“Would you have believed at the end of last summer that Microsoft and Novell would partner over Linux, or that Oracle would create its own brand of Linux? Yeah, I wouldn’t have believed it either, but here we are. So, what does it all mean? Rather than make a snap judgement I decided to sit, wait and watch before trying to make sense of it all. Now, I’m ready to give you my two-cents on who are the winners and losers in this post-deal Linux world.”
Microsoft.
I’m also tired of seeing people attack Novell without thinking it through. Now that they’re talking to RH as well I’ve seen several people change their tunes.
You all can’t hate every single commercial linux vendor who eventually makes some deal with microsoft.(no matter how big or small)
Like it or not, we need those deals. Those are beneficial for linux. (here comes the wishful thinking) Maybe in the short future we won’t need some reverse engineered NTFS driver. Novell will get a legitimate one for us. And there’s a whole mountain of compatibility items that we can get from all of this that I’m not thinking of.
Edited 2006-11-16 13:15
Microsoft gets protected from getting sued by Novel who as the most patents. They are a looser ? Your clearly very tired.
“Like it or not, we need those deals.”
No , as the deal is not for the entire GNU/Linux Free Software community entirely. Its not even solid as a deal , Microsoft can decide to break it at anytime.
“here comes the wishful thinking”
Your always doing wishfull thinking.
“Maybe in the short future we won’t need some reverse engineered NTFS driver. Novell will get a legitimate one for us. ”
Why would Microsoft give it to Novell now ?
“And there’s a whole mountain of compatibility items that we can get from all of this that I’m not thinking of. ”
As long as Microsoft is in control , they only need to extand and change the format , standard , codec and lock everyone out.
With Free Software evryone is welcome to contribute improvment and no one gets locked out or in control.
Clearly you need some real sleep , take a very long vacation.
I’m also tired of seeing people attack Novell without thinking it through. Now that they’re talking to RH as well I’ve seen several people change their tunes
If you spouted actual facts, that would be better than your wishful thinking.
RH won’t make so stupid a deal, they just can’t.
You all can’t hate every single commercial linux vendor who eventually makes some deal with microsoft.(no matter how big or small)
But we don’t. We do only when some commercial Linux vendor tries to makes deals that goes against things that are not even their properties.
Like it or not, we need those deals
No we don’t. Or ‘we’ is ‘Novell users’ ? I assert even Novell users don’t want these kind of deals. They were’nt even aware of such deals !!
Those are beneficial for linux
Here comes your problem. Repeat after me : Novell is not Linux.
Maybe in the short future we won’t need some reverse engineered NTFS driver
In Novell Linux, not in the stock kernel. And yet, I wonder if it would be legal, I guess not.
Novell will get a legitimate one for us
Which would mean MS could retire it from the kernel at any time as soon as it sues one user of this patented thing.
There’s a patent clause in GPLv2 already.
From the FA:
The big winner from this shift is Novell. While many open-source true-believers hate Novell’s guts for making a deal with the devil, excuse me Microsoft, the bottom line is that this deal opens up a lot of doors for Novell.
This echoes some of the sentiments in your post. Now I don’t know where you peeps get such absurd ideas, but here is the deal.
The absolute looser is Novell. Why? Because it managed to earn the animosity of the community at large, and led credibility to the need of GPL v3 (which the article considers a looser – wtf? It has become a common joke that Stallmann can now send thank you letters to MS for helping FSF in pushing v3!). This wouldn’t be a problem alone, but in a few months – at most a year – it will find itself in legal poopoo. This is not speculation, this is what is going to happen: Eben Moglen promises, that GPL v3 will explicitly forbid such deals.
So, as soon as new version of gcc/glibc/bash/etc. comes out under GPL v3, Novell will have to either break the deal with MS (thus losing face, not that it will have much to lose at that time), or it can fork the entire application stack maintained by FSF.
Meanwhile SUN GPLed java, RH became the proud owner of Jboss a few months ago, and on top of that, it offers complete protection to its customers against any IP related litigation (without any actual expiry date). What does this mean? It means, that what you wrote – excuse me – is total crap. RH has 80% market share without actually engaging in such shady deals – so I don’t know where your “we need those deals” comes from. It has unparalleled (except for Trolltech perhaps) customer satisfaction among commercial vendors – be it open source of proprietary.
Like it or not, we need those deals. Those are beneficial for linux
As I have just explained, no, they are not. The most you can say is that they are worthless. But it is worse than that. Actually, I’ll translate the MS-Novell deal for you: there are patent problems with linux. That’s what Microsoft’s offer means, no more, no less. A subtle, distressing and unfair FUD machine.
It is such a pity that Novell has become a partner to this for perceived short term gains. No wonder that the free software community is up in arms (ranging from groklaw through Perens to the Samba team) – MS simply tries to single out commercial linux companies to support its own FUD propaganda. They offer these distributions a new tool to compete with: patents. So far, commercial linux distributions competed on two fronts: technical excellence and quality of support and services. Even Oracle. Novell, by accepting Microsoft’s offer, introduced a new tool: patents. This is against the spirit – if not the letter – of the GPL, which tries to enforce a level playing field, and was successful until the Novell-MS deal
It doesn’t matter now, because they won’t be around for too long. SUN’s gpling java spells doom to Mono, and gpl v3 will spell doom to Novell in one way or another. If they break their deal with MS to comply, that would be a HUGE loss of credibility, if they don’t, they will fall behind other distroes. That’s what the MS deal means.
Edited 2006-11-16 17:03
There is nothing beneficial about the Novell-MS deal. It was a stupid attempt at killing GPL. That’s why the reaction was so fierce. Especially from the Samba team.
Microsoft will _never_ release anything to help us out with the NTFS-driver. Believing they will do that is so naïve that “wishful thinking” doesn’t even cover it.
//There is nothing beneficial about the Novell-MS deal. It was a stupid attempt at killing GPL. That’s why the reaction was so fierce. Especially from the Samba team.
Microsoft will _never_ release anything to help us out with the NTFS-driver. Believing they will do that is so naïve that “wishful thinking” doesn’t even cover it.//
I think that certain Microsoft trade secrets are in fact revealed by Samba (networking protocols), by OpenOffice (MS Office binary formats) and by ntfs-3g (NTFS filesystem).
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=15196
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=23836054&for…
Microsoft seem to be all about somehow charging Linux users for “their IP”. The real wookie here, the “disregard that man behind the curtain” factor, is that under trade secret law once someone else figures out your secret that is it, your IP has no legal protection any more.
Hey Microsoft! Can you hear us? We are a wake up, you know!
Although it is true to say that “trade secret” == “IP”, it is not true at all to say that “deconstructed trade secret” == “violated IP”.
In actual fact “deconstructed trade secret” == “no longer secret, anyone may use freely”.
Sorry about that Microsoft, no blood money for you here.
Microsoft == big loser here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret#Protecting_trade_secrets
“Trade secret protection can, in principle, extend indefinitely and in this respect offers an advantage over patent protection (which lasts only for a specifically delimited period, for example twenty years in the U.S.). (One company that has no patent for its formula and has been very effective in protecting it for many more years than a patent would have is Coca Cola.) However, the “down side” of such protection is that it is comparatively easy to lose (for example, to reverse engineering, which a patent will withstand but a trade secret will not) and comes equipped with no minimum guaranteed period of years.”
“Companies often try to discover one another’s trade secrets through lawful methods of reverse engineering”
How can I say Microsoft’s stuff is trade secret and not patent?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret#Comparison_with_patents
“Comparison with patents
To acquire a patent, full information about the method or product has to be supplied to the patent bureau and will then be available to all.”
… because Microsoft has not published it, that is how.
Edited 2006-11-17 09:02
Novell would be really pissed if MS did the same kind of deal with other linux vendors since their agreement specifically states that MS cannot enter into a similar agreement.
“””Novell would be really pissed if MS did the same kind of deal with other linux vendors since their agreement specifically states that MS cannot enter into a similar agreement.”””
Oh, Dear. This is true?
It seems that even those of us who are trying to give Novell the benefit of the doubt are running out of doubt to give them the benefit of.
If this deal is good for OSS, why insist upon their being the only ones to have it. And bearing in mind that it only applies to Novell’s paying customers, and not Linux users, or even Suse users, in general, the only reasonable conclusion is that they feel it would be good for OSS if *everyone* had to buy a commercial license from Novell.
