It got little notice at the time, but Richard Stallman, the leader of the FSF, said at the fifth international GPLv3 conference in Tokyo on Nov. 21 that the Novell/Microsoft patent agreement is not in violation of the GPL version 2. Stallman said, according to a transcript published by the FSF Europe, “What has happened is, Microsoft has not given Novell a patent license, and thus, section 7 of GPL version 2 does not come into play. Instead, Microsoft offered a patent license that is rather limited to Novell’s customers alone.”
Stallman: Novel/MS Deal Does Not Violate GPLv2
97 Comments
2006-11-30 5:19 am
b3timmons
“The lawyers at Novell and Microsoft *did* understand the document. The fact that no one can actually say they violated the letter of the GPL proves that. And while one viewpoint says that this is all about the GPL, the fact that both companies have enormous volumes of code that ISN’T GPL seems to be lost amid the noise of “Novell betrayed us!”. ”
You are addressing only half of what I said:
“Any corporation would continue to use it, providing it has lawyers who can abide by and understand the simple web page
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
”
They may have understood the document. However, they did not abide by it, for otherwise, they would not have circumvented section 7 of GPLv2. Hence, Novell, which once represented itself as having a community that relied on licenses not being circumvented, now has a diminished community.
“I mind changes in the GPL being targeted at specific corporations who have made efforts to comply with the GPL, but are unwilling to give up revenue streams.”
The only target is loopholes, the specifics of which you should easily enough be able to determine now. Who cares if corporations A, B, or C revealed the loopholes? Should a license’s creators overlook loopholes for the sake of revenue streams that are irrelevant to them?
More generally, trying to evoke sympathy for “specific corporations” shows either ignorance or disingenousness; there is a rich tradition of revising things with loopholes, things such as laws, rules, licenses, etc. What is so special about this case?
“Tivo has honored it’s obligations for providing source to all modifications it makes, and Novell has repeatedly gone to bat for open source software, and development, over the last few years.”
Those facts do not justify the erosions of the four freedoms. I’ve already pointed out how Novell has done it. Tivo erodes freedom one by making it meaningless, as explained in the term Tivoization.
“GPLv3 has targeted Tivo (by name) since the process began, and is now specifically targeting Microsoft and Novell.”
This makes no sense, since the draft of the GPLv3 contains none of the targets you specify.
“Now, the question is, if Novell, IBM and HP tell the FSF that targeting Microsoft is a bad idea, then what? Do you honestly expect that the FSF will just say “OK” and move on? They haven’t shown much flexibility over anti-DRM measures so far.”
The FSF shows flexibility, just not over the four freedoms. They are very up front about how the GPL is focused on these. DRM is only opposed to the extent that it conflicts with these freedoms, leaving room for compromise on DRM. Indeed, they have already mentioned examples of DRM that the GPLv3 will not affect.
2006-11-30 4:26 am
npang
<blockquote>the FSF successfully negates the MS/Novell deal, then they also negate the commercial viability of GPL licensed software. </blockquote>
How will that happen? How will forcing the protection against patents for users of gpl3 software “negate the commercial viability of GPL licensed software.”
-
2006-11-30 4:48 am
gratHow will that happen? How will forcing the protection against patents for users of gpl3 software “negate the commercial viability of GPL licensed software.”
Because Microsoft sales reps will be telling the CEO’s about how the GPL was rewritten to sabotage a collaboration deal between Microsoft and Novell. They’ll talk about the fact that the GPL was rewritten to prevent Tivo from enforcing their EULA.
Corporations will be looking at the cost of investing in Linux, then having the community turn on that vendor. Repeated threats have been made by the community within the last two weeks to revoke, or otherwise remove, Novell’s ability to distribute linux. That will factor into *any* decision to run *any* linux platform.
And who will benefit the most from the FSF blocking the Novell/Microsoft deal?
Microsoft.
-
b3timmons
Because Microsoft sales reps will be telling the CEO’s about how the GPL was rewritten to sabotage a collaboration deal between Microsoft and Novell. They’ll talk about the fact that the GPL was rewritten to prevent Tivo from enforcing their EULA.
Corporations will be looking at the cost of investing in Linux, then having the community turn on that vendor. Repeated threats have been made by the community within the last two weeks to revoke, or otherwise remove, Novell’s ability to distribute linux.
That will factor into *any* decision to run *any* linux platform.
Any? That’s a baseless claim. Moreover, there clearly is a concensus in the community on how licenses should not be circumvented. Are corporations somehow indifferent about circumventions to their own licenses?
And who will benefit the most from the FSF blocking the Novell/Microsoft deal?
Microsoft
That’s speculation. However, for the sake of argument, assume it is true. So what? I have nothing against Microsoft succeeding per se, as long as their actions do not erode the four freedoms. Under this specific assumption, the more protective GPLv3 license outweighs the success of Microsoft.
-
2006-11-30 10:26 pm
peciskMicrosoft
That’s speculation. However, for the sake of argument, assume it is true. So what? I have nothing against Microsoft succeeding per se, as long as their actions do not erode the four freedoms. Under this specific assumption, the more protective GPLv3 license outweighs the success of Microsoft.
__________________________________
Sorry, but that is very you fail. Microsoft winning this game is Microsoft taking everything. And I mean EVERYTHING. No more Linux after 5 years. No more GNU. It will be done. No corporation support for us mean dead game. Most of developers is on payroll from corps. Most of technologies and inventions comes from some business side, not from hot air throwers in sites like OSN and Slashdot.
We must make compromises, or we will be done. It is harsh reality, which I think not a lot of FSF and GNU zealots would like to admit.
Before you mod me down or trash me, I am FSF zealot myself, but I also keep myself in touch with reality. So I say – please stop using GPLv3 as revenge tool, because revenge NEVER solves what it intends to solve.
-
b3timmons
Sorry, but that is very you fail. Microsoft winning this game is Microsoft taking everything. And I mean EVERYTHING. No more Linux after 5 years. No more GNU. It will be done. No corporation support for us mean dead game. Most of developers is on payroll from corps. Most of technologies and inventions comes from some business side, not from hot air throwers in sites like OSN and Slashdot.
We must make compromises, or we will be done. It is harsh reality, which I think not a lot of FSF and GNU zealots would like to admit.
Before you mod me down or trash me, I am FSF zealot myself, but I also keep myself in touch with reality. So I say – please stop using GPLv3 as revenge tool, because revenge NEVER solves what it intends to solve.
First, it is you who are wrong, for succeeding from a single deal does not equate to your dire “winning” forecast. Moreover, that success is merely a hypothesis that you should have noted.
Second, and more importantly, the GPL is all about protecting the four freedoms, which any “FSF zealot” should know and accept. You fail to acknowledge that compromises have been made in the v3 revision process. The revenge accusation is baseless, an attempt to obscure the real issue. Justice and fairness are what is being sought.
Third, as a “FSF zealot” you should realize the old news that freedom has nothing to do with a popularity contest. Popularity is an overplayed card: big companies such as Sun Microsystems have publicly endorsed v3 and the process behind it, a process involving many diverse companies. I fail to see what the panic is about, except from companies that are trying to escape their obligations to the GPL.
-
2006-11-30 6:00 am
Xaero_Vincentgrat,
If businesses plan to deploy GPL software, they must acknowledge everyone who contributes and uses it.
This is done by refraining from decisions that undermine and jeopardize the freedom and sense of security of the FLOSS community.
Edited 2006-11-30 06:04
-
grat
If businesses plan to deploy GPL software, they must acknowledge everyone who contributes and uses it.
This is done by refraining from decisions that undermine and jeopardize the freedom and sense of security of the FLOSS community.
Granted. But who decides what decisions are legit? Are you suggesting any business that utilizes GPL must run their business strategy through the FSF first?
2006-11-30 6:44 am
garymax
What sane corporation would continue to use it when the FSF can just rewrite the license to deliberately sabotage a multi-million dollar agreement?
Keep in mind that the GPL was already in the process of revision before the MS-Novell agreement became final. The agreement merely shed light on an already existing problem with GPL V2.
2006-12-01 1:38 am
hal2k1
//I’m not sure that it will benefit the Linux community, however– and if the FSF successfully negates the MS/Novell deal, then they also negate the commercial viability of GPL licensed software. //
Thetre is an issue of retrospectivity here. The FSF does not write the GPL license for pieces of open source software. Rather, the FSF produces a text file as a template, and open source projects can use that file as a license document for their project if they so choose.
//What sane corporation would continue to use it when the FSF can just rewrite the license to deliberately sabotage a multi-million dollar agreement? //
Your whole question reeks of getting the “actor” and the “re-actor” the wrong way around.
Why not put it this way – “Two insane and/or greedy coprporations seem to have spent a great deal of time, effort and money recently trying to sabotage the spirit (if not the letter) of the version 2 of the license authored by the FSF. The FSF intend, in a future version, to correct the loophole that has been pointed out, to make it harder in the future to subvert the intent of that license. If the corporations really did not want their agreement to be ‘corrected’, then surely they should have approached the FSF (authors of the licesnse text and some of the software in question) and sought clarification first?”
