Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 17th Nov 2006 13:03 UTC, submitted by Think4 Myself
GNU, GPL, Open Source The potentially historic Microsoft-Novell pact announced last week, whereby Microsoft would grant patent peace to users of Novell's Suse Linux software in exchange for royalty payments paid by Novell to Microsoft, will be dead by mid-March, promises Eben Moglen, the general counsel of the Free Software Foundation. The FSF controls the license that governs the distribution of Linux and many other key forms of free and open-source software. "It will surely violate GPL version 3," said Moglen, referring to the forthcoming version. "GPL version 3 will be adjusted so the effect of the current deal is that Microsoft will by giving away access to the very patents Microsoft is trying to assert."
Order by: Score:
I fail to see...
by Marcellus on Fri 17th Nov 2006 13:57 UTC
Marcellus
Member since:
2005-08-26

...how they can do anything about the current deal without making sure that companies won't touch GPLv3 stuff even with pliers.

Reply Score: 4

RE: I fail to see...
by Maners on Fri 17th Nov 2006 14:07 UTC in reply to "I fail to see..."
Maners Member since:
2005-07-26

It's simple. Most of the software included in GNU/Linux distributions is licensed under GPL 2 or later. It's enough that GCC and Glibc gets updated to GPL3. Novell will only be able to fork it and maintain themselves which is way to much for a single company to handle it on its own.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I fail to see...
by aent on Fri 17th Nov 2006 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE: I fail to see..."
aent Member since:
2006-01-25

Yeah. Companies have never been able to maintain anything as complex as a compiler or core library, let alone building an entire operating system. (my eyes, they roll)

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: I fail to see...
by Maners on Fri 17th Nov 2006 17:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I fail to see..."
Maners Member since:
2005-07-26

If you add tons of other libraries and tools that compose a complete GNU/Linux distribution it becomes a really hard to maintan piece of code, espetially if community made significant improvemnts to subsequent official versions that are GPLv3 and cannot be ported back to GPLv2 tree legally.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I fail to see...
by Ookaze on Fri 17th Nov 2006 14:13 UTC in reply to "I fail to see..."
Ookaze Member since:
2005-11-14

...how they can do anything about the current deal without making sure that companies won't touch GPLv3 stuff even with pliers

Simple.
Most GNU software will be GPLv3. When people were calling the OS GNU/Linux, that wasn't zealotry like lots of people wanted you to believe.
Because without the GNU software, your Linux OS just won't work at all, or won't be a Free OS anymore.
So if you're a distro maker, you can be sure that you will have to use GPLv3 in your OS.
As for the deal, they never could do anything about it. That's on the outcome of the deal that the GPL can play.
And the outcome is what matters.

Now, contrary to what you say, if we'd believe Novell, companies WANT GPLv3 at all costs, as it will allow them to use supposed/FUD MS patents in GPL products.
As Novell say they do all of this for the greater good of FOSS community, I think they'll be really happy for us too.
The only one I see that would not be pleased is MS. But didn't they do this for the greater good of FOSS users too ? So it's a win-win for everybody.
Or will you be able to tell me that MS did this to harm us (who didn't do anything to them) and so is a true evil company ?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: I fail to see...
by Marcellus on Fri 17th Nov 2006 17:48 UTC in reply to "RE: I fail to see..."
Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

Most GNU software will be GPLv3.

The same software is already GPLv2. The "or later" part doesn't mean that the software will automatically no longer be v2 licensed.

So if you're a distro maker, you can be sure that you will have to use GPLv3 in your OS.

That'll be kinda hard since there are tons of software that is GPLv2 only, and with v3's additional restrictions the two licenses are incompatible. What do you think will happen? Distros rewriting everything that is v2 only into v3 compatible code, or stick to what exists already?

Companies may have wanted GPLv3, but that was before Moglen's idea of another viral clause. If it's added or not remains to be seen, but don't be surprised when GPLv3 support diminishes if it is.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I fail to see...
by b3timmons on Fri 17th Nov 2006 19:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I fail to see..."
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

That'll be kinda hard since there are tons of software that is GPLv2 only

Linux kernel, busybox, what else?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: I fail to see...
by pepa on Sat 18th Nov 2006 00:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I fail to see..."
pepa Member since:
2005-07-08

Kernel and busybox, that's an interesting coincidence... Very convenient for companies that want to embed Linux and Tivoize it. Hmm...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I fail to see...
by hal2k1 on Sat 18th Nov 2006 05:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I fail to see..."
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//Most GNU software will be GPLv3.

