- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Can We Avoid the Great Schism?
|
|
|
Comments (105)
85 earlier comments in the full thread.
Quoting:there is no way to know what a licensor's intent is with using *any* license without them explicitly spelling it out.
I appreciate your point, and I understand that companies wouldn't know any better since most business don't have morals. But you know what, there is such a thing called business ethics. Novell being a FOSS participant and all, the least they could have done is to consult with the community before they entered into such an agreement with Microsoft. Novell knows better than most where Microsoft stands with respect to FOSS. Every company looks into the risks and their consequences before they enter into any agreement. Novell either they didn't care about FOSS or considered the consequences were not going to be as sever as they have been.
Quoting:Just how do you know every developer's intent in using the GPL (v2 or v3)? Did you ask all of them?Simple, those developers who adopted the GPL I am sure they, at least, read it and if they had questions, they asked and consulted with some one else. Those who agreed to its terms went ahead adopting it, and those who didn't just trashed it and went with some other like BSD or whatever.
As a matter of fact, not all developers agreed to GPL3 yet. Some rejected it flat out, like Linus for the Kernel. Many others still debating the issue and haven't decided yet.
Quoting:So, if you don't like what you bought from Tivo, return it or hack it.Consumers sure have the choice, and it becomes a weighing issue for them.
Some could try hacking but most don't have this choice since they are not capable hackers.
Some grudgingly keep it and wish it wasn't so.
Quoting:Enough people return their Tivos when they discover the hardware was keyed against customer compiled software, Tivo would stop doing that.
Unfortunately not everyone is enlightened and strong willed like you Bob. That is where the GPL comes in to protect the choice and freedom of the end users.
Why put the burden on the consumer when it is easier and more practical to burden the seller.
The seller still retains the choice of developing its own or use other proprietary software if the GPLed software doesn't fit the bill. Isn't that what the GPL is all about, protecting the users?
Abe, to put a point on how popular the GPLv3 actually is ... less than 1% of available open source projects have adopted it. I'm not saying that the number indicates a true bias against, it is in my mind a bit telling though.
re: hacking the Tivo vs source code modification. One needs only to look at the xbox or any other in a long history of console hacks by people with little to no actual skill. The modifying source code in hardware is a poor excuse at best, and the lazy mans reason for inclusion into the GPL at all. As pointed out before, Linus started out with a heck of alot less when he did the first kernel.
re: hacking the Tivo vs source code modification. One needs only to look at the xbox or any other in a long history of console hacks by people with little to no actual skill. The modifying source code in hardware is a poor excuse at best, and the lazy mans reason for inclusion into the GPL at all. As pointed out before, Linus started out with a heck of alot less when he did the first kernel.
> This agreement
Goodness Abe, you still don't like facts very much, do you?
Comparing the EU agreement to anything a compan like Novell could do is like calling butterflies cantaloupes.
The EU has the power of government behind it. Much more comparable to the consent decree between the Department of Justice and Microsoft than to the Novell deal.
If you wish to say that the EU deal shows what a bunch of spineless idiot toads were running Justice after the Bush administration took office, I'd be with you.
Goodness Abe, you still don't like facts very much, do you?
Comparing the EU agreement to anything a compan like Novell could do is like calling butterflies cantaloupes.
The EU has the power of government behind it. Much more comparable to the consent decree between the Department of Justice and Microsoft than to the Novell deal.
If you wish to say that the EU deal shows what a bunch of spineless idiot toads were running Justice after the Bush administration took office, I'd be with you.
> Unfortunately not everyone is enlightened and strong willed like you Bob.
Then what are they doing modifying and recompiling their Tivo code?
You assume technical competence, then reject technical competence. Really, please, pick one.
I am _not_ asserting technical competence in consumers, because not all consumers have, or don't have, technical competence.
Someone who wants an appliance isn't going to care if it's GPL'd code or not.
Someone who cares about getting their hands on the source is, by definition, not interested in an appliance.
Tivo built an _appliance_ with GPL code. They abided the license terms of the GPL. I applaud them for having done so, but I would not buy their product because it's not what I want.
Which brings me right back to my initial point: The motivations for the GPL.3 have nothing to do with software.
