- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
GPLv3 - Unforseen Consequences?
|
|
|
Comments (34)
PatentNRun anybody?
5 earlier comments in the full thread.
>Linspire acts as a moth attracted to money. I said before that they would be the next one to deal, and while many disagree, my opinion hasn't changed.
In other words, they are evil people of whom you don't approve, and, therefore, must be planning to do a deal.
In other words, they are evil people of whom you don't approve, and, therefore, must be planning to do a deal.
No, I've nothing personal against Linspire. But I can detect and interpret behavioral attributes.
>But I can detect and interpret behavioral attributes.
So long as its nothing personal.
So long as its nothing personal.
Quoting:You should make some small effort to understand the Novell-Microsoft deal. The patent provision was a last minute throw-in by Microsoft, done at at point when most of the deal was negotiated.
Dino,
I think we fully understand the goals of both Novell and MS in their deal, and your point doesn't justify anything.
The fact is, the deal is made beneficial to both but very harmful to FOSS and everyone else who distributes FOSS. That is against the merits of FOSS and totally unacceptable. The community is not willing to sacrifice everything FOSS stands for just for sweet Novell and beloved MS to survive and flourish on the account of everyone else.
Yes Novell is doing the best for itself and to keep growing its business (or they think they are) and no one is blaming them for that. On the other hand, we need to remember that FOSS was not created for companies to make a big business out of FOSS on the account of others.
There are rules and guidelines that everyone has to abide by, and they are going to change with time depending on the situations and with the threats. if they want to use FOSS, they better understand that and not try to tweak it or look for loop holes. If they are not ready or willing, no one is twisting their arm, they just don't have to use it. It is simple and straight forward. No buts or ifs. Either they comply, or they are better do something else because these rules are not open for comprimise.
I don't think that is hard to understand or comprehand, is it?
>but very harmful to FOSS and everyone else who distributes FOSS.
People keep repeating this, but nobody has managed to come up with any actual harm.
Seems to me the biggest damage has been done by FOSS Chicken Littles wasting time and energy over pretty much nothing.
People keep repeating this, but nobody has managed to come up with any actual harm.
Seems to me the biggest damage has been done by FOSS Chicken Littles wasting time and energy over pretty much nothing.
Din: Agreed. I'm not educated enough on this topic to say it doesn't harm FOSS, but I would certainly like to see someone explain how it does.
NoDough -
I've heard lots of slippery slopes and hypotheticals, but no actual harm. The biggest problem so far seems to be the involvement of Microsoft. Methinks FOSS (if not all FOSS people) is stronger than that.
I've heard lots of slippery slopes and hypotheticals, but no actual harm. The biggest problem so far seems to be the involvement of Microsoft. Methinks FOSS (if not all FOSS people) is stronger than that.
Quoting:People keep repeating this, but nobody has managed to come up with any actual harm.
Not enough time for now to list all the damages that could result. I will have to catch you later for the details. But, the major is granting MS full control of licensing FOSS. This is what MS has tried before through SCO and has been trying recently to accomplish by tagging their tax onto FOSS to make it look like it is a more expensive solution for the enterprise than Windows.
Quoting:Seems to me the biggest damage has been done by FOSS Chicken Littles...
No one has listed these either. Would you like to enlighten us? And no, FOSS hasn't slowed down in adoption, on the contrary, its adoption has been steadily increasing.
> granting MS full control of licensing FOSS
?
?
>that could result.
I didn't ask for hypotheticals or the things that scare you. I asked for harms.
>But, the major is granting MS full control of licensing FOSS.
Sounds like somebody's been breathing deep of the ozone.
>No one has listed these either
Not true.
1. Wasted time and effort 2. Alienation of a perfectly good Linux distribution (Suse) and fallout on its free cousin (OpenSuse) 3. Possible side effects of bastardizing GPLV3 -- but that is only a hypothetical harm. We'll have to see how it plays out. 4. Added credibility to Microsoft's position by making it seem as if their patent protection offer has real meaning.
