Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 14:17 UTC, submitted by Oliver
General Development GCC 4.2.1 has been released, the last release of the GNU Compiler Collection under the GPL v2. "GCC 4.2.1 is a bug-fix release, containing fixes for regressions in GCC 4.2.0 relative to previous GCC releases. GCC 4.2.1 will be the last release of GCC covered by version 2 of the GNU General Public License. All future releases will be released under GPL version 3."
Order by: Score:
Commercial use
by MikeGA on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 14:30 UTC
MikeGA
Member since:
2005-07-22

I'm intrigued to know how the move to GPL3 will affect those companies making use of GCC for compiling apps on their platform. Does it have any particular legal effect? Will it scare some off?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Commercial use
by Redeeman on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 14:38 UTC in reply to "Commercial use"
Redeeman Member since:
2006-03-23

it has no real effect what so ever. Will it scare some off? well, it may, but only if they are stupid, and at that point, all i can think is... so what? ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Commercial use
by lemur2 on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 14:42 UTC in reply to "Commercial use"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I'm intrigued to know how the move to GPL3 will affect those companies making use of GCC for compiling apps on their platform.


There is no restriction in either GPL v2 or in GPL v3 about use of a GPL program. In both cases you are free to use the program however you want to. This is one of the four freedoms that the GPL is all about trying to preserve for you (not restrict you in).

Restrictions apply in GPL v2 only when you distribute a GPL v2 program, and restrictions apply in GPL v3 only when you distribute or assist in distribution of a GPL v3 program. Even then, the restrictions really only amount to a requirement that you pass on to downstream recipients the same permissions that you received, and they only apply to the GPL code, not to your own code.

Compiling your own program is neither of those restricted activities. Go right ahead.

Edited 2007-07-22 14:49

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Commercial use
by Brandybuck on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 23:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Commercial use"
Brandybuck Member since:
2006-08-27

There is no restriction in either GPL v2 or in GPL v3 about use of a GPL program.

Unless the program is on a server, and the guy on the client side demands your modifications. Closing the webapp "loophole" IS about restricting usage!

Reply Score: 2

b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

Unless the program is on a server, and the guy on the client side demands your modifications. Closing the webapp "loophole" IS about restricting usage!

Nonsense. The GPLv3 does not apply to anything like this. The closest that any license applies to a webapp "loophole" is the Affero GPL. The latest version is here:

http://gplv3.fsf.org/agplv3-dd1.html

Edited 2007-07-22 23:34

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Commercial use
by stestagg on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 23:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Commercial use"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

You can safely ignore the client's demands. You are not distributing the software by placing it on one of your server, merely using it to format and distribute unrelated (in the context of the application binary) software.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Commercial use
by lemur2 on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 23:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Commercial use"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Unless the program is on a server, and the guy on the client side demands your modifications. Closing the webapp "loophole" IS about restricting usage!


Excuse me?

If the program you have on the server is your own code, then anyone on the client side has no claim to it at all.

If the program you have on the server is GPL code, then if you have modified it slightly then you are obliged to publish your modifications to downstream users ... this is the exact same deal for GPL software as it has always been. You cannot "hide" a program on a server and thereby expect to "escape" the one and only "cost" of the GPL code you are using.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Commercial use
by stestagg on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 23:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Commercial use"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

No. modified GPL software running on a server is not being redistributed. So there is no requirement to supply the modified code.

In the same way that if you modified the Open Office source code for personal use, then wrote letters using it, you would not have to publish your modifications.
(Of course, it would be nice to do so)

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Commercial use
by lemur2 on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 00:45 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Commercial use"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

No. modified GPL software running on a server is not being redistributed. So there is no requirement to supply the modified code.

In the same way that if you modified the Open Office source code for personal use, then wrote letters using it, you would not have to publish your modifications.
(Of course, it would be nice to do so)


Meh. This is a borderline case.

You could also argue (from the opposite viewpoint) that the client users are in effect "running" the code on the server, whereas people who read letters are not running OpenOffice.org in any way.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Commercial use
by stestagg on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 00:56 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Commercial use"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

So should Google be forced to GPL the sources to GFS?
because it is (presumably) a Linux kernel module running on publically accesible servers. Clients who search using google, or use google maps are using the GFS drivers to access data. By your argument, that makes it subject to the redistribution terms of the GPL.