The same software is already GPLv2. The "or later" part doesn't mean that the software will automatically no longer be v2 licensed. //

You are correct that it doesn't mean that the software will automatically no longer be v2 licensed.

However, I think you misunderstand the original point.

The original point was about "Most GNU software".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU
"The GNU General Public License (GPL), the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) were written for GNU, but are also used by many unrelated projects."

The GNU project is the birthplace of the GPL. GNU software is essentially the baby of the FSF. If any software at all will go GPL3, at least all of GNU will.

BTW, there is no Linux system without GNU:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU#GNU_software
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GNU_packages

That means if Novell/SLED are not compatible with GNU under GPL3, then it will be stuck at the last GPL2 version. It will work OK, but it will stagnate.

Novell won't be able to maintain all that on their own. This deal will be the death of SuSe, unless Novell back off soon.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I fail to see...
by codehead78 on Sat 18th Nov 2006 01:53 UTC in reply to "I fail to see..."
codehead78 Member since:
2006-08-04

I'm just wondering what MS can scare the FSF into doing next.

Edited 2006-11-18 01:54

Reply Score: 1

Nobody cares except the hippies
by Don Grayson on Fri 17th Nov 2006 17:29 UTC
Don Grayson
Member since:
2006-01-01

GPLv3??? Linus is against it and so are the majority of the kernel developers. I haven't heard one commercial distro that's keen on the license and commercial developers who use tools like GTK aren't going to be amused if they go v3, so pretty much it's going to be confined to Debian using the GPLv3 and everybody else forking off any necessary GNU tools.

Reply Score: 4

h times nue equals e Member since:
2006-01-21

<sarcasm mode="on">
yes, those

Java using and Sun bathing [1]
Samba dancing [2]

Hippies lurking in the GPLv3 drafting commitee [3]

</sarcasm>

[1]http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/83085/suns-schwartz-hints-at-gplv3-for-...
[2]http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/29/17
[3]http://gplv3.fsf.org/discussion-committees

Ever bothered to actually look who is saying what in this discussion ?

Reply Score: 2

b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

GPLv3??? Linus is against it and so are the majority of the kernel developers. I haven't heard one commercial distro that's keen on the license and commercial developers who use tools like GTK aren't going to be amused if they go v3, so pretty much it's going to be confined to Debian using the GPLv3 and everybody else forking off any necessary GNU tools.

You seem hopeful. Consider some safer claims.

Linux is licensed under "GPLv2 only". Only thirty kernel developers were represented in an informal poll preferring v2 over v3. Only a minority of those could put their names on a (gratuitous) statement against v3. Are there only 59 kernel developers? Your claim about "the majority" of kernel developers is simply unsupported, a case of wishful thinking.

If Linus is so against GPLv3, please explain the following snippet from an interview he had less than two months ago, following the fallout from the release of the anti-GPL statement:

At the same time, he suggests that his opposition may have been distorted or exaggerated. "GPLv3 is not 'evil,'" he says. "It just doesn't stand up to the great licenses out there, like the GPLv2."

Your comments about commercial development simply ignore the events that have played out in the past few weeks. "Confined to Debian": how do you come up with such nonsense?

Reply Score: 2

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

At the same time, he suggests that his opposition may have been distorted or exaggerated. "GPLv3 is not 'evil,'" he says. "It just doesn't stand up to the great licenses out there, like the GPLv2."

And you consider that to be a rousing endorsement of GPLv3?

I don't know how Torvalds can get more explicit than this (http://news.com.com/Torvalds+No+GPL+3+for+Linux/2100-7344_3-6031504...):

"Conversion isn't going to happen," Torvalds said in a posting to the Linux kernel mailing list. "I don't think the GPL v3 conversion is going to happen for the kernel, since I personally don't want to convert any of my code."

Reply Score: 2

b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

And you consider that to be a rousing endorsement of GPLv3?

People like black and white, for and against. I was pointing the grey out. Look at the record: Torvalds does not like to speak out that much. His was a positive claim of exaggerated opposition--he felt the need to say that.

