Did Novell/Microsoft Pact change your mind about GPL v3

[tebibyte]

This article (http://www.osdir.com/Article9531.phtml) says that Richard Stallman himself has confirmed that Novell and Microsoft have not violated GPL v2

A while ago Linus Torvalds and others sent a letter that voiced opposition over GPLv3. They claim that there was no reason to change to GPL3 and that the transition would be disrupting to the community.

Now it looks like their is a reason after all.

[Shay Stephens]

It totally changed my mind. Before this I was mostly wondering what the big deal was. And was pulled by both sides of the argument.

Now, I can see that Stallman was again far sighted and right on the money. I am 100% for the changes.

I thought it was interesting that this recent development also showed a weakness in the GPLv3 that they are going to update. So this is not over yet...

[luca.b]

It did not change my mind at all. GPL v3 is a political license, more than a technical license. While I like and actively promote free software, there is *no* way my views will ever coincide with the extremes from RMS and the FSF. Hence I'll stick with GPL v2.

[ago]

The divergence was mostly on DRM, on top it was argued by Linus that it is quite impractical to apply a different license to the kernel (whatever the merits). I am not sure what would happen if different sections of the kernel were released under different licenses. GPLV3 will be implemented anyway in the GNU toolchain.

That said there is quite broad agreement on other parts of the license and particularly on the new clause that prohibits to circumvent the license. It is to be seen if the DRM parts will be softened, so far there is an exception clause by which you can reduce restrictions, but I doubt that will become popular.

[Jammy_Stuff]

I didn't really care about GPLv3 before this as it made no difference to me really. However, this has made me see that an update to it is needed. Possibly they should release the v3 and an in between which won't have the huge disagreement that there is at the moment but still closes up this sort of deal.

[tebibyte]

The divergence was mostly on DRM, on top it was argued by Linus that it is quite impractical to apply a different license to the kernel (whatever the merits). I am not sure what would happen if different sections of the kernel were released under different licenses. GPLV3 will be implemented anyway in the GNU toolchain.

That said there is quite broad agreement on other parts of the license and particularly on the new clause that prohibits to circumvent the license. It is to be seen if the DRM parts will be softened, so far there is an exception clause by which you can reduce restrictions, but I doubt that will become popular.

I'm agree. We need to push for a compromise or something.

[lyceum]

When I first found out about FOSS I stayed up all night thinking about the morals behind it. I know, I am a geek like that. I thought, if anyone could do what they wanted, as long as they shared the code, people could do things I did not like. Then I realized that was the point. Who am I to say the Novell/MS deal is wrong? It is wrong for me, but I am not working for Novell. To say that GPL 2 should never be updated is a bad idea. With GPL 3 though, I feel it takes Freedom 0 away from the future user. I say this becasue of what I have heard about "GPL 3 will stop them from..." If it stops them fom using programs the way they want, Freedom 0 is gone. After realizing why that freedom is important, I cannot turn my back on it. If someone does something I do not like with a program, you can always fork 'em. Just my 2 cents.

[Kristen Lucas]

This article (http://www.osdir.com/Article9531.phtml) says that Richard Stallman himself has confirmed that Novell and Microsoft have not violated GPL v2

A while ago Linus Torvalds and others sent a letter that voiced opposition over GPLv3. They claim that there was no reason to change to GPL3 and that the transition would be disrupting to the community.

Now it looks like their is a reason after all.

The Novell/MS deal didn't change shiat, Ballmer spewed his crap and everyone trembled as if they were in his claws.

Truth is, MS/Novell deal doesn't change anything but Novells in house applications making it into their open source equivalent, meaning that Koffice and OpenOffice will have the choice of saving as an MS Office document.

I know this because i am one of the devs on Koffice.

I welcome this, much more than i welcom the introduction of proprietary code in the first install.

