Bruce Perens writes: “There’s been a lot of talk about GPL version 3: whether it goes too far to be acceptable to business, whether the Linux kernel developers will ever switch to it, whether our community will fork or undergo unrest over it. Much of that talk is based on a poor understanding of the GPL3 terms, and with release of the new license imminent, it’s time to clear that up.”
> whether the Linux kernel developers will ever switch to it
Gosh, it’s easy they just don’t want the GPL3 because they are just happy with the GPL2 – if you take it, give something back, nothing more, nothing less. It’s not FUD, it’s just a lack of understanding within the FSF.
you know your “nothing more, nothing less” thing really would have been a whole lot more convincing if it wasnt for the whole MS/novell deal.
so what exactly hasnt Novell given back?
Perhaps the question is, “Whats the point of giving back to the community if your clients are the only members of the community indemnified against microsoft patents?”
Sort of defeats half the point of the GPL community i.e. to stand together against IP attacks.
That is a good way to phrase it.
I would hope that the community at large filter all contributed code. Im not sure how that would occur though. I would think this wouldnt be a problem for just Novell though. I would think that other companies would have to worry about that as well.
I would like think that the scrutiny that this deal has put Novell under would have the community at large verifying what is released back. Which would lead to “cleaner” code all around (pipe dream maybe).
Edited 2007-03-23 20:08
As Bruce points out, standing pat in a changing legal environment is actually equivalent to going backwards in many respects.
GPL3 is real, will happen and with libc, gcc and most of the build tool chain all moving to GPL3 its not really a question of ‘if’ but ‘when’ the majority of linux distros are predominantly GPL3. The only real concern around linux (the kernel) is just that it is such a high profile GPL component (and one that has done very well out of GPL to date, for example IBM’s heavy use of GPL infringements as defenses/counter claims against SCO).
Richard Stallman announced on Monday March 19 that GPL3 will contain a provision that blocks the Novell-Microsoft deal.
It sounds like Stallman is trying a little too hard to get the Microsoft-Novell deal blocked which is pretty silly. There is no reason why a company can’t protect another company from patents. Everyone will win, the companies win because they are protected, the customers win because they are protected. It is nothing more than hate only because its Microsoft. This whole GPL v3 thing is doing more to separate the linux community than it is to combine them.
The scenario you describe is blocked by GPL V2. The Novell Microsoft deal is one in which Novell’s clients are indemnified not Novell.
But that goes against the spirit of the GPL in which it seaks to provide protection for the community of users od the particular GPL software package. So that is if one members “rights” – as per RMS definition – are infringed everyones are and therefore everyone will band together to fight the assault on the “rights”.
ok so the customers are indemnified, I still don’t see the problem with that. It’s a win for the customers as they can’t be sued. Anyone else who wants to be protected can use Novell, or there can be other deals that indemnify the customers until everyone is covered.
The tone of your arguments clearly implies that you do understand what is at stake, but you choose to disguise the true significance of it by feigning naivete.
You are arguing, not very skillfully, that this isn’t a big deal because it is ok for everyone to pay Novell and Microsoft or any other gatekeeper set by Microsoft as its proxy.
You argue: “If they don’t like the deal, whoever they are, they can enter into some other deal with Microsoft.”
The problem is the community of free software developers is made up of many individuals, not just corporations, and many non-profit organizations, all of whom have equal rights under the GPL and all of whom do not like arbitrary gatekeepers of any sort.
The GPL itself states that if you claim that a piece of software under the GPL infringes on your patents, you lose any right to distribute said software. Software patents are an intellectual aberration, given how all software is a mathetmatical expression of existing principles.
Considering that any non-trivial piece of software can infringe tons of software patents, the only role of software patents is to create cartels that extract a toll on every piece of software. This is not the world that I want to live in. It is unfair, it skews true innovation in favor of huge companies with huge legal departments and it does nothing for the end-user of software.
I suspect this long post is a whole lot of wasted breath or typing, as you were only trying to deflect attention from these very arguments. In other words, I am not out to convince you, but rather to highlight the fact that the Novel-Microsoft deal is indeed a big deal.
