- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Jeremy Allison Leaves Novell in Protest
|
|
|
Comments (55)
35 earlier comments in the full thread.
Its easier than that. If even one developer says that it violates the spirit of the license that he released his work under, then it IS in fact a violation of intent. Last I looked there were more than a few that were very vocal over it.
and Dino, I really hope your playing devils advocate.
and Dino, I really hope your playing devils advocate.
>RMS says that the deal violates the intention of the GPL. For a person who tries very hard to be very exact with his language, I would expect to see specific violations offered up. But there have been none given.
According to the Novell-Microsoft deal (which hasn't been released to the public), there are a couple of terms of agreement. There is some money handed over on both sides, along with a covenant not to sue. If you make an agreement to license patents from another company, such as Microsoft, to be used only by your customers, and not by anyone else, that is in direct violation of the GPLv2, section 7.
Taken directly from the GPLv2:
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
This is the pertinent clause. The GPLv2 states that you can't sublicense a program protected under the GPLv2 (section 4). By giving patent immunity for only a subset of people (your customers), this is effectively saying, you can use the program, but only if it's distributed by us (if you don't want to be sued). That is the illegal part, as far as I understand it. By just saying they won't sue each other or their customers, it's a loophole that says the same thing, without there being any letter violation.
>What software is encumbered by MS patents, distributed by Novell, and licensed under the GPL, that there is a violation of just the intent of the GPL? I won't even bother asking for violations of the letter, since there aren't any.
This question doesn't make sense to me. I'm going to assume there are two questions here. correct me if I'm wrong and I'll do my best to append this. "What software actually infringes upon MS patents, is distributed by Novell, and licensed under the GPL?" and "Do any of these violate the intent or letter of the GPL?"
First off, Microsoft hasn't brought any charges against any GPL'd software, as far as I am aware. Steve Ballmer, in the interview question at http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/108806... states that Linux "uses our patented intellectual property". Now, Novell states that they don't but regardless, they're protected if they do. Technically, assuming there is some GPL'd program that violates copyright, it can still be distributed underneath the GPL, except if a patent violation or similar is brought against it, then it cannot (section 7 again). Novell distributes a large number of packages that they don't actively develop, that doesn't mean it isn't protected underneath the covenant not to sue.
Does that answer your questions adequately?
According to the Novell-Microsoft deal (which hasn't been released to the public), there are a couple of terms of agreement. There is some money handed over on both sides, along with a covenant not to sue. If you make an agreement to license patents from another company, such as Microsoft, to be used only by your customers, and not by anyone else, that is in direct violation of the GPLv2, section 7.
Taken directly from the GPLv2:
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.
This is the pertinent clause. The GPLv2 states that you can't sublicense a program protected under the GPLv2 (section 4). By giving patent immunity for only a subset of people (your customers), this is effectively saying, you can use the program, but only if it's distributed by us (if you don't want to be sued). That is the illegal part, as far as I understand it. By just saying they won't sue each other or their customers, it's a loophole that says the same thing, without there being any letter violation.
>What software is encumbered by MS patents, distributed by Novell, and licensed under the GPL, that there is a violation of just the intent of the GPL? I won't even bother asking for violations of the letter, since there aren't any.
This question doesn't make sense to me. I'm going to assume there are two questions here. correct me if I'm wrong and I'll do my best to append this. "What software actually infringes upon MS patents, is distributed by Novell, and licensed under the GPL?" and "Do any of these violate the intent or letter of the GPL?"
First off, Microsoft hasn't brought any charges against any GPL'd software, as far as I am aware. Steve Ballmer, in the interview question at http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/108806... states that Linux "uses our patented intellectual property". Now, Novell states that they don't but regardless, they're protected if they do. Technically, assuming there is some GPL'd program that violates copyright, it can still be distributed underneath the GPL, except if a patent violation or similar is brought against it, then it cannot (section 7 again). Novell distributes a large number of packages that they don't actively develop, that doesn't mean it isn't protected underneath the covenant not to sue.
Does that answer your questions adequately?
>and Dino, I really hope your playing devils advocate.
I'm doing nothing of the sort. I am trying to make clear the nature of the problem. The words of a license matter. They are what a court will rely on, and for good reason.