Ego; trying to save the world; desperation to avoid irrelevance. These I see as far, far more the motivation behind the supposed "tivo" and "patent" portions of the GPLv3.
Declaring that the consumer needs to be saved from themselves is absurd. Let them know, yes, but let them choose for themselves.
...of course, that's just anarchy. Can't have that.
Then what are they doing modifying and recompiling their Tivo code?
You assume technical competence, then reject technical competence. Really, please, pick one.
I am _not_ asserting technical competence in consumers, because not all consumers have, or don't have, technical competence.
Someone who wants an appliance isn't going to care if it's GPL'd code or not.
Someone who cares about getting their hands on the source is, by definition, not interested in an appliance.
Tivo built an _appliance_ with GPL code. They abided the license terms of the GPL. I applaud them for having done so, but I would not buy their product because it's not what I want.
Which brings me right back to my initial point: The motivations for the GPL.3 have nothing to do with software.
Ego; trying to save the world; desperation to avoid irrelevance. These I see as far, far more the motivation behind the supposed "tivo" and "patent" portions of the GPLv3.
Declaring that the consumer needs to be saved from themselves is absurd. Let them know, yes, but let them choose for themselves.
...of course, that's just anarchy. Can't have that.
>Novell being a FOSS participant and all, the least they could have done is to consult with the community
And, how, exactly, do you know that they didn't?
It isn't reasonable to consult every freakin' member because there are millions of us. Perhaps they chose the members whose advice they value.
Perhaps they didn't bother.
So what?
They didn't handle the community part very well. I believe that even the Novell execs have admitted to that.
They didn't bomb an occupied city, fly airplanes into office towers, or start an influenza epidemic. On the scale of sins, methinks they should be forgivable. After all, nobody seems to think much of big business around here.
And, how, exactly, do you know that they didn't?
It isn't reasonable to consult every freakin' member because there are millions of us. Perhaps they chose the members whose advice they value.
Perhaps they didn't bother.
So what?
They didn't handle the community part very well. I believe that even the Novell execs have admitted to that.
They didn't bomb an occupied city, fly airplanes into office towers, or start an influenza epidemic. On the scale of sins, methinks they should be forgivable. After all, nobody seems to think much of big business around here.
Quoting:Goodness Abe, you still don't like facts very much, do you?What facts Dino, the millions of Dollars that Novell sold the community for?
Quoting:Comparing the EU agreement to anything a compan like Novell could do is like calling butterflies cantaloupes.OK I give that, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was referring to Novell not waiting for the final decision by the EU courts on the antitrust case against MS. Instead, Novell, among other companies like Sun & IBM, settled out of court for the money. Not only that, Novell turned around and signed the deal with MS in the name of interoperability, which was the main reason for the EU case.
Quoting:Tivo built an _appliance_ with GPL code. They abided the license terms of the GPL. I applaud them for having done so, but I would not buy their product because it's not what I want.
Bob, You are not looking far enough, are you?
How do you like it if Dell, Red Hat, Novell, Kubuntu, etc... use the same technique like Tivo did for their distributions? Not a pleasant thought is it?
Kill your TV!
>I was referring to Novell not waiting for the final decision by the EU courts on the antitrust case against MS.
Why on earth would they do that?
Seriously, how does an EU antitrust case affect a cross-licensing (in case you've fogotten, Novell licensed their technology to Microsoft) deal that might help Novell the way that Apple's deal with Microsoft helped them?
Makes no sense at all. Remember -- at least from the standpoint of Novell -- the "patent protection" part of the deal was a last minute request by Microsoft, added in after most of the deal was in place.
Why on earth would they do that?
Seriously, how does an EU antitrust case affect a cross-licensing (in case you've fogotten, Novell licensed their technology to Microsoft) deal that might help Novell the way that Apple's deal with Microsoft helped them?
Makes no sense at all. Remember -- at least from the standpoint of Novell -- the "patent protection" part of the deal was a last minute request by Microsoft, added in after most of the deal was in place.
Darnit, I planned to catch up with this thread, but it gets longer everyday and I'm still stuck at post nr. 10 or so. Eight days of consecutive postings, there must be an interesting discussion over here. Can't you people insert a time-out in this thread so I can discuss along, instead of discussing faster than I can read? ;)
Hans -
Less night life, more nose to the monitor.