[Kristen Lucas]

When I first found out about FOSS I stayed up all night thinking about the morals behind it. I know, I am a geek like that. I thought, if anyone could do what they wanted, as long as they shared the code, people could do things I did not like. Then I realized that was the point. Who am I to say the Novell/MS deal is wrong? It is wrong for me, but I am not working for Novell. To say that GPL 2 should never be updated is a bad idea. With GPL 3 though, I feel it takes Freedom 0 away from the future user. I say this becasue of what I have heard about "GPL 3 will stop them from..." If it stops them fom using programs the way they want, Freedom 0 is gone. After realizing why that freedom is important, I cannot turn my back on it. If someone does something I do not like with a program, you can always fork 'em. Just my 2 cents.

If you are looking for truly free software where the codebase will forever be free from infringements then the BSD clones such as Freel, Net or OpenBSD are more appropriate, OpenBSD is perhaps the one that is mostly apposed to any proprietary code and will forever be a free operating systen, unfortunantly they have been forced to charge money for thir OS as Ubuntu and others refused to help them out even though they all include code from OpenBSD.

www.openbsd.org

[prizrak]

What the hell does GPLv3 have to do with MS/Novell deal? For one Novell will not move to v3 if it were to jeopardise the deal with MS. Neither will Red Hat or Mandriva if v3 stops them from creating such beneficial (to their bottom line) partnerships and lets face it, while there is a huge number of freelance developers those companies create alot of code and if their code states "GPLv2" there is no way any derivative can be v3.

[Kristen Lucas]

What the hell does GPLv3 have to do with MS/Novell deal? For one Novell will not move to v3 if it were to jeopardise the deal with MS. Neither will Red Hat or Mandriva if v3 stops them from creating such beneficial (to their bottom line) partnerships and lets face it, while there is a huge number of freelance developers those companies create alot of code and if their code states "GPLv2" there is no way any derivative can be v3.

Well RedHat the other huge Linux company incorporated Jboss which also has a cross patent deal with MS.

If it does not violate the GPLv2 then by definition nothing in it can break the v3 either.

I think you are thinking backwards on this, last time i looked on our (KDE) license it clearly states the preference and the requirement, Novell can't do anything about any of the licences, they got about 380 million for absolutely nothing, I think the deal is great for Novell, just makes me irritated that i didn't buy into the options when i had the chance.

[prizrak]

Well RedHat the other huge Linux company incorporated Jboss which also has a cross patent deal with MS.

If it does not violate the GPLv2 then by definition nothing in it can break the v3 either.

I think you are thinking backwards on this, last time i looked on our (KDE) license it clearly states the preference and the requirement, Novell can't do anything about any of the licences, they got about 380 million for absolutely nothing, I think the deal is great for Novell, just makes me irritated that i didn't buy into the options when i had the chance.

Well GPLv3 doesn't allow DRM and there is also something about patents, not sure what. So it's possible to violate v3 w/o violating v2. Like what TiVo does, anyways my point was more along the lines of not understanding how the v3 has anything to do with basically a joint venture since neither Novell nor MS are going to try and close up GPL'ed software I see no problem. When they do try to do that I will have a problem with it.

[Kristen Lucas]

Well GPLv3 doesn't allow DRM and there is also something about patents, not sure what. So it's possible to violate v3 w/o violating v2. Like what TiVo does, anyways my point was more along the lines of not understanding how the v3 has anything to do with basically a joint venture since neither Novell nor MS are going to try and close up GPL'ed software I see no problem. When they do try to do that I will have a problem with it.

Yeah but what in this deal even has anything to do with anything close to that, it's very basic, pretty much just a conclusion and an agreement to to sue on patent infringement without either party makeing any admittance that such a case even exists.

It's status quo with 380 mil plus for Novell to keep developing their stuff, MS didn't buy into Novell nor did they buy into any of their projects.

I don't get what the big fuzz is about. By the spirit of the licence, GPL CANNOT be closed up even if MS wanted it to.

[tebibyte]

I'm no expert, but I thought all the fuss was over that if Novell incorporates MS patents into GPL'd software and a distro other than Novell uses the code from Novell as GPL permits, MS can then sue that distro over the GPL'd code, even though it told Novell they wouldn't sue them.

