That will be interesting indeed...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Nov 28, 2006 7:59 PM EDT |
So...any kind of patent licensing, eh? Let me see... Let's look again at that Novell-Microsoft agreement... Microsoft agrees to sue. Novell disclaims any infringement. No infringement, no use of patented technology. No use of patented technology, no license. Does that mean the Novell-Microsoft agreement is OK under GPLV3? And...Wait a minute!! All this noise over Novell-Microsoft... What about Red Hat's Open Source Assurance Program... Anything that forbade the Novell Agreement would have to forbid OSAP as well, because, it promises to: It does this by either (i) replacing the infringing portion of the software, (ii) modifying the software so that it becomes non-infringing or (iii) obtaining the rights necessary for a customer to continue its use of the software. That number iii there sounds a whole lot like the Microsoft/Novell agreement. Maybe RMS just hates to see all that free software succeeding so grandly. |
| henke54 Dec 01, 2006 11:46 PM EDT |
Quoting:However, in his speech Stallman also reiterated FSF's determination to close the loophole that Novell-Microsoft lawyers "cunningly" - his word - used to skirt Section 7 in the ongoing GPL rewrite known as GPL version 3.http://opensource.sys-con.com/read/308147.htm |
| dinotrac Dec 02, 2006 12:43 AM EDT |
And so....We go back to the actual point... Why all this noise about Novell, and not Red Hat, which seems to be doing something less "cunning", but more blatant? Will GPLV3 also knock Red Hat out of the game? All distros that are Red Hat variants? Will he be able to smite Microsoft without smiting everybody else? Or, is a general roundabout smiting in order? Is breathing the word "Microsoft" sufficient to make everybody forget about inconvenient little things like principle and consistency? |
| Abe Dec 02, 2006 8:45 AM EDT |
Dino: I didn't see this post earlier, where have you been hiding it? You write as a lawyer (not necessarily good). Oh, I forgot, you are one. Quoting:Microsoft agrees to sue.You mean intends to sue, agreements take two parties, I don't think Novell agreed to that. the community is challenging MS to sue because it is the only way we can find out what MS wants to suing for. I wish there is a way we can sue MS to put up or shut up. You are a lawyer, is there a way we can? Quoting:Novell disclaims any infringement. No infringement, no use of patented technology.If Novell is convinced of that, why did they agree to the patent part of the agreement? I don't believe they are sincere in what they are saying. Quoting:No use of patented technology, no license.That is correct, if Novell knows there are no infringement, why did they sign the agreement. If it was not for protection of false infringement, again, why did they allow patents to be included? Is it only for the money? if so, it was a sell out and deserve to be chastised and out casted from the community. Quoting:Does that mean the Novell-Microsoft agreement is OK under GPLV3?That is a question not a statement, did you hear RMS or Moglen say that? I don't think so. Both are bashing the agreement and thanking MS for exposing the loophole. They are trying hard to be sure such loopholes don't appear in the GPL now and in the future. Quoting:What about Red Hat's Open Source Assurance Program...What about it! Red Hat didn't sign an agreement with the devil, the OSAP is out of necessity, they reluctantly offered that to assure their customer/users that they are ready to protect them if necessary. Novell signing the agreement is a proof of collaboration with MS on the patent issue. Red Hat did NO such thing. Quoting:That number iii there sounds a whole lot like the Microsoft/Novell agreement.I am not familiar with this term and I am not sure if this is in the OSAP. Even so, one would think so, but it does not. It also sounds like Red Hat might sign an agreement with a third party that complies with the GPL2 and/or v3. MS did offer Red Hat a similar deal as Novell, but they totally flat out rejected it. MS said OK, we go solo and will offer it to your customers any way. Why didn't Novell do the same thing on patents? They could have told MS that they are willing to sign collaboration agreement on virtualization and such but not patents, why didn't they? Kind of fishy isn't? A big difference between Novell & Red Hat, isn't it? Quoting: Maybe RMS just hates to see all that free software succeeding so grandly.C'mon Dino. Now why would he hate that? Or why would you think that? You know that is not true, don't you!?!!!!!!!!!!! |
| dinotrac Dec 02, 2006 9:28 AM EDT |
Abe: >You mean intends to sue, Actually, I meant agrees NOT to sue!!! Bigger difference still, eh? >If Novell is convinced of that, why did they agree to the patent part of the agreement? According to Novell, it was something Microsoft asked for. The new Novell mucketies are seriously guilty of a tin ear on this one, but, it probably sounded ok at the time: it gave them the ability to assure their clients that Microsoft wouldn't sue them. Nice for marketing. Besides, software patents are terrible mess thanks to PTO incompetence. Nobody can be completely sure they don't infringe somebody's patents because so many bad (as opposed to worthless) patents have been issued. >What about it! Red Hat didn't sign an agreement with the devil So? If that's the only difference, and that's what's driving RMS, it means only that his actions are unprincipled, unless you call despising Microsoft a principle. >I am not familiar with this term and I am not sure if this is in the OSAP It was a cut 'n paste from Red Hat's web site. >A big difference between Novell & Red Hat, isn't it? Not one that makes a difference with regard to RMS's most recent ramblings. Red Hat offers protection to its customers that is not offered to others -- AND that expires when the subscription is ended. Downstream distributors (and recipients) are not protected unless they choose to become Red Hat customers. >Now why would he hate that? You are asking for speculation on my part about a man I do not know. Given those limitations, a couple of possible motivations: 1. He never intended that corporations make substantial use of free software. 2. He resents the fact that free software success has given more people a stake in free software and lessened his personal importance. Both possibilities presuming that he actually does hate to see free software succeed grandly, a statement I prefaced with a Maybe. |
| jimf Dec 02, 2006 9:39 AM EDT |
> Both possibilities presuming that he actually does hate to see free software succeed grandly, a statement I prefaced with a Maybe. I'd hate to think that's the case, but even the possibility is troubling... |
| bigg Dec 02, 2006 9:48 AM EDT |
"That number iii there sounds a whole lot like the Microsoft/Novell agreement." You're right, provided they licensed something and included it with their Linux distro. Non-GPL drivers and such can be distributed separately, if it were something like that they would be okay. Actually, I think that simply licensing something in the Linux distribution itself would be worse than the Microsoft/Novell agreement because it would be illegal even regarding GPL v. 2 I think it's become abundantly clear that this whole "fiasco" is a matter of incompetent Novell leadership rather than a deal that is bad for the FOSS community. If they had just explained what they had done, it wouldn't have been news. |