Edited 2007-03-23 19:40
It really has nothing to do with the customers that are indemnified, its the creation of an impression that there is a threat against those who aren’t that is the problem.
In the end, this is using the threat of a law suite to allow MS to play ’embrace and extend’ in the linux market by proxy, using gambits such as the OOXML compatible OO.org.
It also helps MS keep the ‘fight’ between companies rather than with an ideology. A perception can be created that most of linux is no longer ‘free’ because of the legal threats hanging over it and the ‘safe’ version then just becomes another software offering from some company. It essentially removes all competition that previously the freedom of the GPL allowed for anyone to take GPL code, offer services and expertise and compete on an even playing field. The GPL is circumvented in spirit if not by the letter of the law.
It really has nothing to do with the customers that are indemnified, its the creation of an impression that there is a threat against those who aren’t that is the problem.
I see this argument a lot, but it makes little sense to me. The threat has always existed and will continue to exist as long as software is patentable.
The Novell-Microsoft deal brought the patent issue to the forefront, but it doesn’t really change anything and neither will the GPL3 in this regard.
Instead of all this pointless posturing and bickering, the entire software developer community (free/open source/proprietary) should unite to abolish software patents completely. It would be a better world for all of us.
What you say makes sense, except for your contention that the GPL3 won’t change anything in the patent issue. The GPL3 will explicitly try to address patent issues in general and this deal in particular.
Well, if Novell and/or Microsoft doesn’t like the idea behind GPL which is that all users have _equal_ rights to use/modify/redistribute the software then they should stay with their own proprietary software and make deals however they want. If Novell decided to use GPLed software for their products then they must conform to its rules/ideas and not to circumvent it!
Novell is conforming to the GPL. Its possible to download all the source for their linux distro. What the deal is doing is protecting the customers of Novell. Anyone who wants that protection can use Novell or they can use any other distrobutions with that type of protection.
Oh please, just look at the patent provisions in the GPL and you will see that yes, it is more about “downloading all the source”, heck maybe try reading the pre-amble of the GPL and you might come across something called “the four freedoms”.
But you know that, don’t you
Anyone who wants that protection can use Novell or they can use any other distrobutions with that type of protection.
And you don’t see how that hurts other distributions that don’t have such a deal? Distros that aren’t produced by a large company with whom Microsoft would want to make a deal?
It doesn’t even have to be as dramatic as saying Debian users are then actually at risk of being sued, it’s enough that Microsoft can imply they might be sued. Your statement shows harm. “Distributions with tht tye of protection” in your view are safer to use than others. This harms the other distros, and in the end harms even the “safe” distros, since most of the software they package comes from elsewhere. IE Novell uses Gnome, which is contributed to in large part by Red Hat, who doesn’t have such a deal. Harm to them means harm to Gnome means harm to Novell. It’s a shortsighted, self serving deal for Novell. For Microsoft, it’s simply self serving, not shortsighted. They know exactly what they are doing.
It’s not everyone will win. It’s just two parties assure themselves, that all other parties will loose. If I do a deal to not use patents against someone X, it’s a simple guess that I plan to use them against someone Y.
I think that FSF is going to be suprised when they find out that many developers are not willing to become fundamentalists.
I believe that most of the people on this and other forums that make comments against “infidels” have never written a single line of code in their lives. Or perhaps they made little programs for their own amusement.
But, it does not stop them from being vocal and loud.
DG
Well, the Microsoft-Novell deal is just that: A deal benefiting MS and Novel (and maybe their customers).
But it tries to put other users and distributors of the same software at a disadvantage, something completely against the spirit of the GPL (all versions).
GPL is designed to level the playing field, how good it is at that, you can see when you look at the awkward legal construction the MS-Microsoft deal had to make to avoid the letter of the GPL. That is also why it is clear as clean water that this contract violates the spirit of the GPL.
Well, GPL v3 is just closing another loophole, so the spirit can not be violated by this MS – Novell contract anymore.
I don’t understand how this can be so hard to understand.
RMS (FSF) thinks the user of a software should have certain freedoms towards their software. To ensure that his labor doesn’t end up promoting software that doesn’t grant the user those freedoms they simply forbid that kind of usage of his labor (GPL).