To give your position any merit at all, you would have to assume that, in the case of 1,000 developers licensing their software under the GPL, that the GPL had, potentially, 1,000 different meanings.
If that were the case, the GPL would be utterly meaningless. In fact, it would be legally meaningless as well. A license so vague that it means something different to every reader, with no commonly understood provisions will not be upheld by courts and therefore, as a practical matter, does not exist.
If developers who license their code under the GPL meant for it to cover something that it doesn't, they should not have used the GPL in the first place, but substituted a license that squares with their intent.
I'm doing nothing of the sort. I am trying to make clear the nature of the problem. The words of a license matter. They are what a court will rely on, and for good reason.
To give your position any merit at all, you would have to assume that, in the case of 1,000 developers licensing their software under the GPL, that the GPL had, potentially, 1,000 different meanings.
If that were the case, the GPL would be utterly meaningless. In fact, it would be legally meaningless as well. A license so vague that it means something different to every reader, with no commonly understood provisions will not be upheld by courts and therefore, as a practical matter, does not exist.
If developers who license their code under the GPL meant for it to cover something that it doesn't, they should not have used the GPL in the first place, but substituted a license that squares with their intent.
ah but I was talking intent, your talking about bottom dwelling lawyers. There is a differance.
We all know legally there isnt squat to be done. There is a differance between what is right and what is legal. Bottomfeeders will insist insist to the heavens "I have done nothing wrong, see the courts says so" while still being morally and ethically bankrupt.
Here lies the problem of our debate. You are expounding legal. I am defending ethical. In this I see that we are both correct, and why I dislike lawyers as a species for allowing such distinctions or right and legal to come into being.
We all know legally there isnt squat to be done. There is a differance between what is right and what is legal. Bottomfeeders will insist insist to the heavens "I have done nothing wrong, see the courts says so" while still being morally and ethically bankrupt.
Here lies the problem of our debate. You are expounding legal. I am defending ethical. In this I see that we are both correct, and why I dislike lawyers as a species for allowing such distinctions or right and legal to come into being.
>You are expounding legal. I am defending ethical.
Only in a world where we can divine intent without reliance on the things people say or reduce to writing.
Those bottom-dwelling lawyers you are so anxious to demean (Say -- What does that make Eben Moglen, who is both a lawyer and a law professor who helps unleash more bottom dwellers on the world every year?) server a vital role: In the absence of mind-readers, it is the lawyer's job to figure out what a license means.
There is nothing remotely unethical about asking what a license does and does not allow and that is what lawyers do. In fact, a lawyer who failed to do so is likely to violate his own professional ethics. We have no mind-readers at bar, and no mind-readers in the judiciary.
In the case of a custom drafted license, there is some chance that a litigation will shed light on the intent of the parties, and that facts developed in the case will aid the interpretation of the license.
With the GPL, however, that kind of process isn't possible because the license is generic, and is applied by people who were not involved in its drafting.
The courts and the lawyers have no choice but to rely on what it actually says.
Only in a world where we can divine intent without reliance on the things people say or reduce to writing.
Those bottom-dwelling lawyers you are so anxious to demean (Say -- What does that make Eben Moglen, who is both a lawyer and a law professor who helps unleash more bottom dwellers on the world every year?) server a vital role: In the absence of mind-readers, it is the lawyer's job to figure out what a license means.
There is nothing remotely unethical about asking what a license does and does not allow and that is what lawyers do. In fact, a lawyer who failed to do so is likely to violate his own professional ethics. We have no mind-readers at bar, and no mind-readers in the judiciary.
In the case of a custom drafted license, there is some chance that a litigation will shed light on the intent of the parties, and that facts developed in the case will aid the interpretation of the license.
With the GPL, however, that kind of process isn't possible because the license is generic, and is applied by people who were not involved in its drafting.
The courts and the lawyers have no choice but to rely on what it actually says.
I'm not disagreeing with you on that point, legally correct while being morally and ethically bankrupt. The GPL is written with referance to the individual. The individuals right to the do what they will with the code. I cant remember anywhere in there where it mentions the individual rights corporate amalgamation, only of individual users.
We can spend the rest of eternity battling this back and forth, so I depart the thread with this. When one see's an issue that is morally or ethically abhorrent to them, should they not stand up and say in no uncertain terms "This should not be". It does not take the courts, nor should it take the courts to legislate morality. We all know right from wrong, or if you do not, dont blame your parents or your schools, instead look inside yourself to find something of value that doesnt have a dollar sign attached to it.
