Do you really think Nvidia couldn't renegotiate license agreements, work around patent problems, or at least release a data sheet for their cards?
It's all a matter of how desirable it is for them.
If Nouveau became the official xorg driver and was decent enough that people wouldn't rush to replace it, Nvidia most likely find a way to contribute to it to ensure that Nvidia hardware has a good quality driver on Linux.
Nouveau probably won't ever be "complete" since there's always new cards to add support for and that sort of thing. If Nouveau gets good enough and is the default driver they will probably start contributing to it. They would save money on driver development, and continuing their proprietary driver would be a bit pointless since everyone would be using Nouveau.
Until Nouveau gets good, I imagine they'll keep pushing the proprietary driver, though.
I think the FSF intend to argue that Microsoft distributing coupons for Novell Linux is equivalent to distributing Novell Linux themselves.
Whether a judge will agree or disagree with that is yet to be seen, but there is a chance of it going either way, I think.
Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
Not just that, but since the GPL applies only to distributors of GPL'ed software, it is not possible for the GPL to impose that kind of requirement. The GPL is not a EULA and as far as I know, the FSF doubts that EULAs are even enforceable.
Re:question: how hand tying is v3 to the gpl?
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
GPLv4 can set a completely different set of rules.
Note that only the FSF can write new versions of the GPL that can be upgraded to via the "or any later version" clause, though.
They are assuming that, due to their agreement with Novell, Microsoft will end up distributing software under the GPLv3.
The alternatives: 1. Microsoft could break the agreement with Novell. 2. Novell could exclude any GPLv3 software from being included in Novell Linux. This would mean that they would have to maintain their own GPLv2 forks of any essential programs that upgrade to GPLv3.
Re:"Microsoft's lawyers are not stupid...."
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Their agreement with Novell requires them to distribute GPL'ed software, but the GPLv3 will not permit them to do so unless they agree not to use their patents against other GPLv3 software.
You're correct, but I'd just like to also point out that they could just keep using the GPLv2 software they're currently using. All the GPLv3 will do is prevent them from exploiting the community's future work.
Corporations want to have total control over everything they are involved with. This has, from what I've heard, slowed FOSS adoption significantly.
That doesn't make sense. Perhaps you meant to say "FOSS distribution" rather than "FOSS adoption". Free Software is all about giving people and organisations complete control over the software that they use. That's why, if you receive a copy of GPL-licensed software, you are also entitled to the source code of that software. Having the source code ensures you will have complete control over the software that you run.
This is why you should pick a license appropriate for your software. Richard Stallman has actually endorsed the use of BSD-like licenses for Ogg Vorbis libraries since it is in the interests of the community to have such code in use as widely as possible.
The people who don't like it are probably not software developers, or at least not software developers who are currently using the GPL.
Most independent software developers who use the GPL are smart enough to have chosen it for a reason, usually because they agree with the philosophy behind it. Most of those developers, I imagine, will be switching to GPLv3 because the philosophy is the same. It's really just closing loopholes and adding protection from patent lawsuits. It's a great thing for independent Free Software developers.
Actually, whenever the FSF uses source code that they didn't write they request that the author signs copyright over to the FSF. I imagine they don't use the code unless this happens.
They do this to ensure they have the right to do what you are claiming they can't do.
Microsoft does distribute some GPLv2 software. I think it's "Unix Services for Windows", or something like that. In fact, they can keep doing that since it's GPLv2.
What they can't do is distribute GPLv3 software and then expect to use their patents to attack other GPLv3 software developers or distributors. So they probably won't distribute GPLv3 software, but who knows... one day not distributing any GPLv3 software may be a difficult thing for a software company to resist doing.
If every other business lowers their software development costs by going GPL, it would suck to be the last business that hasn't taken advantage of the benefits offered.
In my opinion, Microsoft will eventually give up in this fight. It will certainly be years from now before they do, but I think once day it may make business sense for Microsoft to give up on the proprietary business model.
Actually, the GPL allows you to not share. What it forbids is "half-sharing", where you share an executable but not the source code. You're free to not share anything at all, if you wish.
That's funny. I seem to recall Sun actually looking forward to GPLv3 and that clause specifically. If I recall correctly, they were holding off on releasing some software as Free Software until GPLv3 because they want the extra clauses.
Considering Sun is the #1 contributor to Free Software as far as business contributions go, I'd have to say that you're incorrect about GPLv3 scaring businesses. That's Microsoft FUD or FUD from people who haven't ever liked the GPL in the first place.
Most of GPLv3 is just making explicit things that were already implied in GPLv2, anyway.
This is the license that protects our freedom. I do write some Free Software and I can tell you that I would not bother doing so if it wasn't for the GPL. I'm looking forward to putting all future versions of my software under GPLv3.