| dinotrac Dec 02, 2006 10:29 AM EDT |
> I think it's become abundantly clear that this whole "fiasco" is a matter of incompetent Novell leadership rather than a deal that is bad for the FOSS community. I think that's part of it. Another part is too many true believers who don't actually believe. They'll talk all day long about the power of free software, but bring Microsoft into the picture in any way whatsoever and those beliefs go up in a puff of smoke. |
| Abe Dec 02, 2006 11:02 AM EDT |
Quoting:According to Novell, it was something Microsoft asked for.Novell and others should be very careful when MS asks for something. They always have a hidden plan and almost always for a devious intentions. We all know its history, don't we? Quoting:unless you call despising Microsoft a principleMS brought it on themselves. Every time they tried to show cooperation they turn right back on the offensive. Like it or not, MS is the enemy the same way Linux is the enemy of MS. I just hope that the community doesn't let down its guards against others. Quoting:Red Hat offers protection to its customers that is not offered to othersWell, it is business and they look after their own. I don't expect them to offer that to every FOSS user, others should share the burden in doing the same for theirs if and when necessary. I don't prefer one company over another except in their commitment to the spirit of the GPL. So far Red Hat has been respectful but Novell hasn't. Yes, it was a business decision and may be a deal to survive, but it obviously sold its soul and the community to the devil in the process. Quoting:1. He never intended that corporations make substantial use of free software.May be may be not. I believe not since the GPL grants businesses the rights to use it but not to monopolize it and become filthy rich out of it. Quoting:2. He resents the fact that free software success has given more people a stake in free software and lessened his personal importance.This I might agree with but not sure though. He knows that FOSS can't be owned and controlled by a single person. I agree he doesn't like the fact that he is becoming less influential. |
| bigg Dec 02, 2006 11:53 AM EDT |
"bring Microsoft into the picture in any way whatsoever and those beliefs go up in a puff of smoke" Which I don't understand. Free software should be about free software, and not concerning ourselves with Microsoft, Oracle, Adobe, or any proprietary company. If a deal with Microsoft gives us GPL'd code, who cares if it came from Redmond. If it gives us proprietary code, then don't use it. The FOSS community worries about Microsoft way too much. Microsoft has a collective IQ somewhere in the neighborhood of 25. Steve Ballmer is dumber than a fence post. Honestly, I'm not worried about Microsoft in the slightest. |
| Abe Dec 02, 2006 12:23 PM EDT |
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
MS has too long of a history to ignore it. Like they say, it is better safe than sorry. If you are not worried about MS, many others do and they don't feel safe and can't stand being taken advantage of by MS like it does with BSD. I guess we are not worried about MS and their likes, we are worried about what they might do to software freedom. Freedom is free, but it cost to retain it. No one is rejecting GPLed code from MS, we are being careful about what they might include into that code. Something like a Trojan Horse to sabotage the GPL itself and prevent everyone else from using FOSS unless MS collects its tax. Yah, right. They might have 25 IQ, but they score high in devious areas. |
| dinotrac Dec 02, 2006 12:38 PM EDT |
Abe - The thing that frustrates me is not that Microsoft is unfairly maligned. They're not. If any company deserves to be maligned, it is Microsoft. I trust them only to vigorously and ruthlessly pursue what they see to be in their own interest. To deal with Microsoft is to oppose them in court (where they lose a lot, by the way) or take advantage of a temporary alignment of interests, keeping a wary eye on the cobra you've climbed into bed with. What frustrates me is that the GPL is a very good license. So are most of the free software licenses. They offer enforcable protection against Micrsoft's avarice. Why do so many free software people lose their faith when it's Redmond on the other end? |
| jimf Dec 02, 2006 1:10 PM EDT |
> They might have 25 IQ, but they score high in devious areas. I'm virtually certain that with this Novell / MS deal they have accomplished their purpose of making you all run around like chickens with their heads cut off. Within their expertise, these guys are near genius. > Why do so many free software people lose their faith when it's Redmond on the other end? Unlike MS, we normally (and wisely) avoid sleeping with cobras. It's just common sense. It's also the same reason why you avoid the local drug dealer and try to put him out of business, even though he may occasionally contribute to charity. |
| dinotrac Dec 02, 2006 1:17 PM EDT |
>Unlike MS, we normally (and wisely) avoid sleeping with cobras. That's fine, but the MS-Novell deal says there is a lot more going on than that. There is lack of faith in the GPL. |
| jimf Dec 02, 2006 1:29 PM EDT |
> There is lack of faith in the GPL. No argument there. I really don't see a problem, just a lot of FUD. |
| Abe Dec 02, 2006 2:25 PM EDT |
Quoting:What frustrates me is that the GPL is a very good license.True Dino, but not perfect and does have a loop hole that MS is trying to take advantage of and confiscate FOSS. The purpose of GPL3 is to prevent that. I really still don't understand how you can't see the potential danger in Novel's agreement. You might be right that MS will not be able to do that, but why not make sure if the changes/additions to the GPL are not going to have major impact on FOSS? Or may be it is OK with you to pay the MS tax like all windows users. I myself would rather pay the tax to FOSS and maintain software freedom. May be that is what we all should do and unseat MS from its monopoly castle. I understand your frustration, but I also understand the danger and I believe it is better to be sure. Quoting:making you all run around like chickens with their heads cut off.May be so, but something is being done about it before we are dead. Quoting:I really don't see a problem, just a lot of FUD.Are you saying that RMS & Moglen are creating FUD? On the contrary, I thing they are being realistic and cautious. Again, I rather feel safe than sorry. I am not sure why you both oppose the GPL changes. I personally don't see any reason why not to. It seems that you prefer commercial software, that is fine with you but not with me, especially when I am going to be controlled by the vendor. I now you also don't want to be controlled either, so let these guys have a chance to improve on the GPL so it can stand a better chance in court when we need it to. Those developers who don't agree with the new terms, they should suit themselves. Only time will tell who made a mistake. |
| jimf Dec 02, 2006 2:34 PM EDT |
> It seems that you prefer commercial software You're really off base with that one. |
