Moglen states VERY clearly... Novell betrayed everyone
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| cjcox May 28, 2007 8:47 PM EDT |
In typical layer-esque fashion (remember Moglen is a lawyer), Mr. Moglen pull out his bazooka and fires directly at Novell for their deal with Microsoft. Very interesting.... While the video is shrouded in an envelope of 'this isn't about the Novell deal with Microsoft' (Novell being the only evil party according the Mr. Moglen), Mr. Moglen goes out of his way to show how attention had to immediately be made toward the act of aggression against the free software community by Novell when they betrayed the community. Very interesting indeed... |
| dinotrac May 29, 2007 4:43 AM EDT |
Did I miss something? I tried playing the clip from Konqueror and Firefox, through Kaffeine and through ffplay, and I got a clip that was only a couple of minutes or so long that didn't contain what you describe. |
| bigg May 29, 2007 5:55 AM EDT |
I saw a few sentences where Moglen said Novell is engaging in patent aggression. While not very long, it does confirm my worst fears that the GPL is no longer just about ensuring software freedom, but rather about forcing users of free software to act in a certain way (in this case, to prevent beneficiaries of free software from doing business with Microsoft). What happens when they change the GPL to forbid me from dual-booting into Windows? His language scares me. |
| dinotrac May 29, 2007 6:13 AM EDT |
>His language scares me. His language doesn't scare me. He can say whatever he wants to whomever he wants. It's the language of the license that matters. In this arena, Moglen may be the chief legal beagle, but he works for his client, the FSF. I had the opportunity to speak with Peter Brown, the FSF's executive director, and came away optimistic. I could be wrong, but I don't the FSF is out to kill the goose that laid the golden (hmm...free?) eggs. There is a genuine concern over Microsoft's act of aggression in the Novell deal. BTW -- how stupid do you have to be to call that deal an act of aggression by Novell? The two companies worked on the deal for a very long time, and the patent clause was a last-minute throw-in requested by Microsoft. Novell might have been ignorant, might have been stupid. Their actions can reasonably be described as betrayal, which, btw, doesn't require an intent to betray. Microsoft was the aggressor, not Novell. |
| azerthoth May 29, 2007 6:14 AM EDT |
WOW, I never thought I would be able to make a correlation between Richard Stallman and George W. As bigg points out its not unforeseeable to paraphrase RMS and the 'ites' to "This is freedom, and you are free to think as we tell you, otherwise you are a traitor to the cause." If that seems a bit harsh, well it is exactly the feeling I have gotten from discussion with a few purists. I have personally been blasted for "not getting it" because I continue to use proprietary codecs and drivers. In that light I don't think that it is too far a stretch to think that we could hear those words. Not exactly as I wrote them, but when boiled down and the extra flowery words removed, semantically it would be essentially the same. |
| henke54 May 29, 2007 6:19 AM EDT |
@dinotrac :Quoting:If you have problems viewing the video you might try installing VLC. Why are we using Ogg format? Read this.http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=07/05/17/1616214 ;-) |
| jdixon May 29, 2007 6:48 AM EDT |
> I have personally been blasted for "not getting it" because I continue to use proprietary codecs and drivers. Yeah, I've seen that in action. My position is simple: Your computer, your choice; my computer, my choice. That seems to work well for all concerned. So tell them that if they buy a computer for you, you'll be glad to give them a say in what software runs on it. :) |
| number6x May 29, 2007 7:02 AM EDT |
Here is a link to Moglen's slides as pdf:
http://www.openlogic.com/downloads/rfi/Webinar.GPLv3.pdf The Groklaw story says that the site making the talk available uses the 'radiance player' from Open Logic'. Windows only, not very open, eh? http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070519090322431 |
| tuxchick May 29, 2007 7:02 AM EDT |
Ye gods, the FSF is sooo powerful it forces people to do things they don't want to. This sounds like fodder for a compelling LXer feature. I recommend one of the FSF victims in this thread write it. |
| number6x May 29, 2007 7:03 AM EDT |
They turned me into a newt! |
| jrm May 29, 2007 7:05 AM EDT |