Less night life, more nose to the monitor.
Boy, I don't pay attention for just a few days . . .
@Abe: Quote:
"Call it whatever you want, but the fact of the matter is . . ."
Careful, Abe. Actually I called it exactly what YOU called it. But this brings up an interesting subject. Let's examine for a moment what we've picked up from your position during this discussion:
--- "GPL grants privileges with restrictions, it always did from day one. It is more exact to call it Privilege Software . . ." and then "GPLed software is free, as in Freedom . . ."
You rationalize this grotesque contradiction by adding: "for end users to use anyway they want. When it comes to modifying and distributing, you are restricted by the definitions of the freedoms it grants." Cute distinction, it's just a completely irrational argument.
Distributors and developers are users. Your ever-so-moral restriction of their purposes has hindered the uptake and use of "free" code developed for end users. You can't restrict a developer without restricting end users, ultimately they're inseparable. If the code wasn't intended to be used, it would never have been developed. Likewise, if the code can't be developed, it will never be used. Of course, if your true purpose is control, and not freedom, then not permitting the development of code you don't like - based on supposedly "free" code you legally control - ensures it can never be used by anyone who can't do such development for themselves. Works out pretty well for your moral position anyway - screw the "users", eh?
What's that? We (the non-programmers) could hire someone to program the restricted application we want for ourselves? Well, congratulations, you've just created a second-class citizenry of your ever so precious "users." Talk about a recipe for abuse, you guys have Microsoft beat hands down.
Here's the really funny part. You later went on to ask: "How do you like it if Dell, Red Hat, Novell, Kubuntu, etc... use the same technique like Tivo did for their distributions? Not a pleasant thought is it?" And yet you're so devoted to your blind faith in RMS and co that you can't see that THE GPLv3 HAS ALREADY DONE EXACTLY THIS with their controversial clauses. Nobody gets to distribute code the FSF and associated developers don't like, because they've restricted it's use legally. Mind you, they didn't produce technically limited "free" code, they simply limited it's use by license - in the same manner as proprietary software. Like I said, Microsoft's got nothing on the FSF.
Is it free Abe, or isn't it?
--- "There are many questions about why Linux was included in the contract without any valid answers." and ". . . I understand that companies wouldn't know any better since most business don't have morals. But you know what, there is such a thing called business ethics." and "Why put the burden on the consumer when it is easier and more practical to burden the seller." and "the millions of Dollars that Novell sold the community for?"
I particularly like that last one - sell the community??? It's hard to remember a less rational comment in recent posts. Well, if nothing else, we have a very clear picture of your opinion of most businesses. At least that makes it easier to understand your fuzzy presentations on so many things, and stubborn refusal to think about the implications of your position.
If you look around a bit, you'll discover discussions of "scarcity mentality" versus a mentality of abundance. It's an interesting distinction on worldviews. I'd submit that you've made your view very clear here, with your repeated theme of "somebody out there" trying to screw "us" out of "something" that's in apparently limited supply. Your "freedom" can't be bought, sold, or controlled by a license agreement. Fortunately, neither can mine. That's Microsoft's biggest problem, and ultimately, it's why I believe the GPLv3 (and it's descendants) are doomed to obscurity.
--- "Unfortunately not everyone is enlightened and strong willed like you Bob. That is where the GPL comes in to protect the choice and freedom of the end users."
Says Mr. Gates, er, I mean RMS and the FSF. Bob_Robertson's already covered it pretty well, God forbid that the consumer (read: USER) should be able to make up their own minds. You'd simply trade one master for another. Instead of us second class users being force fed "Bill knows whats best for you", now we're stuck with "Trust in the FSF to secure (and define) your 'freedom' for you." Pure hypocrisy.
These are not my circles we keep traveling Abe, you're steering. I'm just pointing out the sights along the way.
Heard something on the radio that seems to be quite appropriate for this thread's direction, Aerosmith will forgive me for the application, I'm sure:
"I'll tell you little secret make you want to jump and shout when you talk to me in circles take your foot out of your mouth"
Further along:
"say the times they be a-changin' though the blind lead the blind you know your head is empty though there's somethin' on your mind"
Please forgive my impudence. I'm not trying to make accusations, simply requesting a little reason, and independent thought. Individual freedoms require individual responsibility. When you willingly abdicate either that freedom or responsibility to others, you get Microsoft - or the new FSF.