I didn't ask for hypotheticals or the things that scare you. I asked for harms.
>But, the major is granting MS full control of licensing FOSS.
Sounds like somebody's been breathing deep of the ozone.
>No one has listed these either
Not true.
1. Wasted time and effort 2. Alienation of a perfectly good Linux distribution (Suse) and fallout on its free cousin (OpenSuse) 3. Possible side effects of bastardizing GPLV3 -- but that is only a hypothetical harm. We'll have to see how it plays out. 4. Added credibility to Microsoft's position by making it seem as if their patent protection offer has real meaning.
Quoting:But, the major is granting MS full control of licensing FOSS.Again, this makes no sense to me. Can you elaborate on how this is happening.
> 2. Alienation of a perfectly good Linux distribution (Suse) and fallout on its free cousin (OpenSuse)
That seems pretty serious to me. I want companies with the resources of Novell to be on our side. They've contributed a lot to FOSS.
And let me add to your list:
5. Significantly reduced life spans of Linux users due to all the stress they have heaped upon themselves.
If the average Linux user uses Linux for 50 years, and dies 10 years early due to unnecessary worrying, that's 20% of our market share up in smoke.
That seems pretty serious to me. I want companies with the resources of Novell to be on our side. They've contributed a lot to FOSS.
And let me add to your list:
5. Significantly reduced life spans of Linux users due to all the stress they have heaped upon themselves.
If the average Linux user uses Linux for 50 years, and dies 10 years early due to unnecessary worrying, that's 20% of our market share up in smoke.
> reduced life spans of Linux users
;0)
;0)
> I didn't ask for hypotheticals or the things that scare you. I asked for harms.
How is that useful, except as a debate tactic? Using that logic, we should all drop our uninsured motorist coverage. If I drive without insurance, there is no actual harm. Until I cause an accident, there is only potential harm. (And we don't want to alienate the uninsured motorists. Some of them are excellent drivers.)
How is that useful, except as a debate tactic? Using that logic, we should all drop our uninsured motorist coverage. If I drive without insurance, there is no actual harm. Until I cause an accident, there is only potential harm. (And we don't want to alienate the uninsured motorists. Some of them are excellent drivers.)
>How is that useful, except as a debate tactic?
Umm....gosh, not full up on this logic thingie? When you ask a specific question, it is not unreasonable to note that somebody has not answered the question you asked.
Presuming that you are sincere in your comment, the debate tactic would seem to be on the other side: faced with one thing, try to steer the conversation elsewhere.
And, ahem, your insurance example goes to my point, or, at least, it would if you understand the way that insurance works.
Insurance protects against real harms that actually do happen by spreading the risk over a large population. For example, houses really do burn down, but not very many of them. From the standpoint of the insured, it may look like you're paying for something that probably isn't going to happen. From the standpoint of the insurance company, they are paying for something that almost certainly will happen, but they don't know to whom.
That, by the way, is the reason you see all those stories about insurance companies losing money, wiggling out, whatever when a large disaster strikes. Instead of a few payouts, they suddenly have to face a boatload.
Umm....gosh, not full up on this logic thingie? When you ask a specific question, it is not unreasonable to note that somebody has not answered the question you asked.
Presuming that you are sincere in your comment, the debate tactic would seem to be on the other side: faced with one thing, try to steer the conversation elsewhere.
And, ahem, your insurance example goes to my point, or, at least, it would if you understand the way that insurance works.
Insurance protects against real harms that actually do happen by spreading the risk over a large population. For example, houses really do burn down, but not very many of them. From the standpoint of the insured, it may look like you're paying for something that probably isn't going to happen. From the standpoint of the insurance company, they are paying for something that almost certainly will happen, but they don't know to whom.
That, by the way, is the reason you see all those stories about insurance companies losing money, wiggling out, whatever when a large disaster strikes. Instead of a few payouts, they suddenly have to face a boatload.
My point was that it is sometimes helpful to plan for things that haven't yet happened. I haven't been hit by an uninsured motorist, but if it does happen I am prepared.