It seems to have gone past giving benefit of doubt, and into having to go through logical contortions to paint them as a good community player.
Not that I buy the line that Non-Novell Linux distros contain Microsoft IP, in the first place.
Edited 2006-11-16 13:56
Not to dispute your claim… in fact, I’m curious, because Cringerly wrote the same thing, that the Novell-MS deal was supposed to be exclusive – can you tell point me to that part of the agreement that says MS can’t enter into a similar agreement?
I disagree , in order for free software advocate to loose the Linux and GNU/Linux developper need to stop making Free Software entirely.
GPLv3 is in theory already used in the majority , most of the code is GPLv2+ .
Also the discussion commitees is made up of everyone who does build, service, and sell Linux. If they had a major problem we would have heard about it before.
The only real looser in all of this is Novell , in order for Microsoft to cave in so fast is because they knew they where infriging on Novell patents.
Microsoft dont loose at all with a deal like this.
MS infringe on Novell patents? How in the name of the gods did you come up with that? MS has done alot of crappy stuff in the past, I grant you that, but there isn’t one thing in Novell’s portfolio that would interest MS. Apple? sure, Sun? maybe, but with Novell it’s the other way around, it’s Novell that produces Mono, and it’s Novell that needs a special little something to gain it some credibilty in the enterprise. It now has that little something with the interoperabilty agreements and liabilty protection. MS just comes out of this looking like it supports competition, which I think is it’s big win, you can’t say that it stifles competition when it is working with the competition to increase interoperabilty.
“””MS has done alot of crappy stuff in the past, I grant you that, but there isn’t one thing in Novell’s portfolio that would interest MS.”””
You don’t think they might be stepping on a few patents related to directory services?
Considering that AD is based on LDAP, and that is an open standard, No
Considering that AD is based on LDAP, and that is an open standard, No
LDAP is a protocol, not a directory service. Part of Active Directory may be based on LDAP or rather X.500 spcifications. Active Directory is a whole directory service and was built as a direct response to NDS, which is now called eDirectory, a Novell product. AD has many of it’s services based on Novell’s NDS based services, despite being limited some major ways.
Edited 2006-11-16 18:11
All directory management systems are going to share characteristics, especially ones based on LDAP. LDAP (and X.500) is more than just a communication protocol, it also a specification describing the directories basic schema and how that schema can be extended. Therefore edirectory and AD are going to be similar, as they both use LDAP.
As far as AD being limited, I work with both at work, and I find AD to be far more flexible, especially when combined with group policies. Now that could be a limitation of Netware’s crappy toolset, but as far as my experience is concerned AD beats edirectory hands down
MS infringe on Novell patents?
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1811581,00.asp
<< “These patents, in the wrong hands, would be used to shake down any companies that operate in Web services and use standards,” said Jason Schultz, patent attorney with the Electronic Frontier Organization, at the time. >>
You don’t honestly believe Microsoft would have made this deal if Novell didn’t have something to leverage? If their intent was simply to present an aura of co-operation while trying to drive a wedge in the community, there were much cheaper ways of doing so.
Microsoft is terrified of software patents, in fact Bill Gates even spoke out against them originally. It was only after they realized their vulnerability to patent claims that they started building their own portfolio to deter others. The ability to use them in a competitive manner as intimidation is simply a benefit for them, it wasn’t the prime driver. The prime driver was fear.
MS doesn’t care about cheap, they care about the bottom line, and they are paying far more in fines to the EU then this deal will ever cost them, so they probley think it’s money well spent if it can buy some goodwill from the Europeans
“MS infringe on Novell patents? How in the name of the gods did you come up with that? MS has done alot of crappy stuff in the past, I grant you that, but there isn’t one thing in Novell’s portfolio that would interest MS.”
No? What about NetWare, WordPerfect, Novell DOS (former DR-DOS), or IPX/SPX? At the time of the deal Novell had a pending antitrust case against MS for WordPerfect and Quattro Pro (details: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20041112-4398.html)
As I have stated in the past, this was about MS protecting themselves from Novell.
The case concerning WP is about Anti-competitive behavior, not patents:
“The suit alleges Microsoft illegally engaged in anticompetitive business practices against WordPefect and Quattro Pro between 1994 and 1996”
That’s right from the Ars technica article you linked too.
IPX/SPX? Why would anybody even care? And MS certainly didn’t steal that, they went with NETBIOS/NETBEUI, which they got from IBM and Lan Manager. IPX/SPX has always sucked, that’s why it’s a comatose protocol
DR-DOS was a DOS clone, so I think other than anticompetitive practices against it, MS doesn’t have much to worry about, especially since MS-DOS was a clone of CPM, not DR-DOS
DR-DOS was not a DOS clone. DR-DOS was a new version of CP/M-86 with some changes to make it more compatible with MS-DOS.
Or put another way: DR-DOS is a renamed CP/M-86 with increased compatibility with MS-DOS, which is an illegal rip-off from CP/M.
I doubt you could call MS-DOS an illigal rip off, as I don’t think there is any cpm code in dos, just a similar (yet broken) feel. you may be right about DR-DOS being an inproved version of CPM-86.
There _is_ CP/M code in MS-DOS. Gary Kildall’s copyright could be found several places in older MS-DOS versions. I don’t know if this is true for newer versions (those shipped with Win2K/XP/2K3).
DR-DOS _is_ CP/M-86.
I’ve never heard that before, but would be interested in more info, but couldn’t find much, do you have any sources?
Its nice to see some people are keeping their head in all this. All the people that have been going on about how this bad for Linux and how Novell==SCO need to chill. Novell is not a charity, they are not a non-profit, they have a legal duty to their shareholders to make money. Do you really think they want to hurt Linux? They know their future rests with Linux as their Netware sales continue to decline. They need Linux to be better then Windows so they can sell more support, enterprise editions, etc.
Do you really think they want to hurt Linux?
Do you really think they know what they are doing ?
They know their future rests with Linux as their Netware sales continue to decline. They need Linux to be better then Windows so they can sell more support, enterprise editions, etc.
And you think because some company know what it needs, it will do the right things automatically ?
You mean they did all that knowing that there would be a backlash from the community, and still did it ?
That would just show they don’t understand what they’re doing.
People tend to overlook/forget a lot of stuff when it’s in their favor — and the bash things when it runs against them. For example, IBM is one of the biggest corporate orgs in the industry, and it has contributed tons of code to Linux. Does anybody seriously think that IBM did so out of the goodness of its heart? Of course not! IBM wants to create credible alternatives to competitors’ OSes — thereby selling lots of services and software in the process — and there’s no better way to do that than make an investment in Linux. So, knowing that, should we spurn IBM because “they’re only in it for the money”?!? No, absolutely not! Sometimes, you take help wherever it comes from. Novell has essentially guaranteed that, no matter whether there are IP landmines in the Linux source code, you will be able to obtain code from them without fear of being sued. Now, people may scoff at that, but the fact of the matter is that companies driving adoption of Linux want and need to be risk-averse. They’re moving to Linux because they believe that there will be significant cost savings. If you throw in the possibility that they could be sued for using IP-offensive code, then it tends to make IT management nervous.
I don’t know if you’ve met a lot of IT managers (I have), but I can tell you that the “nobody ever got fired for buying IBM … or Microsoft … or [fill-in-the-blank]” mentality is still alive and well. They don’t want to see their careers destroyed over IP issues that Microsoft and others have been warning about for the past several years. I’m not lending credibility to those warnings — I’m merely pointing out that they DO have an impact on many corporate buyers.
Ultimately, though, the biggest impediment to patent infringement lawsuits from Microsoft may be the risk of alienating increasingly common customers in hybrid Windows/Linux environments.
I don’t know if you’ve met a lot of IT managers (I have), but I can tell you that the “nobody ever got fired for buying IBM … or Microsoft … or [fill-in-the-blank]” mentality is still alive and well.
And MS has a lot of those guys i hate the most.The good old boys network.It must irritate them their network doesn’t reach into the FSF community as they see fit.In the end the servers must run with as little as possible down time at the lowest possible TCO.The same suits as referred to don’t give a rats ass what runs the shop as long as it runs properly.At least that’s the ideal.
I’m not lending credibility to those warnings — I’m merely pointing out that they DO have an impact on many corporate buyers.
Wrong,it’s the benefits attached to making a deal.I sign you pay my holiday expenses.Dinners,trips to the best local cat house etc..The deal has been sealed my options will rise.Release shedules.Shareholders.I drive BMW because i must have missed something in my youth.