[deanlinkous]

The pact basically means that "licensed" linux is the only "legal" linux and that you must pay microsoft a payment to use that legal license and that basically goes against everything that free software stands for.

Do I think the deal itself should change your mind about v3? Nope. I think the deal should highlight how "stale" v2 is and how easily it can be worked around THAT is what should move you to accpet v3.

Technology has eclipsed the practcality of v2. v2 was wrote before the *real* internet, before file sharing, before p2p, before torrents, before css, drm, and so forth.

freedom 0 - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
How does v3 oppose that? FSF wrote the four freedoms as well as the license. They wrote the license to uphold the four freedoms.

Remember is isn't just TIVO.....

per this article (http://kerneltrap.org/node/7238) about v3 and DRM

Draft 2 of GPLv3 provides infrastructure for adding exceptions (called "additional permissions" in section 7a) to the licence.

The Linux kernel developers might add an exception saying that distributors don't have to pass on to recipients any required keys or passwords.

Sounds to me like a pretty good compromise by the FSF....

[Kristen Lucas]

I'm no expert, but I thought all the fuss was over that if Novell incorporates MS patents into GPL'd software and a distro other than Novell uses the code from Novell as GPL permits, MS can then sue that distro over the GPL'd code, even though it told Novell they wouldn't sue them.

Well that is a no no in either licence so they would both be guilty of breaking licences if they did that.




............

You did not hear this from me.

It's about virtual environments, Oracle struck a deal with VMware and as of date 98% of virtual environments is based on VMWare, virtual machine holds about half a procent and the rest is XEN, the most interesting being, of course, Novells XEN.

That is what all of this is about, XEN, booting two operating systems at full speed at the same time and one of them being MS, it's already workable with pretty much every other system.

MS saw a huge disadvantage and reacted to it it has NOTHING to do with what any of you numbnuts feared it would.

[Kristen Lucas]

The pact basically means that "licensed" linux is the only "legal" linux and that you must pay microsoft a payment to use that legal license and that basically goes against everything that free software stands for.

Do I think the deal itself should change your mind about v3? Nope. I think the deal should highlight how "stale" v2 is and how easily it can be worked around THAT is what should move you to accpet v3.

Technology has eclipsed the practcality of v2. v2 was wrote before the *real* internet, before file sharing, before p2p, before torrents, before css, drm, and so forth.

freedom 0 - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
How does v3 oppose that? FSF wrote the four freedoms as well as the license. They wrote the license to uphold the four freedoms.

Remember is isn't just TIVO.....

per this article (http://kerneltrap.org/node/7238) about v3 and DRM


Sounds to me like a pretty good compromise by the FSF....

It sounds like what it is, FSF trying to hijack open source.

They can try but that is about it, afaic my code runs equally well on the BSD's.

[Kristen Lucas]

The pact basically means that "licensed" linux is the only "legal" linux and that you must pay microsoft a payment to use that legal license and that basically goes against everything that free software stands for.

That is complete and utter crap, no one from other parties has ever said that, you just made it up.

Justify that or admit you are just a liar who likes to act as he ever knew somwthing.

[Kristen Lucas]

I am going to bump this thread until deadlikous justifies his statements. i'm off to bed soon but i'm bookmarking it and i won't stop until you apologize.

[deanlinkous]

Exactly, I made it up.... that is why I used the words basically means and used quotes around those other words.

If it is all about virtulaization then why would a agreement not to sue be included? Why would payments go back and forth. Why would microsoft say specifically that if you are running Suse then you are "safe" from legal liability?

Now would you like to explain how the FSF is trying to hijack open source. FSF doesn't give a rats rear about open source only about free software as defined by the four freedoms and upheld by the GPL which is the license that linux falls under.

Back to you BELLS...err I mean Kristen Lucas.

[BWF89]

I think if Stallman gets his way and GPLv3 is released it's going to split the Linux community.