You're only insisting that we point out actual harm because that suits your argument. There has been no actual harm at this point in time.
> not full up on this logic thingie?
If you would like to have a discussion, let me know. I don't have time to trade juvenile barbs with you.
You're only insisting that we point out actual harm because that suits your argument. There has been no actual harm at this point in time.
> not full up on this logic thingie?
If you would like to have a discussion, let me know. I don't have time to trade juvenile barbs with you.
>There has been no actual harm at this point in time.
For that matter, no concrete suggestions as to what that potential harm would look like.
>I don't have time to trade juvenile barbs with you.
We can't all be quick witted. Don't feel bad, though. Being slow is not the same as being stupid.
For that matter, no concrete suggestions as to what that potential harm would look like.
>I don't have time to trade juvenile barbs with you.
We can't all be quick witted. Don't feel bad, though. Being slow is not the same as being stupid.
Quoting:Bigg: > granting MS full control of licensing FOSS ?When MS dictates through their agreement with Novell, Xandros, and Dell (so far) to get laid and paid for every Linux/FOSS copy those outfits offer to customers, without being able to copy and distribute is full control in my opinion. This is against the GPL terms and principles.
Quoting:Dino: I didn't ask for hypotheticals or the things that scare you. I asked for harms.
Forcing a license and control over distributing Linux/FOSS is NOT hypothetical. It is already happening if you haven’t noticed.
Quoting:Dino: 1. Wasted time and effortAre you for real??? Please be serious. Defending software freedom is a worthy cause. If you happen to believe otherwise, that is your problem since many more people believe that the agreement Novell, and its likes, made with MS is very harmful.[/quote]
Quoting:2. Alienation of a perfectly good Linux distribution (Suse) and fallout on its free cousin (OpenSuse)Are you saying that Novell is right and everyone else who thinks that Novell didn’t need that agreement is wrong? I personally strongly disagree with you, Novell alienated them selves big time. I said it many times and I say it again, I used Suse for 5-6 years and it was always my favorite and was a big advocate, but after their deal, I dropped it. Period. Did FOSS lose a good distro? Sure did, but it is not worth having when it is causing trouble and damage to FOSS in general. There are enough and much better distros around. As a matter of fact, the new distros available are far superior to Suse.
Quoting:3. Possible side effects of bastardizing GPLV3 -- but that is only a hypothetical harm. We'll have to see how it plays out.No bastardizing at all, just clean and mean reinforcement of the GPL terms. This is necessary and will be needed periodically to maintain the spirit and values of what the GPL was created for in the first place and which come companies are trying to deviate from for their own selfish reasons.
Quoting:4. Added credibility to Microsoft's position by making it seem as if their patent protection offer has real meaning.
Be careful Dino, I think the lawyer in you is surfacing again. Just say no to it. Nothing gave credibility to MS IP claims more than Novell. Although Novell keeps refuting it, but many businesses started to believe otherwise since Novell signed the agreement.
Quoting:Bigg: That seems pretty serious to me. I want companies with the resources of Novell to be on our side. They've contributed a lot to FOSSI agree it is a loss, but totally disagree on its seriousness. Nothing serious about it since Linux/FOSS continues to flourish rapidly and consistently. There is nothing that Suse has to offer that is not already equally or better offered by many other distros. That is one of the major strengths of FOSS, if one is gone, many others come alive stronger and better.
My point is, you don't sacrifice the whole for one part. It just doesn't make sense.
Abe -
Sigh. So many words.
>Defending software freedom is a worthy cause.
I agree completely. The question is whether a lot bleating and rancor defends software freedom or merely makes noise. The bad guy in the Microsoft-Novell deal is Microsoft. I am amazed that so much venom has been poured on Novell. Did Novell make a mistake? Maybe, maybe not. They had a dying business of which Linux was only one part. They had a deal in the works worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Microsoft tossed in a monkey wrench and Novell had to decide if it was a deal-breaker or not.
So...they did something bad. Does that make them bad? When somebody in your family screws up, do you hound them out of the family or encourage them back to the straight and narrow?
