Alan Cox talks about cooperation with hardware vendors, patent law, microkernels, and GPLv3: "I think [the MS-Novell deal] is a bad idea and that Novell are going to get stung by the GPLv3, and rightfully so. The license is designed to keep the software free, if it fails to do this then it needs fixing, so GPLv3 hopefully will fix this flaw."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-15
>Are we sure that the GPLv3 doesn't have any loopholes at all to exploit?
You can never be sure. Even the really good GPLv2 has loopholes like you see today with DRM, DMCA, software-idea-patents,...
That's why every project should keep the option to switch to a new GPL or another license when such a loophole appears.
> Is it now battened down so tight as to restrict "normal" use?
No, because you can do whatever you want with GPLv3 software (that's freedom 0). GPL has only restrictions if you distribute software, the restriction is that you can only distribute if you give the recipients the same 4 freedoms you had.
>If Novell do get "bitten" will they not just drop their support for Linux?
Maybe, Maybe not. But who cares? GNU/Linux and Free Software exists before Novell, it exists with Novell and it will exists after Novell (almost no company exists forever).
>Will the GPLv3 cause a mass migration of business away from GPL'd software?
Time will tell. But Free Software and GPL especially isn't about business it is about freedom.
Personally i think copyleft licenses like the GPL are in 99% of all cases the only valid option for business. Because than they can be sure that they will profit from improvements by other and they don't have to worry that a competitor takes their work and uses it in non-free software to compete with them.
Edited 2007-06-11 10:03
Member since:2006-09-12
>>If Novell do get "bitten" will they not just drop their support for Linux?
>Maybe, Maybe not. But who cares? GNU/Linux and Free Software exists before Novell, it exists with Novell and it will exists after Novell (almost no company exists forever).
Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns.
On this last point though, I believe companies such as IBM and Novell have done a great deal towards improving the quality and depth of free software. It would be churlish to so casually dismiss their contributions.
I for one do care about what happens to those who publically admit their support and friendship for free software and the community, even though it is certain that their motivation was profit.
Member since:
2006-09-12
Apart from the bit about the beer, most of that interview went way over my head
The thing that bugs me most about GPLv3 though, is whether it is possible that the FSF might have outsmarted themselves.
What TiVo did may have been in compliance with the letter of the law regarding GPLv2, but was also definitely against the spirit and intent of the GPLv2. Exactly the same may be said for the Novell and similar deals. I can understand the FSF's frustration and anger.
Are we sure that the GPLv3 doesn't have any loopholes at all to exploit? Is it now battened down so tight as to restrict "normal" use? If Novell do get "bitten" will they not just drop their support for Linux? Are they too committed to be able to change at this point? Could they adopt BSD instead? Will the GPLv3 cause a mass migration of business away from GPL'd software? What then?
I'm concerned. I would appreciate if someone could alleviate that concern.
Edited 2007-06-11 09:50