>What happens when they change the GPL to forbid me from dual-booting into Windows? What would happen is that very few people would choose to license their work under that version of the GPL, and the FSF would become irrelevant. >in this case, to prevent beneficiaries of free software from doing business with Microsoft It doesn't prevent you from doing business with MS. If I understand correctly, the intent is to prevent you from cutting deals which only protect a certain class of users. If a Novell user can't be sued, then a Debian user can't be sued. |
| dinotrac May 29, 2007 7:06 AM EDT |
TC - I would happily write an article, but I fear that my tongue will be cut out, or, worse, an ugly rumor started that I am either a Democrat or a liberal. The risks are just too high. |
| tuxchick May 29, 2007 7:11 AM EDT |
dino, chickening out makes you look like a Democrat. :) |
| dinotrac May 29, 2007 7:26 AM EDT |
>dino, chickening out makes you look like a Democrat. :) You've got me there. |
| bigg May 29, 2007 7:30 AM EDT |
> It doesn't prevent you from doing business with MS. This version of the GPL won't. However, we have moved from protecting the freedom of software onto other things. When the GPLv3 takes effect, will a user of Red Hat be any better off? No. Microsoft can still make the same claims against a Red Hat user. GPLv3 guarantees equality without doing anything to promote software freedom. Potential patent lawsuits are a cost of using Linux. That's all they are. Novell paid the cost (by taking Microsoft's money?) to get rid of the potential lawsuits. Mark Shuttleworth pays the cost of shipping Ubuntu CD's to potential users and is treated as a hero. Novell pays the cost of getting rid of patent lawsuits and is the devil. I don't get it. My concern is what will happen in the future. I don't hold Novell stock and don't use a Novell distribution, so this particular change doesn't bother me much. |
| dinotrac May 29, 2007 7:52 AM EDT |
>Novell pays the cost of getting rid of patent lawsuits and is the devil. The problem is that multiple masters are being served. Novell agreed to a Microsoft's request in order to seal a very lucrative deal. The protection in question doesn't get rid of patent lawsuits; it merely protects users (and, I believe, developers) of Novell and opensuse linux from action by by Microsoft for a prescribed period of time. It's good to remove obstacles that might cause some to avoid free software. OTOH, deals like Novell's do change the landscape. They can cause prospective clients to ask "what are you going to do for me?" every time somebody pitches a linux solution, and create pressure for patent protection that can't be offered (what Microsoft giveth, Microsoft can taketh away). At the very least, it reduces pressure for real patent reform. |
| jrm May 29, 2007 9:30 AM EDT |
> When the GPLv3 takes effect, will a user of Red Hat be any better off? That was my understanding, but IANAL. I could be totally wrong. From the Third Discussion Draft Rationale: A patent license would be "automatically extended to all recipients of the covered work". |
| helios May 29, 2007 10:10 AM EDT |
"They turned me into a newt..." I can see that it got better. |
| jdixon May 29, 2007 10:21 AM EDT |
> > When the GPLv3 takes effect, will a user of Red Hat be any better off? > That was my understanding, but IANAL. I could be totally wrong. From the Third Discussion Draft Rationale: A patent license would be "automatically extended to all recipients of the covered work". Well, as far as I can tell, you're correct about the effects of that provision. Unfortuantely, Novell doesn't have the authority to extend the agreement, and Microsoft almost certainly won't do so. That means that the agreement will almost certainly be voided as being incompatible with the GPLv3, and Red Hat users will be in the same situation they've always been. |
| dinotrac May 29, 2007 10:23 AM EDT |
>A patent license would be "automatically extended to all recipients of the covered work Ummm... Only if the parties agree. So...No, Red Hat users will not be any better off at all UNLESS...hmmm. Unless what? Microsoft agrees not to sue users of GPLV3 software? Here's an interesting question: What happens if Microsoft says: Our agreement didn't cover any specific software, any specific technology, or any specific license. We're not going to discriminate against V3 users just because the FSF is full of sourpusses. So, even though the technical terms of our agreement don't require it, we're going to honor the moral obligation we made by not suing Novell or OpenSuSE users, even for GPLV3 stuff. Hmmm.... Hard to see a violation in there, methinks. Of course, it would have no legal standing because there is no consideration. Still, it might turn a head or two, especially if Microsoft is distributing coupons -- an act, by the way, which a court might imply as a license to use the stuff even if it violates Microsoft patents -- that is, a license to those who receive the coupons. |