It gets a little hard to judge these cases!

Reply Score: 2

RE[8]: Commercial use
by lemur2 on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 02:14 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Commercial use"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

So should Google be forced to GPL the sources to GFS?


This is a good question, and one to which I do not have a ready answer. It is not clear from the plain language of the GPL license.

It gets a little hard to judge these cases!


Agreed, 100%. Another borderline case. I don't offer any judgement myself, either way, as I can't really work out if the GPL applies here or not.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Commercial use
by butters on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 15:05 UTC in reply to "Commercial use"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

GCC has been used for decades to compile all manner of proprietary software, and the GPLv3 doesn't change this. Vendors that distribute development tools based on GCC should have their lawyers take a look. However, chances are that what they're doing is permitted under the GPLv3 if it was permitted under the GPLv2.

In general, the only people who should be concerned about the GPLv3 are distributors who were previously circumventing the spirit, if not the letter, of the GPLv2. The Linux kernel is really the only practical exception to this rule, as the controversial restriction on restricting users from running modified works is an issue that predominantly impacts kernel code.

All in all, the GPLv3 should be rather uncontroversial among those that like the GPLv2. Almost everybody likes the final patent language except for Microsoft and its shameful proxy vendors within the Linux community. It's compatible with the Apache license, forming a nice licensing continuum including non-copyleft (Apache), weak copyleft (LGPLv3), and strong copyleft (GPLv3) options. Together they represent a new generation of free software licenses that are boilerplate around the world and aware of the threats posed by software patents.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Commercial use
by renox on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 19:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Commercial use"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

>>In general, the only people who should be concerned about the GPLv3 are distributors who were previously circumventing the spirit, if not the letter, of the GPLv2.<<

Not true: every project which combines GPLv2 only code (Qt, Linux kernel,...) with other code which goes from GPLv2 to GPLv3 has a problem.

>>All in all, the GPLv3 should be rather uncontroversial among those that like the GPLv2.<<

False also: as shown by Linus who likes the GPLv2 but don't like the GPLv3 (because of its "anti-DRM/tivoization" clause).

Sure the compatibility of GPLv3 with Apache is nice, the patent provision is nice too, but this is not a reason to put the rose glass and ignore that there are dissenting voice and issues that the GPLv3 will trigger (and not only with people which tried to circumvent the GPLv2).

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Commercial use
by pinky on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 20:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Commercial use"
pinky Member since:
2005-07-15

>Not true: every project which combines GPLv2 only code (Qt, Linux kernel,...) with other code which goes from GPLv2 to GPLv3 has a problem.

Yes, but this problem was created by the "GPLv2 only" users and not by the GPLv3. The FSF has known from the beginning that a new GPL will be incompatible with old GPLs. Therefore they have introduced the "or any later" language. You could call this a "bugfix". Than people used the license and removed the "bugfix" and now they start complaining about this "bug". Sound strange, doesn't it?

The problem isn't created by GPLv2 or GPLv3 because there was a solution for it. The problem was created by people who decided to not use the GPL 1:1 like released by the FSF.

Edited 2007-07-22 20:26

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Commercial use
by _LH_ on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 20:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Commercial use"
_LH_ Member since:
2005-07-20

The problem isn't created by GPLv2 or GPLv3 because there was a solution for it. The problem was created by people who decided to not use the GPL 1:1 like released by the FSF.


Sure. Why would I hand the future of my code over to some fundamentalists who could go berserk against the Great Satan of closed source and add such limitations in using/combining/distributing my code in commercial environment which I could never accept.

Edited 2007-07-22 20:45

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Commercial use
by schiesbn on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 20:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Commercial use"
schiesbn Member since:
2006-03-30

Sure. Why would I hand the future of my code over to...

You can do what you want. But if the original license manage compatibility to new versions and you decide to remove it than you can't blame the FSF or the GPL for missing compatibility.

You have decided to remove compatibility so now you have to life with it.