Business as usual.
Ultimately, though, the biggest impediment to patent infringement lawsuits from Microsoft may be the risk of alienating increasingly common customers in hybrid Windows/Linux environments.
How long has SCO treathened with law suits?Up till now none have actually had a positive outcome for SCO(MS).I doubt they have any case.They just can’t get a grip on the community.
Not being able to comprehend what seems to be a successfull competitor yet you can’t get a grip on it is what irritates them the most.I hope it stays that way.
Face it who should you take out to lunch when you are after debian,gentoo,samba,apache,<fill in>?
Linux/unix has won in the server rooms.The flavor been running there is the flavor the admin responsible for knows best.and what he/she knows best has the best change of a good TCO and decreased downtime.Whatever gets the job done.
Its nice to see some people are keeping their head in all this. All the people that have been going on about how this bad for Linux and how Novell==SCO need to chill. Novell is not a charity, they are not a non-profit, they have a legal duty to their shareholders to make money.
They also have a duty to the community that provides them with something to distribute. And they failed miserably on that duty, because they used patents as a competitive tool – and like it or not, the open source community doesn’t like patents and vague threats from microsoft.
Besides, I wouldn’t say that the author of the article is keeping his head in all this, because he has some really weird assumptions, like GPL v3 being a loser… This is simply crazy – if anything, it gained a new boost, and some even joke that Stallmann owes a thankyou to microsoft because of that. Proclaiming Novell a winner, how absurd is that? You don’t have to dislike Novell to see how their deal spells doom for them in the not so distant future. Eben Moglen promised, that GPL v3 will make such deals impossible. Once FSF software will be distributed under v3, Novell will have two choices: break the deal with MS (and lose credibility), or fork FSF software, and maintain glibc/gcc/bash/whatnot alone. Either way, Novell will be a loser. And I didn’t even mention the animosity they earned from the community (and ironically, from interoperability experts like the Samba team).
And yes, by being partner to Microsoft’s new FUD initiative, the community has every right to be pissed. Because it is beyond any doubt that the MS-Novell deal conveys this message: linux has MS patent issues (but Microsoft is nice enough to offer “protection” to Novell’s customers). So yeah, you can ask nicely everyone to chill – from groklaw through Perens to the samba team (oh, and SFLC’s Bradley Kuhn) – but don’t you think they have a reason to be annoyed?
They need Linux to be better then Windows so they can sell more support, enterprise editions, etc.
And this MS deal helps them … how? Do you seriously think that Microsoft will help them achieve that goal? Incredible. It is as incredible as saying that MS will help linux to compete with their own products in sectors of key importance to Microsoft, like governments and the enterprise… Oh, wait:
“The financial commitments Microsoft is making as part of this agreement are significant,” said Ron Hovsepian, president and CEO of Novell. “This will help drive Linux more rapidly into the enterprise and government arenas, broadly expanding opportunities for Linux and open source.” I just pity those hard working developers who maintain opensuse – they are fine folks, and deserve a better employer, really. It must be hard these days, having to explain – or even come up with some sort of justifications for – the actions of Novell.
On a side note: RH customers have full protection against any patent or IP related litigation concerning software sold to them by RH, and that protection doesn’t have an expiry date
Plus they own Jboss (and if you didn’t notice, SUN just GPLed JAVA) – so if there is a long term winner, it will be RH, despite the fact that their stock suffered on the short term.
edit> added link to Novell CEO’s statements.
Edited 2006-11-16 17:35
Eww, you used that FUD word again.
Please give me a specific reason that the MS deal makes Novell GPLv3 incompatible.
“Now, I’ll give them the benefit of a doubt, and will say that they didn’t intentionally screw the free software community for short term gains.”
Again, a specific example or explanation is needed to support this claim.
“On a side note: RH customers have full protection against any patent or IP related litigation concerning software sold to them by RH, and that protection doesn’t have an expiry date
“
So you are saying what novel did was bad, but this deal from RH concerning indemnification from IP related litigation is both morally OK and GPLv3 compliant? In the same way you claim the MS deal casts doubt on the legitimacy of GPL code wouldn’t the RH deal have basicially the same impact?
“and if you didn’t notice, SUN just GPLed JAVA”
I did notice, but did you know that Sun was given $900 million by MS not so long ago in a patent deal similar to that which Novell just inked? Were you also aware that Sun holds thousands of patents on Java, none of which seem to be a problem for the GPL?
Edited 2006-11-16 19:16
“””I did notice, but did you know that Sun was given $900 million by MS not so long ago in a patent deal similar to that which Novell just inked?”””
Under a different CEO, and as settlement over a long standing suit that Sun had against MS over… Java.
“””Eww, you used that FUD word again.”””
As an aside, I suggest that people actually spell out the words “Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt” instead of using the acronym. That way, it becomes instantly apparent to the writer when he is misusing the phrase. Plus, it adds emphasis when “Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt” is really what is meant.
I’m no Will Strunk… but hey! 😉
So you are saying what novel did was bad, but this deal from RH concerning indemnification from IP related litigation is both morally OK and GPLv3 compliant? In the same way you claim the MS deal casts doubt on the legitimacy of GPL code wouldn’t the RH deal have basicially the same impact?
To say that this is a stupid question is an understatement.
Microsoft: we offer protection for linux customers against… US.
RedHat: we offer you protection against someone suing you because of the software we distribute.
Sheesh.
I can’t put it more simple terms than that.
Yes, the situations are different. The MS deal is not about GPL’d code at all, it is about user contributed code for use on Microsoft’s virtualization platform.
Since the GPL is a license to distribute software, it is not binded by the GPL. This agreement is about enabling companies to come up with in-house hacks to make their stuff work with MSFT’s virtualization solution which may infringe on MSFT’s patent rights with Windows (these kinds of hacks could be necessary in some situations).
SuSE was selected for MSFT’s virtualization solution (MSFT will be giving customers coupons for SuSE support contracts with the deal).
The FSF community has said that any deal at all involving IP casts FUD on legitimacy of GPL software, but since this deal is not about GPL’d software at all and the RH deal is, it could be argued that the only one isolating the community by making an agreement with only a small subset of users is RH.
Either way, despite all the claims by people that this casts doubt about the legitimacy of GPL software, I have yet to see a single person suddenly questioning that legitimacy.
If not a single person is now aFraid, Uncertain, or Doubtful about GPL as a result of this Novell deal we are going have to stop calling it FUD.
Since the GPL is a license to distribute software, it is not binded by the GPL.
I stopped reading here because I thought my head would explode
Excuse me but it’s Novell that use opensource for there own needs, remember they use free software to make money, they know the score.
Using the word “charity” is not fair at all, who’s software is it again?
Well they could offer the “patent” part of the deal I guess but not the partnering/virtualization/distribution deal.
But nobody will take them up on the patent protection, if they do then they will be killing linux.
There’s a lot to say, but even the start of the article is wrong !
Would you have believed at the end of last summer that Microsoft and Novell would partner over Linux, or that Oracle would create its own brand of Linux? Yeah, I wouldn’t have believed it either, but here we are
I wouldn’t have believed it and it’s still not happening at all. Oracle still haven’t created their own brand of Linux (it’s still Red Hat), and Microsoft and Novell made absolutely no partnership over Linux, unless you believe Novell’s Linux OS are Linux (which would be pretty wrong).
When the GPLv3 finally arrives, it will be adopted by free-software fans, but the people who build, service, and sell Linux are going to ignore the new license
You do know that almost the entire friggin toolchain belongs to the FSF right? I’m pretty sure they’ll be using the license they wrote or would not be bothering to write the damn thing. Good luck getting any “Linux” system to boot without it.
“You do know that almost the entire friggin toolchain belongs to the FSF right? I’m pretty sure they’ll be using the license they wrote or would not be bothering to write the damn thing. Good luck getting any “Linux” system to boot without it.”
I don’t really care about GPL version 2 or 3, but what I do know is if there are really that many people that don’t like v3, then everything will be forked. The whole Linux world will turn into another SystemV vs. BSD
I don’t really care about GPL version 2 or 3, but what I do know is if there are really that many people that don’t like v3, then everything will be forked. The whole Linux world will turn into another SystemV vs. BSD
Well, back on planet earth we note that managers of important GNU projects will not be in shock when v3 has been released. After all, have they been raising a stink about it? Don’t you respect them enough to know that they will speak out now about problems? Anyway, whatever they have said has probably improved the drafting process.