“What sane corporation would continue to use it” … you see, this is part of your confusion. The corporations involved (Microsoft, Novell and others) for the most part did NOT “use” the GPL in the first place. The authors of the software (Linux, GCC, other pieces of the SuSe distribution) used the GPL. The authors of the software hold the copyrights, and they are the owners of the code. Not Novell. Not Microsoft.
Edited 2006-12-01 01:47
-
b3timmons
Rather, the FSF produces a text file as a template, and open source projects can use that file as a license document for their project if they so choose.
Just to avoid any misunderstandings, the text file is a template, but not in the sense that it can be edited by anyone besides the FSF and still be called “GPL”.
Why not put it this way – “Two insane and/or greedy coprporations seem to have spent a great deal of time, effort and money recently trying to sabotage the spirit (if not the letter) of the version 2 of the license authored by the FSF.
It’s a great deal of time indeed: about six months for Novell and three years for Microsoft; time spent on, of course, a hidden agenda. This is in contrast to the plainly visible and long-announced process of the GPLv3. This kind of contrast is a telling and inevitable difference between business and community. For anyone wanting more background on the GPLv3 process or the main lawyer behind it, the following little-known interview is enlightening:
2006-11-30 10:34 am
B12 Simon
Once GPL3 comes out, it should really change the Linux landscape.
How exactly? When the kernel developers adopt it despite very clearly stating they’ll stay with v2?
Don’t hold your breath.
2006-11-30 12:31 am
2006-11-30 10:37 am
B12 Simon
Much as I dislike RMS, he’d be a fool not to butt in with this. Sure it’s taking advantage, but it’d be naiive to expect him to keep out of this, especially as GPL v3 is relevant (or would be if the kernel developers weren’t committed to v2 :o).
2006-11-30 12:04 am
stestagg
How can Microsoft sue customers for patent violation? Producers have to have IP Licenses, not consumers.
-
2006-11-30 2:34 am
2006-11-30 1:24 am
Damind
I wounder what would happen if MS was to create their own distro of Linux. Look MS is not a bad company no matter what how much people try to make them out to be. They have created many jobs for even allot of the same people who are calling them all sorts of names. As I look at this deal I see all good, nothing bad and it is up to us the users to know make it work in our favor.
-
2006-11-30 2:18 am
elsewhereI wounder what would happen if MS was to create their own distro of Linux.
It’s already under secret development, working name is “Plan B”
-
2006-11-30 3:15 am
NotParkerI wounder what would happen if MS was to create their own distro of Linux.
Linux would be declared EVIL and the *BDS’s would become more popular.
2006-11-30 1:28 am
b3timmons
The single aim of all versions of the GPL is to help protect the four software freedoms:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Any criticism or praise of any version of the GPL that fails to consider that aim is incomplete at best, thoroughly deceptive at worst. Nonetheless, most of the anti-GPLv3 criticisms seem to rely on ignorance or misunderstanding of that aim or of those four freedoms.
Indeed, most critics–instead of thinking–often spread their own misunderstandings, which easily leads to FUD. Other critics are informed and yet exploit the ignorant, often to advance their own agendas, such as Tivoization. Finally, there are honest and informed critics. They are the only critics that are part of a solution to many of the threats that the FOSS community faces.
-
elsewhere
Any criticism or praise of any version of the GPL that fails to consider that aim is incomplete at best, thoroughly deceptive at worst. Nonetheless, most of the anti-GPLv3 criticisms seem to rely on ignorance or misunderstanding of that aim or of those four freedoms.
The aim of the FSF to preserve their four freedoms via the GPL inherently requires the GPL to be adopted by developers, the more applications that are licensed under the GPL, then the more effective it becomes towards it’s ultimate aim.
See, the GPL is all about preserving the user’s freedoms, which is fine but becomes little more than a philosophical concept if users have limited choice in applications preserving their freedom.
Dismissing the concerns developers have over the provisions of v3 versus v2 by claiming that they are ignorant or misunderstanding is not only a fallacious argument but it is self-defeating.
The FSF is free to change the license as they see fit, as is absolutely their right. What is ironic is that you refer to FUD being generated as a result of the “misunderstandings” from those who do not share the FSF philosophy. Yet there is considerable “FUD” being generated from the v3 proponents that has generated much of the misunderstanding leading to this.
The impact of v3 will ultimately be minimal on the FLOSS community. The kernel cannot and will not become v2, for reasons of copyright attribution that the FSF is very aware of. This does not stop Moglen, their lawyer, from still stating he believes the kernel will become v3. It will not. It cannot. Yet the FSF needs to fuel that perception so that “linux” will be associated with v3.
It is very unlikely that they will be able to produce a workable clause to prevent deals along the lines of MS / Novell,though I’ll reserve judgment until I see the draft. Nevertheless, they have vowed to prevent it and hence leveraged much of the controversy in order to gain further relevance for v3, despite the fact that the agreement had nothing specifically to do with GPL’d software.
The Tivoisation that users are being told they’ll be protected from is irrelevant since that type of DRM enforcement basically requires kernel level code. Tivo wasn’t binary locking their platform to emacs or gcc. Whether you agree with Tivoisation or not is irrelevant, v3 will simply not prevent it in the manner that the FSF is discussing.
More to the point, the efforts to impose restrictions on patents and DRM in the software itself is misdirected at best. The real concern with these hot-button topics is the jurisdictional legislation that mandates them in the first place; DRM is empowered in the US by the DMCA’s ability to eliminate fair use. Software patents are an issue only because of the inability for the US government to rationalize their assignment and applicability. Other jurisdictions have similar issues, others do not because their laws recognize fair use or patent laws differently.
I see much blustering behind the GPL v3 that is best dealt with in political arenas, it deals with issues that ultimately are not going to be solved in a software license and attempting to do so creates unnecessary confusion and complexity without actually addressing the core problems.
But the FUD that is perpetuated the most is that regarding the FSF’s control of the GPL. The FSF created the GPL, they hold copyright on the GPL and can prevent people from modifying the GPL (or at least modifying it and still calling it the GPL), but they can not control how people use the GPL. Individual developers ARE NOT BOUND to the philosophy of the FSF. You can wax poetic about the spirit of the GPL and can even argue that RMS understands the intent of the GPL better than anyone else, but it doesn’t change the fact that application of the GPL is ultimately up to the developers, not the FSF.
When v3 kicks in it does not automatically change the nature of GPL’d projects, yet I see many people heralding it as a magic bullet.
And perhaps I’m being petty here, but I’m really getting tired of the patronizing and demeaning attitude from v3 proponents who automatically categorize everyone critical of it as being ignorant or a corporate slut.
And ok, I’m really being petty here, but if the FSF is so committed to those four freedoms then they should really stop using linux as the basis for the GNU/OS since the kernel developers are clearly not on board, and as you’ve implied before, the only people against v3 must be people who are against protecting freedom. A little hard to justify that philosophical conundrum.
-
Xaero_Vincent
———-
The impact of v3 will ultimately be minimal on the FLOSS community. The kernel cannot and will not become v2, for reasons of copyright attribution that the FSF is very aware of. This does not stop Moglen, their lawyer, from still stating he believes the kernel will become v3. It will not. It cannot. Yet the FSF needs to fuel that perception so that “linux” will be associated with v3.
———-
The kernel happens to be a small (though important) part of the GNU/Linux operating system. The GNU part of the OS will very much become associated with the GPLv3 as will other OSes like FreeBSD and Solaris, who are often complemented with GNU software.
———-
But the FUD that is perpetuated the most is that regarding the FSF’s control of the GPL. The FSF created the GPL, they hold copyright on the GPL and can prevent people from modifying the GPL (or at least modifying it and still calling it the GPL), but they can not control how people use the GPL. Individual developers ARE NOT BOUND to the philosophy of the FSF. You can wax poetic about the spirit of the GPL and can even argue that RMS understands the intent of the GPL better than anyone else, but it doesn’t change the fact that application of the GPL is ultimately up to the developers, not the FSF.
———-
If people violate the terms of the GPL, they’ll be subject to some form of confrontation by the FSF’s lawyers.
If a license cannot be legally enforced, it wouldn’t have any credibility. Luckily, the GPL has won legal victory in court before and proven enforceable under law.
———-
It is very unlikely that they will be able to produce a workable clause to prevent deals along the lines of MS / Novell,though I’ll reserve judgment until I see the draft. Nevertheless, they have vowed to prevent it and hence leveraged much of the controversy in order to gain further relevance for v3, despite the fact that the agreement had nothing specifically to do with GPL’d software.
———-
The deal covers all software used in Novell SUSE, including GPL. One key component mentioned in the November 2nd press release was Mono.
See above.