| theboomboomcars Dec 02, 2006 2:37 PM EDT |
Quoting:Why do so many free software people lose their faith when it's Redmond on the other end? Perhaps its because M$ was convicted of being a monopoly by the US government and as a "punishment" they got to expand their market share into the schools. |
| Abe Dec 02, 2006 2:45 PM EDT |
Quoting:> It seems that you prefer commercial software Sorry if I sounded offending, it was frustration talking. |
| dinotrac Dec 02, 2006 6:13 PM EDT |
Abe -
>I really still don't understand how you can't see the potential danger in Novel's agreement. I guess because nobody has explained what that danger is in a way that is : a) Not "Microsoft is the big bad wolf and they have magic powers to undo years of case law and magically license and contract terms go 'poof'" b) based on a principle that differentiates it from the simple indemnity offered by Red Hat to its customers (and only to its customers) and "a" doesn't count as a differentiating principle The biggest danger of the Novell - Microsoft agreement is that Novell may be able to put Linux in some companies that would not have bought it before. |
| swbrown Dec 03, 2006 10:33 AM EDT |
"I really still don't understand how you can't see the potential danger in Novel's agreement." Think about it this way: how could you steal a Free Software project? Let's assume a Free Software license other than the GPL. One way is to get a patent that covers the software, and only give licenses to use it to the people who get the Free Software project distributed from you. Now, you can continue to add to the Free Software project and distribute it, but anyone else doing so you can sue. You've effectively stolen that Free Software project. That's obviously worth a lot of money to folks (imagine stealing Linux, that's a few billion dollars worth of development), so there's a large incentive to attempt thefts like this. That's why the GPL tries hard to prevent this tactic by making such attempts suicidal (Liberty or Death), and that kind of protection is why programmers prefer the GPL over other Free Software licenses. It greatly reduces the amount of shenanigans by taking away the profit motive. "I guess because nobody has explained what that danger is" I do in every thread this comes up - you've surely read one of my posts by now. See above. "based on a principle that differentiates it from the simple indemnity offered by Red Hat to its customers" If I remember right, the FSF is fine with selling Free Software insurance, but indemnification is different - it creates a perception that only certain companies are able to legally release Free Software which is similar, but to a much lesser extent (since it doesn't come with a legal threat against everyone else), to patent licenses like with Novell. It's why RedHat resisted the indemnification mess for a very long time, instead doing a legal protection fund. Microsoft and SCO love indemnification, as they want to cast Free Software into a traditional business mold - if only certain companies can release Free Software that affects their market (i.e., if they've scared off businesses from taking Free Software directly from the community), Microsoft can use its traditional corporate attacks to fight Free Software. "The biggest danger of the Novell - Microsoft agreement is that Novell may be able to put Linux in some companies that would not have bought it before." You really need to clue in to this stuff. You read enough related material to be more clueful than this. |
| dinotrac Dec 03, 2006 12:41 PM EDT |
> Let's assume a Free Software license other than the GPL. One way is to get a patent that covers the software, and only give licenses to use it to the people who get the Free Software project distributed from you. None of which has anything to do with the Novell-Microsoft Brouhaha. The noise is about GPL'd software, not non-GPL'd software. The supposed offense is not that Novell got patents that it is trying to use. What's got everybody up in arms is that icrosoft agreed not to sue on the basis of any patents it holds. Facts matter, pal. >but indemnification is different - it creates a perception that only certain companies are able to legally release Free Software which is similar Which has what to do with anything? The Novell-Microsoft agreement has nothing to do with indemnification. It is an agreement by Microsoft not to sue. An indemnification agreement would have Novell offering to make somebody whole if Microsoft did sue. Red Hat's assurance program actually goes beyond anything in the Novell agreement. One of the three possibilities included in Red Hat's program is that Red Hat will secure licenses to use patents for the benefits of its customers (and only for its customers). >You really need to clue in to this stuff. If "clue in" means to go along with what the good guys are saying regardless of the facts, I'll pass. |
| rijelkentaurus Dec 03, 2006 1:10 PM EDT |
>secure licenses to use patents for the benefits of its customers (and only for its customers). If Red Hat is put in such a position, it means that the software in question has proven not to be legally released under the GPL. If I sell a car to you, but then it turns out that I had stolen the car, then you don't have the right to keep and use the car. So, if GPL software proves to actually be "stolen" from other software, then you don't have the right to use it and the GPL no longer governs its use. That's the situation where Red Hat would step in and take care of things to ensure that their clients can continue to use the software, under whatever license actually applies. Their promise to their clients really means that they'll guarantee your ability to use the software even if it proves to not legally be GPL software. |
| dinotrac Dec 03, 2006 4:43 PM EDT |
>f Red Hat is put in such a position, it means that the software in question has proven not to be legally released under the GPL. Which would be true for any arrangement that might deal with patents affecting GPL'd software. So? |
| rijelkentaurus Dec 03, 2006 6:53 PM EDT |
>Which would be true for any arrangement that might deal with patents affecting GPL'd software. So? It means that Red Hat is not doing anything wrong nor anything that will be prohibited under the GPL3. Wasn't that the entire point of this thread? This is Red Hat protecting its customers against the possibility that the software proves not to be validly licensed under the GPL or whatever license they've released it under. If it turns out to not be licensed properly under the GPL, the GPL can't apply. This is Red Hat's promise to their clients should a problem arise, not an agreement with a third party to offer blanket protection to ward off problems. |
| dinotrac Dec 03, 2006 9:25 PM EDT |
>It means that Red Hat is not doing anything wrong nor anything that will be prohibited under the GPL3. If it means that, it also means that Novell is doing nothing wrong and the whole brouhaha about patent protection is just a bunch of silly wheezing. Why? Because any software that infringes a patent cannot be properly GPL'd! The Novell-Microsoft agreement can ONLY have meaning with regard to software that cannot be GPL'd. So....what? >This is Red Hat's promise to their clients should a problem arise, not an agreement with a third party to offer blanket protection to ward off problems. So what? Have you actually tried following the things that people are saying? None -- NONE -- of RMS's expressed concerns is contingent on dealing with a third party. What he has described is offering patent protection that is not available to downstream distributors. That is precisely what Red Hat is doing. |