>No bastardizing at all, just clean and mean reinforcement of the GPL terms.
I'm sorry, but I get suspicious of a license that requires a grandfather clause. Although, I must admit that the grandfather clause indicates that the FSF may be willing to let Novell back into the fold before some so-called friends of FOSS.
>When MS dictates through their agreement with Novell, Xandros, and Dell (so far) to get laid and paid for every Linux/FOSS copy those outfits offer to customers, without being able to copy and distribute
Oh come on. You could at least make some tiny attempt to acknowledge the facts. Nobody's right to copy and distribute has been taken away by the Microsoft agreements. If any rights to distribute are taken away, it will be by GPLV3.
Sigh. So many words.
>Defending software freedom is a worthy cause.
I agree completely. The question is whether a lot bleating and rancor defends software freedom or merely makes noise. The bad guy in the Microsoft-Novell deal is Microsoft. I am amazed that so much venom has been poured on Novell. Did Novell make a mistake? Maybe, maybe not. They had a dying business of which Linux was only one part. They had a deal in the works worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Microsoft tossed in a monkey wrench and Novell had to decide if it was a deal-breaker or not.
So...they did something bad. Does that make them bad? When somebody in your family screws up, do you hound them out of the family or encourage them back to the straight and narrow?
>No bastardizing at all, just clean and mean reinforcement of the GPL terms.
I'm sorry, but I get suspicious of a license that requires a grandfather clause. Although, I must admit that the grandfather clause indicates that the FSF may be willing to let Novell back into the fold before some so-called friends of FOSS.
>When MS dictates through their agreement with Novell, Xandros, and Dell (so far) to get laid and paid for every Linux/FOSS copy those outfits offer to customers, without being able to copy and distribute
Oh come on. You could at least make some tiny attempt to acknowledge the facts. Nobody's right to copy and distribute has been taken away by the Microsoft agreements. If any rights to distribute are taken away, it will be by GPLV3.
Misunderstanding?
I'm not sure that Kevin Carmony really understands GPLv3 all too well here and if not then this whole article is based on a flawed premise.
Does GPLv3 really deny them to bundle proprietary and patented codecs? I thought that it merely denies making patent deals which apply only to some of the users of covered software. I thought that was the bug that was being fixed, not blocking patented code being bundled side by side with GPLed code.
So what is he complaining about? If GPLv3 doesn't deny this bundling then I really do think that only one other thing makes sense, that Linspire wants a deal with MS.
Either that or they're afraid that the patent license they already do have with MS (for codecs) will suddenly apply to users of all GPLv3 code, not only Linspire users.
Why should Linspire be any special? If you've got the license for your distro, one which wouldn't exist without all the GPLed code in the first place, why can't we all? It's exactly about playing by the rules, same rules which apply to everyone equally, why should Linspire be above that?
Does GPLv3 really deny them to bundle proprietary and patented codecs? I thought that it merely denies making patent deals which apply only to some of the users of covered software. I thought that was the bug that was being fixed, not blocking patented code being bundled side by side with GPLed code.
So what is he complaining about? If GPLv3 doesn't deny this bundling then I really do think that only one other thing makes sense, that Linspire wants a deal with MS.
Either that or they're afraid that the patent license they already do have with MS (for codecs) will suddenly apply to users of all GPLv3 code, not only Linspire users.
Why should Linspire be any special? If you've got the license for your distro, one which wouldn't exist without all the GPLed code in the first place, why can't we all? It's exactly about playing by the rules, same rules which apply to everyone equally, why should Linspire be above that?
>Does GPLv3 really deny them to bundle proprietary and patented codecs?
Well, duh. Let's try putting on our thinking caps for a moment.
Hmmm...
Company a pays to license use of proprietary (possibly patented) software so that it can be provide to its customers.
Probably pays a per user/per copy/ per something fee, but may not.
Power to determine scope lies in the hands of the technology owner...who controls the scope of licenses it is willing to grant. Owner either wants to control the scope or get so much money that it doesn't matter. Problem with 1 is that GPL won't allow it. Problem with 2 is that economics won't allow it.