--- One last quote from Abe: "Granting privileges to the few who restrict the freedoms of many, decreases freedom. OTOH, taking away those privileges will increase the overall freedom. Makes more sense, doesn't it?"
No, it makes no sense at all. See the 1st Aersomith quote above :) No code has ever restricted my freedom, free or proprietary. They don't have that power, and I'll not give it to them. Bad licenses do however, restrict free code - and thus the "freedom" of all users. As we've already covered, that's Microsoft's biggest problem, and now the FSF's.
I think I'm gonna get off for a while now. This ride's making me dizzy, and I get nauseated easily. :)
@Abe: Quote:
"Call it whatever you want, but the fact of the matter is . . ."
Careful, Abe. Actually I called it exactly what YOU called it. But this brings up an interesting subject. Let's examine for a moment what we've picked up from your position during this discussion:
--- "GPL grants privileges with restrictions, it always did from day one. It is more exact to call it Privilege Software . . ." and then "GPLed software is free, as in Freedom . . ."
You rationalize this grotesque contradiction by adding: "for end users to use anyway they want. When it comes to modifying and distributing, you are restricted by the definitions of the freedoms it grants." Cute distinction, it's just a completely irrational argument.
Distributors and developers are users. Your ever-so-moral restriction of their purposes has hindered the uptake and use of "free" code developed for end users. You can't restrict a developer without restricting end users, ultimately they're inseparable. If the code wasn't intended to be used, it would never have been developed. Likewise, if the code can't be developed, it will never be used. Of course, if your true purpose is control, and not freedom, then not permitting the development of code you don't like - based on supposedly "free" code you legally control - ensures it can never be used by anyone who can't do such development for themselves. Works out pretty well for your moral position anyway - screw the "users", eh?
What's that? We (the non-programmers) could hire someone to program the restricted application we want for ourselves? Well, congratulations, you've just created a second-class citizenry of your ever so precious "users." Talk about a recipe for abuse, you guys have Microsoft beat hands down.
Here's the really funny part. You later went on to ask: "How do you like it if Dell, Red Hat, Novell, Kubuntu, etc... use the same technique like Tivo did for their distributions? Not a pleasant thought is it?" And yet you're so devoted to your blind faith in RMS and co that you can't see that THE GPLv3 HAS ALREADY DONE EXACTLY THIS with their controversial clauses. Nobody gets to distribute code the FSF and associated developers don't like, because they've restricted it's use legally. Mind you, they didn't produce technically limited "free" code, they simply limited it's use by license - in the same manner as proprietary software. Like I said, Microsoft's got nothing on the FSF.
Is it free Abe, or isn't it?
--- "There are many questions about why Linux was included in the contract without any valid answers." and ". . . I understand that companies wouldn't know any better since most business don't have morals. But you know what, there is such a thing called business ethics." and "Why put the burden on the consumer when it is easier and more practical to burden the seller." and "the millions of Dollars that Novell sold the community for?"
I particularly like that last one - sell the community??? It's hard to remember a less rational comment in recent posts. Well, if nothing else, we have a very clear picture of your opinion of most businesses. At least that makes it easier to understand your fuzzy presentations on so many things, and stubborn refusal to think about the implications of your position.
If you look around a bit, you'll discover discussions of "scarcity mentality" versus a mentality of abundance. It's an interesting distinction on worldviews. I'd submit that you've made your view very clear here, with your repeated theme of "somebody out there" trying to screw "us" out of "something" that's in apparently limited supply. Your "freedom" can't be bought, sold, or controlled by a license agreement. Fortunately, neither can mine. That's Microsoft's biggest problem, and ultimately, it's why I believe the GPLv3 (and it's descendants) are doomed to obscurity.
--- "Unfortunately not everyone is enlightened and strong willed like you Bob. That is where the GPL comes in to protect the choice and freedom of the end users."