Jeremy Allison took the path of the moral high ground, and I salute him for it. I hope if faced with a similar situation I can have the fortitude to do the same. That is morality in action, that is seeing a wrong and moving against it, and THAT requires no lawyers to debate the if's, how's, and why's of an action.
'nuff said
We can spend the rest of eternity battling this back and forth, so I depart the thread with this. When one see's an issue that is morally or ethically abhorrent to them, should they not stand up and say in no uncertain terms "This should not be". It does not take the courts, nor should it take the courts to legislate morality. We all know right from wrong, or if you do not, dont blame your parents or your schools, instead look inside yourself to find something of value that doesnt have a dollar sign attached to it.
Jeremy Allison took the path of the moral high ground, and I salute him for it. I hope if faced with a similar situation I can have the fortitude to do the same. That is morality in action, that is seeing a wrong and moving against it, and THAT requires no lawyers to debate the if's, how's, and why's of an action.
'nuff said
>I'm not disagreeing with you on that point, legally correct while being morally and ethically bankrupt.
I believe that Novell is neither neither morally nor ethically incorrect. You are free to disagree, but please, do not mis-state my position.
I believe that Novell is neither neither morally nor ethically incorrect. You are free to disagree, but please, do not mis-state my position.
Quoting:The accusation: Novell has violated the spirit of the GPL.
The support: RMS has said that Novell violated the spirit of the GPL, so it must be so.
RMS DIDN'T say there was a violation...in fact, he agrees with you Darren http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3940699940.html
A good summary of what this deal does to FOSS is found on the Samba Team letter: http://lwn.net/Articles/208961/
Samba points this out:
Quoting:
> The patent agreement struck between Novell and Microsoft > is a divisive agreement. It deals with users and creators > of free software differently depending on their "commercial" > versus "non-commercial" status, and deals with them > differently depending on whether they obtained their free > software directly from Novell or from someone else. > > The goals of the Free Software community and the GNU GPL > allow for no such distinctions.
So now, we have to wonder whether or not MS will sue individuals who work for companies, consultant firms, or other commercial venues. Thanks Novell! But you neither confirm nor deny that this is a problem so...I guess you're in the clear right?
Oh and thanks again Novell! Your deal has cast a legal shadow over the top of Linux. Paid programmers aren't safe as part of this deal (http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-6132156.html) and now when people give money to you to put more back into Open Source...you have to give money back to Microsoft. Eben Moglen stated (http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-6132156.html )
Quoting:"If you make an agreement which requires you to pay a royalty to anybody for the right to distribute GPL software, you may not distribute it under the GPL. Section 7 of the GPL requires that you have, and pass along to everybody, the right to distribute software freely and without additional permission."
But Novell got around that didn't they? How? By using different language so they didn't infringe. Is this skirting around the GPL? You bet it is...they're still doing exactly what Eben stated...but they're calling it a different name. When you say Po-Tay-Toe, I say Po-Tah-Toe right? It doesn't work that way. The spirit here is being tread upon...calling something by a different name doesn't mean you're not doing it. I can rob a bank tomorrow but tell everyone I'm just borrowing the money...that doesn't mean I'm innocent.
If you need more evidence than this Darren, I suggest you invest in VERY thick bi-focals and a tinfoil hat.
>By using different language so they didn't infringe.
Do you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking about?
Didn't infringe what?
>So now, we have to wonder whether or not MS will sue individuals who work for companies, consultant firms, or other commercial venues. Thanks Novell!
Thanks Novell? What kind of thought process is leading you to blame Novell for threats by Microsoft? Wait! Silly question. There is no thought process involved. It's all reflex to the knee bone.
The agreement between Novell and Micrsoft does not touch on anybody's right to distribute GPL'd software. In no way does it increase, permit, or otherwise enhance Microsoft's right or inclination to sue anybody on the face of the earth. Quite the opposite.
Come on. You're no idiot. Apply those brain cells.
Do you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking about?
Didn't infringe what?
>So now, we have to wonder whether or not MS will sue individuals who work for companies, consultant firms, or other commercial venues. Thanks Novell!