| jdixon May 29, 2007 10:26 AM EDT |
> an act, by the way, which a court might imply as a license to use the stuff even if it violates Microsoft patents -- that is, a license to those who receive the coupons. Can you see any realistic way that it could be interpreted otherwise, Dino? I know courts are sometimes a problematic proposition, but that seems pretty clear cut to me, and I can't really see any other interpretation holding up. |
| jrm May 29, 2007 12:53 PM EDT |
>Ummm... Only if the parties agree. So I was right, but only because I said that I might be totally wrong. Aargh. I'll just sit (quietly) in the corner for a while... |
| dinotrac May 29, 2007 1:42 PM EDT |
>Can you see any realistic way that it could be interpreted otherwise, Dino? It's hard for me to see how it could, especially if you think in terms of the default rule for contractors: if you don't spell out ownership for code you write, you are presumed to have granted a non-exclusive license. |
| tracyanne May 29, 2007 1:43 PM EDT |
GPL3 looks pretty good to me. It seems set on clarifying the downstream patent language that was in GPL2, that can only be as good thing, as in the case of deals like the Novell/Microsoft it one would mean that all Linux users would enjoy the same protection as are currently extended to SuSE users in the Novell/Microsoft deal. It should go a long way to making the type of fragmentation, of FOSS, that Microsoft is trying to achieve by such Deals, more difficulr or, hopefully, impossible. |
| dinotrac May 29, 2007 2:08 PM EDT |
>as in the case of deals like the Novell/Microsoft it one would mean that all Linux users would enjoy the same protection as are currently extended to SuSE users in the Novell/Microsoft deal. Or, in the alternative, nobody would. Or, in the alternative, yet another approach could be found (and, yes, there are other ways that the proposed GPLV3 language cannot touch) |
| Sander_Marechal May 29, 2007 10:19 PM EDT |
Quoting:So, even though the technical terms of our agreement don't require it, we're going to honor the moral obligation we made by not suing Novell or OpenSuSE users, even for GPLV3 stuff. Yes, they could do that. But not through any agreement signed with Novell (or else Novell would lose it's ability to distribute GPLv3 code). And if MS can't FUD the market by using Novell, why would it protect Novell's customers? MS may choose to ignore the GPLv3, but Novell can't. |
| dinotrac May 30, 2007 3:16 AM EDT |
> And if MS can't FUD the market by using Novell, why would it protect Novell's customers? Why couldn't it use Novell? Note the scenario: Microsoft extends protection to Novell users to honor its commitment, even though it is not technically bound to do so. |
| Sander_Marechal May 30, 2007 5:42 AM EDT |
Quoting:Why couldn't it use Novell? Because the MS-Novell agreement would be gone up in smoke. MS's FUD only works because they have an agreement with Novell. And the GPLv3 will make sure that the current agreement will get unbound (unless Novell forks all of GNU and stays at GPLv2 code). So, with the MS-Novell agreement gone, or at least significantly reduced to exclude patents, why would MS protect Novell's customers in the way you describe? It has no reason to do so. |
| dinotrac May 30, 2007 6:21 AM EDT |
>It has no reason to do so. What do you mean it has no reason to do so? Every person and every corporation does things every single day without the mandate of a written agreement. Remember for a moment, that it may not make sense for Microsoft to sue anybody anyway, given the current state (not to mention cost) of patent law and the mountain of patents out there in the landscape. Imagine the PR possibilities: "Those nasty old communist loons at the FSF think you should be at the mercy of anybody with a lawyer's business card handy. They made software available to you under one license, then, when you took reasonable action to protect your shareholders and your employees, changed the rules in the middle of the game. We here at Microsoft made an arrangement with Novell to protect your interests. The FSF may not care about your business and your freedom, but we do. We care about our commitments and we care about your trust. Being a business, we do ask one small favor: The next time you make an IT decision, just remember who didn't renege on their pledge to you. Remember who had your back. Give us a chance to win your business." |