Think Unix Wars.

[deanlinkous]

Well, the license will be released obviously. This was not wrote to push the FSF will on the kernel. Numerous projects are under the GPL, the kernel is only one.

This license is a update. Can you name me another license that has not had a update or change in 15 years?

Do I think the deal itself should change your mind about v3? Nope. I think the deal should highlight how "stale" v2 is and how easily it can be worked around THAT is what should move you to accpet v3.

Technology has eclipsed the practicality of v2. v2 was wrote before the *real* internet, before file sharing, before p2p, before torrents, before css, drm, and so forth.

It isn't just TIVO, numerous violations, numerous instances of "skirting" the GPLv2 and so forth should show it is PAST time for a new version.

As far as DRM is concerned the second draft would allow DRM to be a exception that can be added - per this article (http://kerneltrap.org/node/7238) about v3 and DRM

Draft 2 of GPLv3 provides infrastructure for adding exceptions (called "additional permissions" in section 7a) to the licence.

The Linux kernel developers might add an exception saying that distributors don't have to pass on to recipients any required keys or passwords.

Sounds to me like a pretty good compromise by the FSF....

[Kristen Lucas]

Exactly, I made it up.... that is why I used the words basically means and used quotes around those other words.

If it is all about virtulaization then why would a agreement not to sue be included? Why would payments go back and forth. Why would microsoft say specifically that if you are running Suse then you are "safe" from legal liability?

Now would you like to explain how the FSF is trying to hijack open source. FSF doesn't give a rats rear about open source only about free software as defined by the four freedoms and upheld by the GPL which is the license that linux falls under.

Back to you BELLS...err I mean Kristen Lucas.

What you said was not what it means, it is not even close, it's not near and it doesn't even touches the subject of the agreement.

You ever tried to go to the source, you should, it's all written in plain and clear text, it's not hidden nor is it hard to understand.

But you are not the only one who has never read the agreement and made up complete lies, it runs rampant among fifteeen year old idiots.

[deanlinkous]

What you said was not what it means, it is not even close, it's not near and it doesn't even touches the subject of the agreement.

You ever tried to go to the source, you should, it's all written in plain and clear text, it's not hidden nor is it hard to understand.

But you are not the only one who has never read the agreement and made up complete lies, it runs rampant among fifteeen year old idiots.
Yawn. Are you sure YOU really want to talk BS and making stuff up....

Yes it is plain english, did you watch the webcast where ballmer talk about patents, payments and novell all in the same sentence? Did you see Ballmer later state clearly that Novell was the only "safe" linux? Oh I could go on but why bother we all know why you are here.

I personally am glad that I have a life and enjoy coming to the forums and discussing something without making up stuff about who I am and talking smack just to get a rise out of people and make them think I am somebody.

I will do this for you - report you to a mod!

Oh, I was 15.....about 20+ years ago. :)

If I don't get the GPL v2 or v3 then how about we have a intelligent conversation about them instead of just name calling and saying that I do not know anything. I provide references with most of my posts and will gladly provide more if asked. I have been using linux since Debian 1.1 and could probably quote v2 from memory since I am a FSF-fanatic! :D

[deanlinkous]

A interesting (albeit pointless) little poll about v2/v3 is here...

http://poll.pollcode.com/vR

[vayu]

But you are not the only one who has never read the agreement and made up complete lies, it runs rampant among fifteeen year old idiots.

Besides getting this interesting thread shut down, the effect of expressing your disagreements using liar, idiot, etc... discredits your opinions.

It's ok if someone says something you disagree with 180 degrees.

[vayu]

Yawn. Are you sure YOU really want to talk BS and making stuff up....



I hope you don't get sucked into conflict. I don't really understand this topic and I appreciate hearing all the different views, even when they are directly opposed.

[deanlinkous]

Nope, that situation should be resolved now. :) I apologize for getting sidetracked....