Yes, everyone knows that “if foo foo, then bar bar”. Repeating it does not make foo foo a more plausible scenario. Think about it.
“Well, back on planet earth we note that managers of important GNU projects will not be in shock when v3 has been released. After all, have they been raising a stink about it? Don’t you respect them enough to know that they will speak out now about problems? Anyway, whatever they have said has probably improved the drafting process.”
Again, I have nothing against GPL v2 or 3. However, there are still plenty of high profile Linux devers that don’t agree with ver 3. Thats the reason it is taking so long to deliver. All I’m saying is that if v3 is not written in such a way that people like Torvalds accept it, then a lot of people won’t accept it and many forks will come out of it.
“Again, I have nothing against GPL v2 or 3. However, there are still plenty of high profile Linux devers that don’t agree with ver 3. Thats the reason it is taking so long to deliver. All I’m saying is that if v3 is not written in such a way that people like Torvalds accept it, then a lot of people won’t accept it and many forks will come out of it.”
Woah. Hold on. Let’s take this apart.
Linux is just a kernel. That’s it. There is much, much more code out there that says “GPL v2 or later”. You and I can be for or against v3, but our *feelings* do not help us guess the future.
If you have a preference, then you better be prepared to support it with logical reasoning and not an appeal to some high-profile so-n-so. Please understand that the intelligent free software developers out there use their own heads–not Linus’s, not RMS’s–to figure out whether they are going to v3. The connections between their projects and the Linux kernel are mostly in your imagination.
In fact, you are not even telling the other half of the story when Linus et al complained. Their statement received a lot of ridicule from various people who saw it as sloppy, flawed, and self-serving. More heat than light. Anyway, pro or con, use your *own head*.
Again, you can do much better than keep repeating “All I’m saying is that if blah blah then gloom and doom”.
Edited 2006-11-16 20:46
I understand that Linux is just a kernel, but without all of the tools that run on the Linux kernel, its pretty much worthless. Correct me if I’m wrong but if some parts of a distro go GPL v3 then don’t all of the other pieces have to be v3 because v2 is not compatible?
If Linus does not agree with v3 then that kinda causes problems doesn’t it? After all, he is still the keeper of the kernel isn’t he? How can you have a GPL v3 distro with a v2 kernel? I’m not trying to fight about this, but I would like some clarification from people that understand the GPL and all of its versions. Is there an IP lawyer in the audience
This whole thing is really sad, because I love using Linux, I’m using it right now; why should any user have to worry about licenses? People who use Windows already have enough problems with restrictive licenses, they shouldn’t have to worry about that stuff if they finally do switch over to Linux.
Edited 2006-11-16 21:12
“Correct me if I’m wrong but if some parts of a distro go GPL v3 then don’t all of the other pieces have to be v3 because v2 is not compatible?”
You are wrong, and I apologize for not guessing earlier that this may be the source of misunderstanding.
Yes, v2-only is incompatible with v3. Yes, *some* v2-only code (e.g., kernel) will require that other code (e.g., driver) not be v3 (not 100% on this; some cases may be allowed). True.
However, in most cases, non-kernel programs can be any kind of license, including v3, v3-or-later, etc. I cannot give you a good link right now that supports and expands upon my claims, but I recommend that you learn more about it so that you can help others understand this better. The essential idea is the notion of “linking”. To put it crudely, for code linked to other code, licenses must be compatible. Since most *user* applications do not have such close linking with the system, their licenses (say, v3) need not be compatible with the systems license (say, v2-only).
Correct me if I’m wrong but if some parts of a distro go GPL v3 then don’t all of the other pieces have to be v3 because v2 is not compatible?
No. Userspace and kernel space are two completely different areas, otherwise you’d be unable to run non-GPL programs in linux. Most distros, at least the non-extreme ones, use a mix of licensing in the included packages.
If Linus does not agree with v3 then that kinda causes problems doesn’t it? After all, he is still the keeper of the kernel isn’t he? How can you have a GPL v3 distro with a v2 kernel? I’m not trying to fight about this, but I would like some clarification from people that understand the GPL and all of its versions. Is there an IP lawyer in the audience
I’m not an IP lawyer, but you don’t need one. See my point above; a v2 kernel can easily exist with non-v2 applications, they’re not dependent upon each other. The fact that the kernel is built with tools that will soon become v3 also is irrelevant.
It’s not just Linus’ opposition that is a problem. There is no single person or organization that holds copyright for all of the code contributed to the kernel, that copyright is held by the developers or organizations contributing that code. Without copyright, you can’t relicense (at least outside of the terms to original license provides). So whether Linus alone says no doesn’t matter, it’s whether any of the developers say no. There have been thousands of individual contributions to the kernel over time, converting to v3 would require consent from every person with code in the kernel. That’s simply not feasible, particularly since some of those contributors are no longer alive.
If people decide to try and fork the kernel to follow v3 licensing, they will need to determine which of the developers are willing to relicense and will then have to scrub the kernel code to remove any code from developers that have not agreed to a relicense. A significant portion of the existing code came from organizations like HP and IBM, so it would not be unreasonable to say that without their consent a fork would simply not be possible, let alone feasible. To re-engineer and re-code those v2-only parts in a non-infringing manner would likely be exhaustive and those developers interested in doing so should most likely save themselves the hassle and just start working on Hurd.
This whole thing is really sad, because I love using Linux, I’m using it right now; why should any user have to worry about licenses? People who use Windows already have enough problems with restrictive licenses, they shouldn’t have to worry about that stuff if they finally do switch over to Linux.
Doesn’t have to be. In fact, really, it’s a non-issue. The kernel devs have made their stance clear. The kernel is staying v2. Most of the noise and FUD is coming from others who believe the freedom of the developers to choose and standby a license somehow infringes upon the entitlement of users, or just don’t understand the GPL. There are some that believe the FSF controls licensing on all GPL software, and that’s simply not true. It’s the copyright holders alone that control licensing on GPL’d software.
The rest of us are comfortable with the fact that nothing is going to change.
Thank you ‘b3timmons’ and ‘elsewhere’ for the clarifcation and points of view on this matter. I think its very important that people speak out on these things without bias so that all of us may benefit by having a better understanding of such things.
“””
If you have a preference, then you better be prepared to support it with logical reasoning and not an appeal to some high-profile so-n-so. Please understand that the intelligent free software developers out there use their own heads–not Linus’s, not RMS’s–to figure out whether they are going to v3. The connections between their projects and the Linux kernel are mostly in your imagination.
“””
Not just Linus. Though the Linux kernel developers have achieved a certain solidarity in their choice of license.
Not just RMS. Though he has a solid group of supporters who are… hard to avoid.
You are correct that developers have minds of their own. And some (most?) of them have a foot in the pragmatic camp, and another one in the idealism camp.
No matter what FSF does, there is going to be significant license fragmentation as a result of GPLv3.
The FSF should make the anti-DRM clauses optional, as they have others, in such a way as to achieve license compatibility between those GPL versions which include it and those that don’t.
Otherwise, we are going to end up with GPLv3’d software, with additional (incompatible) verbiage tacked on regarding those clauses, which will prove to be a net negative for us all.
And we will all have to live with that situation for a very long time.
And our opponents will not hesitate to take advantage.
We can’t forsee everything… but let’s at least address the things that are obvious enough at the time that the license is put into effect.
Edited 2006-11-16 21:06
1. No matter what FSF does, there is going to be significant license fragmentation as a result of GPLv3.
2. The FSF should make the anti-DRM clauses optional, as they have others, in such a way as to achieve license compatibility between those GPL versions which include it and those that don’t.
3. Otherwise, we are going to end up with GPLv3’d software, with additional (incompatible) verbiage tacked on regarding those clauses, which will prove to be a net negative for us all.
sbergman27:
I hope you know what you are are getting into with those claims.
Claim 1 is totally unsupported. Indulge me.
Claim 2 is moot and shows that deeper debate is needed to clarify some assumptions.
Claim 3, hinging on 1 and 2, needs help. It needs more thought in general.
But this debate might be a little off-topic.
You do know that almost the entire friggin toolchain belongs to the FSF right? I’m pretty sure they’ll be using the license they wrote or would not be bothering to write the damn thing. Good luck getting any “Linux” system to boot without it.