| jdixon May 30, 2007 6:34 AM EDT |
> ...Dino's long description of hypothetical Microsoft response... Dino, you know, that sounds a lot like a company with a focus on the customer. Which unfortunately means Microsoft will never even think of it. |
| dinotrac May 30, 2007 6:38 AM EDT |
>a company with a focus on the customer Microsoft has a very strong focus on the customer, or, more accurately, the customer's pocketbook. They also have PR folks to think of ways to sound like the care about more than the pocketbook. Let's not forget, Bill Gates is the one who always referred to Microsoft's "Great software". After letting out a whopper like that, I think these folks can say anything with a straight face. |
| Sander_Marechal May 30, 2007 7:57 AM EDT |
@dino: Yes, MS could say that. But with the patent part of the agreement gone there would be no per-copy money flowing from Novell to MS. In that case I would not mind MS saying stuff like that. It's just empty words (or selective prosecution). |
| Libervis May 30, 2007 9:28 AM EDT |
I still find allegations that FSF is somehow ceasing to work on protecting software freedom and instead telling us what to do, quite ridiculous. I support the principle of "questioning everything" and this includes the FSF, but let's not get over the edge here. Moglen is speaking more like a general in the battlefield plotting a winning strategy. As the events that happen raise new issues as threats to software freedom manifesting themselves as bugs in a license which need fixing, some people are confusing these events with the larger issues that they bring up making it, in their minds, sound as if GPLv3 is specifically designed to target this or that particular type of event, or action. In other words, while GPLv3 targets issues raised by the Novell-MS deal, rather than the deal itself, people are somehow confusing this with GPLv3 specifically targetting Novell-MS deal. But the thing is, that may be a desired effect, but not because FSF hates Microsoft, not because they don't like Novell, not because of some stupid world domination plot, but because the deal raised a larger issue which concerns software freedom, and hence needs to be fixed. Besides, how can FSF be so bent on controlling the world of Free Software, more than creating a license that truly protects software freedom from modern threats, when GPLv3 is just a license that will, once finished, remain a static document that can be used by whoever willingly chooses to? They wont be able to just make up new rules after this process is finished. Don't confuse the decisions made as part of this unique license revision process with executive orders by the emperor RMS (as some seem to be seeing him). The allegations are just too ridiculous and unfounded. I just can't believe how people can come down on FSF who has such a long track record of working for nothing else but software freedom and whose foresight is as we speak, before our very eyes being proven just because they came off a bit brushed by *some* of the individual FSF supporters. The only reason why some FSF supporters sometimes tend to brush people off is because they are incredibly passionate and convicted about what they believe in. And how could they not be? To those who are offended when being said that they "just don't get it": Take it like a man. Take it like woman. Don't just come off offended. Perhaps you do not get it or perhaps you have just reached a point where you have to agree to disagree. Why make it anything bigger than that and then whine around about how FSF supporters are out to enslave people or something. |
| bigg May 30, 2007 10:59 AM EDT |
> As the events that happen raise new issues as threats to software freedom manifesting themselves as bugs in a license which need fixing You should realize that this is, to me, the key issue. I do not agree that a threat of patent lawsuits from Microsoft has anything to do with guaranteeing the freedom of a piece of software licensed under the GPL. I do not accept that Novell's deal with Microsoft in any way validates Microsoft's claims. (I have read many thousands of lines on the subject and have yet to hear it explained how that is the case. Perhaps in the Linux community there is a tendency to err on the side of kicking our friends in the face.) However, even if Novell's executives were to take out an ad at halftime of the Super Bowl to say that it is their opinion that Linux violates Microsoft's patents, it would not be the place of the GPL to punish Novell. I will also pose the same question as I have a number of times before. What is bad about protecting Linux users from patent lawsuits? If you were an outside observer, you would label the party that is blocking protection from frivolous lawsuits as the threat to software freedom. |