I am ready to preach the FSF message loud for all to hear.

oh, and yes the guy/girl was making stuff up!

[lyceum]

If you are looking for truly free software where the codebase will forever be free from infringements then the BSD clones such as Freel, Net or OpenBSD are more appropriate, OpenBSD is perhaps the one that is mostly apposed to any proprietary code and will forever be a free operating systen, unfortunantly they have been forced to charge money for thir OS as Ubuntu and others refused to help them out even though they all include code from OpenBSD.

www.openbsd.org

I am not against proprietary code, I think that leaving the code open is better and that proprietary is not for me, personally. I think the two should be able to work togther for those that need them.

"It [the MS/Novell deal] had to be bidirectional so the customer can make that decision." - Ron Hovsepian (Novell)

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9005462&pageNumber=3

That is what freedom 0 means to me.

"It turns out that perhaps it's a good thing that Microsoft did this now, because we discovered that the text we had written for GPL version 3 would not have blocked this, but it's not too late and we're going to make sure that when GPL version 3 really comes out it will block such deals" - Richard Stallman

http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=29137252-7687-4BAF-A420-00221F7600D9

This is not Freedom 0. Novell has stated that open code will stay open. That is what matters to me.

Please note that I am not agreeing with the Novell/MS deal. I am just using examples to make a point. I am also not speaking out against Stallman. He is someone I admire and respect. That does not mean I agree with everything he says.

[deanlinkous]

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

The deal that he talks about being blocked is having to pay a royalty type payment for linux that is 'licensed' and 'legal' since that goes against free software. It has nothing to do with running a program for any purpose.

I don't think there is anything the FSF can put in v3 and have it stop a underhand sneaky license skirting and there is no need to try. The free software community will take care of getting the message across to companies that violate the spirit of the GPL. The only thing we need v3 to do is shore up the letter of the GPL and protect against things it can protect against. So it may need some more patent restrictions to make sure someone cannot put a stranglehold on free code but it doesn't need to go overboard into something it cannot feasably provide.

[lyceum]

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

The deal that he talks about being blocked is having to pay a royalty type payment for linux that is 'licensed' and 'legal' since that goes against free software. It has nothing to do with running a program for any purpose.

I don't think there is anything the FSF can put in v3 and have it stop a underhand sneaky license skirting and there is no need to try. The free software community will take care of getting the message across to companies that violate the spirit of the GPL. The only thing we need v3 to do is shore up the letter of the GPL and protect against things it can protect against. So it may need some more patent restrictions to make sure someone cannot put a stranglehold on free code but it doesn't need to go overboard into something it cannot feasably provide.

It was my understanding that MS was paying for "support". Ubuntu/Canonical chagres for the same thing. Forgive my lack of understanding, but what does that have to do with the code? It was also my understanding that others can charge to a product, like selling Ubuntu disks, etc. Stallman stated once in an interview that he was a capitalist, and though people should get paid for writting code whenever possible (sorry, don't have the link, I read it a while ago).

[deanlinkous]

This is a royalty patent license deal worded in such a way as to not be a royalty patent license deal. Royalty and patents are against the ideas of free software. If Novell was a proprietary company and was not using free software then nobody would care but as it is they have just took a microsoft hook and sunk it into free software.

[lyceum]

This is a royalty patent license deal worded in such a way as to not be a royalty patent license deal. Royalty and patents are against the ideas of free software. If Novell was a proprietary company and was not using free software then nobody would care but as it is they have just took a microsoft hook and sunk it into free software.

As long as the code stays open, how does this matter? Microsoft could start using FOSS anytime they want. They could make their own distro and say forget Novell, use OUR distro on your servers. We are the only legal Linux. They could even call it Lindows, sinse they bought the name :D

I guess my point is this, people use flash, a proprietary program, on their Linux boxes. This is a combination of FOSS & closed software. Is this wrong? Is it wrong to work with other companies to market to more people? All I care about is the code. As long as it still stays open, my world is good. Even if they fork, the GPL will not allow them to close the code. If they want to screw themselves over by getting in bed with the evil empire, let them go. I still can't see how this will hurt the programs they are using. I do get you point though, I am sure there won't be many people at MS calling up Novell to support their SuSE desktops. :)

This is a fine line we are walking. In the US Bush took a lot of freedoms away from us to "keep us free." This is dagerous ground. I don't want to see that happen to the FOSS world as well.