>Why should Linspire be any special?
Who said they should be? Carmony wasn't asking for special treatment. He offers an opinion on the provisions that apply to EVERYBODY.
Now, that wasn't so hard, was it?
Well, duh. Let's try putting on our thinking caps for a moment.
Hmmm...
Company a pays to license use of proprietary (possibly patented) software so that it can be provide to its customers.
Probably pays a per user/per copy/ per something fee, but may not.
Power to determine scope lies in the hands of the technology owner...who controls the scope of licenses it is willing to grant. Owner either wants to control the scope or get so much money that it doesn't matter. Problem with 1 is that GPL won't allow it. Problem with 2 is that economics won't allow it.
>Why should Linspire be any special?
Who said they should be? Carmony wasn't asking for special treatment. He offers an opinion on the provisions that apply to EVERYBODY.
Now, that wasn't so hard, was it?
OK, well, didn't you just state the obvious?
Linspire payed MS for a license to use proprietary software in Linspire and not get sued for it (obviously), but GPL extends the coverage of that license beyond Linspire's userbase. I knew that. I even said that. We're spinning in circles.
I can see the problem from his point of view, and I realize it's his opinion. I also realize that it can very well be seen as a complaint about not being able to earn a preferential status by licensing proprietary code anymore.
Well... I don't care for Linspire. I care for GNU/Linux and Free Software and for equality of everyone, hence I support GPLv3.
So if you think bringing in proprietary code is going to spread the adoption of GNU/Linux (which Linspire and friends are so confident about), do it. Just don't complain about GPL not allowing you a special status for it anymore. What you license you license for everyone, not just some.
Edit: Ok I see that such deals are made unattractive with GPLv3. Hmm well.. you know what? I don't care. I don't believe this is what pushes adoption. Most of the codecs and stuff can be bundled even without a license from Microsoft.
Hmm, this whole thing is becoming quite boring.
Linspire payed MS for a license to use proprietary software in Linspire and not get sued for it (obviously), but GPL extends the coverage of that license beyond Linspire's userbase. I knew that. I even said that. We're spinning in circles.
I can see the problem from his point of view, and I realize it's his opinion. I also realize that it can very well be seen as a complaint about not being able to earn a preferential status by licensing proprietary code anymore.
Well... I don't care for Linspire. I care for GNU/Linux and Free Software and for equality of everyone, hence I support GPLv3.
So if you think bringing in proprietary code is going to spread the adoption of GNU/Linux (which Linspire and friends are so confident about), do it. Just don't complain about GPL not allowing you a special status for it anymore. What you license you license for everyone, not just some.
Edit: Ok I see that such deals are made unattractive with GPLv3. Hmm well.. you know what? I don't care. I don't believe this is what pushes adoption. Most of the codecs and stuff can be bundled even without a license from Microsoft.
Hmm, this whole thing is becoming quite boring.
>Just don't complain about GPL not allowing you a special status for it anymore
You are really hung up on this special status thing, aren't you? Never mind that there is nothing there.
You are really hung up on this special status thing, aren't you? Never mind that there is nothing there.
I wouldn't say that there is *nothing* there. Maybe less than I initially thought, but if there is really *nothing* there then I guess Carmony and Linspire don't care about having a business leverage in the market, which by being the only ones with legally licensed codecs is what they have, to a point, or at least think they have.
And now that such licensing deals are targeted... well.. I guess Carmony doesn't care. I mean.. that's why he wrote this article about "unforeseen consequences" he foresaw. I guess that has nothing to do with his business more than anybodies else business.
In any case, I've no problem with what he wrote. What I was originally pointing to was simply a possibility that he didn't understand a license properly, thinking that it forbids bundling GPLed and non-free code together. I guess I have my answer though, it doesn't forbid this, but creates a situation in which some businesses have a disincentive towards doing deals which legally allow them to bundle this code, something which is mostly a problem for the US people.
