- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
RMS transcript on GPLv3, Novell/MS, Tivo and more
|
|
|
Comments (41)
21 earlier comments in the full thread.
> You don't have to be a party to an agreement to be affected by it, hence the term "third party beneficiary".
Dino: Granted, but note the term beneficiary. Accepting liabilities is a whole nother matter, which would normally require an act of active agreement. Losing the ability to redistribute would almost definitely be considered a liability by a court.
Dino: Granted, but note the term beneficiary. Accepting liabilities is a whole nother matter, which would normally require an act of active agreement. Losing the ability to redistribute would almost definitely be considered a liability by a court.
Dino:
Is it to sell licenses for GPLed code? No, you can't do that. GPLed code is already Copyleft licensed. Your company and everyone else who distributes GPLed software should abide by the rules. RMS & Moglen realized the loophole and they are trying to correct it. That is the main reason for it and they are trying to make sure no loopholes are left to be abused in the future.
Is it to sell insurance for using GPLed code? That is exactly what Novell's agreement with MS was for. With this agreement, Novell became an insurance sales agency for MS. The bad thing about it is, Novell and MS want to scare GPLed software users into thinking that they need such insurance coverage. MS started beating the drums and Novel started dancing. They even want to go beyond that, they want to sneak in MS patents into FOSS to guarantee future business for themselves. This is nothing new if you recall, that was started by XXX company (I can't recall their name). The first thing XXX did was to publicize that Linux could be infringing on over 280 patents. The same is being done by MS now.
This has to stop, GPL3 has to be finalized and all software has to adopt it to stay GPLed FOSS.
Distributors and end users should not be liable for patent infringement if it exists in FOSS. I covered that in another thread, either FSF, OSDL, a combination of, or totally new organization should be offering protection for any FOSS patent infringment. I believe this could be the best solution. This organization will determine if any code has any patent infringement before it is included into any GPLed code. If found after the fact, it either can be removed or recoded to become patent free.
Quoting:What if I start a company, Dino's Keep-U-Safe.Is this company of yours to sell services for GPLed software? No problem there, that is what distributors are for. Your company can be a distributor too.
Is it to sell licenses for GPLed code? No, you can't do that. GPLed code is already Copyleft licensed. Your company and everyone else who distributes GPLed software should abide by the rules. RMS & Moglen realized the loophole and they are trying to correct it. That is the main reason for it and they are trying to make sure no loopholes are left to be abused in the future.
Is it to sell insurance for using GPLed code? That is exactly what Novell's agreement with MS was for. With this agreement, Novell became an insurance sales agency for MS. The bad thing about it is, Novell and MS want to scare GPLed software users into thinking that they need such insurance coverage. MS started beating the drums and Novel started dancing. They even want to go beyond that, they want to sneak in MS patents into FOSS to guarantee future business for themselves. This is nothing new if you recall, that was started by XXX company (I can't recall their name). The first thing XXX did was to publicize that Linux could be infringing on over 280 patents. The same is being done by MS now.
This has to stop, GPL3 has to be finalized and all software has to adopt it to stay GPLed FOSS.
Distributors and end users should not be liable for patent infringement if it exists in FOSS. I covered that in another thread, either FSF, OSDL, a combination of, or totally new organization should be offering protection for any FOSS patent infringment. I believe this could be the best solution. This organization will determine if any code has any patent infringement before it is included into any GPLed code. If found after the fact, it either can be removed or recoded to become patent free.
>Accepting liabilities
What liabilities are you talking about? The only thing that Keep-U-Safe does is protect you from being sued. It imposes no liabilities on you whatsoever.
What liabilities are you talking about? The only thing that Keep-U-Safe does is protect you from being sued. It imposes no liabilities on you whatsoever.
>Is this company of yours to sell services for GPLed software?
This company has nothing whatsoever to do with GPLed software except by coincidence. All this company does is provide assurance that some people will not be sued for patent infringement.
The point of the exercise was simple -- how do RMS and friends draft the license so that Microsoft can't make it impossible for anybody to distribute GPLV3 software within the terms of the license?
This company has nothing whatsoever to do with GPLed software except by coincidence. All this company does is provide assurance that some people will not be sued for patent infringement.
The point of the exercise was simple -- how do RMS and friends draft the license so that Microsoft can't make it impossible for anybody to distribute GPLV3 software within the terms of the license?
Quoting:What liabilities are you talking about?
I wasn't referring to any liabilities imposed by Keep-U-Safe, I was talking about patent infrigments, if any, found in FOSS software or MS claims it does have.