| rijelkentaurus Dec 04, 2006 2:59 AM EDT |
>What he has described is offering patent protection that is not available to downstream distributors. Actually, points 1 and 2 in Red Hat's agreement would cover everyone, for the spirit of the agreement is that GPL (or whatever) code would be "cleansed" of impurities and remain under its original license. Number 3 is a last resort and would only apply if 1 and 2 are impossible. Red Hat's in the clear, I think. >So what? Have you actually tried following the things that people are saying? I'm not sure if I should read that as condescending or not, but it's certainly coming across that way. I hope I am wrong. |
| dinotrac Dec 04, 2006 3:40 AM EDT |
> Number 3 is a last resort and would only apply if 1 and 2 are impossible. Red Hat's in the clear, I think. Why do you think that? I haven't heard anybody making allowances for last resorts. Besides, that's still impossible to reconcile with RMS's statements. > I'm not sure if I should read that as condescending or not Read it however you want, but it doesn't sound like you've been keeping up with RMS's statements regarding the changes he would make to the GPLV3 as a result of the Novell deal. His statements sound like they would eliminate the Red Hat plan as well as the Novell deal. That, by the way, gets to the gist of my concerns. How do you draft something that eliminates everything that gets your goat but still leaves room for reasonable people to conduct their business. Lawyers, being lawyers, will find a way to stretch anything you right. The danger of trying to prevent that is that you may also erase some of the fundamental simplicity that has made the GPL so powerful -- especially for a license aimed at many developers who do not have the benefit of counsel. |
| swbrown Dec 04, 2006 6:29 AM EDT |
"> Let's assume a Free Software license other than the GPL. One way is to get a patent that covers the software, and only give licenses to use it to the people who get the Free Software project distributed from you. None of which has anything to do with the Novell-Microsoft Brouhaha." I'm not sure if you're just trolling at this point as you don't seem to be really trying to read, but I'll answer this. Like I've said, the Novell/Microsoft agreement is an indirect patent license. It says that only Novell/Microsoft's version of Free Software isn't likely to be sued for patent infringement, allowing Novell/Microsoft to effectively steal control of Free Software projects if only it can release them safely. The GPL is written to prevent this (Liberty or Death) so there wouldn't be a profit motive for Novell/Microsoft to do something like this, but they managed to figure out a way to word it that would get around the license. The FSF will modify GPL3 to fix Liberty or Death so it applies to Novell/Microsoft's wording, and attempting to go forward with it will no longer be appetizing to them (well, at least Novell) and they'll have to stop. "The noise is about GPL'd software, not non-GPL'd software." It was an example of what happens if the GPL's Liberty or Death isn't in effect. That's what the GPL would be with the Novell/Microsoft wording. ">but indemnification is different - it creates a perception that only certain companies are able to legally release Free Software which is similar Which has what to do with anything? The Novell-Microsoft agreement has nothing to do with indemnification." Yes it does, please read my post. Like I've said, both the Novell/Microsoft agreement and indemnification create an environment where only certain companies are allowed to profit off the distribution of Free Software. This is a profit motive to harm the community by blocking their distribution of their own software while being able to distribute it in the clear. It creates an "eating your own" effect like what happened with AT&T UNIX. There was a profit motive for them to split and attack their own community, and they did so and killed themselves. Hence, the GPL tries to prevent profit motives for "eating your own", which is why we've managed to go way further than AT&T UNIX ever did. You can still find smaller scale examples of "eating your own" with licenses like BSD - e.g., WINE's relationship (before they went GPL) to proprietary branches, FreeBSD's relationship to Apple's Darwin, etc.. |
| jdixon Dec 04, 2006 10:01 AM EDT |
Dino, having read your excerpt from the Red Hat OSAP above, and your analysis, it may concern you to know I agree. It may be time to rethink your position. :) Invoking section iii) above would have the same effect as Novell's agreement. The only real differences I can see is that under Novell's agreement coverage is automatic and for all of their software, while coverage must be invoked by Red Hat, and would only affect specific software packages. I also agree with rijelkentaurus that in Red Hat's case, invoking section iii) is an automatic revocation of the GPL'ed status of the code, at least in Red Hat's opinion. I still think that Novell's agreement removes a customers ability to redistribute the software involved, but if a customer is willing to give up that right, I don't think the GPL comes into play. There's nothing in the GPL which requires that you redistribute the software. Now, I'm not willing to give up that right, so I have no intention of using Novell's software, but that's my decision. Businesses may well choose otherwise. So having had time to consider the matter carefully, I have no problems with the Novell/Microsoft deal. Those who are willing to lose the right to redistribute Novell's code can use their services with no problems. Those that aren't have plenty of other providers to choose from. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 04, 2006 11:55 AM EDT |
> How do you draft something that eliminates everything that gets your goat but still leaves room for reasonable people to conduct their business. You can't. Some good ideas *will* be eliminated with the move to GPL3. Even if the FSF gets all the technicalities right, the new license will be harder to understand and may scare someone off from exploring an idea alltogether. |
| swbrown Dec 04, 2006 12:23 PM EDT |
"Even if the FSF gets all the technicalities right, the new license will be harder to understand and may scare someone off from exploring an idea alltogether." What do you base that statement on? After having read them in full, do you find the current GPL3 draft harder to understand than the GPL2? |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 04, 2006 12:29 PM EDT |
Yes. And it took me quite a while to fully wrap my brain around GPLv2 as well. In overview it looks simple enough (as opposed to an MS EULA for instance) but that's not a good enough understanding to start creating products or applications with. Really understanding how all the clauses play together and what their implications are - especially when combined with differently licensed parts - is quite hard. Just look at the ammount of genuide disinformation there still is out there (aside from MS FUD that is). |
