPLv3 program.
Now, if novel can't distribute the tool chain because it is going GPLv3 and their not changing from gplv2, then I don't see how anyone can.
Why? The reason why Novell would not be able to distribute GPLv3 code is because of the patent agreement with Microsoft. Because the patent license provided by Microsoft to Novell's customers is non-redistributable, Novell runs afoul of the requirement that Novell's customers must be able to freely redistribute the patent license to everyone that they redistribute code to. Those that don't have such a patent agreement will not fall afoul of this part, and can continue to distribute the software.
Microsoft and Novell have agreed not to sue each other over patent violations.
Nitpick: No, they have not. They have agreed not to sue each others' customers, essentially providing a (non-redistributable) patent license to each other's customers. They can still sue each other. As far as I understand, this is the reason why the agreement does not fall afoul of the patent license clause in the GPLv2.
I wonder why GPLv2 isn't considered sufficient to block the Novell-Microsoft deal, while GPLv3 will be.
I guess (IANAL) that it might be because the patent license is not given from Novell to their customers, but directly from Microsoft to Novell's customers. This does not seem to be covered by the patent license wording in the GPLv2, while it will be in the GPLv3.
Last time I used Redhat(AS 4), you couldn't do that.
You have obviously not used Yum. It is used in Fedora Core, CentOS and is going to be in RHEL5, which is due out this month. It provides the same function as Apt, such as resolving dependencies and downloading packages if necessary. As far as I understand, Apt does not provide support for multiple architectures, which Yum does.
The problem is still getting linux set up, not using it.
The fsf website states that you are allowed to sell GNU software as long as you don't restrict usagem and either give out the source with binaries or give the source out upon request.
Whether Novell is in violation is unclear, what is clear is that Novell is using a creative interpretation of the GPLv2, which was certainly not intended by the FSF when they wrote it.
Selling GNU software isn't the problem. It is the patent agreement that is the problem, essentially stating that Novell-supplied F/OSS is the only safe (from Microsoft-initiated patent litigation) F/OSS, and that other F/OSS (such as GNU software downloaded from the GNU website) is unsafe F/OSS (you risk being sued by Microsoft for patent infringement).
You cannot be friends with microsoft and us at the same time. So we don't like you anymore if your going to hang out with Microsoft. Whats it going to be novel, Us or them". It is sad really.
I can't see why the should be friendly with Microsoft. Novell signed an agreement with Microsoft that enabled Microsoft to claim with increased credibility that Linux (and possibly other F/OSS) violates Microsoft patents. It has the power to make the rest of the F/OSS community second rate citizens, since the only supplier of F/OSS without a patent threat would be Novell. I can hardly see why the FSF would be friendly with Novell after such a backstabbing.
Oh, by the way: I cannot see why forking the kernel would be of any importance. The kernel can stay GPLv2 while the userland software is migrated to the GPLv3. It would work just fine, except for Novell, who would not be able to use the GPLv3 versions of the userland software.
Then that tool chain won't be in the linux kernel any more and the kernel will have to fork those projects.
The toolchain isn't in the kernel, and it never was. Do you even know what is meant by the toolchain? The toolchain means the GNU tools, such as gcc, ld, libtool, automake, autoconf, etc. You might also include the coreutils and other userspace tools into the term.
You obviously haven't got the faintest idea about what you are talking about.
The point is, when i download a kernel, it is distributed with CP and everything else.
It is?
When I comile it and have a working kernel, CP is there.
So you have a special version of cp that somehow exists inside the kernel?
Just for your information, the cp that the GP is referring to is the userspace program for copying files. It has nothing to do with the kernel, except using the standard syscall interface that all other applications use. Having a GPLv2 kernel and GPLv3 GNU software on the same system will be fine, just as it is completely fine having proprietary software on a system with a GPLv2 kernel.
I'm sure they are. This might get them out of the spotlight for some time, making people with only short-term memories forget about the HP spying on the board case.
Why is Redhat(at least the enterprise edition) still using the same craptastic package manager they've been using for the last 15 years?
What is it that you think is sooo bad with rpm, that other package managers have solved so well? Don't come to me with apt vs rpm, because that is just plain wrong. Compare yum with apt, and rpm with dpkg.
But of course, there could be a little bit of NIH Syndrome.
I love linux, but it isn't ready for prime time, it's just not, and if you really think that having to pay for Windows would mean that people would use linux, you're insane. Would your parents be able to use linux? How about your grandparents?
Yes, they would all be able to use Linux. They may not be able to complete administrative tasks, but they don't do that on Windows either. I would have to provide them with support for Linux, but I already do that for them with their Windows admin tasks.
Actually, before I moved away to omy own apartment, the family computer ran a dual-boot system, and when they wanted to view some video clip that Windows Media Player could not handle, they booted Linux and used MPLayer to view it instead. And this was more than five years ago. Linux is a lot easier now.