Linus OTOH don’t care about that he just want to make sure that if someone benefits from his labor he should benefit from theirs. In his view they can f–k with users all they want, as long as he can use their labor for other things.
It’s not like they have to fight about it, they just don’t support the same agenda.
Edited 2007-03-23 19:15
the only trick is: in the end this isn’t just about RMS’ license and Linus’ code contributions.
One of the issues addressed in the article is the concern for a fractured community and forked projects. A number of prominent kernel devs have come out in support of Linus’ stance, but that doesn’t mean every code contributor has the same feelings. Linus owns the ‘Linux’ trademark and copyrights to code in the kernel he contributed (and any that may have been assigned to him by their authors), he doesn’t own the kernel and that could be forked and new contributions added under GPL3 whilst the original Linux kernel is still developed under GPL2. Some distros would pick up one kernel, some the other. Some could offer both. Some could switch to OpenSolaris if that were to come out under GPL3. Basically it could be a big mess at just the wrong time and if that could be avoided so much the better.
Well in case you missed it the community fractured a long time ago. 1998 according to wikipedia. [1]
GPL3 just makes the cracks more visible.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_software
Edited 2007-03-23 20:47
And that is why I refuse to support Linus and I refer to him, and the lead developers of the Linux kernel as ‘shills’.
I really want to see all of the FSF tools ported to GPL v3 and a backwards clause saying that to use them, you MUST be using GPL v3. Let the Linux kernel development team start having to find replacements for FSF software. I don’t really care if the Linux kernel loses popularity, imho the past 3 years of development haven’t been crash hot, Linus is now more concerned with making money than a kernel that is for everyone.
I really want to see GNU/Hurd accelerate development and replace the Linux kernel as the kernel of choice for those who believe in software freedoms, because the Linux kernel (and developers) don’t obviously care about it.
As to Novell, I hope the GPL v3 hits the shit that they are doing really hard and hurts them really hard. I have no time for a company like this. Once the SCO vs Novell case is over, I believe Microsoft will attempt to buy Novell, so that it owns both Windows and Unix copyrights/patents. This patent deal is just the precursor to it all.
In the corrupt US of A, such a takeover by Microsoft would be allowed, because the idiots that run your country don’t really care about monopolies and anti competitive behaviour. What counts is how much bribery fees are paid to political parties.
Yes, I’m proudly anti capitalistic, and proudly anti American (administrative/government – not the people).
Dave
AKA against common sense and freedom, judging by the beginning of your post. Compared to that argument, RMS’ agenda is palatable.
Don’t use “open source” to further your politics. It makes people doing the real work very sad.
Yes, I’m proudly anti capitalistic
Well, you should be. If it’s one thing that Free Software (and Open Source) have demonstrated it’s how effective a commons based (anti capitalist) free market is.
Kevin Carson has some nice writings about “Free Market Anti-Capitalism” [1] but seems stuck in the previous century. See Yochai Benkler for a more updated view [2], but he OTOH seems to miss the economic insights of Carson.
I stumbled upon p2pfoundation [3] just the other day. Maybe a synthesis can be found (or created) there…
[1] http://mutualist.blogspot.com/
[2] http://www.benkler.org/wealth_of_networks/index.php/Main_Page
[3] http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Main_Page
(sorry for going off topic)
Which means you don’t really understand the intent of the GPL, because that would be a violation of the GPL. It violates the hallowed four freedoms to dictate how the software is used.
You’re viewing the GPL as some sort of weapon for inflicting your agenda. Not only are you in disagreement with Linus, but you’re in disagreement with RMS too.
In the corrupt US of A, such a takeover by Microsoft would be allowed, because the idiots that run your country don’t really care about monopolies and anti competitive behaviour
Really? Monopoly?
Here, have half a dozen competitors: eComStation, GEOS, HP/UX, NetWare, OSX, Solarix, SkyOS. With the exception of SkyOS which is a personal project, all the companies above are surviving. That’s not even counting OSs based on copyleft licenses, which shows that even people working out of their parent’s basements can compete with the big names. Ignorance of alternatives does not mean they do not exist, and ignorance is largely inexcusable in the Google era.
the FSF just can’t take real criticism.
as indicated by what?