Here a GNU/Linux distro can be easily distributed with only Free Software which can play anything from DVDs to Windows Media files legally (libdvdcss and ffmpeg via vlc).
And now that such licensing deals are targeted... well.. I guess Carmony doesn't care. I mean.. that's why he wrote this article about "unforeseen consequences" he foresaw. I guess that has nothing to do with his business more than anybodies else business.
In any case, I've no problem with what he wrote. What I was originally pointing to was simply a possibility that he didn't understand a license properly, thinking that it forbids bundling GPLed and non-free code together. I guess I have my answer though, it doesn't forbid this, but creates a situation in which some businesses have a disincentive towards doing deals which legally allow them to bundle this code, something which is mostly a problem for the US people.
Here a GNU/Linux distro can be easily distributed with only Free Software which can play anything from DVDs to Windows Media files legally (libdvdcss and ffmpeg via vlc).
> which by being the only ones with legally licensed codecs is what they have, to a point, or at least think they have.
That statement would impress me a whole lot more if Carmony and company were the only ones who could have legally licensed codecs. Your phrasing, however, is correct: they are the only ones who bothered to put forth the effort and spend the dough.
That statement would impress me a whole lot more if Carmony and company were the only ones who could have legally licensed codecs. Your phrasing, however, is correct: they are the only ones who bothered to put forth the effort and spend the dough.
> ...but GPL extends the coverage of that license beyond Linspire's userbase.
Does it? Only if the provisions of the GPLv3 are triggered. I don't believe the provisions governing whether the GPL applies have changed significantly. If they have not, mere aggregation does not trigger the GPL. Nor does using the publicly available interfaces for interfacing with various programs. So Linspire should be able to include a proprietary DVD player, or include codecs which use publicly available interfaces, without triggering the GPL.
Does it? Only if the provisions of the GPLv3 are triggered. I don't believe the provisions governing whether the GPL applies have changed significantly. If they have not, mere aggregation does not trigger the GPL. Nor does using the publicly available interfaces for interfacing with various programs. So Linspire should be able to include a proprietary DVD player, or include codecs which use publicly available interfaces, without triggering the GPL.
>I don't believe the provisions governing whether the GPL applies have changed significantly. If they have not, mere aggregation does not trigger the GPL.
I've never been real clear on that -- and I wonder if the FSF would share your view. The DVD player, I think, is a non-problem. It is clearly a distinct piece of software that stands in its own right. It + GPL'd software = aggregation. Codecs seem trickier to me. Codec + GPL'd player = what, exactly?
I've never been real clear on that -- and I wonder if the FSF would share your view. The DVD player, I think, is a non-problem. It is clearly a distinct piece of software that stands in its own right. It + GPL'd software = aggregation. Codecs seem trickier to me. Codec + GPL'd player = what, exactly?
> Codecs seem trickier...
Well, that's because they are. :)
The key, at least in the kernel, has always been publicly exposed interfaces. Interfaces which are exposed to the public are intended for other programs to use, even proprietary ones. So, if a program (say, Xine) has a public interface which allows you to plug in a codec, a proprietary codec should be able to use it without penalty. The kernel now restricts some interfaces to GPL'ed only code. I'd think any program which wished to exclude proprietary software would have to do the same type of thing.
Note: That's also one of the central points of the recent Microsoft/MVP fiasco, so it's not a GPL only thing.
Well, that's because they are. :)
The key, at least in the kernel, has always been publicly exposed interfaces. Interfaces which are exposed to the public are intended for other programs to use, even proprietary ones. So, if a program (say, Xine) has a public interface which allows you to plug in a codec, a proprietary codec should be able to use it without penalty. The kernel now restricts some interfaces to GPL'ed only code. I'd think any program which wished to exclude proprietary software would have to do the same type of thing.
Note: That's also one of the central points of the recent Microsoft/MVP fiasco, so it's not a GPL only thing.
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
dinotrac: Asked and answered in a previous thread.
Linspire acts as a moth attracted to money. I said before that they would be the next one to deal, and while many disagree, my opinion hasn't changed.