———-
More to the point, the efforts to impose restrictions on patents and DRM in the software itself is misdirected at best. The real concern with these hot-button topics is the jurisdictional legislation that mandates them in the first place; DRM is empowered in the US by the DMCA’s ability to eliminate fair use. Software patents are an issue only because of the inability for the US government to rationalize their assignment and applicability. Other jurisdictions have similar issues, others do not because their laws recognize fair use or patent laws differently.
———-
The DRM issues associated with the GPLv3 will most likely be solved by end users.
They will ultimately decide what to do with their DRM encrypted media. Whether that means using a program that removes DRM restrictions or using controversial plugins for *nix Media Player that decode DRM laden media.
A example of how restrictions are overcome by *nix users is “libdvdcss”. This library allows *nix media players to decode CSS encrypted DVDs, so that the content is playable by end users.
Edited 2006-11-30 07:42
-
elsewhere
The kernel happens to be a small (though important) part of the GNU/Linux operating system. The GNU part of the OS will very much become associated with the GPLv3 as will other OSes like FreeBSD and Solaris, who are often complemented with GNU software.
I’m not denying that. I’m simply pointing out that while GNU will go v3, it does not mean that everything else will. This is why I called out the point that v3 is being associated with linux, when the fact is v3 licensing will impact only select components of a linux distro (or Solaris, or BSD) and that those components will not influence the version licensing of other components. So v3 discussions should not make broad assumptions that linux distros are part of the uptake.
If people violate the terms of the GPL, they’ll be subject to some form of confrontation by the FSF’s lawyers.
*sigh* You’re perpetuating the FUD. The FSF has no control over enforcement of the GPL per se, that belongs solely to the copyright holders. The FSF holds copyright on the GNU projects, and I believe some projects such as Samba have assigned copyright in order for the FSF to take legal measures to pursue infringers.
But that’s the extent of it.
If I modify and distribute the linux kernel in a manner that violates the GPL, there is nothing the FSF can do since they hold no copyright assignment on the kernel or any of the code. It is strictly up to the developers who hold copyright to enforce the GPL licensing.
This is partially the crux of the whole issue when people claim that kernel developers don’t understand the the “spirit” of the GPL, because frankly they don’t need to. The only interpretation of the GPL license that matters to the kernel devs is their collective interpretation of it since they alone hold the ability to pursue legal infringements. As long as you use the kernel in a manner that the kernel devs feel is in line with the GPL, then it doesn’t matter what the FSF says.
This can be boiled down to the Tivoisation point, RMS says that Tivo violates the spirit of the GPL, the kernel devs say Tivo does not violate the spirit of their implementation of the GPL. One can argue the semantics, but at the end of the day only the kernel devs legal right to enforce it.
As I said, a developer’s use of the GPL license does not bind them to the philosophy of the FSF, it simply provides guidance for users as to the terms and conditions under which they may use the software. That’s all.
The deal covers all software used in Novell SUSE, including GPL. One key component mentioned in the November 2nd press release was Mono.
Novell holds copyright attribution for mono, so even if the LGPL is being violated with mono (mono is not GPL), Novell alone hold the right to do anything about it. The FSF doesn’t.
But that’s immaterial. Everybody likes to assume that because this ambiguous patent license applies to customers of Novell that use Suse Linux, that the patent covenant must apply to Suse Linux. That is wrong, and even the FSF had to cave on the point. Legal agreements do not deal with ambiguities and armchair assessments from forum posters. Unless Novell received patent coverage for specific GPL protected products, they have not received patent coverage for GPL protected products. And if they did, they would be violating section 7.
The only way for the FSF to close this loophole is to prevent patent cross-licensing agreements from GPL distributors regardless of whether they specify GPL protected products. Sun, HP, IBM, Intel, SGI, and a raft of other companies have patent agreements with Microsoft, ostensibly to protect themselves and their customers from patent infringement liabilities. In no case do these agreements specify GPL protected software. I am skeptical in the FSF’s ability to retaliate against Novell’s deal without alienating the other commercial players involved with both GPL and GNU sponsored projects. But as I said, I’ll reserve judgment until the final release, maybe they’ll surprise me.
The DRM issues associated with the GPLv3 will most likely be solved by end users.
They will ultimately decide what to do with their DRM encrypted media. Whether that means using a program that removes DRM restrictions or using controversial plugins for *nix Media Player that decode DRM laden media.
A example of how restrictions are overcome by *nix users is “libdvdcss”. This library allows *nix media players to decode CSS encrypted DVDs, so that the content is playable by end users.
Wrong DRM. GPL v3 will not prevent encrypted protection of digital media or files. It’s about hardware locking signed binaries and only permitting specific applications to run, which is ultimately required at kernel level and without a v3 kernel to enforce it, is pretty pointless right now.
But while we’re on the topic, the biggest issue with libdvdcss is not the actual licensing, most jurisdictions permit the reverse-engineering of technology to a certain extent. The problem with libdvdcss is the DMCA which makes it basically illegal for US citizens to have access to libdvdcss, (some jursidictions have similar restrictions) which is why the rest of the distros generally stay away from it. They don’t want to include something that may or may not be illegal for users to use depending on geography. That’s an example of how this is a political problem that licensing is not going to solve, but again, I digress.
Ultimately v3 won’t allow users the opportunity to solve their own problem as with media-DRM solutions, it simply prevents users from even having the choice to use hardware locked products.
People have different opinions on whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing. But you don’t have to be “pro-DRM” to be concerned that attempts to eliminate may do more harm than good.
-
b3timmons
“This can be boiled down to the Tivoisation point, RMS says that Tivo violates the spirit of the GPL, the kernel devs say Tivo does not violate the spirit of their implementation of the GPL. One can argue the semantics, but at the end of the day only the kernel devs legal right to enforce it.”
It’s not as simple as kernel devs vs. FSF. There is some general awareness about violations and remedies are pursued in a number of ways. Consider
for example. That’s one of the great things about free software: the distributed concern about it.
-
elsewhere
It’s not as simple as kernel devs vs. FSF. There is some general awareness about violations and remedies are pursued in a number of ways. Consider
for example. That’s one of the great things about free software: the distributed concern about it.
Discussion and awareness is fine but it has nothing to do with my point. My point is that only the kernel developers holding copyright can enforce the GPL as they have applied it to the kernel, therefore they alone can make the determination of when to pursue what they see as a violation.
Underscoring that point is the fact that gpl-violations.org is driven by a kernel developer and the violations he has targetted have been with regards to kernel code. And I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, I fully support his effort and he is exercising his legal right.
But the fact remains that it is a kernel developer exercising his rights under copyright law, it’s not RMS or the FSF taking down those manufacturers using netfilter code improperly. The developer controls the license he uses, nobody else. Copyright law is the backbone and sole enforcement mechanism of the GPL, not the FSF.
-
2006-11-30 9:57 pm
Valhallaelsewhere wrote:
“I’m not denying that. I’m simply pointing out that while GNU will go v3, it does not mean that everything else will.”
this is the first time I can say I totally agree with you. GPLv3 is a natural step for the FSF since it reinforces the base provisions on which it was built. those base provisions that are better protected in this new revision might not be what attracted developer X to use the GPL. and as such he will stick to GPLv2. behold the beauty of choice.
elsewhere wrote:
“This is why I called out the point that v3 is being associated with linux, when the fact is v3 licensing will impact only select components of a linux distro (or Solaris, or BSD) and that those components will not influence the version licensing of other components.”
what are you talking about? I haven’t seen any ‘GNU GPLv3/Linux’ statements from FSF. Linux is still GPL licenced.
elsewhere wrote:
“This is partially the crux of the whole issue when people claim that kernel developers don’t understand the the “spirit” of the GPL, because frankly they don’t need to. The only interpretation of the GPL license that matters to the kernel devs is their collective interpretation of it since they alone hold the ability to pursue legal infringements. As long as you use the kernel in a manner that the kernel devs feel is in line with the GPL, then it doesn’t matter what the FSF says. ”
again with the nonsense. what exactly is the kernel developers ‘collective interpretation’ of the GPL? let me answer you, there is no ‘collective interpretation’. there is a collective AGREEMENT. and that agreement is the GPLv2.
so no, it’s not as if Linus and the rest of the full-time funded top level kernel developers could suddenly pick and choose what parts of the GPLv2 they want to apply. this is not about some agreement between Linus and FSF, this is about an agreement between all those who has contributed to the Linux kernel. again you are spreading pure nonsense.
-“It’s about hardware locking signed binaries and only permitting specific applications to run, which is ultimately required at kernel level and without a v3 kernel to enforce it, is pretty pointless right now.”
not to a developer who wishes to licence his code so that it cannot be used in a device that employs restrictive DRM. now if a developer has no problem with this, he can use GPLv2.
Edited 2006-11-30 21:59
-
elsewhere
what are you talking about? I haven’t seen any ‘GNU GPLv3/Linux’ statements from FSF. Linux is still GPL licenced.