| dinotrac May 30, 2007 11:25 AM EDT |
>To those who are offended when being said that they "just don't get it": Take it like a man. Yawn. Inevitably, "you just don't get it" is used by somebody who cannot stand the fact that people disagree with him/her. >What is bad about protecting Linux users from patent lawsuits? I don't think anyone cares about protecting Linux users from patent lawsuits, per se. I think we have a "slippery slope" mentality here -- If you view the Novell deal as one foot on a slippery slope that leads to patent licenses being required to use free software, it's easy to characterize the deal as an assault on software freedom. |
| Sander_Marechal May 30, 2007 11:52 AM EDT |
Quoting:What is bad about protecting Linux users from patent lawsuits? Nothing. More protection is better. Thing is: The MS-Novell deal doesn't protect Linux users but only Suse users. It makes Linux users in general look more liable. |
| bigg May 30, 2007 1:22 PM EDT |
> It makes Linux users in general look more liable. I guess that's a point where we will just have to disagree, both because I don't agree with the statement (Novell acknowledges that Microsoft might sue, but does not acknowledge IP violations), and because I feel the GPL should not address appearances. > I think we have a "slippery slope" mentality here True enough, but I would argue that Microsoft is the one pushing us onto the slope. Novell is offering us a solution. If a company is worried about being sued, however silly it might seem to me or you or anyone else, they should have this option available. It's a lot better than telling companies that they have to handle their own litigation if Microsoft goes after them. |
| Libervis May 30, 2007 2:39 PM EDT |
bigg:Quoting:I do not agree that a threat of patent lawsuits from Microsoft has anything to do with guaranteeing the freedom of a piece of software licensed under the GPL. It is not about threats at all. It is about offering protection to only a part of the users of the covered software. This means that a certain part of users are basically protected from lawsuits while the other part is still susceptible to it. The threats come into play only as an enforcer of this distinction, trying to scare the unprotected part of users. This is principally against everything that GPL is designed to do. It is designed to provide and protect software freedom for *everyone* who uses covered software *equally*, no exceptions whatsoever. Novell-MS deal proved that there was still a place for an exception, and this is the issue (a bug in a license) that needs fixing. Quoting:What is bad about protecting Linux users from patent lawsuits? It is bad when not all users of covered software are protected, but only a certain part. This is an unfair situation which GPL was never designed to allow. As sander said, only SuSE users are protected by a promise, not all users of GPLed software. dinotrac: Quoting:Yawn. Inevitably, "you just don't get it" is used by somebody who cannot stand the fact that people disagree with him/her. I tend to agree with that. Still, it's not a reason to push the issue out of proportion and certainly not a reason to generalize. Not everyone who considers themselves a supporter of anything is as stubborn. |
| bigg May 30, 2007 4:18 PM EDT |
> This is principally against everything that GPL is designed to do. It is designed to provide and protect software freedom for *everyone* who uses covered software *equally*, no exceptions whatsoever. Well, I guess it's best we leave it at that. I simply do not view equality by itself as an important goal of a software license. |
| dinotrac May 30, 2007 6:13 PM EDT |
>I simply do not view equality by itself as an important goal of a software license. For that matter, I'm not sure that it's important to freedom. |
| dcparris May 30, 2007 7:14 PM EDT |
If the other freedoms are granted/protected equally, why is freedom from patent hassles not as important? Why shouldn't we be equally free from patent threats involving the covered code? We're equally free from "copyright" threats. |
| jrm May 30, 2007 7:22 PM EDT |
In addition, what good are the other freedoms if you don't have the freedom to privately distribute software? One way to protect that freedom is to provide equal protection to all users. (Which is not the same thing as assuring that all users are "equal".) The most likely entities to reach patent agreements are large corporations. One scenario is that some patent holder sues the smaller distributions, limits the number of distributors, and prices go up. Divide and conquer. It looks to me like the patent clause in the GPL is an attempt to prevent fragmentation of the community. |