Edited 2007-07-22 20:49

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Commercial use
by _LH_ on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 21:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Commercial use"
_LH_ Member since:
2005-07-20

You can do what you want. But if the original license manage compatibility to new versions and you decide to remove it than you can't blame the FSF or the GPL for missing compatibility.

You have decided to remove compatibility so now you have to life with it.


But I'm not the one who has removed compatibility. It is those who have changed from 2 and later to 3 and later. They are the ones who intentionally and explicitly have broken compatibility with 2 only software.

Edited 2007-07-22 21:08

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Commercial use
by pinky on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 21:19 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Commercial use"
pinky Member since:
2005-07-15

>It is those who have changed from 2 and later to 3 and later.

No, because every "GPLv2 or later" will be compatible with "GPLv3 or later"

Compatibility was broken by people who haven't used GPLv2 like released by the FSF but instead without the "or any later" language. So the people who have modified GPLv2 has explicitly stated that they don't want to be compatible with new versions of the GPL.

It's their right to decide not to be compatible with new versions of the GPL. But than they also have to take responsibility for their decision and not complain about others.

Everyone who has used the GPL like released by the FSF has absolutely no problem to link against GPLv1, GPLv2 or GPLv3 code.

EDIT: fixed typos

Edited 2007-07-22 21:22

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Commercial use
by renox on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 18:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Commercial use"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

Your post is 'Yes, but <a totally unrelated topic>': I don't like straw man arguments: the GP was wrong in saying that only 'evil guys' need to be concerned by the GPLv2/GPLv3 split, and I pointed this out.

Being wrong is still being wrong whoever created the problem.

So who created the problem is quite unrelated to the topic and a matter of opinion: had the FSF made a GPLv3 without the anti-DRM/tivoization clause, it's quite likely that the shift from GPLv2 to GPLv3 would have happened without a blip.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Commercial use
by b3timmons on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Commercial use"
b3timmons Member since:
2006-08-26

Your post is 'Yes, but <a totally unrelated topic>': I don't like straw man arguments: the GP was wrong in saying that only 'evil guys' need to be concerned by the GPLv2/GPLv3 split, and I pointed this out.

And I don't like the quoting out of context and selective reading upon which your most of your reply to the GP relied.

The GP acknowledged the Linux kernel as an exception to the isolated statement that you quoted first, and yet you ignored it by mentioning the kernel--as if he never acknowledged it. Moreover, you ignored his "in general" [1] qualification. After all, how many out of thousands of projects use "GPLv2 only" besides the Linux kernel, git, busybox, Qt, and MySQL?

In addition, the GP acknowledged that the GPLv3 was controversial among kernel developers because of its anti-Tivoization language, and yet you--again quoting out of context--chose to ignore this and tried to play up how Torvalds does not like the anti-Tivoization language. Is he not a kernel developer? You also ignored the GP's "rather" qualification of "uncontroversial." Fortunately, he considered sentiments at large and not merely from some of the few that the media likes to hype for who knows what purposes.

Finally, nothing specifically about the GPLv3 matters to any other cases that you cite, such as Qt. Everyone knew years ago that a new copyleft license would be incompatible as well as knowing the long-recommended "or later" language around it. Failing to deal with Tivoization would not have changed the incompatibility, of course. Trolltech, MySQL AB, etc. have a generic concern about copyleft licenses. Again, the GP identified the specific concerns about the GPLv3: the patent deal blocking and the anti-Tivoization language.

To be fair to your concerns, perhaps the GP should have mentioned the incompatibility that naturally results between copyleft licenses and the usefulness of the "or later" language. Hopefully, such elementary considerations will soon be common knowledge among developers.

[1]:
in general
adj : considered altogether; "the country at large"; "I enjoyed the play as a whole though I thought the acting could have been better" [syn: {as a whole(ip)}, {at large(ip)}, {in general(ip)}]

Edited 2007-07-23 20:30

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Commercial use
by lemur2 on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 23:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Commercial use"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

had the FSF made a GPLv3 without the anti-DRM/tivoization clause, it's quite likely that the shift from GPLv2 to GPLv3 would have happened without a blip.


Do you realize that the GPLv3 license is both a license for FSF's code and a template license text for others to use if they so desire? Being a mere template, it means that other parties can simply remove whatever clauses they don't want, and apply the remainder of the text of the template as their license.