The fact is, his position has been distorted and over-simplified by some to further their own agendas. Where is my error or distortion?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Nobody cares except the hippies
by sadyc on Mon 20th Nov 2006 11:05 UTC in reply to "Nobody cares except the hippies"
sadyc Member since:
2005-11-10

GPLv3??? Linus is against it and so are the majority of the kernel developers. I haven't heard one commercial distro that's keen on the license and commercial developers who use tools like GTK aren't going to be amused if they go v3, so pretty much it's going to be confined to Debian using the GPLv3 and everybody else forking off any necessary GNU tools.

An OS is more than a kernel and high level applications/frameworks. A very important part is the toolchain and standard library (libc) that will probably both go GPLv3. The basic core utilities (including the shell) and a lot of other libraries are again another important part of a Linux OS; and they are from GNU and will go GPLv3 too.
Also consider that a lot of distributions are based on Debian, and depend on it. Why will those distributions fork all that code? They have no benefit and also are not affected by license change.
So.. the chance that there will be a major fork is small. Everybody wants to benefit from the work of the others, that's why they are in this "game" already.

Edited 2006-11-20 11:16

Reply Score: 1

So much for "free"dom
by NotParker on Fri 17th Nov 2006 18:34 UTC
NotParker
Member since:
2006-06-01

The FSF controls the license that governs the distribution of Linux and many other key forms of free and open-source software

Sounds like extortion to me!

Reply Score: 2

Only
by Sphinx on Fri 17th Nov 2006 22:26 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

If there is a God...

Reply Score: 1

MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

Sounds like you guys were wrong about the much ballyhooed "Section 7 violation". FSF couldn't find any GPL v2 violations, so now they're altering GPL v3 to create a violation. Extremely petty.
There's a reason why it's unconstitional in the US to make a law that targets a particular entity. That's because it results in bad law. Altering GPL v3 in a petty effort to single out MS/Novell will result in a bad license. This is nearly as bad as "ad-hoc" law.

Pragmatism has its place. Sometimes (in fact, most of the time) it's more prudent to be pragmatic than adhere to religion/ideology.

If you guys really want GPL v3 to "correct" something, how about closing the "web app" loop-hole that allows a company to use GPL code to create a web app, "release" it for use by the public, and yet not disclose its own code because the company released the product as a web app rather than as a local binary? As time goes on, web apps will be more and more prominent, and as long as that web app loophole exists, the GPL becomes less and less relevant. In a world where 95% of apps are web apps, the GPL becomes meaningless as long as the web app loophole exists. Microsoft (or any other company that you guys irrationally hate) can use GPL code as part of an online office suite, and release it for use by the public without disclosing their own code. Google might already be doing this today.

Reply Score: 2

deadmeat Member since:
2006-08-04

I think the change was to make the violation explicitly prohibited instead of implicitly dubious as it stands.

The only effective change is to specifically add this to a list of no-nos that the FSF has determined to violate the spirit of "free software", rather than optimistically relying on everyone to get into the same spirit of free software lovin.

I personally think resorting to specific wording of this sort is counterproductive and makes the licence illegible to non-lawyers. YMMV

Reply Score: 1

b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

The original post of this thread, a post of ignorance and unsupported claims by a corporate partisan, can be found to be false by visiting a site by someone who knows much more about this area of the law and tries to actually support her claims:

http://www.groklaw.net/

In particular, the final paragraph of the post--about a "web app" loophole--shows the ignorance of the author, since the drafts of the GPL v3 have always included a license option that can be exercised by a GPL v3 licensor to close such a loophole.

Moreover, the post is disingenous, hoping to portray a non-profit organization's decision-making as arbitrary, when in fact influence of the corporation in question, Microsoft, is anything but arbitrary, to be found everywhere, including current investigations of its monopolistic abuse.

Edited 2006-11-18 01:26

Reply Score: 3

elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

The original post of this thread, a post of ignorance and unsupported claims by a corporate partisan, can be found to be false by visiting a site by someone who knows much more about this area of the law and tries to actually support her claims:

http://www.groklaw.net/


The very header of groklaw states:

IANAL. I am a journalist with a paralegal background, so if you have a legal problem and want advice, please hire an attorney.

She understands the mechanics of the legal system, which is a paralegal's function. Doesn't make her an authority.