Slashdot Mirror
Duh! It hasn't got the graphics subsystem integrated into the kernel. :)
But you spelled LSD wrong, so it wasn't as much fun as it could have been. :(
Because you use their software, and your distributor have creatively sidestepped the license that this code is released under.
I'm going to go with a product where there are market forces in place to give me some stability.Such as a monopoly. Fine, but don't come howling to me when Microsoft decides it is time for another round in the treadmill.
FSF's goal is that no one sells code.Did you even read the license? Selling GPL software is fine, you just have to provide the source, and the source has to be licensed under the GPL too.
But I've never thought GPL was "free". If your software is free, let me do whatever I want with it. Seriously. Don't tie in clauses preventing certain uses that go against your morals. If it's free, let it be free. Otherwise call it what it is, but don't use the word "free" to do that, since it's clearly not free in a "free to use however you want" way.And no country is free, because we are not free to kill other people. The GPL is free, in the sense that those restrictions it applies only serve to ensure the continued freedom of the program, including derivative works. The BSD is more free in that you can do almost anything you want with such code, but it is less free in that derivative works do not have to be free.
So what you're saying is that the community should shed all those irritating principles so that it can enter the limelight for a while?
I'd say that if you show the world that you are ready to appease those that try to sidestep the rules that you have set for your code, there will be an endless stream of other people that will take advantage of your willingness to be buttfucked. You might be willing to bend over, but not everyone is.
The four freedoms apply, and the license cannot be revoked for existing code. What this is all about is that future releases of GNU software may be released under a license that prohibits deals like the Novell-Microsoft agreement. Novell may thus be unable to distribute future releases of GNU software, which would have serious repercussions for their ability to maintain their Linux distribution.
What should they say? They have already said everything there is to say about the case. They are quiet on it now, but they have been much more vocal in the past. Right now, they, like everybody else, are just waiting for the case to reach the dustbin.
Some people seem to be ready to accept any transgression, arguing that trying to stop it would generate negative PR.
Good analogy, by the way.
There could be problems for them to forget such a pledge. There is a legal term called promissory estoppel, and that may apply if they choose to "forget" the patent pledge. But IANAL...
If you retain copyright to your code, the FSF cannot do anything about it. The FSF is simply considering to use the software that they own copyrights for to try to disrupt Novell for signing the agreement with Microsoft. If you prefer the GPLv2, it is not going away, and you can continue to use it even after the GPLv3 is finalized.
To sum it up: The FSF is free to change the license on future releases of software that they own copyrights for. They can not use your code to punish Novell.
Red Hat? I sure use Red Hat, or rather Fedora and CentOS, but around me everyone is singing Ubuntu, Ubuntu, Ubuntu. I'd rather think that the one in danger of becoming a "monopoly" is Ubuntu, and its derivatives. Anytime you mention that you use Red Hat, a bunch of people invariably ask why you are not using Ubuntu instead, and then starts to sing the Ubuntu song.
He cannot make the kernel GPLv3 even if he wanted to. There are a lot of contributors, and all copyright holders have to agree to change the license on their parts to GPLv3, or there can be no change. The alternative is stripping out the parts from those that resist a license change and rewrite them, but that could be a very large task with little or no gain.
IBM uses SUSE IIRC. We just received a big new IBM computer, and guess what, it came with SUSE.
No, it's not. Nobody knows if there are patent infringements until a court says so. That's why OSRM said that Linux might infringe on these patents. You can still trust them without admitting any patent infringement in Linux.
To me, the flow of money just indicates that the ability to claim that Microsoft patents are infringed in Linux are of great value to Microsoft, and the agreement increases the credibility of their claims. Microsoft pays for the ability to say that "Linux infringes our IP, and Novell agrees". Microsoft can argue that Novell signed the agreement in part because they recognize that Microsoft IP is infringed in Linux. Why would they otherwise do this?
Of course, Novell could have signed this agreement even if those Microsoft claims were baseless, since it gives them a lot of money, and also creates a belief that Novell F/OSS is safe F/OSS while their F/OSS competitors provide unsafe F/OSS, which would give them an edge in the marketplace.
You mean that your kernel source contains the source of cp, to use our previous example? I just checked the source of the latest vanilla kernel (2.6.19.2) and it is nowhere to be found.
It is that simple, the GPLv3 forces the inclusion of all system libraries in the source release for coresponding code.And you conveniently just happened to not read the following?
The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, except its System Libraries, and except general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work.IANAL (are you?), but I interpret that as "cp and other generally available free tools, such as gcc, gmake, etc, does not have to be included in the source code".
It attempts to convey it license coverage to the license of the libraries and it is in conflict with the GPLv2.I really don't understand what you mean. The kernel is and will stay GPLv2, and thus it will not be bound by this paragraph, regardless of interpretation.