If the kernel devs truly do want Tivo to be able to rip end users off, and they truly don't want the anti-tivoisation clause, then why don't they simply rip out that clause from the GPLv3 license template and release the kernel under that modified license, calling it GPLv3(b) or somesuch? That way the kernel devs would gain all of the benefiits and improvements and protections of GPLv3 without the anti-tivisation clause to which they apparently (and somewhat mysteriously) object.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Commercial use
by StephenBeDoper on Tue 24th Jul 2007 17:40 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Commercial use"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

If the kernel devs truly do want Tivo to be able to rip end users off


Yes, that's obviously their primary motivation.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Commercial use
by stestagg on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 23:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Commercial use"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

I challenge you to come up with a widely applicable license that will be applied to 1,000s of public products, that is universally liked.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Commercial use
by asmodai on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 14:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Commercial use"
asmodai Member since:
2006-03-28

I challenge you to come up with a widely applicable license that will be applied to 1,000s of public products, that is universally liked.
BSD and MIT licenses have done very well, thank you very much.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Commercial use
by stestagg on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 14:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Commercial use"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

But they aren't universally liked.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Commercial use
by rayiner on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 22:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Commercial use"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

BSD and MIT licenses are playing in a completely different space. How many big commercial products have been released under BSD/MIT? How many big companies are paying people to work on BSD/MIT-licensed software? There are examples, sure, but they're much rarer than for GPL'ed software.

The GPL has some fairly unique characteristics that allow for a surprisingly pain-free cooperation between corporate and community users. There is a merit in it that BSD/MIT proponents really fail to see.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Commercial use
by asmodai on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 14:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Commercial use"
asmodai Member since:
2006-03-28

GCC has been used for decades to compile all manner of proprietary software, and the GPLv3 doesn't change this. Vendors that distribute development tools based on GCC should have their lawyers take a look. However, chances are that what they're doing is permitted under the GPLv3 if it was permitted under the GPLv2.

Only if the GCC release has something akin to this again:

The source code of libstdc++ is distributed under version 2 of the GNU General Public License, with the so-called "runtime exception," as follows (or see any header or implementation file):

As a special exception, you may use this file as part of a free software library without restriction. Specifically, if other files instantiate templates or use macros or inline functions from this file, or you compile this file and link it with other files to produce an executable, this file does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be covered by the GNU General Public License.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Commercial use
by npang on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 11:12 UTC in reply to "Commercial use"
npang Member since:
2006-11-26

The GPL is a distribution licence and not a usage licence. You do not have to agree to anything within the GPL to use GPL software. You have to follow the terms of the GPL if you wish to *distribute GPL software*.

Edited 2007-07-23 11:15 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Commercial use
by lemur2 on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 13:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Commercial use"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

You have to follow the terms of the GPL if you wish to *distribute GPL software*.


You have to follow the terms of the GPL v3 if you wish to *convey GPL v3 software*.

"Convey" includes doing things like "give someone vouchers so they can obtain".

Reply Score: 4

Novell / Microsoft deal
by nunogt on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 14:57 UTC
nunogt
Member since:
2006-01-27

Even though there are no practical immediate consequences, it'll be interesting to see what will Microsoft's reaction be once Novell includes GPLv3 code in SuSe (Samba, GCC, and counting). According to GPLv3, the current patent deal between Novell and Microsoft would be infringing, and the only way for it to comply is by delivering the patent protections Novell currently enjoys not only to its customers, but to the entire community.

RMS explains it here: http://gplv3.fsf.org/static/release/rms_gplv3_launch_high_quality.o...

Reply Score: 2

v RE: Novell / Microsoft deal
by Almafeta on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 15:12 UTC in reply to "Novell / Microsoft deal"
RE[2]: Novell / Microsoft deal
by BryanFeeney on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 17:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Novell / Microsoft deal"
BryanFeeney Member since:
2005-07-06

The GPL "license" is effectively a conditionaly waiver of the owner's funadmental rights under copyright. If the GPL were ever declared invalid, the situation would revert to standard copyright, where no-one would have the right to redistribute the product.