| swbrown Dec 04, 2006 12:42 PM EDT |
Odd - to me, the diffs show it being substantially easier to understand the details and fine points of. The hardest part was always the exact functioning of the implicit patent license which is now explicit in GPL3, and has the framework to remove the LGPL license completely, replacing it with just an exception. The exception framework itself will massively simplify attempting to figure out if a license is compatible, which now tends to be something mere mortals wait for debian-legal to figure out. |
| swbrown Dec 04, 2006 12:47 PM EDT |
"Just look at the ammount of genuide disinformation there still is out there" Btw, that's because most people never read the license, much like religions and their holy texts, or slashdot posts and the articles. |
| Abe Dec 04, 2006 1:01 PM EDT |
Quoting:Btw, that's because most people never read the license, much like religions and their holy texts, or slashdot posts and the articles. Excellent point. To be honest, I don't go by the wording that much, I go by the spirit of it. Isn't that all that counts for us mortals and let the lawyers... Never mind, let's keep the lawyers out of it and we will be OK. |
| bigg Dec 04, 2006 1:28 PM EDT |
"I still think that Novell's agreement removes a customers ability to redistribute the software involved, but if a customer is willing to give up that right, I don't think the GPL comes into play. There's nothing in the GPL which requires that you redistribute the software." But the Novell agreement (which we have FINALLY found out) only prevents Microsoft from suing Novell customers. It does not enable Novell to include tainted code in their distribution. As I understand the press releases, Novell would have to stop distributing infringing code if a court says so, and if anything is found in a courtroom to be a Microsoft patent, the GPL won't allow it to be included anyway, unless MS changes the license to GPL. The agreement limits who MS will sue, but does not allow Novell to distribute non-GPL code, which includes any infringing code. It does not (as far as I know) even allow Novell customers to keep using the infringing code after a court says it is infringing. |
| dinotrac Dec 04, 2006 1:37 PM EDT |
bigg - Bingo. |
| Abe Dec 04, 2006 5:13 PM EDT |
Quoting:BingoBingo WHAT. Have you read http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/tokyo-rms-transcript ? Please read again and again. Quoting:It does not enable Novell to include tainted code in their distribution.Yes it does since it doesn't prevent it either, otherwise, why then is Novell paying MS for Suse users covenant? Has Novell become a covenant agent for MS? Quoting:the GPL won't allow it to be included anyway, unless MS changes the license to GPL.Assume MS GPLed the code and at the same time required a key code to run. This key is only available from MS and for a free, what kind of GPL code would that be? Assume other FOSS code was made to be dependent on that MS released GPLed code, how could users use that FOSS code? How about when MS releases GPLed code that is bound by DRM, how could FOSS code be used unless MS allows it through the DRM? You guys are missing a lot of understanding about the GPL. It is becoming useless to debate this issue if you don't understand the spirit and intent of the GPL. One final question, Why are you opposing the GPL3 clauses if they are only being added to re-enforce GPL2 without any harm to GPL2? If there are any, describe what they are and why wouldn't end users accept them? If distributors don't like them, tough, they can go somewhere else. End of story. |
| dinotrac Dec 04, 2006 5:28 PM EDT |
Abe - I think you need to take a few deep breaths. I understand the GPL pretty well, and have understood it pretty well for years. It would help if you'd keep apples with apples. Tivoization is one target of GPLV3. It also has nothing to do with Novell-Microsoft, which is about patent shields. >Why are you opposing the GPL3 clauses if they are only being added to re-enforce GPL2 without any harm to GPL2? With regard to tivoization, I believe the kernel hackers have covered that ground better than I ever could. I can't really oppose the language meant to cover the Novell-Microsoft deal since it, to my knowledge, doesn't exist yet. The FSF's loopy reaction to the deal does make me worry that they will stitch together a license that has more to do with prejudice than principle, patchwork than elegance. |
| swbrown Dec 05, 2006 11:21 AM EDT |
"The FSF's loopy reaction to the deal" How is their reaction loopy? Novell/Microsoft circumvented section 7 via an extremely convoluted method, and they're fixing the language so that's not possible. What did you expect them to do, go "Yay, Microsoft has figured out how to circumvent our license that covers hundreds of millions of lines of code, let's take a vacation!"? As someone who writes software licensed under the GPL, I want them to fix that language immediately. This was not supposed to be possible. |
| dinotrac Dec 05, 2006 12:03 PM EDT |
swbrown - How has Microsoft circumvented anything? They haven't. Even RMS concedes that the Novell-Microsoft agreement is a new animal. RMS doesn't like it, and wants to exclude it from V3, but that's the nature of anything put into print (or electronic renditions of same). |
| Abe Dec 05, 2006 12:33 PM EDT |
Quoting:How has Microsoft circumvented anything?OK, they didn't circumvent, but they found a loophole and MS & Novel took advantage of it. According to the GPL intent and spirit, they were not supposed to be able to do what they have done and Novell should have know better than to sleep with the enemy. RMS realizes the loophole now and he even admitted that he didn't see it before and made a mistake. He is adding/modifying new clauses to fix it. Let's see what they can come up with and you can knock it to your hearts content when it is ready. Deal? OK deal. |
| jimf Dec 05, 2006 12:39 PM EDT |
> Deal? OK deal You and RMS both seem to like these one party 'deals' ;-) Adding another wing to a 747 cause you 'think' it might fly better isn't always a good plan. |
| Abe Dec 05, 2006 12:53 PM EDT |
Quoting:Adding another wing to a 747 cause you 'think' it might fly better isn't always a good plan.Your analogy doesn't seem to fit good enough and it only applies for the birds (pun intended). Quoting:You and RMS both seem to like these one party 'deals' ;-)Not really, I believe many many others are for the updates of the GPL. I have seen it on many forums and post on the Internet. You must have your own polling service to believe otherwise |
| jimf Dec 05, 2006 1:00 PM EDT |
> Your analogy doesn't seem to fit good enough and it only applies for the birds (pun intended). How about you and RMS take it out on the test flight. |
| Abe Dec 05, 2006 1:14 PM EDT |
Quoting:How about you and RMS take it out on the test flight.The GPL3! Sure, that I can do that; the 747, I am afraid of flying, I will leave it to you since you seem to be more knowledgeable about flying planes. lol |
| bigg Dec 05, 2006 1:54 PM EDT |