History my friend, history.
The problem isn’t with the FSF team, it’s with their cheerleaders.
Cross licensing agreements are in violation of GPLv2, but since the MS/Novell agreement does not apply to the Linux code as it is distributed by Novell, it isn’t subject to the agreement.
Since the agreement does not address the GPLv2 code being distributed by Novell, what would changing the license do? The agreement simply does not apply to the software licensed under GPL, version is irrelevant.
If I am calling you names because punching you in the face is a misdemeanor, does making punching you in the face a felony prevent me from calling you names?
The better question is how can any such provision stand in court since it has to go outside of what copyright controls?
How much control do you have over me based on the fact that I am distributing copies of something?
The better question is how can any such provision stand in court since it has to go outside of what copyright controls?
How much control do you have over me based on the fact that I am distributing copies of something?
The GPL is a license unlike an MS EULA which is not a license but a contract.
A license allows for use and redistribution under a set of rules and conditions. It is up to the author of the license to set these rules and conditions. If the the distributor fails to follow the terms of this license he loses the right to redistribute all items released under the license. This is legally enforcible.
IANAL but this is my reading of statements by Eben Moglen who is.
The implementation will be interesting. I’m curious about the fact that companies like IBM, HP, Novell, Oracle and now Red Hat all offer legal indemnity for their corporate customers using linux (hence GPL-protected software), therefore offering a degree of legal immunity to their own customers that other users of that same software don’t have. Where will the FSF manage to draw the line?
I’m curious about the fact that companies like IBM, HP, Novell, Oracle and now Red Hat all offer legal indemnity for their corporate customers using linux (hence GPL-protected software), therefore offering a degree of legal immunity to their own customers that other users of that same software don’t have. Where will the FSF manage to draw the line?
IANAL, so perhaps I miss something important here, but to me there is a big difference between offering an indemnification a la RedHat’s OpenSource Assurance program and the deal Novell and MS have entered.
First of all, typical assurance/indemnification programs like for example [1][2] are passive schemes, as they cover the backs of the companies own customers against a wider range of legal threats from generic third parties. This is in contrast to the Novell-MS agreement, where both parties have promised not to (actively) sue each others customers over a (so far nondisclosed) portfolio of IP in the next 4 and one half years coming. That alone differentiates this two
offers.
Note, that for example the FAQ of the RedHat program[1] outlines three possible mechanisms how RedHat tries to ensure, that its customers can continue to use their products even under the threat of an IP – claim, and for me (a layman), it looks, as all three of this items have implications on the software license themselves :
The Open Source Assurance program is designed to allow customers to continue to use their chosen open source solution without interruption. The terms of program include the following (i) replacing the infringing portion of the software, (ii) modifying the software so that its use becomes non-infringing, or (iii) obtaining the rights necessary for a customer to continue its use of the software.
(i) and (ii) have clearly implications, if the software is relicensed under a restrictive copyleft license like the GPL, sicne RedHat has to pass the modifications also downstream to others. To my knowledge, this won’t change in version 3 of the GPL. (iii) would be a no-go even with the GPL v2 in the case that RedHat can only acquire a license for its own customers and not for all
potential and actual receivers downstream under compatible terms, as section 7 of the GPL[3] tells us:
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
The basis of the Novell-MS deal is, that they are not mutual parties of this part of the agreement, but rather their customers, as this is the only way to avoid the letter of the GPL (as you know from discussions here, many people are quite positive that this still violates the spirit of the letter, but nevertheless). The basis of usual indemnification programs is (to my knowledge), that the customers are protected by their (linux) vendor in accordance with the software license, that allowed the vendor to even have a product to start with.
In the case that I’m missing something, please
feel free to correct me, thanks in advance.
[1]http://www.redhat.com/rhel/details/assurance/faq/
[2]http://www.oracle.com/technologies/linux/ubl-indemnify.pdf
[3]http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.txt
Red Hat quietly added indemnification to their Assurance program towards the end of last year, and it was actually a grudging response to the Novell – MS deal.