This simple construction makes the GPL far stronger than the EULAs used in traditional proprietary software, which rely on licensing law, and are hobbled by the fact that you often have to buy the product before you can view the license, which breaches the basics of contract law, regardless of refund schemes.

Consequently it is unlikely any court will declare the GPL invalid, or that any organisation will try to do so. The basic simplicity of its construction lends it enormous legal strength.

Furthermore, the FSF is in no way trying to "take over" Microsoft: frankly that's a lot of astonishingly paranoid nonsense. The additional restriction to the GPL is that if you copy and paste GPL code when creating your own product, and you patent your additions, you must distribute the result under the GPL, and waive all rights to your patents on those additions, so that other users can copy and paste your code just as easily as you copy and pasted from the original author's code[1].

The issue for Novell really only comes into play if they knowingly mix GPL code and patented code together. Of course, if Microsoft has informed them of the patents, and they've accepted those patents' validity as part of the contract, then they will find themselves in an awkward position, effectively unable to redistribute GPLv3 products... until they create patches to work around the patent issues. If anything, this should help open-source software work around patents, insofar as possible in the current, uncertain patent climate

[1] Note there is always the possibility that you could ask the original author to relicense his code under a different license (e.g. commercial one), should you wish to avoid these constraints. And if they refuse, well then you just write everything from scratch yourself, instead of copy and pasting other peoples' work.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[3]: Novell / Microsoft deal
by Almafeta on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 18:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Novell / Microsoft deal"
RE[4]: Novell / Microsoft deal
by stestagg on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 21:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Novell / Microsoft deal"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

Congratualtions gentlemen, I think we have a confirmed new NotParker.

Reply Score: 5

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

If it was, your ad hominem response would certainly make him feel right at home.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Novell / Microsoft deal
by lemur2 on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 00:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Novell / Microsoft deal"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

That's exactly why the FSF won't be pursuing this; the chance of destroying the GPL v3 is too great. As well as losing their license, the risk of destroying so many OSS products -- especially since their sponsors rely on using GPL code instead of hiring developers and creating their own products -- is too great for them to legally pursue this.


Seriously, where do you get this drivel from?

The FSF do not have to "persue" anything.

If you stick to the terms of the license under which FSF code is diseminated, then you are licensed for your activity.

If you do not, then you are in violation of copyright law.

Therefore, the GPL v3 license is good only for the defense of GPL software itself ... to stop other parties from attacking GPL software. It has no purpose other than that.

Finally, once again ... (how many times must this be repeated to you before you get it?) ... if the GPL license is somehow decalred void, then the copyrighted software formerly released under the GPL reverts to copyrighted software of the FSF. The FSF will simply fix whatever legal problem is found in the text of the GPL, and then re-release their software under an amended version of the GPL. Voiding the GPL will simply NOT give ownership rights over GPL software to Microsoft.

Edited 2007-07-23 00:05

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Novell / Microsoft deal
by rayiner on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 21:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Novell / Microsoft deal"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

That's the superior solution in virtually all cases anyways.

The hell it is. We use Linux/GCC at our company for custom-designed hardware. The odds of us coming up with a better combo from scratch on our own is statistically insignificant...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Novell / Microsoft deal
by stestagg on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 21:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Novell / Microsoft deal"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

There is no way that anyone in the OSS community would, or could acquire Microsoft Closed-source technologies in this manner. The problem is that the Microsoft patent-deal does not, cover the GPLv3. As more projects switch to the v3, the patent-deal has less and less effect.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE OSS COMMUNITY STEALING IP!

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Novell / Microsoft deal
by lemur2 on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 23:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Novell / Microsoft deal"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

It's doubtful that they will try to 'acquire' Microsoft's stuff this way. If they did try to take this to court, they have a 50/50 chance (or greater) of having the GPL v3 declared legally void.


There is no way that GPL v3 is an attack on Microsoft, or that there is any intent whatsoever to take Microsoft to court.

If, however, Microsoft try to take GNU/Linux to court, then GPL v3 affords a legal defense against such bullying by Microsoft. Microsoft are giving out vouchers for other people's copyrighted works ... specifically, Microsoft are giving out vouchers fro GNU software ... and FSF holds the copyright for GNU software.