| bigg May 30, 2007 7:42 PM EDT |
> why is freedom from patent hassles not as important? But it is Microsoft that is the source of the hassles. Microsoft is not affected by the GPL. It could also be a patent troll, or someone claiming copyright infringement, or someone claiming anticompetitive behavior. Novell is not in a position to extend freedom from these hassles to anyone else. |
| dcparris May 30, 2007 8:59 PM EDT |
I thought the patent laws were the source. MS just uses them to their advantage when they can. They're victims when they can't. |
| dinotrac May 31, 2007 2:30 AM EDT |
>In addition, what good are the other freedoms if you don't have the freedom to privately distribute software? And what, exactly, does that have to do with anything we've discussed? It certainly has nothing to do with the Novell-Microsoft deal, which took no freedom of any kind from anybody. |
| dinotrac May 31, 2007 2:37 AM EDT |
>why is freedom from patent hassles not as important? Now I'm confused, because I thought you were on the other side of this argument. The most recent changes to the GPLV3 are all about preventing freedom from patent hassles. They are the equivalent of "I'm taking my ball and going home. See you like that!" |
| jrm May 31, 2007 4:36 AM EDT |
>And what, exactly, does that have to do with anything we've discussed? It certainly has nothing to do with the Novell-Microsoft deal, which took no freedom of any kind from anybody. Wake up on the wrong side of the bed? I thought we were discussing whether the GPLv3 changes are appropriate or not. They are, if you believe that the GPL is to encourage the distribution of software. The Novell-Microsoft deal is a threat to the free distribution of software, as outlined in the scenario I listed above. I don't have to use words like "freedom" and "equality" if they bother you. |
| dinotrac May 31, 2007 5:36 AM EDT |
jrm - I have no problem with freedom or equality, but the discussion had moved to patent protection and making it available to everyone and this license will do nothing of the sort. |
| dcparris May 31, 2007 6:52 AM EDT |
Dino, I generally do fall on "the other side" of this debate. I'm asking questions. Frankly, I'm still confused. And at least I know I am not alone in that. The way I understand GPLv3 is that, should some patent holder offer patent protection wrt to a GPL-licensed program, that protection is to be extended to everyone who receives a copy of the program. If that happens, I would certainly feel much better. I'm still not sure it affects the Microvell deal, but that is the way I understand it. I think, too, that its effectiveness depends on the uptake of GPLv3. |
| jrm May 31, 2007 6:59 AM EDT |
>the discussion had moved to patent protection The failure to provide patent protection could have the effect of limiting the ability to distribute software. I think it's important to make that connection. MS is doing this for a reason. >this license will do nothing of the sort. Is a license an effective way to deal with the patent mess? No, but you have to play the cards you've been dealt. I have a question you can probably help me with... my understanding is that Eben Moglen thinks that MS would be considered a distributor of GPLv3 software by continuing to distribute SLES coupons. Do you believe that's accurate? If so, wouldn't MS be obligated to provide equal protection? |
| dinotrac May 31, 2007 7:05 AM EDT |
>If that happens, I would certainly feel much better. If that happens, everybody will feel much better, including me. This is one thing I could cheerfully be wrong about. Here's hoping I am, but thinking I'm not. |
| dinotrac May 31, 2007 7:08 AM EDT |
> Moglen thinks that MS would be considered a distributor of GPLv3 software by continuing to distribute SLES coupons. Do you believe that's accurate? That depends mightily on whether there is or will be any GPLV3 software in SLES. But, if there is, then yes. >If so, wouldn't MS be obligated to provide equal protection? If it distributes any software under the V3 license, yes. More likely outcome is that Microsoft won't distribute any coupons under those circumstances. I guess that's good. After all, we wouldn't want any Microsoft customers using Linux, would we? |
| jdixon May 31, 2007 7:14 AM EDT |