[deanlinkous]

This has nothing to do with mixing proprietary and free software.

This has to do with people/companies basically admitting that linux infringes on microsofts intellectual property and in doing so means that free software is no longer unencumbered but is instead "owned" by microsoft or at least controlled by microsoft. Microsoft will be able to tell you which linux you can legally run and which you cannot legally run because they do not have a agreement with them. THAT is against free software. In fact, it would basically mean that there is no free software.

[Tomosaur]

I do not support GPLv3 and the Novell/Microsoft deal does not make me view GPLv2 as a weakness. I am completely and utterly unconcerned about Microsoft suing me, since they do not have a legal leg to stand on. The deal and GPL are completely unrelated, and it seems to me that the scramble to alter GPLv3 just to force Novell/Microsoft's pact to extend to all linux users seems an admission of defeat, and also particularly childish.

[lyceum]

This has nothing to do with mixing proprietary and free software.

This has to do with people/companies basically admitting that linux infringes on microsofts intellectual property and in doing so means that free software is no longer unencumbered but is instead "owned" by microsoft or at least controlled by microsoft. Microsoft will be able to tell you which linux you can legally run and which you cannot legally run because they do not have a agreement with them. THAT is against free software. In fact, it would basically mean that there is no free software.

Okay, that makes sense. I am curious to see how Novell sees their deal a year from now. They claim that they are not admiting to anything wrong, but MS is "agreeing to disagree". I just wonder if it will work. You would think that the people running IT departments would know that MS is full of krap with their FUD, but only time will tell. I have said it before and I will say it again: I will stop using FOSS when they pry it from my cold dead hands. And I will not be using SuSE, as I do not want to give the apperance of agreeing with MS on any level.

[lyceum]

I do not support GPLv3 and the Novell/Microsoft deal does not make me view GPLv2 as a weakness. I am completely and utterly unconcerned about Microsoft suing me, since they do not have a legal leg to stand on.

Second that.

[Shay Stephens]

The reason people are so worried about the Microsoft deal is their past history of screwing their partners, and, their stated and current ongoing goal of wanting to kill free software. In that light, this is not your typical "deal" or "cooperation". It is viewed with maximum distrust because there is no reason to trust it right now as anything but another offensive against Linux. Especially when done in so circuitous a way as to get around the GPL. There just isn't anything there to engender trust.

As far as not having a legal leg to stand on, that has nothing to do with anything. People and organizations can and do sue for reasons outside legality. Thinking that you will never get sued is short sighted thinking that will surely get us all into trouble down the road. Microsoft, like the riaa, doesn't need a legal leg to stand on. They have the government and a mountain of money that props them up. In this world, might makes right. And Microsoft has the might to do nearly anything they want.

[lyceum]

The reason people are so worried about the Microsoft deal is their past history of screwing their partners, and, their stated and current ongoing goal of wanting to kill free software. In that light, this is not your typical "deal" or "cooperation". It is viewed with maximum distrust because there is no reason to trust it right now as anything but another offensive against Linux. Especially when done in so circuitous a way as to get around the GPL. There just isn't anything there to engender trust.

As far as not having a legal leg to stand on, that has nothing to do with anything. People and organizations can and do sue for reasons outside legality. Thinking that you will never get sued is short sighted thinking that will surely get us all into trouble down the road. Microsoft, like the riaa, doesn't need a legal leg to stand on. They have the government and a mountain of money that props them up. In this world, might makes right. And Microsoft has the might to do nearly anything they want.

So what is MS going to do? Take the code and copy write it? They can't as it is protected by the GPL.