You’re correct, indemnification is basically a commitment to cover the client’s legal expenses and potential liabilities arising from IP claims. So all I’m saying is that I don’t really see the distinction between RH/IBM/HP/Oracle being able to say “We’ll protect you from legal claims against IP rights in our software, as long as your purchase it from us” and Novell effectively saying “We’ll protect you from legal claims against IP rights in our software, as long as you purchase it from us.” The deal with MS is immaterial, it’s simply a different route to arrive at the same destination. Frankly, Novell was the among the first to offer indemnity, they announced it right around the point at which the SCO case was gaining momentum.
If Red Hat (I’m using them as an example, not singling them out) offers indemnity to their own customers, they’re effectively offering legal protection for purchasers of Red Hat Enterprise Linux that aren’t transferable along with the source. The FSF doesn’t seem to take exception to that. HP will offer indemnity for linux customers that are running linux on an HP server. The FSF doesn’t take exception to that either.
So is the GPL v3 going to prevent enterprise organizations from offering indemnity? How can it not if they’re going to prevent the Novell deal from happening again?
I’m still convinced the outrage against the MS deal was mostly because it was MS. It became a useful tool for v3 proponents, like Perens, to push the agenda even if the result is negligible. Microsoft became more of a tangible threat to rally against than Tivo.
Indemnity is simply a business reality. Most large to enterprise corporations will require it from their vendors. Government institutions require it. It’s nothing new. But under the arguments in favor of nixing the Novell deal, it is incompatible with the GPL. Frankly the arguments against the Novell deal play into Microsoft’s hands because it underscores their assertion the business interests that the linux community is unprepared and unable to deal with IP concerns (I’m not affirming that myself, just pointing out Microsoft’s intent). It’s legitimate FUD and being well played by Ballmer since the community is too buzy criticizing Novell without offering affirmative arguments to those corporate customers about why it shouldn’t be a concern, other than ambiguous statements about “Microsoft would never actually do that.”
So that’s why I’m really interested in seeing how they’re going to apply this.
Thanks for your reply. I can only comment for myself, but the reason why I’m not happy about the MS-Novell deal is not because of MS. I can remember the time, when big blue was everybody’s most hated company, and I was reserved, when they started to invest in Linux (and FOSS in general). But their actions met their words and therefore, they have (for the meanwhile) earned my respect.
Perhaps the language of big business is so completely different from what I’m used to and this is all in reality only a semantic problem, but for me the situation is the following:
A company offering me an insurance, that will cover the costs of fixing my shops windows (no pun intended, really) in case it gets broken for whatever reason is an insurance company. A company, that promises to not smash my windows as long as I buy it from their blessed little window shop is dangerously close to a mobster.
I don’t really see a problem with “passive” indemnification, as the product(=indemnification) is at first decoupled from the source code. You don’t buy peace of mind regarding the legal status of your software, you buy peace of mind wrt your legal expenses. Of course, if a FOSS product covered by such an indemnification is found to have IP related issues, the license has to kick in and (to follow yours and mine example) RedHat would have to
– fix the problem (in conformance with the license) or
– stop distributing the software (esp. in the light of section 7 of the GPL)
,which offers benefits (or at least a clear warning sign) also to non-RedHat customers (esp. the first point).
The main problem I have with the IP part of the MS – Novell deal is, that it is *not* a “classic insurance” deal. It is an active “wouldn’t it be bad if your shops windows would be broken?” threat.
As I’m no lawyer, I can’t really comment on how the section of the GPLv3 should be worded to prevent people from out skirting the letter of the GPL (I hope you can agree with me at least on this point, as such deals were clearly not intended by those folks who worded the GPLv2) while avoiding to throw out the baby with the bath water.
One thinkable angle would be, that you are not allowed to enter deals with third parties over the IP contained in the software, that results in a discrimination of some other (receiving) parties of the license further down the stream.
That would not affect classical indemnification (as this only covers the legal costs and expenses, which are not part of the IP contained in the software) but would make it possible and does not have any other incompatibilities with the current version of the GPL that I’m aware of, since you are (at least in spirit) required to not do so already now.