> That depends mightily on whether there is or will be any GPLV3 software in SLES. But, if there is, then yes. Remember that the default GPL language is this version or any later version. So most of the GPL'ed code in SLES (excluding the kernel, which is explicitly version 2) can be considered to be GPLV3 as soon as it's released. > More likely outcome is that Microsoft won't distribute any coupons under those circumstances. Agreed. |
| number6x May 31, 2007 7:14 AM EDT |
dino, Since gpl is not viral, those restrictions would only apply to the software that is under V3, right? So if Suse only has a few parts that are V3, Microsoft would only be obligated to extend the patent peace to use of those parts? I'm asking because I'm not sure. |
| dinotrac May 31, 2007 7:20 AM EDT |
jdixon -
>So most of the GPL'ed code in SLES (excluding the kernel, which is explicitly version 2) can be considered to be GPLV3 as soon as it's released. I believe that the "or later" provision allows you to choose which license you wish to rely on. IOW, the distributor could rely on the rights in V2, the user could rely on the rights in V3, though I have to admit that my brain hurts when I think about it. 6x - That would be my understanding. Has nothing to do with viral/not viral. After all, GPLV3 has no impact on the BSD licensed software or MIT licensed software that is included in a typical linux distribution. |
| jdixon May 31, 2007 7:31 AM EDT |
> IOW, the distributor could rely on the rights in V2, the user could rely on the rights in V3, though I have to admit that my brain hurts when I think about it. From my understanding, the user gets the choice Dino. But you know how much that's worth. :) |
| dinotrac May 31, 2007 8:05 AM EDT |
>From my understanding, the user gets the choice Dino. Yes, just think of the distributor as a special class of user with regards to choice of license. |
| number6x May 31, 2007 8:05 AM EDT |
dino, Thanks. Its not just the BSD and MIT stuff that is unaffected. GPL V2 stuff whose authors or re-distributers choose to stay with V2 will not automagically become V3. They can only upgrade to V3 when the copyright holder says so, or the re-distributer says so(with permission of the copyright holder). So if Novel re-distributes everything it can under V3(except the kernel), will they have given patent protection from MS lawsuits to users of all that software forever and ever? Will they go back from zero to hero? Could they be planning a little three card monte switercheroo on MS? (Or would that be GPL V3 card monte?) |
| dinotrac May 31, 2007 8:07 AM EDT |
>So if Novel re-distributes everything it can under V3(except the kernel), will they have given patent protection from MS lawsuits to users of all that software forever and ever? No. Only Microsoft can do that. At most, Novell can open itself up to suit. |
| number6x May 31, 2007 8:43 AM EDT |
Ah. Because the vouchers are the 'vehicle' of re-distribution? |
| jdixon May 31, 2007 8:57 AM EDT |
> So if Novel re-distributes everything it can under V3(except the kernel), will they have given patent protection from MS lawsuits to users of all that software forever and ever? No. The agreement as written protects Novell's customers. Novell has no authority to extend the agreement. Microsoft could, but they have no reason to do so. > Ah. Because the vouchers are the 'vehicle' of re-distribution? No. Because neither party can extend the terms agreed to by the other party. Microsoft can't extend Novell's promise not to sue to non-Microsoft customers any more than Novell can extend Microsoft's to non-Novell customers. Either party can voluntarily choose to extend their own promise, but neither party can extend it for the other. If I promise to pay a $500 debt for you in exchange for you fixing my roof, that doesn't mean you can borrow another $500 and expect me to pay it too, or that I can expect you to fix my garage in addition. |
| dinotrac May 31, 2007 9:02 AM EDT |
>Ah. Because the vouchers are the 'vehicle' of re-distribution Well, I would expect the distribution of vouchers by Microsoft to be seen as an act of distribution. After all, putting up an ftp site isn't the same as a Novell guy handing you a box full of stuff. You actually go and get the software, but, in a practical sense, Novell is doing the distribution. As the vouchers represent the right to SLES, distributing them must represent an act of distribution. |
| number6x May 31, 2007 9:23 AM EDT |
Thanks. I guess I'll have to wait and see how it all plays out. I just don't know enough to have a 'feel' for legal matters. I'll just keep writing code :) I don't think anyone will stop the GPL train. |
| bigg May 31, 2007 11:00 AM EDT |
> I don't think anyone will stop the GPL train. Now that is a good thing to say. |
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!