You are right, they can sue just to sue, but if they sue EVERYONE, that will cost a lot, maybe even more than they could afford. It seems they are just doing this to make the field look more even so they can make EU happy. Once no one is looking, they will sweep all of this under a rug. I have heard that MS is going to focus more on servers and less on the desktop once Vista comes out. I don't know how they could compete with Linux, but this seems like a good way for them to find new ways.

[Shay Stephens]

So what is MS going to do? Take the code and copy write it? They can't as it is protected by the GPL.


Well they don't need anything to take the code, it is free for the taking now. And they can't close it up. But what they can do, and what it looks like they are trying to do is scare people into thinking that free software is dangerous to use.

If they can influence the direction people go when choosing free software, they can eventually lead them back into the Microsoft pens. If they can scare people away from half the selections now, later they can split it again, until soon the only "viable" choice in peoples minds will be something that is under their complete control.

It looks like the old "divide and conquer" ploy that has been used with success throughout history.

I would be less distrustful of their motives and intentions had they not been so tricksy in their deal with Novell and subsequent veiled threats afterward. As it is, I don't trust them or the deal they made. I see it as an attack on me. One that may not hit home until some time in the future. After all, when someone says they are going to attack you, you generally pay attention to that and try to put some distance between you and them. You don't say, "oh they won't attack, they have no reason to attack me".

Microsoft is saying they have reason to attack, in so many words. I pay attention to that kind of talk.
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;839593139;fp;16;fpid;1

[Horizon]

So what is MS going to do? Take the code and copy write it? They can't as it is protected by the GPL.

You are right, they can sue just to sue, but if they sue EVERYONE, that will cost a lot, maybe even more than they could afford. It seems they are just doing this to make the field look more even so they can make EU happy. Once no one is looking, they will sweep all of this under a rug. I have heard that MS is going to focus more on servers and less on the desktop once Vista comes out. I don't know how they could compete with Linux, but this seems like a good way for them to find new ways.Compete? Microsoft? Are we talking about the same company? If they had any intention of fairly competing with Linux then Microsoft would never do a deal like this...it's just not like them. What I do see is Microsoft getting involved in Linux and almost immediately there's already legal threats and talk of patents.

[lyceum]

Well they don't need anything to take the code, it is free for the taking now. And they can't close it up. But what they can do, and what it looks like they are trying to do is scare people into thinking that free software is dangerous to use.

If they can influence the direction people go when choosing free software, they can eventually lead them back into the Microsoft pens. If they can scare people away from half the selections now, later they can split it again, until soon the only "viable" choice in peoples minds will be something that is under their complete control.

It looks like the old "divide and conquer" ploy that has been used with success throughout history.

I would be less distrustful of their motives and intentions had they not been so tricksy in their deal with Novell and subsequent veiled threats afterward. As it is, I don't trust them or the deal they made. I see it as an attack on me. One that may not hit home until some time in the future. After all, when someone says they are going to attack you, you generally pay attention to that and try to put some distance between you and them. You don't say, "oh they won't attack, they have no reason to attack me".

Microsoft is saying they have reason to attack, in so many words. I pay attention to that kind of talk.
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;839593139;fp;16;fpid;1

I agree. The problem with the fear though is that it can back fire. If they keep making threats people may move to Mac and avoid the whole thing! The only thing we can do is keep people informed of the truth. I think that once SCO has had its day in court (and falls on its face) the fear will go away to some degree.

[lyceum]

Compete? Microsoft? Are we talking about the same company? If they had any intention of fair competing with Linux then Microsoft would never do a deal like this...it's just not like them. What I do see is Microsoft getting involved in Linux and almost immediately there's already legal threats and talk of patents.

Yeah, compeat may have been the wrong word here. I do think this has more to do with making EU happy than anything else. From what I have read they are in a bit of trouble there.