Under copyright law, Microsoft need permission from the copyright holder (not Novell, but the actual copyright holder) to give out vouchers for GNU software.

The copyright holders of GNU software (namely, the FSF) have given such permission to anyone who abides by the terms of the GPL license. Outside of abiding by the terms of the GPL license, there is simply no other permission given.

Either Microsoft abide by the terms of the GPL license (in which case they have the required-by-law permissions for their vouchers), or they do not (in which case they have no permissions). If Microsoft have no permission to give out vouchers for someone else's copyrighted work, then Microsoft are in violation of copyright law. It really is that simple.

Going to court and somehow getting the GPL declared legally void will not somehow magically provide Microsoft with permission to violate copyright law. If the GPL is somehow decalred legally void, Microsoft will still have no permissions for their vouchers. What Microsoft would have to do is get copyright law decalred legally void ... do you really believe Microsoft can do that or would want to do that? Get real.

Edited 2007-07-22 23:49

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Novell / Microsoft deal
by Marcellus on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 07:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Novell / Microsoft deal"
Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

But the vouchers does NOT entitle you to any GPLv3 code.

They entitle you to a support agreement for SLED, exluding any and all parts that are under GPLv3.

Novell is free to include additional parts if they want to, but that is entirely up to them.

There is no need to take it all to court, unless you think MS can be seen as a distributor of GPLv3 code through Novell adding parts that MS explicitly exclude from the offer.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Novell / Microsoft deal
by lemur2 on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 12:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Novell / Microsoft deal"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

But the vouchers does NOT entitle you to any GPLv3 code.

They entitle you to a support agreement for SLED, exluding any and all parts that are under GPLv3.


Sorry, but this is not what the vouchers themselves say.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061107194320461

From Novell's 8K

Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

On November 2, 2006, Novell, Inc. (“Novell”) and Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) announced that they had entered into a Business Collaboration Agreement, a Technical Collaboration Agreement, and a Patent Cooperation Agreement. This set of broad business and technical collaboration agreements is designed to build, market and support a series of new solutions to make Novell and Microsoft products work better together for customers.

Under the Business Collaboration Agreement, which expires January 1, 2012, Novell and Microsoft will market a combined offering. The combined offering will consist of SUSE Linux Enterprise Server (“SLES”) and a subscription for SLES support along with Microsoft Windows Server, Microsoft Virtual Server and Microsoft Viridian that will be offered to customers desiring to deploy Linux and Windows in a virtualized setting. Microsoft will make an upfront payment to Novell of $240 million for SLES subscription “certificates,” which Microsoft may use, resell or otherwise distribute over the term of the agreement, allowing the certificate holder to redeem single or multi-year subscriptions for SLES support from Novell (entitling the certificate holder to upgrades, updates and technical support). Microsoft will spend $12 million annually for marketing Linux and Windows virtualization scenarios and will also spend $34 million over the term of the agreement for a Microsoft sales force devoted primarily to marketing the combined offering. Microsoft agreed that for three years it will not enter into an agreement with any other Linux distributor to encourage adoption of non-Novell Linux/Windows Server virtualization through a program substantially similar to the SLES subscription “certificate” distribution program.


It says "combined offering", it says "expires January 1, 2012" and it says "SLES and a subscription for support". It also says
"redeem single or multi-year subscriptions for SLES support from Novell (entitling the certificate holder to upgrades, updates and technical support)"
... upgrades and updates are both software. It says absolutely nothing about any limitation to "GPL v2 only".

The vouchers do indeed entitle you to GPL v3 code.

Edited 2007-07-23 12:13

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Novell / Microsoft deal
by dsmogor on Mon 23rd Jul 2007 08:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Novell / Microsoft deal"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Well, having GPL v3 tested in court right off wouldn't hurt it. I presume this could be one of it's advantages. It may be cynical but if FSF wants to quickly promote it they should start some GPL3 related lawsuits in number of EU countries and USA. The more high profile they are, the better.

Edited 2007-07-23 08:13

Reply Score: 1

fstack-protector
by netpython on Sun 22nd Jul 2007 16:02 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

cool finally i can use the fstack-protector for all functions on a vanilla kernel:-)

Reply Score: 5