The 'next great product' to come out of Redmond will almost certainly be something to either further discredit Free Software / Open Source / Linux. Anything to drive people to Windows and away from Linux and GPL software in particular.
I disagree. I think their current strategy on this is going to be denying the existence of Free Software and keeping the media as quiet as possible about it. Every time Microsoft attacks Free Software (usually "Linux") there ends up being lots of news stories about it, as there recently was when they made that recent patent threat. Every time one of those stories gets published, it ends up looking like they're a bit scared of Linux being decent competition.
My bet is that they're going to push proprietary file formats as hard as possible and deny the existence of Free Software. If they do mention Free Software or Linux, they will have thought of something really, really nasty to say.
Why are you kidding? That's actually a very good point, I think.
If GNU/Linux was the only operating system that had applications like Firefox, OpenOffice, VLC, and so on, I think it would be a much more attractive option than Windows is. Yet, we've ported some of our best applications to the proprietary Windows platform, and as a consequence of this there is less incentive for Windows users to become users of Free Software operating systems.
I'm not necessarily saying that these ports shouldn't take place, but I think we should be aware of the fact that porting a great application to Windows does lessen the incentive for Windows users to make the switch.
You sound like a Windows user. Have you ever tried installing software in Ubuntu? This is one of the areas where Free Software is far, far ahead of what Windows currently has.
I actually see the current state of things in the US as a loophole. As long as the government outsources their spying, they can go unregulated. They can subpoena companies at any time and gain access to any data that those companies have.
As far as I know, they risk losing the relevant patents this way. I don't have a link, but I think Bruce Perens explained this on his blog/website once? My memory is a bit hazy on that, sorry if I'm incorrect.
I think Microsoft has a moral obligation to do this now. If they were to wait until the developing world depended heavily on Windows before they slammed them down and started enforcing their copyrights, that would be quite a nasty surprise.
This way retailers know how it is going to be now and in the future.
Your shouldn't say that like a question. If Windows is too costly, their only choice is Linux.
They should have seen this coming. Microsoft always tracks down retailers offering unofficial copies of their software and even offers official copies or rewards to people who dob in such retailers.
If they wanted to avoid trouble with the law, they could have just installed Ubuntu. Yes, their customers might prefer Windows, but Ubuntu is the only legal option that they are free to install.
I agree that the Vorbis codec should be switched to. I was arguing that MP3 is better than MP4 and WMA. Vorbis (for lossy) and FLAC (for lossless) are, of course, the preferred options.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you really think Nvidia couldn't renegotiate license agreements, work around patent problems, or at least release a data sheet for their cards?
It's all a matter of how desirable it is for them.
If Nouveau became the official xorg driver and was decent enough that people wouldn't rush to replace it, Nvidia most likely find a way to contribute to it to ensure that Nvidia hardware has a good quality driver on Linux.
Nouveau probably won't ever be "complete" since there's always new cards to add support for and that sort of thing. If Nouveau gets good enough and is the default driver they will probably start contributing to it. They would save money on driver development, and continuing their proprietary driver would be a bit pointless since everyone would be using Nouveau.
Until Nouveau gets good, I imagine they'll keep pushing the proprietary driver, though.
I think the FSF intend to argue that Microsoft distributing coupons for Novell Linux is equivalent to distributing Novell Linux themselves.
Whether a judge will agree or disagree with that is yet to be seen, but there is a chance of it going either way, I think.
Not just that, but since the GPL applies only to distributors of GPL'ed software, it is not possible for the GPL to impose that kind of requirement. The GPL is not a EULA and as far as I know, the FSF doubts that EULAs are even enforceable.
GPLv4 can set a completely different set of rules.
Note that only the FSF can write new versions of the GPL that can be upgraded to via the "or any later version" clause, though.
They are assuming that, due to their agreement with Novell, Microsoft will end up distributing software under the GPLv3.
The alternatives:
1. Microsoft could break the agreement with Novell.
2. Novell could exclude any GPLv3 software from being included in Novell Linux. This would mean that they would have to maintain their own GPLv2 forks of any essential programs that upgrade to GPLv3.
Their agreement with Novell requires them to distribute GPL'ed software, but the GPLv3 will not permit them to do so unless they agree not to use their patents against other GPLv3 software.
You're correct, but I'd just like to also point out that they could just keep using the GPLv2 software they're currently using. All the GPLv3 will do is prevent them from exploiting the community's future work.
Corporations want to have total control over everything they are involved with. This has, from what I've heard, slowed FOSS adoption significantly.
That doesn't make sense. Perhaps you meant to say "FOSS distribution" rather than "FOSS adoption". Free Software is all about giving people and organisations complete control over the software that they use. That's why, if you receive a copy of GPL-licensed software, you are also entitled to the source code of that software. Having the source code ensures you will have complete control over the software that you run.