"they found a loophole and MS & Novel took advantage of it" As far as I know, there is no loophole. According to everything that has been released about the deal (that I have seen), Novell users do not have the right to use patent-infringing software, either by the GPL or by Microsoft. If Suse infringes a patent, the GPL requires that it be removed from Suse, and Microsoft is free to sue Novell to get it out of Suse. It is also probably even the case that Microsoft can sue customers to get them to stop using the infringing code if a court rules in their favor against Novell. If Novell had explained the deal in the beginning, as a well-run company would have done, it would have been clear that no loophole was taken advantage of. The deal covers a theoretical possibility of Microsoft making a claim that Suse infringes. If a court finds a valid patent claim for Microsoft, the GPL would still kick in. |
| jimf Dec 05, 2006 2:17 PM EDT |
Abe, Sorry you have problems with analogies, I guess I need to digress. Bad design is just that. A license, just like any other construct, may work well as originally designed. When that happens, it's advisable to be very careful about modifying, or adding corrections or features as that may effect the performance of the license. Adding other feature could actually make the license better, could make little or no difference, or worst case, cause the whole license to become useless. Kind of like the addition of an extra wing on a 747. Just not a great idea. It's also far easier to design for a specific than for a generality. The more complex the design, the more likely it is to fail (KISS). Again, as GPLv3 drifts farther from v2, and tries to become more generalized, I become less sure of its effectiveness. |
| Abe Dec 05, 2006 3:51 PM EDT |
Quoting:Sorry you have problems with analogies, Jim, I only have a problem with bad analogies. If you have compared the GPL to an application or a constitution, it would have made more sense to me. And yes, a constitution can be amended, a program can have more function, etc... That is how I look at the GPL. It is a document that needs to be flexible to be updated over time and according to changes and needs that haven't been seen initially. Relatively speaking, the GPL is a very small document compared to others (EULA for instance). It has been very simple straight forward and I think it can and need updating to cover any missing issues. For some reason I am not sure of, you are looking the update by RMS as a bad thing without exactly knowing what the text will be. RMS not only is working with many other people to put together, he also making it available for many more people to give comments and suggestion. So you can't say he (& I) like one party "deal" thing. |
| jimf Dec 05, 2006 4:02 PM EDT |
> EULA for instance A really bad example ;-) the update by RMS as a bad thing Actually, the thing I'm most upset about is the latest response to the Novell thing without even knowing all the facts. The longer this goes on, the more I see that to be true. What ever your analogy, you don't just add things without a good reason, and I'm not yet seeing that. |
| Abe Dec 05, 2006 4:38 PM EDT |
Quoting:As far as I know, there is no loophole.Many of the people who wrote, abide by, use, and accept the GPL think that the agreement between Novell & MS violated the spirit and intent of its terms. In other words, Novel & MS were able to engage in an agreement, which those people think they shouldn't have been able to do. That means it has a loop hole and has to be corrected. This is exactly the same like when corporations find loop holes in the tax system to avoid paying taxes that were intended for them to do. Quoting:Novell users do not have the right to use patent-infringing software, either by the GPL or by Microsoft.If so, then what was the purpose of MS charging Novell $$$ for Suse users? why did Novell need to add the patent part of the agreement for? Quoting:If Suse infringes a patent, the GPL requires that it be removed from Suse,Novell denies any MS patent infringement in Suse. But when Ballmer, in their joined news conference, said it was compensation for MS patents and IP, why didn't Novell object to that? And if Novell denies any patent infringement, why is Novell paying MS $$$ for? Quoting:and Microsoft is free to sue Novell to get it out of Suse.They can't do that because MS agreed, in the contract, to get payment for it. Quoting:It is also probably even the case that Microsoft can sue customers to get them to stop using the infringing code if a court rules in their favor against Novell.That is also not doable because MS, already in the contract, gave Suse users a covenant not to sue. In addition, in the contract, MS will be getting paid a portion of every Suse license Novell sells down the road for the next 5 years. I hope now you see the loop hole and how they have legally found a way to bypass GPL2. That is exactly what RMS & Moglen are trying to remedy. |
| dinotrac Dec 05, 2006 6:18 PM EDT |
>That means it has a loop hole and has to be corrected. No, it means that people are getting crotchety, self-righteous, or whatever. The section people keep referring to is a sensible section that prevents differential licensing of patents to selected GPL users. That would be destructive to the intent of the GPL and is rightly prohibited. The Novell-Microsoft agreement does nothing like that - unless the authors of GPL'd software are infringing on Microsoft patents. In that case, it's still not the same, but has a similar effect. I suppose that I could be reading RMS et al incorrectly. They could be aware that GPL'd software infringes Microsoft patents and simply want to make sure there is no way on God's green earth that anybody can escape being sued for the infringement. That would even be a rational position. Perhaps RMS figures that enough lawsuits would generate a backlash against the patent system. If that were the case, it would prove RMS to be utterly unethical and despicable, luring the innocent into something he knows is a trap. I don't think that's the RMS style, however. I think he likes to fight things straight-up. So -- no loophole. Just something else that RMS has decided that he doesn't like. >why didn't Novell object to that? Um, Abe...since when do we take everything Ballmer says as gospel? Since when was Novell an all-Linux company? |
| swbrown Dec 06, 2006 10:02 AM EDT |