Thanks Novell? What kind of thought process is leading you to blame Novell for threats by Microsoft? Wait! Silly question. There is no thought process involved. It's all reflex to the knee bone.
The agreement between Novell and Micrsoft does not touch on anybody's right to distribute GPL'd software. In no way does it increase, permit, or otherwise enhance Microsoft's right or inclination to sue anybody on the face of the earth. Quite the opposite.
Come on. You're no idiot. Apply those brain cells.
> The accusation: Novell has violated the spirit of the GPL.
> The support: RMS has said that Novell violated the spirit of the GPL, so it must be so.
Just for fun, ask Novell to post a statement on the website stating they "did not violate the spirit of the GPL" and see what programmers who GPL licensed their code think of that. :) And remember, no "ad hominem" as you said by blaming it on them liking RMS.
Just for fun, ask Novell to post a statement on the website stating they "did not violate the spirit of the GPL" and see what programmers who GPL licensed their code think of that. :) And remember, no "ad hominem" as you said by blaming it on them liking RMS.
>Just for fun, ask Novell to post a statement on the website stating they "did not violate the spirit of the GPL" and see what programmers who GPL licensed their code think of that.
That would be a stupid thing for anybody to do because the results are predictable. You nee only look at Debian and Dunc-Tank to see why.
Besides, it doesn't matter anyway. A thousand developers will have a thousand interpretations of the GPL. Some of those interpretations may agree, some may disagree, some may even be contradictory. Some may be flat-out stupid.
It doesn't matter. Novell has done its due diligence. Developers who slap a common license onto their code are agreeing to its common interpretation. "But what I thought it meant" doesn't matter for squat. Developers with specific interpretations should not use a common license unless they are certain users, distributors, lawyers, and judges can all read minds.
That would be a stupid thing for anybody to do because the results are predictable. You nee only look at Debian and Dunc-Tank to see why.
Besides, it doesn't matter anyway. A thousand developers will have a thousand interpretations of the GPL. Some of those interpretations may agree, some may disagree, some may even be contradictory. Some may be flat-out stupid.
It doesn't matter. Novell has done its due diligence. Developers who slap a common license onto their code are agreeing to its common interpretation. "But what I thought it meant" doesn't matter for squat. Developers with specific interpretations should not use a common license unless they are certain users, distributors, lawyers, and judges can all read minds.
> That would be a stupid thing for anybody to do because the results are predictable.
So you predict authors that GPL licensed their code see this as violation of the spirit of the GPL, barring any ad hominem excuses re RMS's statements.
> Novell has done its due diligence. Developers who slap a common license onto their code are agreeing to its common interpretation.
And that common interpretation is clearly that the deal violates the spirit if not the letter, or this would all be a non-story.
So now you can see my point - Novell knows it is violating the spirit of the GPL by the common interpretation yet will not back down, making them horrible people for doing so, and acting with "ill intent" as you've mentioned.
So you predict authors that GPL licensed their code see this as violation of the spirit of the GPL, barring any ad hominem excuses re RMS's statements.
> Novell has done its due diligence. Developers who slap a common license onto their code are agreeing to its common interpretation.
And that common interpretation is clearly that the deal violates the spirit if not the letter, or this would all be a non-story.
So now you can see my point - Novell knows it is violating the spirit of the GPL by the common interpretation yet will not back down, making them horrible people for doing so, and acting with "ill intent" as you've mentioned.
>ad that common interpretation is clearly that the deal violates the spirit if not the letter, or this would all be a non-story.
The common interpretation in this case is a legal concept referring to the plain meaning of the language. It is how a judge is supposed to interpret a contract. It is not a democratic concept, and it doesn't matter if 40,50, or even 80% of developers would agree, disagree, or be able to parse a simple sentence.
The common interpretation in this case is a legal concept referring to the plain meaning of the language. It is how a judge is supposed to interpret a contract. It is not a democratic concept, and it doesn't matter if 40,50, or even 80% of developers would agree, disagree, or be able to parse a simple sentence.
> It is not a democratic concept, and it doesn't matter if 40,50, or even 80% of developers would agree, disagree, or be able to parse a simple sentence.
The issue is developers considering the spirit of their license violated. As an aggregate, they do. Novell has been made aware of this. They continue regardless. Novell is horrible. Case closed. Quite simple.
