Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 3rd Apr 2007 17:13 UTC, submitted by davidiwharper
Novell and Ximian "The Free Software Foundation has published a third draft of the GPL3 license. The FSF had indicated leading up to this draft that it would be addressing some concerns it had with the Novell-Microsoft agreements in the draft. Here's Novell's position on the new draft."
Thread beginning with comment 226974
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Reading carefully,
by h times nue equals e on Tue 3rd Apr 2007 17:42 UTC
h times nue equals e
Member since:
2006-01-21

I have to agree (at least) with this statement from Novell :

Nothing in this new draft of GPL3 inhibits Novell’s ability to include GPL3 technologies in SUSE Linux Enterprise, openSUSE, and other Novell open source offerings, now and in the future.


Yep, but only because the current draft features the explicit "grace period" until the 28th of March 2007.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Reading carefully,
by ubit on Tue 3rd Apr 2007 18:06 in reply to "Reading carefully, "
ubit Member since:
2006-09-08

Considering this comment, it seems Novell, or at least this person, still doesn't get it and doesn't address the patent deal-- in violation of spirit of GPLv2 for reasons people have listed before--at all. What a suprise...not, because that's all Novell people have done since this deal was struck. The deal wouldn't have attracted hardly any ire if the patent deal wasn't struck. Apparently Microsoft 'snuck' it in at the last second.

"
Bruce Lowry says:

Hi Tim:

Trying to tarnish us with the SCO brush just doesn’t cut it, in my book. We’ve been battling SCO in court for years now, in defense of Linux and open source. You may not like the Microsoft agreement, but to suggest we’ve essentially turned our back on open source is just not true. We continue to be major contributors to a number of projects. On the GPL3 issue, we’ve made a blanket statement that we will continue to ship Linux and that nothing in the current draft inhibits our ability to do that. That reflects our overall interpretation of the draft. That is not the same as commenting on specific provisions of the draft. So I don’t believe we’re being duplicitious here.

We know there are critics of this deal. But people need to resist painting the deal as some surrogate for Novell abandoning open source. That simply is not the case. We did this deal to promote Linux adoption. Period. Thanks.
"

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Reading carefully,
by Jamie on Tue 3rd Apr 2007 18:16 in reply to "Reading carefully, "
Jamie Member since:
2005-07-06

The grandfather clause (or get out of jail card for Novell) is in brackets and is therefore subject to review. If there is enough negative feedback about it then that clause will be removed.

So it will be up to the community to decide its fate...

Personally I would vote against it just to send Steve Ballmer a big "F off and die" message rather than indulge in petty revenge on a misguided Novell.

And I cant stress the importance of the GPL3 enough as its the only defence we have against MS who will try and screw open source any which way it can.

Edited 2007-04-03 18:18

Reply Parent Score: 3

h times nue equals e Member since:
2006-01-21

The grandfather clause (or get out of jail card for Novell) is in brackets and is therefore subject to review. If there is enough negative feedback about it then that clause will be removed.


Yes, I know this. I was just in awe of the carefully constructed sentence I quoted in my OP. If I had not read the draft of the GPLv3 myself (or had not followed the discussions around it, or read somewhere else about it, or ... well, basically, what if I would have acted like a not-so-interested-in-this-technical stuff customer of Novell instead?) I would feel perfectly confident, that this whole GPLv3 thingie was a big tempest in a little teapot.

Indeed, the point further down in the Novell pulications

If the final version of the GPL3 does potentially impact the agreement we have with Microsoft, we’ll address that with Microsoft.

(emphasis mine)

is a masterpiece in the art of bending sentences around inconvenient facts. Given the current draft (and the direction of the drafting process), I can not think of a situation, where the (existing) Novell-MS deal is only potentially impacted by the license. Either it is, or it isn't, as this is not quantum mechanics, where Schroedingers cat could be in superposition of mutually exclusive states until it is measured. The only problem is, that every distribution of GPLv3 software is (in the terms of the license) a measurement.

I (personally) would not object to remove this clause, but I can also relate to the feelings of those, that are in favor of keeping it in, who essentially argument along the "we have to be fair even to those parties, that are not really (Novell) fair to us or threaten us openly (MS / Ballmer)" line. As neither of us has read all the small-print of the MS-Novell deal, I (as in IANAL) would prefer to word the grandfather clause so, that it explicitly rules out the possibility to renew existing agreements, if it stays in. This way, it would be ensured, that this deal was only a temporary installation.

Edited 2007-04-03 18:49

Reply Parent Score: 2