That doesn’t sound very “free”. It sounds like some cult will excommunicate those who voice heresy.
Heresay.
“””
///You do know that almost the entire friggin toolchain belongs to the FSF right? I’m pretty sure they’ll be using the license they wrote or would not be bothering to write the damn thing. Good luck getting any “Linux” system to boot without it.///
That doesn’t sound very “free”.
“””
Indeed, despite NotParker’s usual overly-provocative tone, I find myself in some agreement with the sentiment.
Competition is good, right? So… where is the FSF tool chain’s competition?
Even the BSDs use it. It looks like an unhealthy monoculture to me. It’s not as though gcc is so perfect that it accomodates all needs. Its portability is admirable, but performace is not totally beyond reproach.
There should be at least one major alternative.
And now, back to our regularly scheduled program… 😉
Edited 2006-11-16 20:08
You know what, I’d love to have an alternative to gcc. Let me know when you’re done writing it.
You see that’s exactly why there isn’t one. A toolchain+compiler is extremely non-trivial and most people, even the OpenBSD devs, would rather just use gcc than truck out on their own and fix the monoculture.
“””You see that’s exactly why there isn’t one. A toolchain+compiler is extremely non-trivial and most people, even the OpenBSD devs, would rather just use gcc than truck out on their own and fix the monoculture.”””
Which is a sort of non-freedom.
I quite understand what you are saying. But the point remains. Projects needing a compiler have no real choice. The barrier to entry is too high. Meaning that those who *did* do that work can now sit back and use it as a weapon to further their own causes, if only by espousing the idea that if it weren’t for them, you’d be nowhere.
As long as there is not an obvious alternative, the freedom afforded is a bit hollow.
Which is a sort of non-freedom.
I quite understand what you are saying. But the point remains. Projects needing a compiler have no real choice. The barrier to entry is too high. Meaning that those who *did* do that work can now sit back and use it as a weapon to further their own causes, if only by espousing the idea that if it weren’t for them, you’d be nowhere.
As long as there is not an obvious alternative, the freedom afforded is a bit hollow.
Interesting. However, everyone should see a crucial distinction here.
Yes, there is a freedom “A”, that you identify and there is a freedom “B”, such as one of the four the GPL is intended to protect. Both A and B involve economic and ethical elements. (Economic in the sense of developer resources, business models, etc.) However, B also involves legal things–the *force* of the law. A < B, so to speak.
Consider how petty much of our discussions turn out to be in the wider context of law. It’s hard to overestimate the reach and power of the law. Thus, I assert that B matters more than A in this discussion.
Just because A can obviously be used in “negative” ways does not mean that such use is unjustified–it may be seen as minimally redressing a lopsided imbalance in perceptions. I would contend that “Linux” has been officially a word of hype for some time now, a genie out of the bottle. And its maintainers, being ever practical, are all too happy to exploit it to their own ends. Think big, well beyond Linus et al, but also to the likes of IBM, OSDL, etc. None of this should surprise anyone: everyone has an agenda, some just quieter and more hidden than others.
You know what, I’d love to have an alternative to gcc. Let me know when you’re done writing it
I thank the GPL because it protects us from people like you. People that think that FOSS is free labor.
So you’d love to have an alternative to gcc, but somewhat, we are there to do it for you ? What is this nonsense ?
Once before, some people wanted an alternative too, and as they were free to do it, they’ve done it.
Then, when it was proven some of it was better, the fork reintegrated the mainline, as everyone came to an agreement.
But these people never showed your behaviour, and put their time where their mouth was.
You see that’s exactly why there isn’t one. A toolchain+compiler is extremely non-trivial and most people, even the OpenBSD devs, would rather just use gcc than truck out on their own and fix the monoculture
You’re just pissed because you can’t use us as free labor. Too bad for you.
The fact is that important projects like GCC and Glibc had their fork already, but they are now so mature, that no one hope to do better in a reasonable time.
That’s no monoculture there, as there are lots of other compilers out there. But in your mind, when several different people contribute to one commom project, it’s not because they can and it’s worth it, it’s because it’s “extremely non-trivial” to truck its own.
Even Apple contributed to GCC, for the less developed Objective C part, that must be one hell of a monoculture.
Hasn’t gcc tons of proprietary alternatives from MS, Borland, Sun, IBM and others already?
Competition is good? For what?
IMO, Competition is for old proprietary software.
Free software is about cooperation.
I tend to believe that there can be no competition on free software because there are no limits. You can’t have a bigger or smaller share than competitors because there are no shares. You have it all.
If you have a bright idea, you add it to the all and the all is bigger up to no limit. You don’t have to compete with other ideas, you just keep them all.
You believe gcc has room to improve, improve it. You don’t have to start a competing project that will do exactly the same thing as that would be totally pointless.
Competition does only work for limited resources.
Edited 2006-11-17 16:01
But I guess MS wins only during the short term during which they can make up some FUD about Linux infringing some MS Patents.
In the long term it will protect MS from Novells patents.
Novell created lots of bad press because they positioned themselves at a spot where they are bitten by the community (for outragous selfishness and stupidity) and probably will be bitten by Microsoft.
If the GPLv3 gets worded in a way which makes Movell either pull the whole community under their umbrella or forbids them distributing GPLv3 Software (which the FSF already anounced) then I can see Novell as a clear looser.
They would have to fork EVERY GPLv3 Project they want to include Software from in their Distro and continue it as a GPLv2 Project, which cuts them off from lots of code in the long run (just think about GCC for example).
So Novell gambled their future for $Millions they got from MS now. Looks like a greedy CEO short-term bonus money grab.
The users? I think we win. But I guess we always win, as long as the free OSs keep coming and keep improving.
I simply can´t see why if he is so fond about Linux, he attacks the GPLv3, which is just trying to guarantee other´s freedoms by adapting to the new problems that privative software and media corporations are creating against users freedoms and the abusive extension of their claimed (falsely) IP rights.
So, Mr. Vaugham, as long as it benefit companies, Linux and the GPL is good but is bad to try to better protect the rights and liberties of the users and the public at large?
How comes that there is so much FUD against GPLv3 from alleged Free Software advocates?
As of late, SVN speaks more and more about Open Sorce and less and less about Free Software. Has ZDNet (Ziff Davis)involvement in LinuxWatch/Desktop Linux someting to do about that??
Get real. SVJN is Linux’ Paul Thurrot.
Just because someone has a different opinion than you about something does not make him anti that something.
How comes that there is so much FUD against GPLv3 from alleged Free Software advocates?
Maybe because they think it sucks butt? It’s not as if everything RMS/FSF does is The Right Thing, you know.
How comes that there is so much FUD against GPLv3 from alleged Free Software advocates?
Maybe because they think it sucks butt? It’s not as if everything RMS/FSF does is The Right Thing, you know
What exactly is your justification for FUD (against the GPL here, but it’s the same for anything) ?
That some people think it “sucks butt” ? So that’s a justification now ?
And how do you know the FSF isn’t doing The Right Thing ? They’re just writing a license !!
What exactly is your justification for FUD (against the GPL here, but it’s the same for anything) ?
That some people think it “sucks butt” ? So that’s a justification now ?
When people think something sucks, yes, that’s a reason to complain. That’s called freedom of speech. FUD is subjective, so whether or not something is FUD (I hate that stupid, pointless acronym anyway; it’s right up there with ‘web 2.0’, ‘innovation’, and ‘integration’), differs per person.
And how do you know the FSF isn’t doing The Right Thing ? They’re just writing a license !!
Easy on the exclamation marks there, sonny. They don’t really add to the argument. Anyway, but I understand this is difficult to understand, but I actually did not pass any judgement on the GPLv3. I just said that not everything the FSF does is magically The Right Thing.
Do you understand the difference, or do I need to draw some pretty pictures with pastel colours before you get it?
but I actually did not pass any judgement on the GPLv3. I just said that not everything the FSF does is magically The Right Thing.
So it’s legitimate to say:,,Neither are your comments”.Which renders the comment useless,doesn’t add anything to the discusion.As if you are desparately eager to proove something.
Being partial and rude doesn’t make you any smarter.
Edited 2006-11-16 15:17
When people think something sucks, yes, that’s a reason to complain. That’s called freedom of speech. FUD is subjective, so whether or not something is FUD, differs per person
complain is different from FUD.