I was referring to the blanket statements many people with a limited understanding of the issue make with regards to v3 and linux distributions, though admittedly I may not have been clear.
again with the nonsense. what exactly is the kernel developers ‘collective interpretation’ of the GPL? let me answer you, there is no ‘collective interpretation’. there is a collective AGREEMENT. and that agreement is the GPLv2.
The “agreement” is between the developers and the users. The interpretation of that agreement in determining when a violation has occurred is ultimately the sole domain of the developers who have licensed their copyright-protected work under the agreement.
The original point being that only the kernel developers as copyright holders can pursue GPL infringements, nobody else has the legal or moral right to. If the community feels that the kernel is being used in an infringing manner but the developers feel that it is not technically being used in an infringing manner, their opinion is the one that matters.
If I wrote an application, released it under the GPL, and then you took it and used it in a manner that people decried as violating the GPL, it would not matter. I as the copyright holder am the only one that could exercise my legal options, so therefore my interpretation of the GPL as it applies to my work is far more relevant. If I like what you’ve done and choose not to seek legal relief, then you won’t be facing any legal threats.
so no, it’s not as if Linus and the rest of the full-time funded top level kernel developers could suddenly pick and choose what parts of the GPLv2 they want to apply. this is not about some agreement between Linus and FSF, this is about an agreement between all those who has contributed to the Linux kernel. again you are spreading pure nonsense.
They absolutely can. If any one of the kernel contributors feels that their code is being used in an infringing manner, they can choose to pursue legal action. But they are not obligated to. There is no requirement that they enforce to GPL in accordance with the FSF directives. It’s a license for them to use as they see fit. People seem to have a hard time understanding this fact, the FSF owns the GPL but they cannot control how it’s used.
People releasing GPL’d applications have no control over how those applications are used, other than the provisions of the GPL of course. They may not agree with how others choose to use their applications, they may be philosophically opposed but such is the nature of FLOSS. Once you free it you give up control. And so it is with the FSF and the GPL.
-
Valhalla
elsewhere wrote:
-“Dismissing the concerns developers have over the provisions of v3 versus v2 by claiming that they are ignorant or misunderstanding is not only a fallacious argument but it is self-defeating. ”
where have FSF said that!? or is this something you cooked up? oh, and Linus has actually proven himself either ignorant or misunderstanding regarding v3 vs v2, as described in the paragraph below.
elsewhere wrote:
-“yet there is considerable “FUD” being generated from the v3 proponents that has generated much of the misunderstanding leading to this.”
oh, there are likely plenty FUD being generated on both sides of the fence. Linus for instance claimed that GPLv3 would prevent him from digitally signing his binaries without giving out his keys, which was nothing but FUD, since the anti-DRM clause is only regarding restrictive DRM. and since digitally signing your binaries is in no way restrictive unless you cannot run unsigned binaries (like in the Tivo case). I can’t remember any real examples of FUD from the FSF camp though, maybe you can help me out?
elsewhere wrote:
-“I see much blustering behind the GPL v3 that is best dealt with in political arenas, it deals with issues that ultimately are not going to be solved in a software license and attempting to do so creates unnecessary confusion and complexity without actually addressing the core problems.”
says who? I stand practically no chance of lobbying against restrictive DRM in the ‘political arenas’, that is likely a futile effort if there ever was one.
HOWEVER, with GPLv3 I can publish MY CODE under such a licence as to not permit it being used in products using restrictive DRM, it may not mean alot on a global scale, but I can control MY code.
again, restrictive DRM violates the very reason the FSF was created in the first place, so it really can’t be accepted. look it up, it had to do with a printer driver.
elsewhere wrote:
-“And ok, I’m really being petty here, but if the FSF is so committed to those four freedoms then they should really stop using linux as the basis for the GNU/OS since the kernel developers are clearly not on board, ”
why? GPLv2 is also a FSF licence. I haven’t seen any ‘GPLv3 or the highway’ statements from FSF. have you?
and Linux is in no violation of the four freedoms, so I see no point whatsoever in your comment.
GPLv3 is another choice available for developers when licencing their code. why does that seem to frighten you?
-
b3timmons
“See, the GPL is all about preserving the user’s freedoms, which is fine but becomes little more than a philosophical concept if users have limited choice in applications preserving their freedom. ”
Since such limited choice is unsubstantiated, the entire statement is itself little more than hypothetical.
“Dismissing the concerns developers have over the provisions of v3 versus v2 by claiming that they are ignorant or misunderstanding is not only a fallacious argument but it is self-defeating. ”
If ignorance or misunderstanding is behind certain concerns then they should be handled accordingly and have been.
“The FSF is free to change the license as they see fit, as is absolutely their right. What is ironic is that you refer to FUD being generated as a result of the “misunderstandings” from those who do not share the FSF philosophy. Yet there is considerable “FUD” being generated from the v3 proponents that has generated much of the misunderstanding leading to this.”
Misunderstanding is rooted in error and should be acknowledged if we are to get anywhere, e.g.,
http://www.fsf.org/news/gplv3-clarification
–snip speculation–
It is very unlikely that they will be able to produce a workable clause to prevent deals along the lines of MS / Novell,though I’ll reserve judgment until I see the draft. Nevertheless, they have vowed to prevent it and hence leveraged much of the controversy in order to gain further relevance for v3, despite the fact that the agreement had nothing specifically to do with GPL’d software.
If the GPL is so irrelevant to the agreement, then a revision to the GPL should likewise be irrelevant. However, based on comments about the agreement from Novell and Microsoft, the GPL was a central and longstanding “obstacle” to be worked around, so its relevance seems clear.
I see much blustering behind the GPL v3 that is best dealt with in political arenas, it deals with issues that ultimately are not going to be solved in a software license and attempting to do so creates unnecessary confusion and complexity without actually addressing the core problems.
No one knows how, when, or if the problems will be solved in the polical arena. Any responsible politics relies on awareness of the issues, so the “ultimately” is not and never has been good enough here. As a side effect of protecting freedom, creating awareness of the issues has always distinguished the GPL licenses, and v3 tries to live up to this tradition. Confusion and complexity are inevitable given the broken “IP” systems that must be considered.
“But the FUD that is perpetuated the most is that regarding the FSF’s control of the GPL. The FSF created the GPL, they hold copyright on the GPL and can prevent people from modifying the GPL (or at least modifying it and still calling it the GPL), but they can not control how people use the GPL. Individual developers ARE NOT BOUND to the philosophy of the FSF. You can wax poetic about the spirit of the GPL and can even argue that RMS understands the intent of the GPL better than anyone else, but it doesn’t change the fact that application of the GPL is ultimately up to the developers, not the FSF.”
The misunderstandings you describe are lamentable, but as long as people seek clarity, I feel that good will prevail.
“When v3 kicks in it does not automatically change the nature of GPL’d projects, yet I see many people heralding it as a magic bullet.”
It is enough that v3 fixes some loopholes in v2–it need not be a magic bullet.
“And perhaps I’m being petty here, but I’m really getting tired of the patronizing and demeaning attitude from v3 proponents who automatically categorize everyone critical of it as being ignorant or a corporate slut.
And ok, I’m really being petty here, but if the FSF is so committed to those four freedoms then they should really stop using linux as the basis for the GNU/OS since the kernel developers are clearly not on board, and as you’ve implied before, the only people against v3 must be people who are against protecting freedom. A little hard to justify that philosophical conundrum.”
There are honest and informed critics as I originally noted and which I take you to be if you agree with me that it is good that people question arguments.
Finally, I am unsure about a move away from Linux. I find it hard to generalize about the kernel developers. Only a subset has claimed to be apolitical, which in itself is a stance. I would be satisfied with a reasonable level of public awareness that the politics here is precisely the advocacy of protecting freedom.
2006-11-30 4:00 am
Xaero_Vincent
One of the main goals of the GPL, even if only implied in the current license, is to protect those who deploy and use software covered by it.
Novell has chosen to undermine this implied goal by strategically crafting a way around it through serious licensing holes that were never meant to exist.
Everyone who contributes code and bug fixes to GPL software are the people who make Novell’s GNU/Linux business possible. When Novell made this patent deal with Microsoft, they were only thinking about their core assets (employees, SUSE developers) and paying customers. Novell forgot or neglected the fact that their products contain software not written by them.
By leaving outside contributors and users subject to litigation threats, Novell has effectively said “fu*k you” to their most valuable partners.
Novell really has an undisclosed moral obligation to protect *all* who’ve made and continue to make their business run and prosper.
The GPLv3 will help make this a reality by enforcing patent protection to those who deserve entitlement to it.
Edited 2006-11-30 04:01
-
2006-12-01 1:26 am
tomcatNovell really has an undisclosed moral obligation to protect *all* who’ve made and continue to make their business run and prosper.
There’s no such thing as “morality” in business. First, peoples’ notions of morality differ radically from place to place, from culture to culture, etc. There’s nothing which says *your* concept of morality is any better than anyone else’s. Second, a company is obligated to maximize profit for its shareholders within legal bounds. It isn’t a church. Third there’s a reason why the GPL is a legal document: Its authors anticipated that moral frameworks have no enforcement mechanisms, while legal frameworks DO. And make no mistake about it: Its authors would not have created the GPL unless they had planned on enforcing it in a court of law.