The issue is developers considering the spirit of their license violated. As an aggregate, they do. Novell has been made aware of this. They continue regardless. Novell is horrible. Case closed. Quite simple.
Anyway, it really doesn't matter what you think of this, seeing as you have no GPLed code.
>it really doesn't matter what you think of this,
It doesn't matter in the least what I think of this, even though I have, in fact, contributed patches to a couple of small projects under the GPL.
It doesn't matter in the least what I think of this, even though I have, in fact, contributed patches to a couple of small projects under the GPL.
Dino
As far as what they didn't infringe or did...they trampled on the spirit of the GPL by using language to get around it. That's the loophole everyone is speaking of...the one they're closing in v3 of the GPL. When you find a loophole, what should be done? I can tell you that it shouldn't have been exploited that's for sure.
Wrong. IT does. Why? Because there is a perceived threat there. That means that the threat is real simply because it is perceived to be. There are those people out there that don't have a clue what Linux and Open Source is because they aren't using it...and after statements like that from buddy Microsoft they won't consider it. All of this thanks to a deal that Novell agrees with...are you getting this now? It's cause effect to the nth degree.
I'm using my brain cells...but everyone seems to think that this doesn't effect anything and that's a mistake. You open the door a crack and you still let cold air in...eventually, the door will be forced open...it's just a matter of when...we know the how.
BTW, my patches are bigger than your patches of GPL code :D :P
Quoting:Thanks Novell? What kind of thought process is leading you to blame Novell for threats by Microsoft? Wait! Silly question. There is no thought process involved. It's all reflex to the knee bone.So when you partner up with someone, you aren't responsible for how they act? What are you smoking? No one was twisting Novell's arm to make this deal and they have to reap what they sow here...they did a deal with the devil and now they have to pay the devil the dues AND they have to be considered as with the devil..whether they like it or not, whether it is true or not. That's business.
As far as what they didn't infringe or did...they trampled on the spirit of the GPL by using language to get around it. That's the loophole everyone is speaking of...the one they're closing in v3 of the GPL. When you find a loophole, what should be done? I can tell you that it shouldn't have been exploited that's for sure.
Quoting:In no way does it increase, permit, or otherwise enhance Microsoft's right or inclination to sue anybody on the face of the earth.
Wrong. IT does. Why? Because there is a perceived threat there. That means that the threat is real simply because it is perceived to be. There are those people out there that don't have a clue what Linux and Open Source is because they aren't using it...and after statements like that from buddy Microsoft they won't consider it. All of this thanks to a deal that Novell agrees with...are you getting this now? It's cause effect to the nth degree.
I'm using my brain cells...but everyone seems to think that this doesn't effect anything and that's a mistake. You open the door a crack and you still let cold air in...eventually, the door will be forced open...it's just a matter of when...we know the how.
BTW, my patches are bigger than your patches of GPL code :D :P
>Wrong. IT does. Why? Because there is a perceived threat there. That means that the threat is real simply because it is perceived to be
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Novell deal and everything to do with Microsoft.
We have already established that Microsoft is a bad player. Frankly, it seems rational to me that Novell would seek a legally binding instrument ensuring its ability to interact with Microsoft products, given how many are out there. It also seems rational to me that Novell might welcome an opportunity to protect its clients.
Perhaps they also know the devil when they see it. After all, they've been fighting Microsoft -- in the market AND in the court room -- for years.
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Novell deal and everything to do with Microsoft.
We have already established that Microsoft is a bad player. Frankly, it seems rational to me that Novell would seek a legally binding instrument ensuring its ability to interact with Microsoft products, given how many are out there. It also seems rational to me that Novell might welcome an opportunity to protect its clients.
Perhaps they also know the devil when they see it. After all, they've been fighting Microsoft -- in the market AND in the court room -- for years.
>BTW, my patches are bigger than your patches of GPL code :D :P
And a good thing, too, given my coding skills! ;0)
And a good thing, too, given my coding skills! ;0)
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
Which means what exactly?
Seems to me that the Novell deal granted Novell customers freedom from worry that Microsoft would sue them without having any effect whatsoever on the freedom of anybody else.
So, if the GPL is all about granting software freedom, the Novell deal is very much in the spirit of the GPL.