I could hire myself out as a paralegal if I wanted to. There's no qualification or certification required, at least in my jurisdiction.

Pamela is simply a journalist with an opinion. I'll respect her opinion, particularly since she argues it well and goes to great lengths to qualify it. But it's still an opinion, she is neither an authority, nor necessarily correct. Her opinion is no more or less relevant than anyone else's on this forum, just more coherently argued than most.

Reply Score: 1

b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

Pamela is simply a journalist with an opinion. I'll respect her opinion, particularly since she argues it well and goes to great lengths to qualify it. But it's still an opinion, she is neither an authority, nor necessarily correct. Her opinion is no more or less relevant than anyone else's on this forum, just more coherently argued than most.

Thanks for setting me straight, so that I should, in particular, qualify her even more than in my conservative claim.

However, your point of Pamela's quality of argument is a widely shared opinion, and, more importantly, her site often involves at length the very licensing under discussion in this thread. Thus, her site is a natural starting point for the reader wanting a fuller background and a better attempt than the provocative, short original post at supporting some points of law still up in the air (hence the relevance of opinion).

Finally, claims made in support of an entity with an enormous marketing and lobbying budget such as Microsoft (honored with committing astroturf in Wikipedia) should always be treated more skeptically than the corresponding claim against, all else being equal. The existing of advertising alone proves that such skeptism is natural and appropriate.

Reply Score: 1

elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Finally, claims made in support of an entity with an enormous marketing and lobbying budget such as Microsoft (honored with committing astroturf in Wikipedia) should always be treated more skeptically than the corresponding claim against, all else being equal. The existing of advertising alone proves that such skeptism is natural and appropriate.

So you're saying that anyone against Microsoft is automatically more credible than someone in support of Microsoft.

However, your point of Pamela's quality of argument is a widely shared opinion, and, more importantly, her site often involves at length the very licensing under discussion in this thread. Thus, her site is a natural starting point for the reader wanting a fuller background and a better attempt than the provocative, short original post at supporting some points of law still up in the air (hence the relevance of opinion).

And Pamela is against Microsoft, and she is more coherent than many people, so we should all listen to what she has to say.

Look, I don't have anything against Pamela. But she is biased in her views, and is hardly an authority simply by virtue of managing a site that collaborates information in a manner to strengthen her biased viewpoints. I agree with some of her opinions, but not all.

I'll re-iterate the point that just because she is literate and coherent, it does not make her viewpoint any more qualified than anybody else's. There are people on this board that often post equally well though and argued opinions, along with the fanboys that simply troll. It is still an opinion, no matter how many articles or references she selectively chooses. It's an opinion. Not fact. And she is no more or less qualified than you or I in giving that opinion simply because she runs a website, no matter how profile it is or how often she is quoted.

Reply Score: 1

b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

So you're saying that anyone against Microsoft is automatically more credible than someone in support of Microsoft.

The assumption behind that quote is that the powerful have concentrated influence and means and that all else being equal if I must lean--sometimes necessary given limited time and attention, I lean to the weak. I admit that I also currently assume something about Microsoft's influence, based on their track record.

And Pamela is against Microsoft, and she is more coherent than many people, so we should all listen to what she has to say.

Considering how the original post had qualities opposing those you cite of Pamela, I find my original suggestion to be reasonable. We will have to agree to disagree. ;)

Thanks for your final point. My rebuttal will improve.

Edited 2006-11-18 15:52

Reply Score: 1

stick a fork in it
by Cloudy on Sat 18th Nov 2006 00:13 UTC
Cloudy
Member since:
2006-02-15

it's done.

For $250M in revenue, I'm pretty sure Novell could manage to fork the GPL v2 stuff and maintain it.

I wonder if they'll care enough to bother or if they'll just let MS's lawyers and budget squash FSF.

Reply Score: 2

This article is pure FUD
by BluenoseJake on Sat 18th Nov 2006 02:19 UTC
BluenoseJake
Member since:
2005-08-11

The kernel will still be GPL v2, only the GNU components will be affected. Xorg, KDE, Gnome, mysql, apache, firefox, gaim, blah blah blah, all those and thousands more are not controled by the FSF. you could even jettison the CLI userland utlities and port BSDs userland. there are other compilers out there too. you could even rewrite the GPL v3 code and just ignore the FSF if need be. That's a huge job though, would be the last resort I would say. They could also fork the GNU components at GPL v2, and continue on from there, just like Xorg and XFree86. Linux is not controlled by the FSF, it's controlled by the developers.

