Almost two years ago, the FSF started work on the first update of the GNU GPL in over a decade. A last-minute hitch, though, is keeping the license from appearing. According to Peter Brown, the FSF's executive director, "We continue to work on the details of the GPLv3 as it relates to the situation presented by the Novell and Microsoft deal. We are researching issues related to potential unintended consequences of the language we plan to adopt. As soon as we are satisfied with the results of our research we plan to bring forward the next draft."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-04-21
Yeah, I get that you hate proprietary software or at the very least, Novell and Microsoft. You ignored the fact that for large networks, there aren't always totally open solutions that can compete with "lockinware". Refusing to pay Novell and Microsoft for software is fine, but telling everyone else to avoid it strikes me as ignoring the computing world outside of your home PCs. The game changes when you deal with customers, coworkers, and bosses who expect more than OSS can always deliver.
OSS has no deficiency in making groupware that it couldn't rectify if Microsoft's protocols were open, and even if it did, proprietary software from companies other than Novell and Microsoft would still be at a disadvantage if they had to deal with closed protocols. Indeed the progress that has been made in Linux vs the little that has been made in Windows in the same timeframe demonstrates that well-supported OSS software is streets ahead of proprietary software in terms of the development process.
Member since:2005-07-06
OSS has no deficiency in making groupware that it couldn't rectify if Microsoft's protocols were open, and even if it did, proprietary software from companies other than Novell and Microsoft would still be at a disadvantage if they had to deal with closed protocols.
You seem to not understand the concept of groupware. Why would an open source project need anything from Microsoft short of documented APIs for client creation? Groupware doesn't equal Microsoft. Look at Open Exchange. It's a groupware solution. However, it's not at the same level of Notes, GroupWise, or Exchange. That has absolutely nothing to do with Microsoft's proprietary protocols, not a thing.
Indeed the progress that has been made in Linux vs the little that has been made in Windows in the same timeframe demonstrates that well-supported OSS software is streets ahead of proprietary software in terms of the development process.
You can't equate Linux development with the rest of the OSS projects out in the world. You also can't make a blanket statement that OSS software is ahead of proprietary software as far as the development process. Some instances, yes, it is. Sometimes it is not. You seem to be implying that OSS is somehow of a higher quality in every instance and that's not the case at all. Plenty of OSS projects have fallen flat on their faces just as proprietary software projects have done the same. I really hate to use a marketing term, but the OSS community cannot and will not be able to deliver all the "solutions" that larger organizations need which some proprietary software can deliver.
Here's an example right from Novell. Hula, derived from NetMail, was spun into a fully open source project. Continued development was done by Novell employees. Traction in the OSS community was nill. The developers were pulled to do other projects at Novell and the project ended up going into a coma. The point is, just because something is OSS, that doesn't mean it will survive. Someone has to have the need for a project to contribute. Whether it's a real need or just an itch they want to scratch so to speak. If there's no need from open source developers, but there is a need from businesses or organizations, what's left? The only option, proprietary software.
twenex, you have your cause and that's fine. However, you should really try to understand the entire scope of the situation before you throw rhetoric at it.
Edited 2007-03-22 13:54
Member since:
2005-07-06
When Microsoft or Novell make it possible to interoperate, longterm, with their directory, server, and workstation administration software and actually has a groupware solution that isn't lockinware, feel free to let ME know.
Why, would you use it even if it was?
Yeah, I get that you hate proprietary software or at the very least, Novell and Microsoft. You ignored the fact that for large networks, there aren't always totally open solutions that can compete with "lockinware". Refusing to pay Novell and Microsoft for software is fine, but telling everyone else to avoid it strikes me as ignoring the computing world outside of your home PCs. The game changes when you deal with customers, coworkers, and bosses who expect more than OSS can always deliver.