[tebibyte]

I'm no expert, but I thought all the fuss was over that if Novell incorporates MS patents into GPL'd software and a distro other than Novell uses the code from Novell as GPL permits, MS can then sue that distro over the GPL'd code, even though it told Novell they wouldn't sue them.
Well that is a no no in either licence so they would both be guilty of breaking licences if they did that.

from what I understand, I could be wrong, The problem with GPL V2 is that using patents in GPL v2 code is not forbidden if they promise not to sue. GPL only covers code not patents. Can anyone confirm this?

Also, I believe the problem lies with Linux using Microsoft's code, as opposed to Microsoft using Linux's code.

Another question comes to mind, Is this an Linux only thing, or does it apply to all of Novell's products? Ex. Netgear

[jbtito03]

Oi folks...

If anyone does need any info on GPL v3... here si the link to the transcript of Richard Stallman talking about it in Tokyo this month...

http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/tokyo-rms-transcript

Okey... now... everyone read it and now everyone knows what it DOES and what it DOES not cover.

About freedom Nr. 0 - well... i like software, i think i like code but does not use it actually as i am not a coder (sometimes i have to read some tcl:D) and so does Stallman as he sead "use your code for better or worse." I mean, he never sead YOU CANNOT CODE THIS! He just makes a topic about freedom and how to protect it as i see it.

For GPL v3 - Yeah... i am a happy EU cittizen and i LOVE freedom and as long as DRM stays out of everywhere i go I AM HAPPY! I dunnot want DRM and noone can force me to use it....

At the end i say... long live the chinese as they wil 100% do HARDWARE with no DRM!!!! For everyone else... when people get to know it in their practical life cycle... the products that will use DRM will eventually fail so no future for that. But in the time beeing - protect our freedoms and strat supporting the free choice :D

About every code is gewd - also one that is assimilating, doing bad, a cruise missle code killing 1000? Dont get started with "I am a scientist, i just work until it is perfect. I do research because i am curious and i would like to get the nobell prize."

I will make two extreme examples where this kind of thinking (strictly racional) was implemented with the worst resoults:

Dr. Mengele (2nd world war "horror" doctor) with his research on heredity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Mengele
The invention of the Nuclear bomb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_bomb

Please have in mind, that with everything you do you influence your social surrounding.

PEACE people.

JB;)

[ago]

from what I understand, I could be wrong, The problem with GPL V2 is that using patents in GPL v2 code is not forbidden if they promise not to sue. GPL only covers code not patents. Can anyone confirm this?

The problem with GPL V2 is that it can be circumvented, like Novell or Tivo.

Novell is circumventing by distributing to all but having a second company (who gets a share of the revenues) to threaten the users that do not pay royalties. This is a double violation: 1) it discriminates the users, 2) it bundles GPL software with a patent royalty scheme, which is forbidden. Formally it is respecting the GPL because the company that distributes the GPL products is not the same as the company that threatens/sues the users + users are discriminated indirectly via an agreement-not-to-sue + officially you do not pay royalties to MS, but in practice Novell pays MS for any copy sold...

Tivo uses GPL software but via DRM it prohibits to run any modified version of it. So they restrict how you can use the software they release under GPL.

In GPL-3 for instance there will be a clause by which if you make an agreement not to sue (like novell) such agreement extends to any users, so it is not possible to discriminate users and thus circumvent the GPL. As mentioned there should be broad agreement on this. The DRM part is more delicate...

[zubrug]

I have to think that there is an ubuntu slant to this, it's designed to be divisive. Suse is not the big dog it used to be (without MS), Microsoft cannot ignore what ubuntu has accomplished in such a short time.
Linux is making it's way into everything, MS cannot simply buy linux so they have come up with a 380 mil bribe (what else could you call it) to force there foot in the door. Suse was an easy target.
Shuttleworth is on to something huge and the ball is rolling. I guess we have Mark's parent's to thank, he knows how to share!
Some people just don't like sharing.


I am in favour v3 with the announced changes.
Oh, and this was a great thread, wow, spirited or what?

[deanlinkous]

http://linux.sys-con.com/read/308332.htm