Reply Score: 2

RE: This article is pure FUD
by b3timmons on Sat 18th Nov 2006 02:43 UTC in reply to "This article is pure FUD"
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

Gnome is a GNU project.

The article is a little sloppy, but to call it FUD requires far more support than you have given.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: This article is pure FUD
by BluenoseJake on Fri 24th Nov 2006 18:43 UTC in reply to "RE: This article is pure FUD"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I don't think so, by convincing people that Suse Linux violates the GPL, many users may think twice about using Suse in their businesses, and that my friend is the definition of FUD. And I beg forgivness for mentioning Gnome, as you are right, it is a GNU project

Reply Score: 1

RE: This article is pure FUD
by elsewhere on Sat 18th Nov 2006 05:04 UTC in reply to "This article is pure FUD"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

They could also fork the GNU components at GPL v2, and continue on from there, just like Xorg and XFree86. Linux is not controlled by the FSF, it's controlled by the developers.

Which is something many of the proponents seem to keep overlooking. Even many of the GNU components are contributed to heavily by corporates like Intel and IBM, and depending on the final position of v3 with regards to patents, could just scare them into remaining v2 for future contributions which would result in a fork. It happened to gcc before, it could happen again.

It's noteworthy that some of the major commercial GPL contributors, particularly the patent-heavy ones, have not weighed in with an opinion on the Novell matter and, aside from HP, have not made a public opinion on the patent provisions. If the FSF gets too aggressive with the reach of v3 they could lose the corporate support that made v2 relevant. Which, come to think of it, might be the intent.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: This article is pure FUD
by b3timmons on Sat 18th Nov 2006 06:46 UTC in reply to "RE: This article is pure FUD"
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

Bruce Perens may be more current on the corporate opinion. He may still have some connections to the companies involved, and knows some individuals involved who are not so public. Here's a comment from his site (http://technocrat.net/d/2006/11/17/10988):

The Novell-Microsoft deal was the impetus to get everyone on the side of GPL3. It's important to note that the big companies who made favorable quotes thought they were speaking out for a technical collaboration, they had not seen the deal. OSDL, in particular, will not speak in favor of this deal again. The Linux kernel team will switch to GPL3 with the full support of the large companies who formerly objected to it.

There is probably some bluster there, but he stays current. Now back to you:

It's noteworthy that some of the major commercial GPL contributors, particularly the patent-heavy ones, have not weighed in with an opinion on the Novell matter and, aside from HP, have not made a public opinion on the patent provisions. If the FSF gets too aggressive with the reach of v3 they could lose the corporate support that made v2 relevant. Which, come to think of it, might be the intent.

Why would they intend this? Can you be specific, please? Also, could you just spell out what you dislike about v3? No need for an argument right now. That is, what would be the reasons why you would not move a project from v2 to, say, v3, assuming it is released as currently drafted plus the anti-Novell/MS deal bit?

Edited 2006-11-18 07:01

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: This article is pure FUD
by elsewhere on Sat 18th Nov 2006 07:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This article is pure FUD"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

There is probably some bluster there, but he stays current. Now back to you:

Probably some bluster? Are you serious?

Why would they intend this? Can you be specific, please? Also, could you just spell out what you dislike about v3? No need for an argument right now. That is, what would be the reasons why you would not move a project from v2 to, say, v3, assuming it is released as currently drafted plus the anti-Novell/MS deal bit?

Ok, everyone says why won't they move to v3? How about explaining why they would? If you're IBM, or HP, or Intel, or any other large corporate company looking to extract a revenue stream from linux and happening to hold a very large patent portfolio, how about explaining the benefits of moving to v3 for these companies? Because nobody has explained it yet. Everybody just seems to think they will. The fact that they're part of the "committee" doesn't imply consent. Hell, Apache is on the committee and they're not going to move to v3.