Quoting:how do RMS and friends draft the license so that Microsoft can't make it impossible for anybody to distribute GPLV3 software within the terms of the license?
They are working on it. We just have to wait and see. When that is out, and along with a protection organization with it, as I suggested above, should take care of MS threats.
>I was talking about patent infrigments, if any, found in FOSS software or MS claims it does have.
That's not something you accept or not, it's something you do or you don't. If you infringe, you are liable for your infringement. No agreement required.
That's not something you accept or not, it's something you do or you don't. If you infringe, you are liable for your infringement. No agreement required.
You lost me there. Accept and do what? Liable for what infringement? Don't we have to wait for court of law to establish any infringement first? Doesn't the protective organization have to have its day in court to dispute the claims? I am really lost.
>Don't we have to wait for court of law to establish any infringement first?
Technically, no. You infringe or you don't. If you contest an infringement action, the job of the court is to find facts and reach a decision. Kind of like the police investigating a robbery. The robbery took place whether or not police find the perpetrator.
Most disputes do not actually go to court, and the vast majority of disputes that do are not resolved by the court. Rather, the parties reach an agreement and settle the matter.
Technically, no. You infringe or you don't. If you contest an infringement action, the job of the court is to find facts and reach a decision. Kind of like the police investigating a robbery. The robbery took place whether or not police find the perpetrator.
Most disputes do not actually go to court, and the vast majority of disputes that do are not resolved by the court. Rather, the parties reach an agreement and settle the matter.
> What liabilities are you talking about?
Dino, are deliberately being preverse to pull me into a flat out argument? Not that there might not be merits to it, but as I've noted before, I'm not on Paul's level. :)
I repeat: Losing the ability to redistribute GPL'ed software would almost definitely be considered a liability by a court. Accepting a liability normally takes a positive action under the law, it cannot be done by default.
My position, subject to refutation by the FSF lawyers, is that accepting the offer from Novell or Keep-U-Safe removes your ability to redistribute because you are then covered by an agreement which you cannot transfer.
Dino, are deliberately being preverse to pull me into a flat out argument? Not that there might not be merits to it, but as I've noted before, I'm not on Paul's level. :)
I repeat: Losing the ability to redistribute GPL'ed software would almost definitely be considered a liability by a court. Accepting a liability normally takes a positive action under the law, it cannot be done by default.
My position, subject to refutation by the FSF lawyers, is that accepting the offer from Novell or Keep-U-Safe removes your ability to redistribute because you are then covered by an agreement which you cannot transfer.
Oh, I do note that Stallman appears to agree that the Novell/Microsoft deal does not break the spirit of the GPL in it's current form. The question now is does it break the letter of the GPL or not. I'm waiting for Eben Moglen's opinion on that. He also indicated that he thought it would be possible to mix GPL2 and GPL3 code in the same distribution.
jdixon, I think you have the spirit and the letter reversed. If it didn't violate the spirit of the GPL, I don't think he would attempt to amend it. He has acknowledged that the letter of the GPL has been kept. Too much, or too little coffee? :-)
"Oh, I do note that Stallman appears to agree that the Novell/Microsoft deal does not break the spirit of the GPL in it's current form"
It absolutely violates the spirit.
The idea is to prevent companies from almost taking over ownership of Free Software. E.g., that could happen by several means (assuming the license did nothing to prevent it), the two most common expected:
1) Company A has a patent on some Free Software, will give you a non-transferable license to that patent. Company A effectively now owns that Free Software project, as they control its use and distribution.
2) Company B distributes Free Software to you, but in such a way that if the Free Software is modified, it will no longer work. Company B now effectively controls your right to modify and use that Free Software project in the distribution it provided you.
Note that #1 is effectively what Microsoft+Novell did using sneaky language to try and avoid the prohibition on this, leaving the threat of a lawsuit hanging over everyone else's head except for their own distribution of it. It's basically attempting to steal control of the project from the authors, which is why you see so many authors of Free Software pissed off.
It absolutely violates the spirit.
The idea is to prevent companies from almost taking over ownership of Free Software. E.g., that could happen by several means (assuming the license did nothing to prevent it), the two most common expected:
1) Company A has a patent on some Free Software, will give you a non-transferable license to that patent. Company A effectively now owns that Free Software project, as they control its use and distribution.
2) Company B distributes Free Software to you, but in such a way that if the Free Software is modified, it will no longer work. Company B now effectively controls your right to modify and use that Free Software project in the distribution it provided you.
