Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 3rd Feb 2007 16:43 UTC, submitted by mwtomlinson
Novell and Ximian The Free Software Foundation is reviewing Novell's right to sell new versions of Linux operating system software after the open-source community criticized Novell for teaming up with Microsoft. "The community of people wants to do anything they can to interfere with this deal and all deals like it. They have every reason to be deeply concerned that this is the beginning of a significant patent aggression by Microsoft," Eben Moglen, the Foundation's general counsel, said on Friday. Update: The FSF claims this is being hyped.
Thread beginning with comment 208734
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Joe User
Member since:
2005-06-29

This kind of reaction is getting pathetic. People who claim Linux and GPL are the most free alternatives should get rid of the people at the FSF, and while they're at it, lay off Stallman also. If they back these tyrans, then they should stop saying Linux is free, it's not as long as you cannot do what you want with it. With the BSD's you can use the code the way you want, no question asked.

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

Edited 2007-02-03 17:30

Reply Score: 3

KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

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

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

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

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

Reply Parent Score: 5

Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

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

That's what hapend when you give power to a bunch of lunatics with a mind so closed to understand what real freedom is.

Edited 2007-02-03 17:59

Reply Parent Score: -1

molnarcs Member since:
2005-09-10

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

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

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

Reply Parent Score: 5

Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

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

Reply Parent Score: -1

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

This kind of reaction is getting pathetic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply Parent Score: 5

twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

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

Reply Parent Score: 1