So, spare us the talk of morality. Many of us don’t accept your version of what’s considered moral.
-
b3timmons
There’s no such thing as “morality” in business.
Morality: The doctrines or rules of moral duties, or the duties of men in their social character; ethics.
So there’s no such thing as “Business Ethics” classes, etc.? Maybe you ought to explain to computer science departments why majors should not be required to take a class such as “Computers, Ethics, and Society.”
It is all too clear why certain companies want to be spared the talk of ethics.
-
tomcat
The only boundaries in business are legal boundaries. Your pansy-ass computer science department may think otherwise, but that’s not how the real world operates.
-
2006-12-02 7:48 am
2006-11-30 4:13 am
deanlinkous
Microsoft has not given Novell a patent license, and thus, section 7 of GPL version 2 does not come into play.
Isn’t this EXACTLY what I said the minute after I watched the webcast! Thank you, Thank you….
Yes we need v3! Not because of this deal but because of what this deals shows about v2. v2 is easy to get around, v2 is being skirted by numerous companies not just TIVO, a new license is actually overdue!
Can you name me another license that has not had a update or change in 15 years?
I think the deal should highlight how “stale” v2 is and how easily it can be worked around THAT is what should move you to accept v3.
Technology has eclipsed the practicality of v2. v2 was wrote before the *real* internet, before file sharing, before p2p, before torrents, before css, drm, and so forth.
It isn’t just TIVO, numerous violations, numerous instances of “skirting” the GPLv2 and so forth should show it is PAST time for a new version.
2006-11-30 4:48 am
milles21
I am a big SUSE user infact I run it in my entire production network. However as I have stated many times over the coimmunity is at a divide you are either for Microsoft and against Linux or For Linux and against Microsoft. I mean at some point you Linux has to stand on it’s own and surpass microsoft in the enterprise not in technology (So let’s drop that debate)
CIO’s and CEO’s need to know that they have vendors partnered with Microsoft to produce interoperability. You never know what product will come down the line and they want to maintain choice and choice means integration.
In any case I to am bothered by the so called FSF let’s change this lets change that because they disagree with it. Even Linus disagrees with GPL v3. I will likely stay with SUSE and in the event that the GPL alters Novell and SUSE abilities to much I will just switch the servers to OS X like my desktops
-
b3timmons
“n any case I to am bothered by the so called FSF let’s change this lets change that because they disagree with it. Even Linus disagrees with GPL v3. I will likely stay with SUSE and in the event that the GPL alters Novell and SUSE abilities to much I will just switch the servers to OS X like my desktops”
Instead of presenting a real argument against the GPLv3, you just try to make the process behind it look arbitrary. Since when is fixing loopholes arbitrary?
-
milles21
This is not really about loopholes in this particular instance this is about Opensource advocates wanting nothing to do with MS. I mean no one can say that this deal will not bring forth some enterprise benefits if nothing more than education. The GPL v2 is fine the GPL v3 IMHO pointless.
-
b3timmons
This is not really about loopholes in this particular instance this is about Opensource advocates wanting nothing to do with MS. I mean no one can say that this deal will not bring forth some enterprise benefits if nothing more than education. The GPL v2 is fine the GPL v3 IMHO pointless.
First, all of the serious calls for Microsoft or Novell to reconsider the deal have focused on the patent agreement. No one minds the other two agreements, the business and technical cooperation between the firms. Thus, your first claim is false.
Second, potential benefits must be reconciled with existing costs, such as weakening an important license, loss of trust, enabling more MS FUD, etc. I.e., people conduct a cost-benefit analysis.
Third, the transcript clearly lays out the improvements that v3 will bring. Anyone who likes v2 should at least be aware of the improvements. How can anyone who values an area of concern (internationalization, license compatibility, Tivoization, software patents, etc.) claim that v3 is pointless?
-
milles21
In response The agreement extends to Novell’s customers not Novell and I agree with the deal. It should be up to the companies like Novell and Redhat to ensure that there are not any infringing code. What Novell is saying is that we don’t believe there is any infringing code however if there ever comes a time where this is an issue our customers are safe. Novell is not but since it is our product we are investing in your safety.
Next the GPLv3 again (IMHO) is a revise for people with issues, I also think that the support is contradicting considering that the kernel itself according to Linus will stay GPL v3 the foundation on which these new GPL v3 apps will be licensed is v2.
Talk about confusing I mean we cannot hope to make people play fair and control the social conscious with licenses that are what the GPL v3 want to do. Force everyone to one type of thinking. The whole we will change GPLv3 to make sure Novell violates the GPL because we disagree with their decision to work with Microsoft and protect Novell’s customers seems pretty petty. If Novell structured this for all distros the world would be fine lets be real here Novell is a company and has the right according to the GPL v2 might I add a very successfully license for bringing linux to the forefront.
-
b3timmons
“In response The agreement extends to Novell’s customers not Novell and I agree with the deal. It should be up to the companies like Novell and Redhat to ensure that there are not any infringing code. What Novell is saying is that we don’t believe there is any infringing code however if there ever comes a time where this is an issue our customers are safe. Novell is not but since it is our product we are investing in your safety. ”
So as long as Novell can point to its customers and their protection, Novell’s actions are justified, regardless if they include circumventing licenses and abusing trust of their former community? Shortly after the deal, Ballmer then felt free to start broadcasting FUD everywhere. This is dirty, and Novell enabled it to happen. They could not have been so stupid so as to not see the flak that this would cause; the predictability only exacerbates it.
“Next the GPLv3 again (IMHO) is a revise for people with issues, I also think that the support is contradicting considering that the kernel itself according to Linus will stay GPL v3 the foundation on which these new GPL v3 apps will be licensed is v2.”
Nonsense–you are imagining a nonexistent connection between kernel and user space.
“Talk about confusing I mean we cannot hope to make people play fair and control the social conscious with licenses that are what the GPL v3 want to do. Force everyone to one type of thinking. The whole we will change GPLv3 to make sure Novell violates the GPL because we disagree with their decision to work with Microsoft and protect Novell’s customers seems pretty petty. If Novell structured this for all distros the world would be fine lets be real here Novell is a company and has the right according to the GPL v2 might I add a very successfully license for bringing linux to the forefront.”
The only kind of thinking I recognize is logical, and, given its rarity, I fail to see how it is being forced. OTOH, some still fail to acknowledge the circumvention and so fail to give a fair analysis.
2006-11-30 5:24 am
deanlinkous
This deal shows v2 is easy to get around, v2 is being skirted by numerous companies not just TIVO, a new license is actually overdue!
Can you name me another license that has not had a update or change in 15 years?
Technology has eclipsed the practicality of v2. v2 was wrote before the *real* internet, before file sharing, before p2p, before torrents, before css, drm, and so forth.
It isn’t just TIVO, numerous violations, numerous instances of “skirting” the GPLv2 and so forth should show it is PAST time for a new version.
2006-11-30 10:54 am
marafaka
The title on the front page is wrong, it should say ‘Novell/Microsoft patent deal doesn’t violate GPL…. yet’. Please show some respect, with this attitude you’re only raising suspicions.
2006-11-30 11:55 am
MollyC
You guys are making such a fuss over MS/Novell coming to an agreement without violating GPL2, and so are calling for GPL3 to manufacture a violation. But you say nothing about the web app loophole of GPL that’s so big that numerous companies are driving trucks through it.
The web app loophole is the loophole that allows a company to incorporate GPL code into a web app and release that web app for use by the public without disclosing their own code simply because they’re releasing a web app rather than a local binary.
Many companies are already exploiting that loophole, yet you guys don’t seem to care. Is it because the highest profile company suspected of exploiting it is a company that you worship (i.e. Google)? Well, let’s put it in terms you can understand by using a company that you hate as an example. The webapp loophole would allow Microsoft to incorprate GPL code into a web app (say, an online version of Works (which they’re rumored to be working on), or a Live.com service), and release it for use by the public without disclosing their own code. Now do you care?
Seems pretty hypcritical to continue to allow the web app loophole, while crying over and taking pains to close the Novell/Microsoft “loophole”.
And the web app loophole is harmful to the GPL over the long term. As time goes on, more and more apps will become web apps In a world where 90% of apps are web-apps, GPL is irrelevant as long as the web-app loophole exists.
-
2006-11-30 12:35 pm
g2deviMost people don’t consider this a loophole. It’s really no different from having GCC on the network and allowing network users to run GCC. However, from my understanding (someone will correct me if I’m wrong), the GPL3 handles the “loophole” you mention as an option that the licensor of the GPL3 code can use when releasing the software.
-
b3timmons
“Seems pretty hypcritical to continue to allow the web app loophole, while crying over and taking pains to close the Novell/Microsoft “loophole”.