Note that #1 is effectively what Microsoft+Novell did using sneaky language to try and avoid the prohibition on this, leaving the threat of a lawsuit hanging over everyone else's head except for their own distribution of it. It's basically attempting to steal control of the project from the authors, which is why you see so many authors of Free Software pissed off.
> jdixon, I think you have the spirit and the letter reversed.
Nope. From memory, since I don't have time to go back and read it right now, Stallman said in the speech that the Novell/Microsoft deal did not break the GPLv2. Since he's not the lawyer, but rather the architect, he had to be referring to the spirit. Eben Moglen is the lawyer, and I want to see what he has to say on the subject. Since IANAL, my opinion on the matter is worth what you've paid for it.
The Novell/Microsoft deal, by working directly with the users, bypasses the GPL completely with respect to the companies involved (but not with respect to their customers, which is my concern).
Nope. From memory, since I don't have time to go back and read it right now, Stallman said in the speech that the Novell/Microsoft deal did not break the GPLv2. Since he's not the lawyer, but rather the architect, he had to be referring to the spirit. Eben Moglen is the lawyer, and I want to see what he has to say on the subject. Since IANAL, my opinion on the matter is worth what you've paid for it.
The Novell/Microsoft deal, by working directly with the users, bypasses the GPL completely with respect to the companies involved (but not with respect to their customers, which is my concern).
"Since he's not the lawyer, but rather the architect, he had to be referring to the spirit."
I promise you that RMS would not have said the Microsoft/Novell deal does not violate the spirit of the GPL. :)
I promise you that RMS would not have said the Microsoft/Novell deal does not violate the spirit of the GPL. :)
> I promise you that RMS would not have said the Microsoft/Novell deal does not violate the spirit of the GPL. :)
Quoting from the article:
"However, there's another way of using software patents to threaten the users which we have just seen an example of. That is, the Novell-Microsoft deal. What has happened is, Microsoft has not given Novell a patent licence, and thus, section 7 of GPL version 2 does not come into play. Instead, Microsoft offered a patent licence that is rather limited to Novell's customers alone."
That sure sounds like what he said to me.
Quoting from the article:
"However, there's another way of using software patents to threaten the users which we have just seen an example of. That is, the Novell-Microsoft deal. What has happened is, Microsoft has not given Novell a patent licence, and thus, section 7 of GPL version 2 does not come into play. Instead, Microsoft offered a patent licence that is rather limited to Novell's customers alone."
That sure sounds like what he said to me.
Quoting:That sure sounds like what he said to me.
Not quite. He said "section 7 of GPL version 2 does not come into play." That doesn't mean that the whole GPL, and consequently it doesn't mean "it does not violate the GPL" either.
IANAL, Dino is, what do you think?
>That doesn't mean that the whole GPL, and consequently it doesn't mean "it does not violate the GPL" either.
But it probably means that it doesn't violate the whole GPL because, to my knowledge, section 7 was the only part that it might affect.
But it probably means that it doesn't violate the whole GPL because, to my knowledge, section 7 was the only part that it might affect.
It still violates the spirit of the GPL, just not the letter. :-)
Quoting:But it probably means that it doesn't violate the whole GPL because, to my knowledge, section 7 was the only part that it might affect.Probably? Well, leave to RMS and he could find something else.
Hay, wait it a minute, isn't that why the GPL3 is going to be for? There is the justification for you Dino to accept it.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
>By my limited understanding of common law, being party to an agreement almost always requires an action on the part of the person affected.
Mixing apples and oranges. You don't have to be a party to an agreement to be affected by it, hence the term "third party beneficiary". In my example, the agreement is between Dino's Keep-U-Safe and the third party vendors. The benefits of that agreement, however, go to the assorted linux customers.
However -- WRT GPLV3, you may or may not be right:
RMS: We're going to say not just that if you receive the patent license, but if you have arranged any sort of patent licensing that is prejudicial among the downstream recipients, that that's not allowed.
The "If you have arranged", if a requirement, would protect the distributors if they had nothing whatsoever to do with this protection being offered. Would sending a copy of their distro to the the protection agency for certification be "arranging"? Don't know.
The bigger problem is "receive". What does that mean? Do you receive it if it is made available to all of your customers? What if it is made available to you and to your customers but nobody downstream?
In the Novell case, Novell didn't receive a patent license, but some sort of something -- I won't call it a license because I don't want to imply that anybody is actually using Microsoft property -- is provided to their customers. This was arranged by Novell, so the "arranging" branch should get them. Of course, Novell could spin off a subsidiary to do that sort of arrangement, in which case Novell would be arranging anything ....
At any rate, I'm sure they'll have a lot of fun drafting this stuff up so that it only does what they want it to do...