OSNews

Yes, let's get rid of those who refer to Linux users and free software developers as "pathetic", "zealots", "partisans", "Communists" and other such McCarthyite bulls^H^H^H^H^Hrhetoric. I couldn't agree more.

Get real. Microsoft is friend with noone and creating that negative buzz is probably part of what they were trying to achieve through that deal.

There is enough that is already restricted to opensource software (like drm material) that we should watch out for what's going on.

Linux, in this context, means Linux the OS, not the kernel. And Linux as an OS would be pretty much crippled without the GNU tool(chain)s.

I think the Novell controversy will gain more attention as more and more free software projects switch to GPL v3 - which is design to prevent such patent deals that Novell entered with Microsoft. Which is a good thing imho - such patent deals runs contrary to the spirit of the GPL, though not the letter of v2.

And in concecuense we will have more GPLv3 and less usuability in Linux, less formats for the user, forget about ipod compatiblity, etc, etc, and in concecuense less users meaning the dead of the main GPL project, Linux, companies can fork BSD or give to it more support, I say change all the software you can to GPLv3 and see how its popularity falls, just like GNUSense distro w/o the ability to use mp3, something users demands.

What color is the sky on your planet? It would be nice to live in a world where programmers could concentrate solely on the code, but we don't. We live in a world of Rambus and SCO. We live in a world where slapping a lawsuit on a competitor is just as valid a tactic to gain market-share as releasing a great new version of a product.

Just because open-source projects are done voluntarily does not mean that they are immune to damaging legal tactics. The situation that tied up BSD for years wrangling with AT&T should be all the proof you need of the FSF's belief that free software needs strong legal protection. At the end of the day, Linux is competing with a convicted monopolist. Relying on their best intentions and neglecting to protect yourself is stupid, plain and simple.

Having or not having gay marriage isn't something that impacts the protection of the community as a whole. A better example would be making a law that regulates the use of X-rays in machines. Before X-rays became widely used, such laws weren't needed. When X-rays were originally discovered, people used them very irresponsibly in machines, leading to numerous fatalities. Eventually, the government had to step in and set regulations.

This is analogous to the situation with patent terms in the GPLv3. Software patents weren't a major source of abuse 16 years ago when the GPLv2 was written. Now, software patents are a significant source of abuse, one one that is becoming more threatening over time. Again, IBM, Sun, and the Mozilla foundation all realized the importance of addressing software patents directly in the license. It's no surprise the FSF does too.

For everyone who thinks the FSF is alone in their thinking, try reading the OpenSolaris license sometime. The CDDL includes numerous patent clauses, and includes a termination clause that revokes your right to distribute a piece of CDDL'ed software if you claim patent infringement against the developer or any contributer to that software. This covers any patents at all, not just ones contained in the software in question.

And in concecuense we will have more GPLv3 and less usuability in Linux, less formats for the user, forget about ipod compatiblity, etc, etc, and in concecuense less users meaning the dead of the main GPL project, Linux, companies can fork BSD or give to it more support, I say change all the software you can to GPLv3 and see how its popularity falls, just like GNUSense distro w/o the ability to use mp3, something users demands.

Actually, with top music companies experimenting with non-copy-protected MP3's and several European countries ruling that Apple's DRM is illegal, people engaged in the kinds of shenanigans that GPL3 is designed to prevent are soon going to find that the writing is on the wall anyway.

The kernel by itself doesn't do much good. The GNU user-land can function with a different kernel (see GNU/kFreeBSD), but you'd be hard-pressed to build a usable Linux desktop without any GNU software.

You are right, but nobody is trying to avoid GPLv2 just GPLv3, now in embedbed devices the kernel is an important part.

What license do you think GCC and glibc are going to be under? GPLv3, of course! The FSF owns the copyright to a ton of software, and they'll relicense it as GPLv3 when it comes out.

<sarcasm mode="on">And embedded devices are the largest market for enterprise distributions like RedHat and Novell, yeah, right.</sarcasm>

I don't know why everybody focuses on the kernel.

- Other POSIX conformant kernels can and - in the case of an worst-case-alike scenarios will be used (hardware support may be not there where we are used to it, but that could be fixed with time)

- As long as MS does not offer a detailed list of what parts of their "IP" portfolio are affected/invalidated(in the case of trade secrets)/infringed by which specific FOSS projects, that are typical parts of a Linux distribution like Novells, we will have to take their word for it. However, I doubt that MS itself would turn the cold patent wars into a hot one and I furthermore doubt, that the Linux kernel itself is the part with the largest number of "IP" issues (SAMBA, WINE, Mono are imho more likely candidates).