And no, FUD doesn’t differ per person at all. I will take a simple example :
“GPLv3 would prevent people from putting Linux into medical DRM protected devices” is complaining. “GPLv3 will kill Linux” is FUD.
If to you the FUD example differs per person, then I can’t do anything more : keep your opinion.
FUD suggests negatives outcomes without any basis, or with bogus ones.
I just said that not everything the FSF does is magically The Right Thing
They did The Right Thing until now, so what is your basis for saying that ?
Or that it would be magic ?
It seems in these days and age, honesty and common sense are unbelievable (magic) things to lots of people.
Do you understand the difference, or do I need to draw some pretty pictures with pastel colours before you get it?
Please, lend me the blackboard and the chalk and let me write something you surely could use:
“Respect for the others”
Someone way smarter than me once said: “Attack the idea, not the person”. But I suppose that doesn’t count when you’re insulting people in your own website.
Edited 2006-11-16 15:39
Calm down, folks!
Everybody who has been around for more than a few days should know by now that Thom gets pissed off when people put words in his mouth that he did not say.
Regarding FUD:
Your examples are more like headlines, something becomes FUD when you got nothing to back it up.
So non-FUD would read like:
“xyz in danger because of…” followed by a list of reasons.
FUD reads more like a collection of headlines without any solid facts:
“xyz is in danger because I say so. You’re getting in _big_ trouble, really! See, that guy over there thinks he can get in trouble so it must be true!”
Furthermore, the relationship between the people making the license and the people using it is not symmetric:
It’s perfectly ok for you as a possible “consumer” of the license to just say “This sucks!” without writing a 100 page academic study to show them in which precise way it sucks.
Finding that out is their job if they want their license to become widely adopted.
In OSS the distinction between user and producer/developer becomes a little blurred since a person can be both but I still think we should keep in mind that the user has the _right_ to be ignorant and lazy.
That’s why, when said by the user, “it sucks” is a perfectly valid argument whereas for the developer it would be inappropriate to reply “you suck”.
On winners and losers in the linux world:
It seems like every time something (possibly) bad happens, a lot of people write articles how linux is doing better than ever and how linux only profits – no matter what’s happening.
I’m not saying this article is stupid, I’m just saying it was bound to happen.
The deal is probably not gonna destroy linux but after reading the article I’m still not sure it won’t be harmful.
I agree that the word FUD is waay overused.
Pointing a finger and saying FUD has just become a way to disagree with someone without needing to give any logical argument for your position on the matter.
FUD has come to mean “Any opinion that does not agree with your own.”
Anyone who does not agree with my position on this matter is a FUD spreader
“Get real. SVJN is Linux’ Paul Thurrot.”
I dont have a problem with Paul Thurrot , I wonder what your’s is specifically , he is a good source of accurate information about Windows Vista development. SJVN is a lot more diversified in the content he discuss , probably because you only know him as Linux-Watch editor or read only is GNU/Linux related content.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=Steven+J.+Vaughan…
“Maybe because they think it sucks butt?”
Maybe , because some people identify devlopper as License /platform /Vendor advocate and draw strawmen arguments from it.
Linus Torvalds choose the GPL due to BSD legal problems in court at the time of is choice , BUT NOT AFTER FAILLING IS OWN ATTEMPT AT LICENSE MAKING , with only one known user ( himself ), the Linus Torvald license was a failure , he also choose it for the Open Source part , he is not a Free Software advocate , but do release is software under a free software license. I would also go as far a saying he is not a Linux or GNU/Linux advocate , he just built the Linux kernel and others pushed it and made it big becauuse it whas GPL and Free Software.
“””BUT NOT AFTER FAILLING IS OWN ATTEMPT AT LICENSE MAKING , with only one known user ( himself ), the Linus Torvald license was a failure”””
You keep saying this. Your use of the loaded term “failure” is a bit gratuitous though, isn’t it?
The way I see it, he rolled his own license in the very beginning, because he wanted his kernel to have *some* explicit license, and then decided that GPLv2 was better and re-released under it.
He was confident enough in his choice to opt not to use the “and any later version” bit. And he is *still* satisfied enough with his choice of GPLv2.
The real story here is that GPLv2 is a great license… and not that Linus Torvalds is a license writing failure.
What can I say the way things are , the way LT spoke of them on record and the way recorded history say they happen differ from your way of seeing thing ( I would go as far as say distort them to fit your view ) , so I whont bother with it , sorry.
The MS mindset of, “anything for a win”, still rules, and anytime they win, you lose.
cause either they win or they buy you out and close you down and they still win
This is not much of an article. It is far too early to say who any winners or losers might be. Besides, the article is cursory. Novell = winner, Red Hat = winner, Linux = winner, everyone else = loser. This entirely leaves out the biggest meta-distro of all – Debian and its derivates. Besides, in a year’s time, it could easily turn out that not much changed for Novell but that Red Hat continued to do very well after Microsoft offered some kind of indemnity for Red Hat users, for example. SJVN’s articles are often good, imho, but recently he has got into too much cheerleading and pat reactions to news.
Edited 2006-11-16 15:33
This is probably going to get me in trouble with Mono fans, so I should probably state my personal position up front. I’m luke warm on Mono. I think it’s great to have in our arsenal, but I wish we didn’t need it, and don’t think we should rely on it any more than necessary. (Kind of like Samba.)
Anyway, I think the biggest loser in all this is probably Mono. Ironically, the effect of Novell’s actions in trying to *dispell* concerns about Mono, has been to make Mono look more like a legal minefield than it did before. (Which is not to say that it *is* or *is not* a legal minefield. I’m talking about perceptions.)
They have effectively implied that they think it viotates MS patents. (Whether that is true or not.)
And now… Java is being GPL’d. Now, I’m not a huge Java fan, but I don’t dislike it. And it looks to me that anywhere Mono *was* being considered for use, Java is now the obvious choice.
I think Novell and Sun just cosigned Mono’s death certificate, with MS as the Notary Public.
Edited 2006-11-16 16:38
“And now… Java is being GPL’d. Now, I’m not a huge Java fan, but I don’t dislike it. And it looks to me that anywhere Mono *was* being considered for use, Java is now the obvious choice.
I think Novell and Sun just cosigned Mono’s death certificate, with MS as the Notary Public.”
I think your right on. Why use software that may or may not be infringing on some patent somewhere. I am not a huge fan of Java either but on the other hand it is very mature and very modular and will become even more so now thats its being GPL’ed. You can pretty much run a Java app on anything, while you may or may not be able to get even a simple .NET/Mono app to run on even one machine. Trust me, I’m not bashing Mono or .NET, I used to be a .NET programmer. I just think that if your or your company are looking for a real enterprise solution, then Java is probably a much better solution.
win and loose. Financialy, they both make more money short term, MS would do better mid to long term. Now as far as the user base goes, Novel loose’s a bit of respect among it’s free Suse side. But if I was a paying custumer, I might be hoping for a little more interoperability help to ease my workforce Entirely over to Linux via vmware types of products. This simpler solution is what makes it for Linux based os’s in general, as the exposure of a reliable, stable alternative to Microsoft products will be seen for the first time, not heard of.
Any time we get a step or two closer to being able to walk into Any software or computer shop and ask for Windows, and/or Linux/frebsd/mac/unix installed on any decent computer, the better off we’ll all be. Choice and competitive prices is all I’m in favor for. Oh yeah, to use any damn piece of software on any damn piece of hardware would be sweet too!
Some of you guys have already refuted some of what this guy is pushing. The author seems to be a bit too crafty with his rhetorical devices.
Claiming that this guy is “pro-Linux” or “anti-Linux” is a bit meaningless. He tries to lend his opinions more credibility by gaining sympathy from readers. I know, we all do it more or less, but he does it more here and needs to be called on it as follows.
The article is grandly titled “Winners and Losers in the New Linux World”. His support for why Microsoft is a loser is pathetic, but he ends on such an anti-Microsoft note in order to cater to his readership. As always, he comes off as “pro-Linux”, whatever that means. By far the worst part, is that the approving readers will accept his previous points less critically.
I am assuming this guy has a wide readership. It is chilling thinking of how this influence can spread so many misconceptions.
Capitalizing on anti-Microsoft feelings is an example of a powerful rhetorical device. You could use it I suppose but do not be used by it! Hate MS all you want, but never doubt them as master strategists!
Edited 2006-11-16 17:35
I dont think this is quite the case. If is is, how comes Micorost is begging to reach similar agreements with Red Hat?
