Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 11th Mar 2008 23:28 UTC, submitted by irbis
Mono Project "Does GNOME co-founder Miguel de Icaza's backflip over the Novell-Microsoft deal a few days ago mean that he has finally been convinced that he is on a one-way path to nowhere? Has he realised that his own project, Mono, is actually putting GNOME on a development track that can leave it open to patent claims one day? And has he realised that creating Moonlight, a clone of Microsoft's Silverlight, (with which the company hopes to trump Adobe's Flash) is not going to advance the cause of free software one iota?"
Thread beginning with comment 304662
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: O_O
by KenJackson on Wed 12th Mar 2008 10:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: O_O"
KenJackson
Member since:
2005-07-18

The author didn't say that dual licensing and Tivoization are the same, or that dual licensing has no value. He said that Novell prevents contributing authors from protecting their work as they intend, if they intend to use GPL. (They weren't as clever as Tivo, but they achieved a similar end.)

If he accurately represented the licensing clause, Novell can relicense contributions under any terms they want. That surely circumvents the intent of the GPL.

And shouting that Microsoft can't sue even if they wanted to will not impose a limitation on what Microsoft will do. When you run to keep up with Microsoft for the purpose of keeping up with Microsoft, there could easily be something you're doing that isn't protected by the ECMA spec. I know that's subjective, but statements about the future always are.

BTW. Twice you wrote anyone who is even remotely familiar/connected. That could be taken as an attack my or the author's knowledge instead of addressing the issue. That's doesn't help advance your argument.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: O_O
by google_ninja on Wed 12th Mar 2008 12:11 in reply to "RE[3]: O_O"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

The author didn't say that dual licensing and Tivoization are the same, or that dual licensing has no value. He said that Novell prevents contributing authors from protecting their work as they intend, if they intend to use GPL. (They weren't as clever as Tivo, but they achieved a similar end.)


The GPL has four freedoms:

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

the FSF is saying with Tivoization, you are blocking freedom 4 in a roundabout way. There has been alot of discussion and contraversy over this statement, especially on how to deal with it.

I repeat myself, dual licensing is widely considered to be perfectly acceptable. There is no freedom it is in conflict with.

The author did not say they were the same thing, but he did say they were similar. They are not. If you believe that, you need to attack almost any commercial company who is friendly towards linux to be consistant.

And shouting that Microsoft can't sue even if they wanted to will not impose a limitation on what Microsoft will do. When you run to keep up with Microsoft for the purpose of keeping up with Microsoft, there could easily be something you're doing that isn't protected by the ECMA spec. I know that's subjective, but statements about the future always are.


There are alot of things done in .net not part of ECMA. That is fine, if MS ever pulls the plug on them, they are gone. That doesn't take away what IS under ECMA. Neither will MS not continueing to publish specifications. If they stopped tomorrow, mono would still have C# 3.0, and be able to take it in their own direction.

BTW. Twice you wrote anyone who is even remotely familiar/connected. That could be taken as an attack my or the author's knowledge instead of addressing the issue. That's doesn't help advance your argument.


It is an attack on the authors knowledge. When you publish anywhere, you have a responsability to be at least somewhat familiar with what you are talking about. The author demonstrates that he is not.

It was not meant to be an attack on you, more of an education. There are alot of things being said about this issue that are plain not true, and if you havn't actually seriously looked at it, it is easy to be swept up in that.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: O_O
by KenJackson on Wed 12th Mar 2008 12:45 in reply to "RE[4]: O_O"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

I repeat myself, dual licensing is widely considered to be perfectly acceptable. There is no freedom it is in conflict with.

There seems to be a disconnect here. There is certainly a lot of dual licensing in use, and those that are doing or benefiting from it no doubt consider it to be perfectly acceptable.

But the second license probably always softens or restricts the four freedoms. If it didn't, there would be little point to doing it. So even though, as you point out, dual licensing is widely used, it remains controversial.

But a larger point is that usually when a dual license is used, there are two specific licenses itemized. But the quote in the article implies Novell is free to use whatever license they want. If that's so, they could re-license contributions under the "we have all rights and you have none" license.

That goes beyond the general discussion about dual licensing.

Reply Parent Score: 2