And the web app loophole is harmful to the GPL over the long term. As time goes on, more and more apps will become web apps In a world where 90% of apps are web-apps, GPL is irrelevant as long as the web-app loophole exists.”
As you must realize by now, v3 will address this “loophole” with an option that the licensor can exercise. Having this option is quite telling:
1. It acknowledges the concern of your comment.
2. It acknowledges that people still consider their physical property as distinct from network resources.
3. It shows the value of optional permissions and restrictions to developers.
4. It shows the compromise and flexibility behind v3 that makes sense for new, dynamic modes of software production.
In short, v3 looks ever more compelling in light of web apps. As you say, web apps will dominate. I think the future looks good!
Edited 2006-11-30 17:08
2006-11-30 2:15 pm
npang
Then why bother with Gnu/Linux (assuming this is GNU/Linux you are referring to) at all? Why not get BSD and use that as the base for an OS? It’s less restrictive which is more attractive to those who don’t mind restricting other people’s freedoms.
2006-11-30 9:02 pm
deanlinkous
The first kernel we have covered under gplv3 will be the kernel I am using. I hope it isn’t the hurd, I would prefer linux, I wouldn’t mind solaris. But just in case I will start trying to get more into the hurd or…. we could start a “new” gplv3 kernel via BSD???
-
b3timmons
“we could start a “new” gplv3 kernel via BSD???”
A v3 OpenSolaris is not unlikely. Please avoid the BSD kernels; for all of their merit, the projects mostly fail to appreciate the primacy of Linux. That’s a bad sign, IMO.
2006-12-01 1:51 pm
deanlinkous
I must of missed him specifying it then. 
Where was that? And if he already specified it then what was the need to clarify it?
Obviously not as obvious as it would obviously seem.
Edited 2006-12-01 13:52
-
elsewhere
I must of missed him specifying it then.
Where was that? And if he already specified it then what was the need to clarify it? OMFG. You’re just not going to give in on this one are you?
Here you go:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v1.0/linux-1.0.tar.gz
The source code tarball for linux 1.0, download at your leisure, unpack it and view the COPYING file dated December 1993.
You’ll note that it is licensed under GPL Version 2.
If you scroll down further, you’ll find that following the text of the GPL license, which does not include the “or later” clause, there is text included with information on how to apply the GPL to your own programs. You’ll find the same information on gnu.org
Scrolling even further, you’ll see the suggestion about the “or later” clause but if you’ve actually been paying attention, it has nothing to do with the linux kernel license. It is simply part of the text that was copied for informational purposes.
So, to recap:
a) The linux kernel has been licensed under GPL v2 from the very beginning (at least, from the point where linus started using the GPL)
b) The “or later” clause is *not* part of the kernel licensing, it is suggested part of the boilerplate that was provided for other developers for use on separate projects.
c) It was subsequently removed because people like you became confused about the difference between the actual license and the fact that the COPYING text included boilerplate for other developers.
If you still don’t get it, well, I give up.
-
deanlinkous
OMG, you should give up because YOU are clueless.
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
That is the version of the GPL license itself. Notice the copyrights afterward and the FSF mailing address and so forth. Notice the copyright date. The day that the creator wrote the GPL not the program we are talking about.
Section 9 of the GPL License itself.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and “any
later version”, you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.
Edited 2006-12-02 00:52
-
elsewhere
I give up. At this point I suspect you’d argue with RMS himself if he tried to make it any clearer to you.
-
deanlinkous
If he could not point out facts to support his argument then YES I certainly would. I used the link you supplied, I downloaded and extracted it and read the COPYING file and I see no mention about what license that the program known as “linux” is covered under.
friggin patents and licenses. bah.
yes, us people who are lucky enough to live in the EU need to have silly things like IP and software patents explained to us.
is there an idiots guide anywhere ?
I have a word for those who claimed GPL violation from Novell:
OWNED!
To be fair, the majority of critics spoke about violation of the “spirit” of the GPL, which remains true (for the GPL was and is intended to prevent discrimination among the recipients of free software regarding the freedoms they get). That’s the purpose of GPL v3 – to prevent companies working around the intended purpose (spirit) of the GPL.
Others were more specific, basing their claims on early opinions of Eben Moglen, before he got the opportunity to review the deal thoroughly. EM spoke about _possible_ violation of the GPL, while some people talked about it as it was already a proven fact. Part of the problem was that the details of the deal were (and still are) secret – so it wasn’t an outlandish idea that there might be GPL violations. It is just that some peeps left out might be from their comments.
What’s outlandish is a bunch of morons blowing off their mouths about GPL violations without even the slightest amount of evidence.
Stallman might be right, but if he is, then the ‘covenant’ has no meaning. Is microsoft going to sue customers for patent violation? can it by law?
I have a word for those who claimed GPL violation from Novell:
OWNED!
Dude. On Groklaw and elsewhere we all knew Novell were getting around this by Microsoft providing a covenant directly to their customers. It does not stop us criticising Novell’s crass stupidity and the bad light with which this casts not only on open source software, but Novell’s own products.
As soon as that covenant hits a customer’s door mat it will seemingly confirm everything that Microsoft has been telling them on the quiet.
It feels a bit like Stallman is using this MS/Novell agreement to push GPLv3. He’s like saying: “You see, GPLv2 has even more holes than we thought. It’s not useful anymore. We really need v3”.
I really don’t like that he takes advantage of this ugly situation.
Why not? I thought v3 is being designed issues like this specifically in mind…
Stallman isn’t “taking advantage” but rather is using this as an example of what can happen under GPL V2.
If you have to strain in order to prove you are not violating the GPL, chances are, you are probably already violating the spirit of the GPL.
Once GPL3 comes out, it should really change the Linux landscape.
Edited 2006-11-29 23:42
Once GPL3 comes out, it should really change the Linux landscape.
I agree.
I’m not sure that it will benefit the Linux community, however– and if the FSF successfully negates the MS/Novell deal, then they also negate the commercial viability of GPL licensed software.
What sane corporation would continue to use it when the FSF can just rewrite the license to deliberately sabotage a multi-million dollar agreement?
Edited 2006-11-30 00:45
“What sane corporation would continue to use it when the FSF can just rewrite the license to deliberately sabotage a multi-million dollar agreement?”
What sane corporation would continue to use Windows when[sic] Microsoft Corp. can just rewrite their EULA to deliberately sabotage a multi-million dollar agreement?
As you should notice, changes to the license only affect _new_ versions of GNU software. Nobody is forced to adopt them in first place.
While one ( a typical “sane company”) is indirectly forced to adopt new Windows versions with their regarding price / license model / etc, because of support running out etc., this could also be said about GNU software. But at least, if someone else would like to work on/fix/support GNU software and still release under GPL2, he is able to. This is not possible with all the proprietary software used by “sane companies”. So how could they?!? 😉
“What sane corporation would continue to use it when the FSF can just rewrite the license to deliberately sabotage a multi-million dollar agreement?”
“What sane corporation would continue to use Windows when[sic] Microsoft Corp. can just rewrite their EULA to deliberately sabotage a multi-million dollar agreement?”
——————————-
The difference is that Microsoft has no history of rewrting a EULA to deliberately sabatage a multi-million dollar agreement between other parties. On the other thand, the FSF is threatening to add a clause to GPL v3 to do just that, so the FSF will have established a history of doing such.
“The difference is that Microsoft has no history of rewrting a EULA to deliberately sabatage a multi-million dollar agreement between other parties. On the other thand, the FSF is threatening to add a clause to GPL v3 to do just that, so the FSF will have established a history of doing such.”
Are we supposed to think that an agreement has more merit if it is a multi-million dollar one? Money is neutral–it could help or harm.
What you hope people do not appreciate is that the agreement, while not violating a license, circumvents it. Naturally, creators of a license do not intend for it to be circumvented and will revise it accordingly in the face of new types of circumvention. That the source of the circumvention was an agreement, as opposed to say, an individual’s action, is entirely incidental.
The only people who need to be worried about these revisions to GPLv3 are the potential circumventers or violaters, and, unfortunately for you, it is easy to realize who those people are–the people who wish to erode everyone’s software freedoms.
Edited 2006-11-30 03:24
“The difference is that Microsoft has no history of rewrting a EULA to deliberately sabatage a multi-million dollar agreement between other parties. On the other thand, the FSF is threatening to add a clause to GPL v3 to do just that, so the FSF will have established a history of doing such.”
Am I the only one who thinks that such thing is a bad thing for a start ?
In fact, most of the MS/Novell deal with the help of the FSF and the linux community in fact helps MS by doing exactly what they like and that’s to try to kill Novell for no reason.
Why not try to understand that the legal hoopla of patents etc is just worthless and operability could help us all in deployment of heterogenous systems ??
The difference is that Microsoft has no history of rewrting a EULA to deliberately sabatage a multi-million dollar agreement between other parties. On the other thand, the FSF is threatening to add a clause to GPL v3 to do just that, so the FSF will have established a history of doing such.