As you have obviously invested a lot of time and energy to analyze this topic, I would be very glad to hear your comments on my thoughts.
Regards
Edited 2007-03-25 09:02
“Confused objectors to GPL3 state that it … will compel manufacturers to “give away their keys”.
The GPL (both 2 and 3) are copyleft licenses; tricking companies and independent programmers into giving away their life’s work is the entire point of copyleft. This is not something new to the GPL v3.
Edited 2007-03-23 21:42
The GPL (both 2 and 3) are copyleft licenses; tricking companies and independent programmers into giving away their life’s work is the entire point of copyleft.
What, they didn’t read the license terms before modifying GPL software? Name one instance of “tricking” companies/progammers.
All the contributors to Linux (including Linus Torvalds, who originally used a superior license); all supporters of the Mozilla Foundation; Sun Microsystems, who lost their office suite and soon will lose Java to ignorant bandwagon-happy middle management; et multiple cetera.
Said contributors could have got a job instead of working for free, and said companies could be doing much better commercially. Instead, they fell for the siren song of open-source, and they’re paying the price for it.
Let me get this straight: Your parent poster wanted an answer to this question:
What, they didn’t read the license terms before modifying GPL software? Name one instance of “tricking” companies/progammers.
Your answers (in the order of appearances) were:
All the contributors to Linux (including Linus Torvalds, who originally used a superior license);
As this is sometimes a little bit difficult to understand for some folks, I will try to word it very carefully, to avoid confusion:
To my knowledge, both under the original (“superior”) license and under the GPL, the author (e.g. the Linux kernel dev) remains the holder of copyright for his/hers contribution, as it is not transfered/assigned to one single entity. If anybody of those folks contributing under the original (“superior”? it was basically already compatible with the GNU GPL despite an additional “no commercial redistribution” clause) license got “tricked”, they must have somehow not read the change logs[1]:
The Linux copyright will change: I’ve had a couple of requests to make it compatible with the GNU copyleft, removing the “you may not distribute it for money” condition. I agree. I propose that the copyright be changed so that it confirms to GNU – pending approval of the persons who have helped write code. I assume this is going to be no problem for anybody: If you have grievances (“I wrote that code assuming the copyright would stay the same”) mail me. Otherwise The GNU copyleft takes effect as of the first of February. If you do not know the gist of the GNU copyright – read it. (emphasis mine)
I was no regular on the kernel mailing lists back then, but it took me 1s to dig it out via google.
As with the rest of your examples:
all supporters of the Mozilla Foundation; Sun Microsystems, who lost their office suite and soon will lose Java to ignorant bandwagon-happy middle management; et multiple cetera.
I’m a little bit confused by your arguments. In some posts, you say, that large companies (like Sun) betray programmers and developers by making money from their hard earned yet unpayed work without telling them before. I have asked you to provide testimonials of actual, real-world developers that have had this problem and I’m still waiting.
Then, you say, that Sun has lost its Office Suite because of (I guess?) OpenOffice.org. You are aware, that, although OpenOffice.org is no longer dual licensed (by request/initiative of Sun, btw.), they still can link their proprietary StarOffice suite against the LGPL licensed OpenOffice.org libs, yes? Could you please tell me what I am missing? Either Sun has lost its Office Suite, or it squeezes the life force out of an army of basement programmers (personally, I’m a big fan of the third possiblity, that says that neither is true: Sun has helped the FOSS community by opening up the sources for StarOffice, helps in the ongoing development process instead of being the sole developer of its own product and benefits due to the LGPL from the results. No one gets squeezed out), as you can’t have it both ways.
Furthermore, I would like to add that most larger FOSS
projects (the Linux kernel is a notable exception) require the assignment of copyright to a single entity to simplify the process of switching the license for
the whole project. Some projects offer an irrevocable,
royalty free license back to the author, others have found different ways to keep the developers happy. But
I have so far not found a FOSS project, that does not state crystal clearly what the terms of the license (or a required copyright assignment) where and “tricked” the developers. As with the individual developer testimonails before, I’m still waiting for a concrete example from your side.