- Since parts of the kernel are under the "'strict' GPL v2 and not later" and no unified entity was choosen to hold the copyright, a relicensing of the Linux kernel itself was not a very likely thing to happen in the first place.

Neither Novell nor MS acknoledge, that they infringe upon IP of the other, the idemnify their mutual customers for the (unlikely) event, that one of them starts suing the other for the next four-and-a-bit years. Had they respect for the GPLv2, they would have made an agreement with each other in conformity of the GPL, but they choose to outskirt the license, that allows Novell to distribute software that Novell has no copyright to. Fair enough. I can see nothing wrong if the FSF (holder of copyright for a not-so-small part of the toolchain needed in most scenarios, that are intersting for Novell buisnesswise) decides to

- give software developers the option of a license, that disallows such deals
- eats their own dogfood.

gnome is owned by the FSF imagine if gnome was licensed under the gpl

If they back these tyrans, then they should stop saying Linux is free, it's not as long as you cannot do what you want with it.

You must be laughing and posting this tongue-in-cheek, because the logic is twisted in just the way logic is frequently twisted in jokes.

Stallman and FSF have very specifically itemized 4 freedoms that GPL is designed to protect. Linus and company willingly chose to put Linux under the GPL to protect those freedoms.

I'm not ready to give Novell a pass on their agreement because I don't understand Microsoft's intentions, and Microsoft has a documented history of devious behavior.

This also is twisted. Any author has the right to license his software however he chooses. The FSF provides a valuable service of offering a ready made license that's easy to use. But authors can always change there minds and license it however they want.

As I understand nobody have the righ to say who can or who can't use GPL software, not even the FSF, so they are contradicting the GPL, the freedoms they protect.

Than you don't understand either the GPL or the situation very well (or both). Yes, the GPL permits running the software for whatever purpose you want (freedom 0) - but it restricts the way it can be distributed: basically, anyone who distributes free software must guarantee every right the GPL was designed to guarantee to anyone. Now the Microsoft/Novell patent deal implies that Novell customers get more rights (additional patent protection from Microsoft) than other customers (of the same GPL-ed software). This is patently (excuse me) wrong! That's what the GPL v3 will rectify. This was always in the spirit of the GPL (provide non-discriminatory access to the software) - and Novell violated the spirit, because the latter of GPL v2 allowed for workaround.

Now if the letter of the GPL v3 will prevent such workarounds, than Novell won't be able to distribute software distributed under v3. The FSF has every right to change the license of software copyrighted by them. That includes the GNU toolchain - without which any Linux OS is pretty much crippled. Others (like the SAMBA team) already made clear their intention to change to GPL v3 when it becomes final. In fact, Novell's actions became a catalyst for adoptation, because when the SAMBA team chose the GPL for the software they wrote, they certainly didn't want to have company X distributing their software make a deal that suggests that anyone who is not their customer is under legal threat from Microsoft.

I can tell you that GPLv3 software will be forked not only by Novell, but for the mayority, at then end GPLv3 versions will lose steam, Im sure of that and Im eager to see how it hapends, so, I'll just take some pop-corn and see how Linux gets distroyed by the FSF, It won't really affect me at all, but it will affect you.

anyone who distributes free software must guarantee every right the GPL was designed to guarantee to anyone. Now the Microsoft/Novell patent deal implies that Novell customers get more rights

Amazingly enough, giving people more rights without restricting the rights supposedly protected by the license is not a violation of the license.

Beside prejudicating Linux, I don't know what the FSF has in its mission statement. Shame on you, you're no better than M.$!

What are you smoking? The FSF wants simply to enforce the spirit of the GPL - which is to guarantee exactly the same rights to every receiver of free software. The Novell/Microsoft patent deal created a situation when customers of Novell (receivers of free software) are led to believe that they get additional rights compared to other customers of other companies (additional patent protection). The FSF wants simply to make such deals impossible with GPL v3.

This situation was explained over and over again here on osnews and elsewhere (from groklaw through the Samba team to Eben Moglen and Perens) - but it seems that people still don't get it. Prejudicating linux? No better than M.$? How on earth did you arrive at such a ridiculous statements?

And how do you call this non sense of FSF having the right to ban users? freedom?, I call it bs.

Jeez, the amount of misinformed comments in this thread is staggering.

FSF doesn't have the right to ban users, nor does it claims to have the right. This is about Novell's *redistribution* rights. If they have encumbered the license with patent conditions, or any other move not allowed by the GPL, then it will lose the ability to freely redistribute the affected GPL software (though it could conceivable get permissions from all the authors involved).