You cannot further restric the licensed stuff covered by GPLv2. It becomes incompatible. So in essence, you build something based one a GPLv2 work and release it GPLv3, you are violating the GPLv2 license. You don't believe me?In this, I agree. The GPLv3 will add new restrictions that cannot be accepted by the GPLv2, and code licensed under the GPLv2 but doesn't include the "or a later version" part (such as the kernel) cannot be used in a GPLv3 program.
Now, if novel can't distribute the tool chain because it is going GPLv3 and their not changing from gplv2, then I don't see how anyone can.Why? The reason why Novell would not be able to distribute GPLv3 code is because of the patent agreement with Microsoft. Because the patent license provided by Microsoft to Novell's customers is non-redistributable, Novell runs afoul of the requirement that Novell's customers must be able to freely redistribute the patent license to everyone that they redistribute code to. Those that don't have such a patent agreement will not fall afoul of this part, and can continue to distribute the software.
Nitpick: No, they have not. They have agreed not to sue each others' customers, essentially providing a (non-redistributable) patent license to each other's customers. They can still sue each other. As far as I understand, this is the reason why the agreement does not fall afoul of the patent license clause in the GPLv2.
I guess (IANAL) that it might be because the patent license is not given from Novell to their customers, but directly from Microsoft to Novell's customers. This does not seem to be covered by the patent license wording in the GPLv2, while it will be in the GPLv3.
You have obviously not used Yum. It is used in Fedora Core, CentOS and is going to be in RHEL5, which is due out this month. It provides the same function as Apt, such as resolving dependencies and downloading packages if necessary. As far as I understand, Apt does not provide support for multiple architectures, which Yum does.
The problem is still getting linux set up, not using it.I agree.
How are they violating the GPL?
The fsf website states that you are allowed to sell GNU software as long as you don't restrict usagem and either give out the source with binaries or give the source out upon request.
Whether Novell is in violation is unclear, what is clear is that Novell is using a creative interpretation of the GPLv2, which was certainly not intended by the FSF when they wrote it.
Selling GNU software isn't the problem. It is the patent agreement that is the problem, essentially stating that Novell-supplied F/OSS is the only safe (from Microsoft-initiated patent litigation) F/OSS, and that other F/OSS (such as GNU software downloaded from the GNU website) is unsafe F/OSS (you risk being sued by Microsoft for patent infringement).
I can't see why the should be friendly with Microsoft. Novell signed an agreement with Microsoft that enabled Microsoft to claim with increased credibility that Linux (and possibly other F/OSS) violates Microsoft patents. It has the power to make the rest of the F/OSS community second rate citizens, since the only supplier of F/OSS without a patent threat would be Novell. I can hardly see why the FSF would be friendly with Novell after such a backstabbing.
Oh, by the way: I cannot see why forking the kernel would be of any importance. The kernel can stay GPLv2 while the userland software is migrated to the GPLv3. It would work just fine, except for Novell, who would not be able to use the GPLv3 versions of the userland software.
Get a clue!
Then that tool chain won't be in the linux kernel any more and the kernel will have to fork those projects.The toolchain isn't in the kernel, and it never was. Do you even know what is meant by the toolchain? The toolchain means the GNU tools, such as gcc, ld, libtool, automake, autoconf, etc. You might also include the coreutils and other userspace tools into the term.
You obviously haven't got the faintest idea about what you are talking about.
The point is, when i download a kernel, it is distributed with CP and everything else.It is?
When I comile it and have a working kernel, CP is there.So you have a special version of cp that somehow exists inside the kernel?
Just for your information, the cp that the GP is referring to is the userspace program for copying files. It has nothing to do with the kernel, except using the standard syscall interface that all other applications use. Having a GPLv2 kernel and GPLv3 GNU software on the same system will be fine, just as it is completely fine having proprietary software on a system with a GPLv2 kernel.
No, it makes them the Coalition of the willing. :)
I'm sure they are. This might get them out of the spotlight for some time, making people with only short-term memories forget about the HP spying on the board case.
What is it that you think is sooo bad with rpm, that other package managers have solved so well? Don't come to me with apt vs rpm, because that is just plain wrong. Compare yum with apt, and rpm with dpkg.
But of course, there could be a little bit of NIH Syndrome.
I love linux, but it isn't ready for prime time, it's just not, and if you really think that having to pay for Windows would mean that people would use linux, you're insane. Would your parents be able to use linux? How about your grandparents?Yes, they would all be able to use Linux. They may not be able to complete administrative tasks, but they don't do that on Windows either. I would have to provide them with support for Linux, but I already do that for them with their Windows admin tasks.
Actually, before I moved away to omy own apartment, the family computer ran a dual-boot system, and when they wanted to view some video clip that Windows Media Player could not handle, they booted Linux and used MPLayer to view it instead. And this was more than five years ago. Linux is a lot easier now.