I suggest, you try to apply similar thoughts on your other examples (would there even be a IE7 without the
pressure of Firefox / Seamonkey / KHTML? Can somebody
rip of SUN over Java?)
Said contributors could have got a job instead of working for free, and said companies could be doing much better commercially.
I won’t hold you back from your success in the proprietary software business any longer by engaging you into long discussions, I promise that. As hearsay goes, The SCO Group is laying of technical personal and is staffing up their business / lawyer teams, perhaps you can help them to turn around their proprietary software business to finally compete against IBM and the likes.
Instead, they fell for the siren song of open-source, and they’re paying the price for it.
Well, given that Netscape was pretty much dead in the water (browser war lost, AOL drastically reduced its investments in the browser development and finally went for IE to base its AOL Browser on, you know) I would say the Mozilla Foundation is for example doing quite well, even for a non-profit. I don’t hear doom and gloom from RedHat, IBM and Sun either, but I forgot, these are the ones, that squeeze out the blood from innocent programmers, my fault. Furthermore, I have always lived under the impression, that in a true free, capitalistic socienty, everybody is free to make his/hers own mistakes, may they be caused by sirens or not. If you are of course a follower of a more
centralised, non-capitalistic and – err “non-free” approach, your statement makes absolutely sense. Otherwise not.
[1]http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/old-versions/RELNOT…
First, it’s not a fundamental change: the intent of GPL 3 is that of GPL 2, the change is in the implementation. Given that, what would be required for such a change would be for Torvalds (or someone else) to publish his intent to start making releases with the new license, as a legal notice. A certain number of people would object, and they would have the right to require that their contributions be removed from the new release.
The kernel team has never been loath to replace code when necessary, and never slow to handle the job, no matter how large the item to be replaced. Just look at the replacement of Bitkeeper with “git”, a big job that took a ground-up rewrite and yet was working in five weeks. So, code belonging to GPL3-objectors would be swiftly dealt with.
Someone needs to see what Perens is smoking. First he totally lies about “swiftly dealt with”. But just as importantly, Linus and other kernel developers just don’t agree with the FSF agenda. It’s that simple.
As far as Stallman trying to bully Novell. We’ve seen GCC fork before and we could see it and glibc and many other GNU software forked.
At that point, it’s really the beginning of the end because of more fragmentation. The irony is that Stallman would rather have his enemies in open source fail if his ideology isn’t adopted.
I don’t understand why so many strong GPL3-proponents act as if forking or transitioning the kernel is a trivial thing, yet assume that the GNU toolchain could never be supported outside the FSF. As you mentioned, it’s not as if it’s unprecedented.
It also strikes me as a little odd that the concerns against the GPL v3 are dismissed by Perens as FUD, yet he asserts that most software and distributions will be following suit, as if it was a concrete fact.
Ah well, there’s never a dull moment.
To build on this further, it is actually much easier to fork the GNU toolchain. You just take the bits, and only accept GPLv2 contributions. Then the FSF wouldn’t be able to relicense it to v3. Beauty of the GPL is that once the code has been licensed, it generally can’t have the license revoked.
It’s because Perens is blatantly lying. He knows that the kernel won’t be GPL v2, but for whatever reason, has decided to become one of Stallman’s propagandists and be against Linus, Novell, and other open source people.
“FUD” has become another nonsense term for people that refuse to accept that other people don’t agree with you…or “you just don’t understand”.
http://linux.omnipotent.net/article.php?article_id=12503. It looks like things are coming to a head and the prediction is exactly right.
Bruce is just sad because his “open hardware license” turned out to be so badly received.
The article didn’t address most of the things it claimed to address. It didn’t mention any real FUD about GPLV3 and it didn’t resolve any. It was a random collection of random ranting and vague innuendo.
Looks like Bruce is heading towards ESR levels of irrelevance.
“””
Bruce is just sad because his “open hardware license” turned out to be so badly received.
“””
Yeah. Well, at least UserLinux was a huge success.
I am glad Bruce cleared up the GPL3 FUD. Oh wait…