This is patently false! The FSF has no intention to change the terms of the software they distributed. They change the terms under which software copyrighted by them will be distributed in the future. No past agreements are sabotaged – you got your software under the terms of the GPL v2, and nothing can and will change that. Example: you now have gcc 4.1 on your computer – the FSF is not going to change the license under which you received gcc, but it has all right to distribute gcc 5.x under the terms they see fit.
The difference b/w MS’s EULA and the terms of the GPL is precisely this: whether or not MS has a history of doing it, the terms of the EULA make it clear that MS can change the terms you already agreed to. There is no such provision in the GPL.
GPL v3. is not officially “released” – it is a work in progress, that tries to accomplish exactly the same things GPL v2. intended to: to provide non-discriminatory access to all 4 freedoms the GPL intends to provide. That has always been the goal, but Novell learned how to circumvent that: they claim that their customers get special rights or freedoms to use software that (mostly) is not even developed by them – SAMBA for instance. The explicit goal of GPL v3. was always to prevent such situations. This is not about deliberately sabotaging this specific deal, or FSF disliking Novell, or anything. It baffles me how you reached that conclusion. This is about preventing anyone from circumventing the goals of the GPL – it just happens that Novell is the first entity of some importance that effectively did circumvent the goals of the GPL. Good thing is that Novell’s actions helps to clarify what needs to be done in order to prevent such situations in the future.
Did you read my whole comment? No, obviously you didn’t!
Microsoft has a history of rewriting its EULAs. No software company in the world gives away it’s right to write new EULAS for their _NEW SOFTWARE_…
For god’s sake.. poor pooor Novell, pooor Microsoft, they spent multi-million dollars and now some other guys decide to change the terms they release _THEIR OWN_ _NEW_ software under! How could they?!
Given the thinly veiled threats from Bruce Perens, it certainly looks like people think Novell should be barred from distributing, or maintaining, linux.
Eben Moglen has stated that GPLv3 will invalidate the Microsoft deal. Not a future deal, the current deal.
These aren’t threats against future activities. These are threats against current activities.
You’re overlooking the fact that “poor poor Novell” has invested millions into Linux development, including a pretty substantial amount of GPL software. It’s as much “their” software as the “other guys” you refer to in your post.
Most “freedoms” that the GPL offers turn out to be sticks, rather than carrots. They are, in fact, “rights”, which may be taken away if you offend the FSF.
The “freedom” to redistribute is the one most often brandished, as it allows the FSF to effectively put a company out of business, as a number in the F/OSS community have threatened Novell in the last two weeks.
I don’t know what is so complicate about this. If Novell can spend “multi-million” dollars in deals about this software, it certainly can just take “their” software and maintain it.
Where’s the problem? It’s their right to do so! They can release many distros today and tomorrow, which stay using GPLv2 software, with all of Novells great additions in it. So what is the threat?
The threat is that FSF talks for years(!) about the license they want to take on for their _new_ software. Wow! And now if some third parties make deals about this _yet unwritten_ software, it’s their very own problem!
grat wrote:
“But who decides what decisions are legit? Are you suggesting any business that utilizes GPL must run their business strategy through the FSF first?”
it’s decided by wether or not it follows the licence. those using the ‘loopholes’ in GPLv2 are definately legit. GPLv3 closes most of these loopholes and as such trying the same ‘loopholes’ with GPLv3’ed code would not be legit.
grat wrote:
“Given the thinly veiled threats from Bruce Perens, it certainly looks like people think Novell should be barred from distributing, or maintaining, linux. ”
I doubt that Bruce Perens is the voice of the ‘people’. he sure as hell is no voice of mine. at the end of the day, people will choose for themselves wether or not to use suse, mono or whatever else is dragged into the Novell/Microsoft debacle, just as they will decide upon using the GPLv3 or not. it’s called free will, and it’s not something dictated by Bruce Perens, Richard Stallman, Steve Ballmer, Linus Torvalds or anyone else.
grat wrote:
“Most “freedoms” that the GPL offers turn out to be sticks, rather than carrots. They are, in fact, “rights”, which may be taken away if you offend the FSF.”
lol, enough with the FUD. there’s no ‘offending the FSF’, it’s about adhering to the LICENCE under which the software is LICENCED. lets just stick to facts shall we? please?
as a developer, I choose to place my code under licence X, when someone uses that code without adhering to the terms of that licence they are not ‘offending me’, they are breaking the legal agreement they entered. naturally, if you do not aknowledge the terms of an agreement you have made, your rights within that agreement are likewise void.
Given the thinly veiled threats from Bruce Perens, it certainly looks like people think Novell should be barred from distributing, or maintaining, linux.
How can Perens threaten anyone? In his “Open Letter to Novell” he merely describes the consequences of Novell’s abuse of community trust if they choose to persist in the face of an outcry. So far over 2500 other people have signed this letter: the extent of the outrage over the agreement is undeniable.
You will note that these consequences are relevant only with the GPLv3, which does not yet exist. The GPLv3 has no effect upon any that Novell currently distributes. Thus, your claim about current activities makes no sense.
Your subsequent claims are empty, as others have already shown.
Edited 2006-11-30 19:09
Sorry, but you maybe have no followed all Bruce Perens PR he made lately. He posts comments on Slashdot recent articles about this issue very very actively, and I have seen several times claiming that Novell should be suied and barred, that it is all “eeeeevil”, etc. I would say that he just trolls, but hey, helps him here, because we are so frustrated about this deal, because we don’t trust Microsoft. We, in fact, are very afraid of it. But as you know, fears ain’t best friend of man.
By the way, it isn’t the same Bruce Perens who leaded some company who claimed that there is about possible 200 patents violation in Linux? And they sold…emmm…protection from suing? And now he is “voice of nation”? Give me a break…
How short is human memory.
Sorry, but you maybe have no followed all Bruce Perens PR he made lately. He posts comments on Slashdot recent articles about this issue very very actively, and I have seen several times claiming that Novell should be suied and barred, that it is all “eeeeevil”, etc. I would say that he just trolls, but hey, helps him here, because we are so frustrated about this deal, because we don’t trust Microsoft. We, in fact, are very afraid of it. But as you know, fears ain’t best friend of man.
The open letter by Perens that has now collected over 2600 signatures makes his postings inconsequential by comparison. Should we also scrutinize the postings of the 2600+ other signers? “Good” and “evil” are perfectly fine words that belong not just to religious fundamentalists but also to ethical thinkers, which I hope we all claim to be. Evil can denote immorality although it might connote a high degree of immorality. Thus, it is not at all a stretch to label Novell’s action as evil. No one should trust any corporation–get it “in writing” as they say. Track records matter also in this deal–let’s not go there.
By the way, it isn’t the same Bruce Perens who leaded some company who claimed that there is about possible 200 patents violation in Linux? And they sold…emmm…protection from suing? And now he is “voice of nation”? Give me a break…
Here’s the interesting part. First, the open letter stands on its own, whether it was written by the Pope or Satan. Second, maybe I am dense, but there has been a longstanding consensus that any substantial body of code infringes patents. Those violations in the kernel were merely tallied and not revealed–their existence was no earthshattering revelation, merely marketing fodder. What was wrong with the service that the company was selling? It’s not as if the company itself was trying to circumvent a license or were patent trolls. Perhaps I am missing something here–please correct me. Where is he being inconsistent?
In short, the open letter stands on its own. As a separate concern, how is Perens lacking in integrity?
What sane corporation would continue to use Windows when[sic] Microsoft Corp. can just rewrite their EULA to deliberately sabotage a multi-million dollar agreement?
As far as I know, Microsoft has never targeted a specific corporation with their EULA. They’re far more hostile to end users than companies, because they need the companies to survive.
Finally, the fact that Microsoft is a de facto monopoly puts constraints on what they can do, as was proven by Novell gaining a half a billion dollar settlement from them over DR-DOS.
As you should notice, changes to the license only affect _new_ versions of GNU software. Nobody is forced to adopt them in first place.
Actually, the Linux kernel is one of the few products that doesn’t have “… or later” in it’s license. Most code out there says “GPLv2 or later”, and in most contract law, the most restrictive contract has precedence.
And of course, that library of code that’s been signed over to the FSF will almost certainly update to v3.
Actually, the Linux kernel is one of the few products that doesn’t have “… or later” in it’s license.
And that was only changed about 5 years ago! Oh and some of the devels submit code to the kernel and it does say “v2 or later”!
>Actually, the Linux kernel is one of the few products that doesn’t have “… or later” in it’s license.
And that was only changed about 5 years ago!
No, it was never changed because it the “or later” clause was never included. Linus was emphatic about that.
Oh and some of the devels submit code to the kernel and it does say “v2 or later”!
Which only means that if people can isolate that code from the v2 “only” kernel code, they are free to use it in v3 or later projects as they wish. It has no bearing or impact on the kernel licensing.
I’m just happy I did it five years ago, so that by _now_, things are
hopefully pretty damn clear-cut.