Personally, I see v3 as an elimination of freedom because it reduces the choices available to me. I don't have a problem with Tivoisation. I expect linux to be used in a manner that delivers cost-effective services to me, I don't expect a reciprocal right to hack my hardware providers. Crazy, I know. I reserve the right to make educated choices for myself, I trust my own judgement when it comes to spending my money. I don't want RMS and the FSF looking out for my best interests, because I'm frankly a better judge of those. And mostly, because v2 has worked so well I don't see a reason for it to change. Crying foul over the Novell-MS deal is an empty argument, because it changes nothing for me. That's why I don't support v3.

Doesn't mean I'm against it, just means I don't want it thrust on me. I value my ability to choose far more than I value the FSF's ability to choose for me. I care about choice and I'm opposed to anything, whether proprietary or in the name of freedom, that eliminates my choices. Choice is my freedom. v3 attempts to reduce that in ways that v2 doesn't. THAT's what I have against it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: This article is pure FUD
by b3timmons on Sat 18th Nov 2006 14:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This article is pure FUD"
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

Doesn't mean I'm against it, just means I don't want it thrust on me. I value my ability to choose far more than I value the FSF's ability to choose for me. I care about choice and I'm opposed to anything, whether proprietary or in the name of freedom, that eliminates my choices. Choice is my freedom. v3 attempts to reduce that in ways that v2 doesn't. THAT's what I have against it.

Excellent summary--thanks!

I expect the four freedoms that the GPLv2 no longer protects. Say I buy a Tivo. If software that is included with my property has a license and the creators of that license feel that Tivo is violating its spirit, I already have a problem with Tivo: they are being unfair. In particular, they had the right to modify, use, and distribute the software running on this device, but now that it is my property, I cannot do the same with the software, even though the intent of the license is that I should have the right. Subverting such a widespread and influential software license, whether Tivo or Novell does it, makes this a particularly worrying example of unfairness to me.

Yet another concern is the disappearance of general purpose computing devices. Suppose the market evolved in such a way that everything had enforced DRM. Is that OK? If not, then we clearly see such a trend differently.

Indeed, we see the law differently here. We are so ever dependent upon software and the consequences of the four freedoms are so profound in the context of our current law, that I expect: much from a license that purports to defends these freedoms; and much from an argument for anything that conflicts with those freedoms. Therefore, I am still waiting for a better license (GPLv2 is an utter failure here) and argument. Again, we have different expectations.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: This article is pure FUD
by Cloudy on Sat 18th Nov 2006 20:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This article is pure FUD"
Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

There is probably some bluster there, but he stays current.

Not that current, and not with the players that actually matter.

I suspect that the Novell deal will do more harm to the FSF than to Novell and that they shot themselves in the foot with the bluster of this statement.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: This article is pure FUD
by b3timmons on Sat 18th Nov 2006 22:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: This article is pure FUD"
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

Not that current, and not with the players that actually matter.

I suspect that the Novell deal will do more harm to the FSF than to Novell and that they shot themselves in the foot with the bluster of this statement.


How can his/their bluster be much of a shot if the players that matter aren't communicating with him/them? Never mind, it's all bluster.

Edited 2006-11-18 22:24

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: This article is pure FUD
by Cloudy on Sun 19th Nov 2006 01:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: This article is pure FUD"
Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

i have confused you with pronouns. sorry.

The out-of-contact/not-communicating reference was to Bruce Perens who doesn't really know any more about what's going on than any of us.

The 'shot themselves' reference was to Moglen's threat.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: This article is pure FUD
by b3timmons on Sun 19th Nov 2006 02:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: This article is pure FUD"
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

i have confused you with pronouns. sorry.

Thanks for the clarification--I thought "this statement" referred to Bruce's comment, hence my pronoun pickle.

I suspect that the Novell deal will do more harm to the FSF than to Novell and that they shot themselves in the foot with the bluster of this statement.

They may have shot themselves, but I really see little choice for them here, given what their supporters expect of them.

Reply Score: 1

There could be some benefits for OO users
by buff on Sun 19th Nov 2006 20:34 UTC
buff
Member since:
2005-11-12

If you use both MS Office and OO you would probably know that the two Office suites are not entirely compatible. The biggest thing I miss is the lack of VBscript macros in files. If you are a big user of macros moving to Open Office is very frustrating since your old macros need to be changed so they work in OO. I would love to be able to open Word files with macros and have them work exactly without changes in OO. If this patent deal with MS works out then OO might get MS VBscript.

Reply Score: 1