This is textbook copyright law, by the way. Novell gets to sell a whole bunch of software it didn't write without having to pay a cent for it *as long* at it complies with the license.

Whether or not it complied with the license is another matter entirely...until we know, I would advise all the rabid anti-GPL/anti-FSF posters to take a deep breath and actually understand the issue here before posting any more misinformed attacks.

This kind of reaction is getting pathetic.

If Novell made a secret patent deal with MS that could affect *other* Linux users negatively, then it's not pathetic at all. I think it's a *good* thing that this is being discussed, so that we may know more about the ramifications of this deal.

People who claim Linux and GPL are the most free alternatives should get rid of the people at the FSF, and while they're at it, lay off Stallman also.

That doesn't make any sense. How do you propose we get "rid" of an independant, non-profit organization? Are you advocating coercion or violence against them? More to the point, who cares about what they have to say? Either Novell violated the GPL, or it didn't. This isn't a matter of opinion, but of law. If it is proved that it did, then it won't be able to redistribute the software that they graciously received under the GPL.

It seems to me *you* want to curtail the freedom of the developers who chose to license their code under the GPL by allowing others to infringe on their copyright.

If they back these tyrans, then they should stop saying Linux is free, it's not as long as you cannot do what you want with it. With the BSD's you can use the code the way you want, no question asked.

Okay, first, using words like "tyrants" really takes away all or your credibility. A tyrant has coercive powers. He can impose his will. This isn't like this at all: the FSF is simply reviewing if Novel has broken the agreement that allows them to redistribute GPLed software. The only thing the FSF can do is exercise the developers' copyright on their behalf.

Also, you seem to be confused about *use* and *redistribution* of software. The two have completely different meanings when talking about copyright, i.e. you cannot claim that redistributing the software is "using" it in some way. It isn't. The GPL cannot dictate how you *use* the software, but it does dictate how you can *redistribute* it. In no case is users' freedom better served by the BSD licence. As far as developers go, it is their choice - their freedom, if you will - to choose how their code can be redistributed according to their rights as guaranteed by copyright law.

Freedom is not an absolute thing. Someone's freedom often end where others' begins. For example, you are not free to steal or attack someone else. That is, in effect, a limit on your freedom, but only sociopaths would see this as negative. Similarly, the GPL imposes restrictions in redistribution to make sure the freedom of users (and of the code's original developer) is protected. So you cannot say that the BSD license is more free than the GPL, simply that they protect different types of freedom.

Well said as ever. Nice to have you on our side!

You know what ,twenex, I definitely think both you and archisteel owe us some work at :
http://www.lulu.com/browse/search.php?fKeywords=linux
I mean : http://www.lulu.com/
Just put all your OSnews.com comments in the electronic book form and I'll be more that happy to spend 4-6 USD
for reading your "Complete Works"
Have nice weekend!
nedvis

what did you expect from the people who brought you Gnome

long live Linus, GPL

Calling a Linux distro (Linux kernel + GNU software bundle) Linux doesn't mean you don't know what Linux is. Linux is a kernel, but there's nothin wrong calling a distro "Linux" just because it's got additional software.

only two enterprise vendors

Huh?? There are a bunch of good reliable GNU/Linux distributions. I know that Mandriva, http://www.mandriva.com/en/enterprise/, and CentOS, http://centos.org/, also support enterprise distributions and I'm sure other do.

If there are only two certification programs and there is a demand for more, I'm sure someone will step up and provide that service in this most excellent free market.

FFS get real!
Of course there are other distributions, but enterprises don't care. They buy software, from large enterprises. NO company I ever worked for would even consider to user some "voodoo community Linux". Sure, you and me, we know CentOS is 99% Redhat, but this doesn't matter to them. If an enterprise is going for some computer investment they want it protected by some entity they can blame if stuff breaks.

And mandriva ... well, enterprise is basically RedHat and Suse, other are not yet known and trusted enough.

... enterprise is basically RedHat and Suse, other are not yet known and trusted enough.

Well Novell just provided an excellent opportunity for another enterprise distribution to step up and be recognized as companies start to feel nervous about supporting Novell. That's the mechanism of the free market.

Well Novell just provided an excellent opportunity for another enterprise distribution to step up and be recognized as companies start to feel nervous about supporting Novell. That's the mechanism of the free market.

Maybe this is one of the reasons HP recently announced full Debian support for their servers

Huh?? There are a bunch of good reliable GNU/Linux distributions. I know that Mandriva, http://www.mandriva.com/en/enterprise/, and CentOS, http://centos.org/, also support enterprise distributions and I'm sure other do.