Linus Torvalds
If you want to start such an effort, I’d suggest:
– spend hours and hours of your time talking to your lawyers, trying to
convince them that your argument has any merit at all. I doubt you’ll
be able to do that.
– than start from the state 5 years ago.
Linus Torvalds
The COPYING file was edited (over _five_ years ago) to clarify the issue,
exactly because some people were confused. So the COPYING file now
explicitly says:
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
and that has been the case for the last 5+ years.
Linus Torvalds
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/1/25/273
>
> This means that when the code went GPL v1 -> GPL v2, the transition was
> permissible. Linux v1.0 shipped with the GPL v2. It did not ship with a
> separate clause specifying that “You may only use *this* version of the GPL”
> as it now does. (I haven’t done any research to find out when this clause was
> added, but it was after the transition to v2).
Bzzt. Look closer.
The Linux kernel has _always_ been under the GPL v2. Nothing else has ever
been valid.
The “version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version”
language in the GPL copying file is not – and has never been – part of the
actual License itself. It’s part of the _explanatory_ text that talks
about how to apply the license to your program, and it says that _if_ you
want to accept any later versions of the GPL, you can state so in your
source code.
The Linux kernel has never stated that in general. Some authors have
chosen to use the suggested FSF boilerplate (including the “any later
version” language), but the kernel in general never has.
In other words: the _default_ license strategy is always just the
particular version of the GPL that accompanies a project. If you want to
license a program under _any_ later version of the GPL, you have to state
so explicitly. Linux never did.
So: the extra blurb at the top of the COPYING file in the kernel source
tree was added not to _change_ the license, but to _clarify_ these points
so that there wouldn’t be any confusion.
The Linux kernel is under the GPL version 2. Not anything else. Some
individual files are licenceable under v3, but not the kernel in general.
And quite frankly, I don’t see that changing. I think it’s insane to
require people to make their private signing keys available, for example.
I wouldn’t do it. So I don’t think the GPL v3 conversion is going to
happen for the kernel, since I personally don’t want to convert any of my
code.
> If a migration to v3 were to occur, the only potential hairball I see is if
> someone objected on the grounds that they contributed code to a version of the
> kernel Linus had marked as “GPLv2 Only”. IANAL.
No. You think “v2 or later” is the default. It’s not. The _default_ is to
not allow conversion.
Conversion isn’t going to happen.
Linus
Linux will not be v3, that’s obvious now to even the casual observer. Call it point of fact. That being said, please stop lying:
>I think it’s insane to require people to make their private signing keys available,
Linus, this is not true, you can sign v3 stuff without ever having to give away your keys, _unless_ you try to prevent users of the software from running something not signed by you (which begs the theoretical question, who the f–k are you to tell me what I can or cannot run on my own computer/property).
Second, this very issue has been explained to you on Groklaw, on LKML, by the FSF, etc. Yet you continue to spread this misinformation willfully. This is called lying, Linus, stop it already, it’s getting old and doesn’t prove your point. Pointing out that the Linux was licensed v2 only (not newer) will prove your point, which you did, so why even bother with the lies?
Rock on Mr. Theo ^H^H^H^H Linus, (edit: and silly me for not noticing it was a quote, guess I’ve had this argument one to many times.) Also, f–k is censored? f–k, f–k. I’ll be damned.
Edited 2006-11-30 09:18
Yep that is how linus interprets it….and other interpret it a different way.
If it is as clear as he makes it out to be and so obvious and it is the only way to be interpreted then answer me this – why did he explicitly change it? what needed to be clarified?
Linus changing it lends credit to the idea that it isn’t as obvious as he said it is.
The GPL itself says:
If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and “any later version”, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
Which says to me if you do not specifically specify the ONLY version then by default it is assumed to be or of any later version. It is not as Linus says, that “v2 only” is the default.
Which says to me if you do not specifically specify the ONLY version then by default it is assumed to be or of any later version. It is not as Linus says, that “v2 only” is the default.
Right. And because Linus didn’t specify in the license text that it is not also under a BSD license, then you can assume that BSD licensing applies as well? Doesn’t work that way.
The text you referenced specifically says that if the program specifies a version number of this license which applies to it *and* “any later version”. The requirement isn’t to say “only v2” if you want v2, that’s implied. The requirement is to say “or later” if you want to permit licensing under future versions. It’s by no means a default, otherwise the FSF wouldn’t suggest using it.
Yep that is how linus interprets it….and other interpret it a different way.
If it is as clear as he makes it out to be and so obvious and it is the only way to be interpreted then answer me this – why did he explicitly change it? what needed to be clarified?
Linus changing it lends credit to the idea that it isn’t as obvious as he said it is.
Because clearly others are misinterpreting the clause and it deserves to be clarified.
Linus says the kernel is licensed under V2.
Others say well that must mean we can license it under later versions because you didn’t specify *only* v2.
Linus says BS, it doesn’t work that way, and clarifies it in the header text to avoid similar mistakes.
The only way the “or later” clause would not be required in order for users to vary the GPL license version would be if Linus chose not to explicitly specify a version of the GPL. Again, as cited in the text you provided above.
If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
Which would be a relevant point if Linus hadn’t specified v2 at the time he licensed it under the GPL.
Actually, the Linux kernel is one of the few products that doesn’t have “… or later” in it’s license. Most code out there says “GPLv2 or later”, and in most contract law, the most restrictive contract has precedence.
No, the or later clause is effectively a dual-license. Using “v2 or later.” means that the code may be used under the terms of v2 *or* the terms of a later version of the GPL.
The FSF will have to change the boilerplate on GNU applications to “v3 or later.” if they want to prevent future changes from being forked to v2.
Actually, the Linux kernel is one of the few products that doesn’t have “… or later” in it’s license. Most code out there says “GPLv2 or later”, and in most contract law, the most restrictive contract has precedence.
The GPL is a license, not a contract:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html
Moreover, nearly all of the “GPLv2 or later” is for programs in user space and so the licenses for those programs need not be compatible with the license for the Linux kernel.
Sorry, but you just don’t have a clue about how the licensing works.
If a piece of software has a license which reads “this version or later”, it means basically, that the _licensee_ can decide, which license he wants to aquire.
So if I say to you “you can buy my software, with license XY or license XZ (license XY 2.0)” you can replay “ok, I’ll take it with license XY”. For example, I can sell my software to you for $ 10 with GPL 2 and $ 20 with GPL 3. As the GPL states, this gives you also permission to relicense the software to others, but _only_ with the same license (or, if it is written in the license, with the same license version or later).
The only thing that can happen is that the GNU people refuse to give away their _newer_ software versions under GPLv2, or anybody other takes the software, changes it, and refuses to give away _his_ version under GPLv2, as he states he has licensed it himself under GPLv3.
Got it?
What sane corporation would continue to use it when the FSF can just rewrite the license to deliberately sabotage a multi-million dollar agreement?
Agreed.
What sane corporation would buy Linux from a company knowing that the developers will be poached by other distros and you can get excommunicated and shunned (and called all sorts of names) by signing a routine cross-licensing agreement with Microsoft?
routine
ha. Since this is the first of its kind, I think that calling it routine is kinda wrong.
I’m not sure that it will benefit the Linux community, however– and if the FSF successfully negates the MS/Novell deal, then they also negate the commercial viability of GPL licensed software.
What sane corporation would continue to use it when the FSF can just rewrite the license to deliberately sabotage a multi-million dollar agreement?
No worries there. You’re greatly exaggerating the influence and relevance of the FSF and their control over GPL licensed software.
As copyright holders on the various packages in the GNU project, they have every right to revise their license any time they see fit as any software developer does. But that’s the extent of it, they don’t control GPL-licensed software that they do not hold copyright on. Although an important piece, the GNU toolchain and utilities represent a relatively small piece of the average mainstream distro when you consider that core components like the kernel, xorg, various DE’s, scripting languages etc. will not be affected by the GNU’s adoption of v3.
Those big commercial companies that could be turned off of v3 are the same ones that are helping underwrite and develop the GNU tools. If they’re not happy with v3, then they’ll simply fork and commit any further development under the same v2 license.
All that will likely happen is a clearly delineated split between the free software side and the open source side, which would be a shame but it’s probably time for it to happen.
“a relatively small piece”
Sure? You want to implement/maintain the whole compiler, including POSIX conform libc, libstd++,..? I don’t.
Sure? You want to implement/maintain the whole compiler, including POSIX conform libc, libstd++,..? I don’t.
Who said anything about implement. They just have to maintain a set of tools that, last time I checked, already work.
What sane corporation would continue to use it when the FSF can just rewrite the license to deliberately sabotage a multi-million dollar agreement?
Any corporation would continue to use it, providing it has lawyers who can abide by and understand the simple web page
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
New versions of the GPL will continue to come out as long as those freedoms encounter new threats. Corporations will have a predictable idea of how the GPL will change. Moreover, they have ample input in the revision process, a fact lost on many naysayers.
Any corporation would continue to use it, providing it has lawyers who can abide by and understand the simple web page