Says Mr. Gates, er, I mean RMS and the FSF. Bob_Robertson's already covered it pretty well, God forbid that the consumer (read: USER) should be able to make up their own minds. You'd simply trade one master for another. Instead of us second class users being force fed "Bill knows whats best for you", now we're stuck with "Trust in the FSF to secure (and define) your 'freedom' for you." Pure hypocrisy.
These are not my circles we keep traveling Abe, you're steering. I'm just pointing out the sights along the way.
Heard something on the radio that seems to be quite appropriate for this thread's direction, Aerosmith will forgive me for the application, I'm sure:
"I'll tell you little secret make you want to jump and shout when you talk to me in circles take your foot out of your mouth"
Further along:
"say the times they be a-changin' though the blind lead the blind you know your head is empty though there's somethin' on your mind"
Please forgive my impudence. I'm not trying to make accusations, simply requesting a little reason, and independent thought. Individual freedoms require individual responsibility. When you willingly abdicate either that freedom or responsibility to others, you get Microsoft - or the new FSF.
--- One last quote from Abe: "Granting privileges to the few who restrict the freedoms of many, decreases freedom. OTOH, taking away those privileges will increase the overall freedom. Makes more sense, doesn't it?"
No, it makes no sense at all. See the 1st Aersomith quote above :) No code has ever restricted my freedom, free or proprietary. They don't have that power, and I'll not give it to them. Bad licenses do however, restrict free code - and thus the "freedom" of all users. As we've already covered, that's Microsoft's biggest problem, and now the FSF's.
I think I'm gonna get off for a while now. This ride's making me dizzy, and I get nauseated easily. :)
Discussions like this always amuse me.
On the one hand you have the self-professed community speaking as if they are the defacto owners of free and open source software. (If I stick my chest out and bluster enough, then everyone will recognize me as the authority.)
On the other hand you have people speaking as if the FSF is the defacto owner of free and open source source software.
The positions are staked and arguments ensue about who can restrict what and who can free what.
The facts are:
- The developer of the code owns the code.
- The developer is free to sell or give away ownership or license as (s)he wishes.
- The user is free to use the code if (s)he abides by the rules and license specified by the owner.
You can argue all you want about the blessings/curses of GPL2/GPL3/EULA/etc., but ultimately it's not up to you. It's the owner's decision.
If you really want to take substantive action, you may (a) develop your own code and decide how others may use it, or (b) purchase code development or developed code from someone else and decide how others may use it. In these instances you become the owner.
Novell's "deal" does not and cannot affect code that they don't own. For code they do own, they may license it to Microsoft (or anyone else) as they see fit.
Don't like it? Don't use it.
On the one hand you have the self-professed community speaking as if they are the defacto owners of free and open source software. (If I stick my chest out and bluster enough, then everyone will recognize me as the authority.)
On the other hand you have people speaking as if the FSF is the defacto owner of free and open source source software.
The positions are staked and arguments ensue about who can restrict what and who can free what.
The facts are:
- The developer of the code owns the code.
- The developer is free to sell or give away ownership or license as (s)he wishes.
- The user is free to use the code if (s)he abides by the rules and license specified by the owner.
You can argue all you want about the blessings/curses of GPL2/GPL3/EULA/etc., but ultimately it's not up to you. It's the owner's decision.
If you really want to take substantive action, you may (a) develop your own code and decide how others may use it, or (b) purchase code development or developed code from someone else and decide how others may use it. In these instances you become the owner.
Novell's "deal" does not and cannot affect code that they don't own. For code they do own, they may license it to Microsoft (or anyone else) as they see fit.
Don't like it? Don't use it.
NoDough -
Yup.
Yup.
@Dumper4311,
Developers and Distributors are more than users, they are super set of users.
@NoDough,
Pretty good summary of what I have been saying.
I hope you are not saying that I claim to be an authority of the subject because I am not. All what I am saying is how I understand the GPL.
I never wrote a sliver of Open Source code, I am just an End User among many, of GPLed software as tools.
Quoting:Distributors and developers are users.They are users but not "End Users". You need to understand the distinction. That might be your main misunderstanding here.
Developers and Distributors are more than users, they are super set of users.
Quoting:I think I'm gonna get off for a while now. This ride's making me dizzy, and I get nauseated easily. :)Good idea, I believe your jumbled posts are the cause.