If there are only two certification programs and there is a demand for more, I'm sure someone will step up and provide that service in this most excellent free market.

You are completely missing the point. It's true that there are other good Linux distributions. It's true that distros like CentOS "support" enterprise software in the sense that it will usually run. Heck, I use and like Ubuntu. But...

If you buy a license for a software package like Oracle or VxVM that costs as much as a car or a house, you also buy a support contract. And that contract is useless unless you install said software on a distro that is supported by the application vendor. If they release a patch that makes the sw stop working on your unsupported distro, too bad. If their techs are busy and don't feel like helping with your unsupported distro, too bad.

As of now, there are only two Linux vendors that are generally validated for by app vendors, RHEL and Novell. If someone else "steps up" and "supports" Oracle on Ubuntu, who cares? Why would you want to save a few grand on the OS, throw away your Oracle support fee, and pay someone else an additional fee?

The best I have seen lately is IBM says Ubuntu 6.06 is "Validated" for DB2 but not "Recommended". Big deal.

I wish it wasn't so. It is.

Edit: fixed goofy italics screw up.

Edited 2007-02-03 18:54

Also, if having only two vendors to choose from is fun, having only one should be even more fun! Remember, if your software is certified only on RHEL and Novell, you're not using anything else if you want support.

Until, that is, Microsoft decides to announce that as part of their existing agreement with Red Hat/JBoss, they're extending equal patent protection to RHEL customers. Red Hat will, of course, claim that the existing agreement in no way was intended to provide patent indemnity for GPL products, but that doesn't matter any more than it did when Novell made the same claims.

Then Microsoft can have more fun by claiming that their patent cross-licensing agreements with IBM will extend to patent protection for IBM's linux customers. IBM can claim that they don't support any such assertion, but as we've seen, that's irrelevant.

I'm really interested in seeing just how the FSF thinks they're going to pull off such a restrictive licensing clause and actually make it enforceable.

After the RH vs Oracle problem, now it's Novell's turn. I don't imagine such problems with Apple for using FreeBSD kernel in its operating system.

Apple used the FBSD kernel in its OS because FBSD can be made proprietary. Linux users use Linux because it CANNOT be made proprietary. All things considered, it sounds like Linux is doing better than Apple so far.

Proprietary software deserves to go the way of proprietary hardware. Not only does it deserve to, but it also will.

All things considered, it sounds like Linux is doing better than Apple so far.

Ah ah!! That's funny. You must be living in a hole, or you're talking only for you.

All things considered, it sounds like Linux is doing better than Apple so far.

Ah ah!! That's funny. You must be living in a hole, or you're talking only for you.

Well, let's see. Linux is shipped - shipped! - on 25% of servers, and nobody really knows how many servers it's installed on. Nobody really knows how many desktops it's installed on, either, but the most conservative estimates put that figure at 2.5%. Apple make up the rest of the non-Windows shipments, so if that figure is true then their desktop market share is roughly the same as Linux's. As for servers, nobody discusses figures for OS X shipments on servers, so they're probably negligible at best, non-existent at worst. So all in all, Linux has a verifiable marketshare of 27.5%, and a potential marketshare that's much larger, versus Apple's 2.5%. So unless Apple's stated goal is "to remain a niche player and a distant third behind Linux and Windows", I'd say that my original statement was correct.

Because of the whims of a bunch of idiots, Linux loses the little credibility it has gained over the years. FSF if you don't like companies to use the code of your code developers the way they see fit, say it loud, and investors will look somewhere else. Thanks for nothing.

Astounding how often those who have no credibility attempt to besmirch the credibility of others.

The simple fact of the matter is this: Microsoft have the right to do with their code "what they see fit", and everyone acknowledges this. The only reason this argument exist is because proprietary software companies only like open source code that they can steal for proprietary uses. Free software was created to be immune to that danger, and now that the patent threat has cropped up, efforts are being made to reinforce it.

If that pisses off proprietary software companies, too bad.

And MS also recognised they infringed Novell Patents, so it was a trade not a sell out.

And thx to the commercial entities Linux and the FSF are where they are right now and they can be fired by them forking or simple not supporting them, at these day we have more options, not just GNU options like the past.

The question is, doesn't that suddenly put every non-Novell distribution at risk? It's not about freedom or ideology, it's about the legal system*. In signing the deal, Novell basically admitted to liability. They were covered from that as part of the deal, but since Novell ships the same code as every other Linux distributer, that calls into question the liability of all of them. It gives Microsoft (or a proxy agent) a stronger case for going against RedHat, who is not covered by the deal.