"No, it means that people are getting crotchety, self-righteous, or whatever." So I'm crotchety and self-righteous for licensing tens of thousands of lines of code under a license that says you can't do with it what Microsoft/Novell are doing, and being angry at them finding a convoluted, indirect way to sidestep my requirement for its distribution, and wanting to block that loophole? The intent of that section is to prevent anyone from attempting to create a world where distribution of Free Software can only legally happen through specific channels. Otherwise, companies will conspire to block the community's distribution of their own software, become the only legal conduit for that software, and effectively be able to charge royalties for it. By putting everyone in the same legal boat, that section also prevents divide+conquer attacks since no one would be in a position of being safe - everyone would want to fight off such an attack. So what do we have now? 1) Microsoft threatening to sue anyone but Novell that distributes the software, with Novell backing them up. 2) Microsoft threatening to sue any programmer who contributes to Free Software that isn't accepted by Novell, with Novell backing them up. 3) Microsoft charging Novell royalties for distribution of OUR software, with Novell backing them up. 4) Novell will happily stand by immune as Microsoft threatens others rather than standing together against this attack. 5) Novell profits off of the attacks. This is EXACTLY what was not supposed to happen. That section of the GPL was supposed to cause 'Death' for Novell in this situation - the impairment of 'Liberty' - prohibiting it from distribution of the software altogether, which would have been enough to prevent Novell from conspiring to allow this attack, as it wouldn't be profitable for them to do so. The GPL3 will properly cause its 'Death' by fixing the loophole. "So -- no loophole. Just something else that RMS has decided that he doesn't like." If it wasn't a loophole, or what those of us who actually write Free Software understood the license to prevent, do you really think Microsoft/Novell would have had to go to such confusing, obtuse lengths to do what is in effect a limited patent license, which the GPL prohibits? Or that they'd need a FAQ as to why they think it doesn't violate the GPL? Or that we'd need lawyers to spend weeks analyzing the wording to determine if it actually does or does not violate the letter of the license? Have you heard ANY Free Software author outside of Novell agree that this is how they expected their code to be legally used under the GPL? |
| dinotrac Dec 06, 2006 10:55 AM EDT |
swbrown -
> So I'm crotchety and self-righteous for licensing tens of thousands of lines of code under a license that says you can't do with it what Microsoft/Novell are doing No, because it doesn't say that. Don't believe me? Ask RMS. If you wanted to prevent what Novell and Microsoft are doing, you should have used a different license. Nobody to blame but yourself. > Microsoft threatening to sue anyone but Novell that distributes the software, with Novell backing them up. With Novell backing them up? Care to explain how you are not hallucinating? Microsoft can threaten to sue all they want. That would be true with or without the Novell agreement. The only difference is that now they are not threatening to sue Novell customers. That does not represent a differential grant of rights, though it is similar if and only if your code infringes Microsoft patents. In that case, the GPL may not do you any good anyway, because you can't legally license things you have no right to license. >Novell will happily stand by immune as Microsoft threatens others rather than standing together against this attack. Hmmm. Red Hat, Debian, IBM, and all others seem to be standing happily by while Microsoft threatens people. Microsoft has threatened people for years. Did you manage to miss the antitrust trial? They are not nice people. >Novell profits off of the attacks. How so? Indirectly, I suppose, if any companies out there still give Microsoft much credibility after the SCO fiasco. They might choose to do business with Novell because of the threats. However, the agreement is limited term, and I wonder how much comfort it can offer to somebody making long-term plans. Oh -- Did I forget to mention that many companies out there plan to be in business for more than just this week? >If it wasn't a loophole, or what those of us who actually write Free Software understood the license to prevent, As it turns out, lots of people have different ideas of what the GPL actually means, most of them wrong. We've seen that in at least one case of developer sending threats to other developers in the last year. What matters is what the license says. That's people have to work with. That's what lawyers examine to be sure that you comply or you don't. It is what Novell's lawyers and Microsoft's lawyers had to contend with. |
| Abe Dec 06, 2006 2:57 PM EDT |
Quoting:What matters is what the license says.Your are absolutely right, after Novell & MS taking advantage of the loop hole, it is obvious now that it doesn't or no longer protects what it was initially thought it will. That is why it has to be updated and changed. Plain and simple. |
| devnet Dec 06, 2006 3:19 PM EDT |
The dumbest part of all of this is that no one needs to use the GPLv3...they can continue to use the GPLv2...so those that don't like it...just stop paying attention to it. |
| swbrown Dec 07, 2006 2:01 PM EDT |
"> So I'm crotchety and self-righteous for licensing tens of thousands of lines of code under a license that says you can't do with it what Microsoft/Novell are doing No, because it doesn't say that. Don't believe me? Ask RMS. If you wanted to prevent what Novell and Microsoft are doing, you should have used a different license. Nobody to blame but yourself." You've been arguing that this is not a loophole. Maybe you don't understand what 'loophole' means. A loophole is where the license "doesn't say that" even though the license meant that. If you "Ask RMS", he will tell you that. If you ask me, I will tell you that. If you read the preamble, it will tell you that. That's our situation. We have a loophole. |
| dinotrac Dec 07, 2006 3:41 PM EDT |
>Maybe you don't understand what 'loophole' means. Somebody doesn't, and it isn't me. The license didn't mean to cover the Novell-Microsoft situation, which is why it wasn't covered. The drafters of the license hadn't conceived of the situation. It would be a loophole if a non-transferable patent license were involved. |
| Abe Dec 07, 2006 4:53 PM EDT |
Quoting:The license didn't mean to cover the Novell-Microsoft situation, which is why it wasn't covered.Unless you read minds, how do you know that if you weren't the originator? Quoting:The drafters of the license hadn't conceived of the situation.That was what RMS realized and admitted to after the recent Novell-MS agreement. He even was thankful to them for bringing it out in the open now and before GPL3 was finalized. That is why he wants it changed and corrected. Quoting:It would be a loophole if a non-transferable patent license were involved.It is a loophole not only because clause 7 wasn't clear about it, but also because it was missed all together. Quoting:Loophole definition in dictionary: A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck |
| dinotrac Dec 07, 2006 4:57 PM EDT |
>A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance. You try so hard with so little. I will rely on RMS since he really was there at the inception and, though he over-reaches, certainly understands the license very well. |
| Abe Dec 07, 2006 5:19 PM EDT |
Quoting:You try so hard with so littleI can't help it, but at least I try my best. Dino: Just remember, you are now more of an IT professional than a lawyer. May be it is time to leave the latter behind. |
| swbrown Dec 07, 2006 5:42 PM EDT |