I think this move is an attempt to privatise Linux, converting it in a more or less propietary technology (by subverting the spririt of the GPL while complying with the letter). Once they have limited Linux to a couple corporate business, thats something Microsoft knows how to figh with.
They want to turn the Free Software social movement into just a limited technology that plays under theri controlled and known rules, and that does not overtly challenge the whole propietary software business model.
No for those bashing the GPLv3: Do you think DRM and patents are something positive or negative. I think these two issues are going to affect very negatively our rights as consumers and also will stiffle and concentrate the innovation in the hands a bunch of company with big legal budgets. No more independent developers, no more start-ups, no more distros mantanined by single contributors: Why is it bad for some of you that the next version of the GPL includes clauses to tackle these threats to our rights and to freedom of innovation? I even think that second draft of the GPLv3 is too soft on these issues…
I’d say SUN is the winner in this last round of cards. Red Hat started the play with the JBoss purchase, then Oracle reacted, followed by Novell and Microsoft. After they had all laid their hands down, SUN called and showed up GPL Java, suddenly getting the community back on their side more completely than ever.
Everyone is getting in place for the next decade of profits. Microsoft is still reaping the profits from its positioning in the 90s, but that round is over. This next round is not going to be operating system wars, as before, but will undoubtedly be web platform wars, namely .NET vs. Java vs. PHP/Python/Ruby.
Microsoft knows that in order for .NET to stand a chance, they need allies, and Novell is now on the .NET side of the fence, whereas SUN and Red Hat are on the Java side.
Edited 2006-11-16 20:52
Well said!
However, does Sun really know what it is dealing with? The Sun-Red Hat relationship is most intriguing! Tantalizing scenarious to manage–these two could really take a lot of market away from all of the rest, including IBM! And, incidently, end up on the “right” side of history wrt freedom, etc.
To me the best sign is that Schwartz seems able to get over a lot of the negative crap Sun suffered in the past–a more rational viewpoint to the future.
“””these two could really take a lot of market away from all of the rest, including IBM! And, incidently, end up on the “right” side of history wrt freedom, etc.”””
Not that hard to do, with the right mindset.
Sun and Redhat are both more maneuverable.
(My sister-in-law, a long time IBM employee in management has never even seen Linux.)
And Schwartz is not McNealy. (I liked Scott, but he was a hero for the 1980’s, not the 2000’s.)
I sometimes feel that OpenSource is where once great companies go to die. (Hi, SGI!)
But Sun seems to be smart enough to join the party *before* they have one foot in the grave… in other words, while it is still possible for them to thrive.
Just as a suggested metric of who is more… or less… agile in these matters of converting their clientele to OSS, all of these companies:
1. IBM
2. Novell
3. Sun
have stated their intention, at one time or another, of moving their own employees to desktop Linux. (RedHat never had need to make such a statement.)
I’d be very interested in how they are doing relative to each other.
There seems to be an orchestrated campaign against the GPLv3 coming from the corporate side of the Linux world.
While I can to some extent respect some of the reasons of Torvalds not to migrate from v2 to v3, and I respect his decision, I dont quite see the reasons why there are so many v3 naysayers. I am for extra protection to GPLd software against corporate greed, and if GPLv3 can protect me (and my favorite software) better than v2 its just great. I am not going to push anyone to shift from v2 to v3 but there seems to be a growing number of voices trying to sabotage the adoption of v3 by those of us that are willing to do it, a discrediting campaign against Stallman, Moglen and the FSF predicting something terrible will happen to Free Software if v3 includes additional protection measures. I think people spreading this idea have vested interests in circumventing or subverting the original intention of the GPL. I think that they would have shouted in anger if originally asked about their opinion when the FSF designed GPLv2.
Pamela Jones just wrote an excellent one on this in Groklaw titled “Getting cute with the GPL”:
[…]
What is clear is that some enterprise players wish to make money from GNU/Linux. That’s fine with everyone. But you can’t make honorable money from cheating. The GPL provides the rules of the road. It’s the overwhelming choice of FOSS programmers. You have to live with that if you want the code. It doesn’t matter what you think of the GPL, whether you hate it, think it’s too this or too that, or how you’d prefer it to read. It is what it is. And you have to abide by its terms. If you want different terms, do participate in the GPLv3 process, by all means.
[…]
Some few may say, “Hey, I wrote some of the code, and I don’t care. Novell can do that. Or, Tivo has my permission.” If those who wrote the code wish to dual license their now GPL’d software, or make use of the exceptions language in GPLv3, they are free to do so. If they wish to write proprietary software so they can do proprietary things with it, it’s fine with me. Even Stallman has said there are circumstances where writing proprietary software would be justified. What they are not free to do is get cute with the GPL and try to make it do proprietary things, or to distort the terms on code that was written by other people, or pretend they didn’t ever really mean what the license clearly states, or that somehow compromise is now “necessary” so as to satisfy alleged customers, who are apparently as blind and amoral as the alleged shareholders we keep hearing about who we are told have such voracious appetites for profit that corporations are somehow compelled to jettison all other values and interests.
Amen to that
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061116103031303
There seems to be an orchestrated campaign against the GPLv3 coming from the corporate side of the Linux world.
While I can to some extent respect some of the reasons of Torvalds not to migrate from v2 to v3, and I respect his decision, I dont quite see the reasons why there are so many v3 naysayers.
Yes, you can see reasons!
1. You mention an orchestrated corporate campaign–entirely plausible. All of us can fall for this at one time or other and I’m afraid that IT people are not especially immune to that crap.
2. Cult of personality: Linus. I totally agree with you, I respect his decision, etc. However, too many think Linus = perfect, no questions asked. People do not want to engage their brains, especially on dry license minutae. What they fail to realize is that the licensing is also code, just legal code. What code does not have bugs? If they appreciated this more, they would learn more and be more responsible about it.
The FUD against v3 is more ridiculous than this current discussion about winners and losers allows us to get into.
“””2. Cult of personality: Linus. I totally agree with you, I respect his decision, etc. However, too many think Linus = perfect, no questions asked.”””
On the other hand, RMS has no cult of personality. He is all about reason. And no thinking person could question his ideas.
I should introduce you to another aquaintence of mine who views various sects as cults. His name is NotParker.
On the other hand, RMS has no cult of personality. He is all about reason. And no thinking person could question his ideas.
How about Bush, Mao, Lenin, Elvis, NotParker?
It was just a comment on popularity, and I agree that we are all, including RMS, human, not just Linus.
In fact, my doubt was not about whether Linus made any particular mistake, but rather the habit of some people of just believing something he claims without understanding and being able to justify it to themselves.
I think questioning RMS’s ideas is great; indeed, I think that is precisely what he wants.
Edited 2006-11-16 23:16
Amen to that
The nice thing about Pamela is that she can make RMS seem fairly moderate and less extreme in contrast.
Quoting from her groklaw article:
So did Tivo, and in Tivo’s case, it was literally in compliance while being out of compliance with the purpose or spirit of the license.
Here’s the thing. The kernel developers release code under the GPL v2. Tivo used that code in a compliant manner. Any modifications they made were released so that they could benefit others working on similar projects. None of the kernel developers have stepped forward and taken exception with this. In fact some of them even endorsed it, and oppose v3 as overstepping it’s grounds as a software license and trying to dictate terms to hardware manufacturers.
So what we have here is Pamela claiming that Tivo broke the “spirit” of the GPL but that’s not really true. The GPL is a license, that’s all. Maybe it broke her and RMS’s interpretation of the “spirit” of the GPL, but it was in keeping with the kernel dev’s “spirit” of the GPL they chose. That’s what counts, and that’s something that the FSF proponents should consider when using linux. The kernel is not developed with an eye on the four freedoms, and compatibility with the GNU lifestyle is a completely unintended but beneficial side effect of the GPL. But it does not give the community ownership of the kernel, that belongs to the developers.
The freedom advocates are certainly as free to use the linux kernel as anyone else is, but in doing so should accept the fact that linux is a compromised-ideal of GNU because it doesn’t reflect the philosophy, simply the pragmatic development model. Yet instead, they try to hijack it and change it into something it was never meant to be.
RMS, the FSF and Pamela can preach philosophical about the GPL all they want. But the application of it remains SOLELY the right of the developers that choose to use it. If the kernel developers do not see a violation in act or principle with how Tivo uses the kernel, what the hell gives anyone the right to claim otherwise? Certainly not RMS or the FSF, who have absolutely no code in the kernel.