This is why you should pick a license appropriate for your software. Richard Stallman has actually endorsed the use of BSD-like licenses for Ogg Vorbis libraries since it is in the interests of the community to have such code in use as widely as possible.
The people who don't like it are probably not software developers, or at least not software developers who are currently using the GPL.
Most independent software developers who use the GPL are smart enough to have chosen it for a reason, usually because they agree with the philosophy behind it. Most of those developers, I imagine, will be switching to GPLv3 because the philosophy is the same. It's really just closing loopholes and adding protection from patent lawsuits. It's a great thing for independent Free Software developers.
Actually, whenever the FSF uses source code that they didn't write they request that the author signs copyright over to the FSF. I imagine they don't use the code unless this happens.
They do this to ensure they have the right to do what you are claiming they can't do.
Microsoft does distribute some GPLv2 software. I think it's "Unix Services for Windows", or something like that. In fact, they can keep doing that since it's GPLv2.
What they can't do is distribute GPLv3 software and then expect to use their patents to attack other GPLv3 software developers or distributors. So they probably won't distribute GPLv3 software, but who knows... one day not distributing any GPLv3 software may be a difficult thing for a software company to resist doing.
If every other business lowers their software development costs by going GPL, it would suck to be the last business that hasn't taken advantage of the benefits offered.
In my opinion, Microsoft will eventually give up in this fight. It will certainly be years from now before they do, but I think once day it may make business sense for Microsoft to give up on the proprietary business model.
Actually, the GPL allows you to not share. What it forbids is "half-sharing", where you share an executable but not the source code. You're free to not share anything at all, if you wish.
The patent thing is going to backfire big time.
That's funny. I seem to recall Sun actually looking forward to GPLv3 and that clause specifically. If I recall correctly, they were holding off on releasing some software as Free Software until GPLv3 because they want the extra clauses.
Considering Sun is the #1 contributor to Free Software as far as business contributions go, I'd have to say that you're incorrect about GPLv3 scaring businesses. That's Microsoft FUD or FUD from people who haven't ever liked the GPL in the first place.
Most of GPLv3 is just making explicit things that were already implied in GPLv2, anyway.
This is the license that protects our freedom. I do write some Free Software and I can tell you that I would not bother doing so if it wasn't for the GPL. I'm looking forward to putting all future versions of my software under GPLv3.
The 'next great product' to come out of Redmond will almost certainly be something to either further discredit Free Software / Open Source / Linux. Anything to drive people to Windows and away from Linux and GPL software in particular.
I disagree. I think their current strategy on this is going to be denying the existence of Free Software and keeping the media as quiet as possible about it. Every time Microsoft attacks Free Software (usually "Linux") there ends up being lots of news stories about it, as there recently was when they made that recent patent threat. Every time one of those stories gets published, it ends up looking like they're a bit scared of Linux being decent competition.
My bet is that they're going to push proprietary file formats as hard as possible and deny the existence of Free Software. If they do mention Free Software or Linux, they will have thought of something really, really nasty to say.
Why are you kidding? That's actually a very good point, I think.
If GNU/Linux was the only operating system that had applications like Firefox, OpenOffice, VLC, and so on, I think it would be a much more attractive option than Windows is. Yet, we've ported some of our best applications to the proprietary Windows platform, and as a consequence of this there is less incentive for Windows users to become users of Free Software operating systems.
I'm not necessarily saying that these ports shouldn't take place, but I think we should be aware of the fact that porting a great application to Windows does lessen the incentive for Windows users to make the switch.
You sound like a Windows user. Have you ever tried installing software in Ubuntu? This is one of the areas where Free Software is far, far ahead of what Windows currently has.
I actually see the current state of things in the US as a loophole. As long as the government outsources their spying, they can go unregulated. They can subpoena companies at any time and gain access to any data that those companies have.
As far as I know, they risk losing the relevant patents this way. I don't have a link, but I think Bruce Perens explained this on his blog/website once? My memory is a bit hazy on that, sorry if I'm incorrect.
Sorry, I meant Linux (and some other free operating systems) are their only option.
I think Microsoft has a moral obligation to do this now. If they were to wait until the developing world depended heavily on Windows before they slammed them down and started enforcing their copyrights, that would be quite a nasty surprise.
This way retailers know how it is going to be now and in the future.
Your shouldn't say that like a question. If Windows is too costly, their only choice is Linux.
They should have seen this coming. Microsoft always tracks down retailers offering unofficial copies of their software and even offers official copies or rewards to people who dob in such retailers.
If they wanted to avoid trouble with the law, they could have just installed Ubuntu. Yes, their customers might prefer Windows, but Ubuntu is the only legal option that they are free to install.
I agree that the Vorbis codec should be switched to. I was arguing that MP3 is better than MP4 and WMA. Vorbis (for lossy) and FLAC (for lossless) are, of course, the preferred options.