"You try so hard with so little. I will rely on RMS since he really was there at the inception and, though he over-reaches, certainly understands the license very well." Ok, so let's see. The originator of the license and the lawyer that works on it believe it violates the spirit although not the letter, and that they hadn't thought of this approach to bypassing section 7 when they worded it. We thought it still violated the letter of section 7 after having re-read it carefully, and it took over a week of their lawyer hammering on it to say it didn't. It violates the preamble that states the intent of the license. What was required to bypass it was an amazingly convoluted and indirect variant on a patent covenant, whose terms still don't make much sense at face value. So tell us, exactly what would have had to have been different for this to be a loophole in your opinion? Give us a scenario where it would be a loophole. |
| dinotrac Dec 07, 2006 5:58 PM EDT |
>Give us a scenario where it would be a loophole. A loophole allows you to do something that would otherwise be prohibited. The Novell-Microsoft arrangement does nothing of the sort. RMS has said so and that is the reason for the re-drafting. He considers the protection offered by the deal to run counter to the spirit of the license and to what he hopes to achieve. That is not a loophole, it is something that wasn't in the license. What the GPL prohibits is the release of software under the GPL that is patent-encumbered, but licensed to select users. If Novell were trying release patent-encumbered software under the GPL, and had found some technicality for doing so, I would agree that was a loophole. They're not doing that. They don't even own the rights to license or to change the licenses of 99.9% of the software they distribute. You guys see a boogeyman and howl to high heaven, facts be damned. |
| Abe Dec 07, 2006 6:15 PM EDT |
Quoting:A loophole allows you to do something that would otherwise be prohibited.How does it allow you to do something? And how do you know it is prohibited? |
| Abe Dec 07, 2006 6:18 PM EDT |
Sleep on it, and will see you in the morning. |
| dcparris Dec 07, 2006 7:21 PM EDT |
What is interesting is that this issue came up during the public comments period. No wonder RMS is thankful - it gives him the opportunity to shore up the loopholes before he finalizes the license. Makes sense to me. |
| jimf Dec 07, 2006 7:43 PM EDT |
> No wonder RMS is thankful Yeah, he really jumped on that one to further his crusade ;-) |
| dinotrac Dec 08, 2006 4:26 AM EDT |
Abe - Hate to get stuck on semantics, so I thought I would try to explain my understanding of the difference between a loophole and an omission. Start with a very simple case. Bad over a stream on park land. Rangers decide to limit weight, so they put up a No vehicles allowed sign. Park regulations defines vehicle in exquisite detail. Somebody runs a riding mower over the bridge and rangers write him up. Ticket is dismissed because definition of vehicle is written in way that doesn't include riding mowers. Then, somebody rides a horse across. Rangers get very alarmed because the bridge isn't safe for something as big and heavy as a horse, but don't write him up because a horse is no way no how a vehicle in any sense from the standpoint of the regulations. it has to be that way, in fact, because there are horse trails from which vehicles are prohibited. But...the horse violates the intent of those who put up the sign, which was to keep people safe and the bridge from falling down. They put up a new sign that says no vehicles and no horses. The riding mower is a loophole and the horse is an omission. It can get a lot trickier, though. US CAFE standards for automotive fuel economy are a great example. They have always had separate standards for passenger cars and light trucks. That makes a lot of sense...especially in light of the climate when the standards were first introduced. Lots of people drove by themselves in big honk boatmobiles. There was plenty of room for lots of smaller cars. Trucks, on the other hand, are working vehicles and there is less room to play. Then people started buying trucks to use as personal cars. Then came SUVs that technically met the definition of a truck but clearly were meant for no use other than passenger cars. Is it a loophole that SUVs got the same treatment as trucks or an omission that nobody considered the trucks as personal vehicle segment important enough to worry about? And...how do you regulate that without doing damage to millions of tradesmen, farmers, etc? Ah well. Call it what you will. Black and white is a luxury in cases like this. |
| Abe Dec 08, 2006 6:42 AM EDT |
Quoting:Hate to get stuck on semanticsNo need to do that, just concentrate on the intent only. The rangers intent is peoples safety. Without being fancy, all they needed to post is this "No objects over x-lb are allowed on Bad.". The object could be a human, but still too heavy that could be a safety hazard. What RMS could say is "Using the GPL in ways other than what it was intended for is prohibited - see intention" GPL2 ... + thou shall not include patents or non-GPLed code. thou shall not enter into agreements over GPLed code with other companies especially those that don't support the GPL. thou shall not enter into agreements with MS. .... You got the idea. A good ecosystem is one without MS. |
| dinotrac Dec 08, 2006 7:52 AM EDT |
Abe - Sure. The reason I consider the Novell thing to be an omission rather than a loophole is that it is not about including patents in GPL'd code, or, at the very least, nothing that is not already there. It is a new and different case that, in RMS's mind, violates his intent. With regard to the sign, you are correct. The problem is the same as in many licenses, however: readers have only the license, not your inner thoughts. |
| Abe Dec 08, 2006 8:31 AM EDT |
OK, I think we are coming to an agreement here. Omission, Ambiguity, Loophole, or whatever it is, the issue is RMS thinks there is a problem and you happen to think otherwise. Fair enough, GPL2 is still going to be available, so developers/companies/users etc... will have the choice and freedom to select either GPL2 or 3 for their code. After all, It is still about Freedom isn't it? So down the road if MS/Novell/...etc become dangerous to GPL2 code, developeres/companies can change its license to GPL3. If no harm develops from MS/Novell agreement, there will be no problem either and GPL3 will just be ink on paper, no more no less, just like any other useless licenses we have now. So, with this arragement, everyone is accommodated for and happy ever after. |
| dinotrac Dec 08, 2006 9:08 AM EDT |
>RMS thinks there is a problem and you happen to think otherwise. Close. I'm not sure there is not problem, but I'm worried about drafting difficulties and the real world problem of reassuring business users. In the world we live in, lots of companies get lawsuit-happy, and lots have acquired, one way or the other, rights to patents -- including a slew of patents that should never have been issued. An infringement suit is difficult and expensive to fight off. Worse, the very prospect is frightening to a business trying to squeeze a few bucks out fro the bottom line. It should be ok for a vendor to say, "We'll stand behind you if somebody comes after you for patents, etc." The question: Is there an acceptable way to do that? Can you draft against the Novell-Microsoft agreement and still leave room for business? If your position is that there is no acceptable way to do that, then the case is closed. That might mean, of course, that free software has no rightful place in business, but that's a legitimate choice to make. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!