@NoDough,
Pretty good summary of what I have been saying.
I hope you are not saying that I claim to be an authority of the subject because I am not. All what I am saying is how I understand the GPL.
I never wrote a sliver of Open Source code, I am just an End User among many, of GPLed software as tools.
Quoting:I hope you are not saying that I claim to be an authority of the subject because I am not.No. I was referring to this type of discussion in general, which seems to occur in every FOSS related forum imaginable.
> Bob, You are not looking far enough, are you?
Just because I look in another direction does not mean I do not see far.
Liberty works. Voluntary cooperation is the most efficient form of human interaction. With the 'Net, the "barrier to entry" dropped to near nothing, and with it we have many thousands of excellent quality software and hardware projects going on all at once. The "Linux" BIOS, OpenSPARC &etc promise a fully unencumbered small computer. Maybe tomorrow, maybe the next day.
No longer do we _have_ to wait for an Intel or an Apple to make innovation before it can reach many people.
The GPL.2 is an excellent license for collaboration, because it says _only_ that if you redistribute you have to give back exactly what you got. That's all. It reduces the "barrier to entry" to something close to completely free without the stigma of "taking without giving back" that BSD allows.
Microsoft loves the BSD license, and hates the GPL.2. I consider that a rousing vote of confidence.
> How do you like it if Dell, Red Hat, Novell, Kubuntu, etc... use the same technique like Tivo did for their distributions? Not a pleasant thought is it?
Then I would not use Dell, RedHat, Novell, Kubuntu, etc. They would not get my money, they would get derision and their competition would get accolades wherever possible.
But oh well. I just keep pointing out the same thing over and over. You disagree, fine. In an environment of choice, making one's own choice doesn't impede anyone else making their own choice too.
Just because I look in another direction does not mean I do not see far.
Liberty works. Voluntary cooperation is the most efficient form of human interaction. With the 'Net, the "barrier to entry" dropped to near nothing, and with it we have many thousands of excellent quality software and hardware projects going on all at once. The "Linux" BIOS, OpenSPARC &etc promise a fully unencumbered small computer. Maybe tomorrow, maybe the next day.
No longer do we _have_ to wait for an Intel or an Apple to make innovation before it can reach many people.
The GPL.2 is an excellent license for collaboration, because it says _only_ that if you redistribute you have to give back exactly what you got. That's all. It reduces the "barrier to entry" to something close to completely free without the stigma of "taking without giving back" that BSD allows.
Microsoft loves the BSD license, and hates the GPL.2. I consider that a rousing vote of confidence.
> How do you like it if Dell, Red Hat, Novell, Kubuntu, etc... use the same technique like Tivo did for their distributions? Not a pleasant thought is it?
Then I would not use Dell, RedHat, Novell, Kubuntu, etc. They would not get my money, they would get derision and their competition would get accolades wherever possible.
But oh well. I just keep pointing out the same thing over and over. You disagree, fine. In an environment of choice, making one's own choice doesn't impede anyone else making their own choice too.
Quoting:In an environment of choice, making one's own choice doesn't impede anyone else making their own choice too.Well said Bob, and that is why I believe GPL2 & 3 furnish choice to both developers and users.
It is taking longer and longer to get to the end of this thread, did it break the longest thread record yet?
It is time to stop monitoring this thread for me.
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
MS wouldn't sign the agreement without including patents that covers Linux that would allow them to collect royalty for their unnamed so claimed patents in GPL code.
One wonders what the millions of dollars paid by Microsoft to Novell were for.
If they were for Novell's patents, why wasn't that done before Novell became a Linux company? Why there are still other old disputes between the two companies? Why were these patents so conveniently kept unnamed?
What was the purpose for all the purchased SLED licenses by MS where their users were still have to purchase support from Novell? Why did Novell agree to pay part of their Linux license proceeds to Microsoft?
There are many questions about why Linux was included in the contract without any valid answers.
We went through this discuss before Dino. We didn't reach to an agreement. It is probably best to leaving it expire and discuss the new agreement the EU made with MS. This agreement proved that it is possible to bring Microsoft to agree for better interoperability and on terms favorable to everyone in the FOSS community and not only for a single company.