The FSF probably has no legal recourse against Novell, and they understand that as the updated comment from Moglen shows. However, this situation underscores the need for GPLv3, which has patent terms that would potentially mitigate a situation like this. And it's not only the FSF who recognizes that patents can be used to subvert free software --- IBM, Sun, and Mozilla all have patent clauses in their open-source licenses.

*) It should be noted that Moglen has his JD from Yale and is a professor of law at Columbia. He has strong beliefs about the freedom of software, but he's better-qualified to talk about the legal ramifications of the Novell-Microsoft deal than any of us posters on this forum!

In signing the deal, Novell basically admitted to liability. They were covered from that as part of the deal, but since Novell ships the same code as every other Linux distributer, that calls into question the liability of all of them. It gives Microsoft (or a proxy agent) a stronger case for going against RedHat, who is not covered by the deal.

No, it doesn't work that way. Novell ships their own proprietary, closed components with their enterprise linux distributions, and the agreement did not specify particular components. This is not unusual, because companies engaged in patent-cross licensing will rarely specify particular products or technologies, at least publically, because they are hesitant to actually admit the infringement.

But aside from that, even if Novell signed an agreement that said we're licensing patent no. 123456 from Microsoft to cover it's use in kernel process xyz, Microsoft would still have to prove the infringement if they chose to pursue any other distributors of the linux kernel. The fact that Novell licensed the technology would have no bearing. In fact, even the US courts have conceded that licensing a patent doesn't imply acceptance of that patent's relevance nor can the patent agreement necessarily prevent the licensee's right to dispute the patent anyways.

It should be noted that Moglen has his JD from Yale and is a professor of law at Columbia. He has strong beliefs about the freedom of software, but he's better-qualified to talk about the legal ramifications of the Novell-Microsoft deal than any of us posters on this forum!

And when push came to shove, after having NDA-access to the actual documentation, he couldn't find anything that was actually wrong with the agreement. He was looking for something that specified patent coverage for GPL'd products that he could point to, and he couldn't find it. Besides, Novell offered enterprise customers legal indemnity for linux software from intellectual property disputes long before any agreement with Microsoft was reached.

So rather than admit that the agreement was actually legally meaningless in terms of being a threat to the integrity of GPL software, they decided to call this a loophole because of the perceived threat and it now becomes the focal point for advancing the v3 agenda. They've also admitted the v3 simply serves to solidify patent provisions that were already implied in v2, so they're not actually accomplishing much beyond a little clarity.

Given the ambiguous terms of the Novell agreement, I cannot see a conceivable way that they can restrict Novell from distributing GPL protected software without impacting any other company that has non-specific trade agreements with Microsoft (or similar), and the industry is rife with those.

At this point, they haven't even been able to illustrate how they're going to add this provision, which will inevitably have a significant impact on how companies will have to consider v3 licensing, yet the license is now a month or two away from release. Will be interesting to see.

"And thx to the commercial entities Linux and the FSF are where they are right now and they can be fired by them forking or simple not supporting them, at these day we have more options, not just GNU options like the past."

That statement is one of the most uneducated statement I have read yet in this thread.

Mind how you tread least you forget that Linux is where it is today because of the efforts of tens of thousands of devs free time and code donations. This could never have been possible without the GPL, Stallman and the FSF.

All the big corps are nothing but jonny-come-latelys and to give them credit for the hard work of others is just disrespectful.

Shame on you!

Completely agree. Novell wants to play by Microsoft's rule and leave the other Linux vendors out in the cold. That's bad, bad, bad - why? Because Novell profits from OSS development. If others are able to share, Novell has to learn to share or simply vanish. I support this move of the FSF (well, if it's true). Keep on rocking, FSF!

Revoking Novells right to use the GNU Toolchain would probably kill Novell. They would have to fork everything and still maintain compatibility with the real GNU Toolchain.

OTOH the Community could probably fork Mono without too much effort.

But I'm just guessing, we'll see how it turns out.

No.

FSF is not a religion. There are many religions in the world. As far as I understand it the FSF is not a recognized religion anywhere. If you could give me more insight into this I would be interested.

Bully!?

Read the article...It says the FSF Novell can make the deal with Microsoft. Their not happy about it as are many users of Linux. When the new license is used you won't be able to do it with that software.

I can only see this strengthening support for the GPL3.

The reality of Novell has been a good supporter of Late in the FLOSS arena. Whats ironic is many of their particular projects are most at risk.

well, hopefully Linus will never sign GPL3...