There’s nothing wrong with v3 in principle, it’s simply one more option, people are no more forced to use it than they are v2 or any other license (as in the choice is there’s to contribute or not).
What irks me is the arrogance of those proponents of anti-Tivoisation that are effectively hijacking the work of others in order to further their own gain. All this banter back and forth is coming from the community themselves who seem to have a sense of entitlement, utterly forgetting the very first freedom lies with the developers in choosing which license they want to use and how it should be applied.
Here’s the thing. The kernel developers release code under the GPL v2. Tivo used that code in a compliant manner. Any modifications they made were released so that they could benefit others working on similar projects. None of the kernel developers have stepped forward and taken exception with this. In fact some of them even endorsed it, and oppose v3 as overstepping it’s grounds as a software license and trying to dictate terms to hardware manufacturers.
That overstepping is in the eye of the beholder. In any case, supporting this kind of claim requires an argument at a level beyond what is occuring in this discussion–a better time and topic.
So what we have here is Pamela claiming that Tivo broke the “spirit” of the GPL but that’s not really true.
It’s either true or false. Indeed, it is true. Tivoization violates the spirit, as exemplified in the Preamble of the GPL. I.e., it violates Freedom 1, which the GPLv2 was intended to protect.
The GPL is a license, that’s all. Maybe it broke her and RMS’s interpretation of the “spirit” of the GPL, but it was in keeping with the kernel dev’s “spirit” of the GPL they chose.
Too many spirits. If anyone knows what the spirit of the GPL is, its creators the FSF know. Period.
That’s what counts, and that’s something that the FSF proponents should consider when using linux. The kernel is not developed with an eye on the four freedoms, and compatibility with the GNU lifestyle is a completely unintended but beneficial side effect of the GPL. But it does not give the community ownership of the kernel, that belongs to the developers.
Indisputable, but useless here.
The freedom advocates are certainly as free to use the linux kernel as anyone else is, but in doing so should accept the fact that linux is a compromised-ideal of GNU because it doesn’t reflect the philosophy, simply the pragmatic development model. Yet instead, they try to hijack it and change it into something it was never meant to be.
Free speech is messy, but its value should not be dismissed so easily. Rather, the mess needs cleaning.
RMS, the FSF and Pamela can preach philosophical about the GPL all they want. But the application of it remains SOLELY the right of the developers that choose to use it. If the kernel developers do not see a violation in act or principle with how Tivo uses the kernel, what the hell gives anyone the right to claim otherwise? Certainly not RMS or the FSF, who have absolutely no code in the kernel.
“right” = “moral justification” here, for those who may gloss over this use of “right”. A messy part of free software is that not only its authors use it. These others will inevitably have opinions that they hopefully share responsibly. Do not mistake bad diplomatic skills for malevolence or unworthiness.
There’s nothing wrong with v3 in principle, it’s simply one more option, people are no more forced to use it than they are v2 or any other license (as in the choice is there’s to contribute or not).
If only more people knew this…
What irks me is the arrogance of those proponents of anti-Tivoisation that are effectively hijacking the work of others in order to further their own gain. All this banter back and forth is coming from the community themselves who seem to have a sense of entitlement, utterly forgetting the very first freedom lies with the developers in choosing which license they want to use and how it should be applied.
Why be irked? Everyone has an agenda. Please explain the arrogance that you see. What I see is just an example of one of many clashes between “open source” and “free software” positions. These clashes are rude and nasty and people will somehow have to learn to rise above it and debate it at a higher level. It’s somewhat predictable, I think you will agree. What makes it even worse is that certain kinds of personality clashes are accentuated. If we can better respect some of these difficulties, the debate can be calmer.
I know this debate is not finished. As I said earlier, this issue really should be argued at a higher, more careful level. Let’s look on the bright side. These things like Tivoization could have been more numerous and uglier had GPLv2 not turned out as good as it is.
Clearly, the real winners in the business world, from which all these FUD and non – FUD spreading “companies” and “foundations” stem, are the ones who have the best business model.
FLOSS is a successful business model because of its distributed and participative nature. CEOs, opinion makers and others who feel their business “model” needs radical changes, weigh two things: the cost of the change if unavoidable VS the cost of thumbing the alternative model down.
It is not that Microsoft would not switch to Windows GPL Edition. It just costs less for them right now to go the other way. Everything else is trivial.
Microsoft and Novell “BULLSHIT, ” this the shit that takes original things from an OS. Apple is already f–ked dual booting windows bullshit. Virus already hit the mathaf–ka, what the f–k is this over Linux. Thats why I build my own linux from scratch and port my own programs to play games without Wine HQ or Cedega. My linux might be illegal but I don’t give damn what the f–k MS do.
//Thats why I build my own linux from scratch//
//My linux might be illegal//
Why would it be illegal?
You have got the source code, and you have got a valid license to use it, granted to you by the authors of that code. Fill your boots.
Edited 2006-11-17 09:41
“Would you have believed at the end of last summer that Microsoft and Novell would partner”
Does this really surprise anyone but the blind Open Source weenies? Do you really think it is just coincidence that the top Linux people try to make it look like Windows? Don’t you get it? When Linux, GEM, GEOS, and all the other alternatives look and act exactly like Windows but WITHOUT being able to actually run Windows programs, there remains ZERO justification for their existence, they are effectively conscripted as just training tools in the use of Windows. Do you really think it’s just coincidence that Linux persists in being twice as huge but half as useful as Windows? Do you really think Microsoft wouldn’t have special dedicated employees to infiltrate Linux and keep it down just like they send dedicated employees to infiltrate hacker conventions? Open source lets Microsoft shills introduce “enhancements” that are calculated to keep Linux from catching up. Pull your heads out.
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3571706028.html
“Another big loser is the GPLv3. People will still argue about what should or shouldn’t be in it, but it’s not going to matter. Linux isn’t going to use it. Linux’s developers don’t like it one little bit, and now major Linux companies like Novell are making patent deals.
When the GPLv3 finally arrives, it will be adopted by free-software fans, but the people who build, service, and sell Linux are going to ignore the new license.”
I’m sorry SJVN, but you are very mistaken here.
At the very least all of GNU (GNU = GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), the GNU Binary Utilities (binutils), the bash shell, the GNU C library (glibc), and coreutils, and GNOME) and Samba will come under GPL v3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GNU_packages
Therefore, people who build, service, and sell Linux are not going to be able ignore the new license in any way.
It is not possible to build a viable interoperable SLED without including GNU utilities, Samba and gcc. Can’t be done.
Edited 2006-11-17 09:48
What the f***? I don’t give a damn about all this MS crap at all, and apparently Red Hat does not think it’s necessary to enter into any kind of relationship with that company either.
Free software is not about MS doing this or allowing that. And therefore people like RMS or, come to think of, Eben Moglen, are still very much needed by FOSS.
FOSS doesn’t need Microsoft – and MS knows that. Let MS do their thing but take care that it doesn’t come too close. It’ll crush you.
I’m a IT guy in a Windows enviroment who has been a Linux user at home for a number of years and a SuSE/OpenSuSE since SuSE 9.0.
I’m going to wait to see how it al plays out. Right now I’m typing this on a XP desktop at work that I wish could be a Linux box. I installed a OpenSuSE Samba server with tape backup for a number of computers that were off the network giving them a file server with backup. That’s the only place I could put Linux into at work.
Maybe this will advance Linux in some way. I was initially pissed and downloaded Ubuntu/Kubuntu and a bunch of other distros and like I did for OpenSuSE, I had to go somewhere and figure what I needed to do to play mp3’s and movie’s, install Java, Flash and everything else I need to get a functioning desktop. Frankly, I would glady pay for a Linux distro that had all that included. I know for XP I had to do the same thing. So at this point I’m staying with OpenSuSE and I’m looking forward to 10.2 coming out and will wait and see how it all plays out.
About the Novell-MS deal, it looks like a lot of people are getting angry at Novell and bashing it as if it was MS. Do they think everything is either best or worst?
I believe Novell did a very bad move and hurted the community with this deal, and I’ll keep that in mind when I have to make a judgement about that company, but I won’t forget what they contributed either.
I don’t happen to be an openSuse user but I believe it has a lot of interesting features and I don’t rule out ever touching this distro just because some CEO got drunk and signed a bad deal once.