Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Novell Won't Lose Right To Sell Linux

Posted by Zonk on Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 PM
from the fact-straightening dept.
Novell Software Linux
BinnyVA writes "You know the story about Novell losing the right to distribute Linux? Well, the Free Software Foundation has absolutely no control over Novell's distribution of Linux. A zealous Reuters reporter apparently conflated the FSF with the open source community in general, took some quotes out of context, and ended up with a sensational headline that fooled a number of people. The Novell deal is completely within the bounds of the GPL, GPLv3 isn't even done yet, and even when it is the Linux kernel is unlikely to be covered by it." Linux.com and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Novell May be Banned from Distributing Linux 553 comments
Hymer writes "Reuters is reporting that Novell may be banned from selling Linux. In the wake of the (much maligned) Novell/Microsoft deal, the Free Software Foundation is reviewing Novell's right to sell the operating system at all. The foundation controls the rights to key parts of the operating system, and council for the organization said that 'the community wants to interfere any way it can' with the Novell business arrangement. No decision has yet been reached, but one should be made in the next two weeks." Is this a measured response, or an over-reaction to the Novell/Microsoft arrangement?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Novell Won't Lose Right To Sell Linux 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Well, duh. (Score:4, Informative)

    by EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @12:30PM (#17906936)
    Anyone who read the comments section of that story would know this.

  • Premise is counterintuitive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Salvance (1014001) * on Tuesday February 06 2007, @12:32PM (#17906972) Homepage Journal
    Isn't the whole point of open-source software free distribution, repackaging, use, modification, etc.? Unless there are non-OSS components that Novell is distrubting, I don't see how the FSF or anyone else would ever have any control over their "distribution rights", unless Novell tried to close the source and violate the license agreements.
    • and even then it would probably be unlikely. I mean, aren't their Linux distros with the Intel 3945ABG driver in them? That's not OSS (not completely anyway).

      I think the FSF is probably more interested in keep peoples rights from being abused when it comes to existing OSS applications, or large-scale/severe infractions.

      I think they aren't an evil organization, they are willing to overlook minor infractions.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by sconeu (64226)
          Drivers are part of the kernel, which is not under GPL.

          WTF are you talking about? The kernel is GPL, specifically V2 only - as opposed to "V2 or later". Linus doesn't like GPL3, so the kernel will likely remain under V2 for some time to come.

        • Re:GPL is'da bomb (Score:4, Insightful)

          by EsbenMoseHansen (731150) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @01:39PM (#17908156) Homepage

          but GPL is a "bomb". Not a "time bomb" (for the explosion is not certain), but a remotely activated one whether or not you trust the people, who hold the activator, you'd be comfortable without the bomb entirely.

          The problem with the above is that it is untrue. Nothing anyone does can prevent me from using & distributing any OSS software, as long as I don't distribute binaries without the source, suitably licensed. So please, tell us what this bomb is? At worst, the software could be abandoned or closed, which is always the risk with any software --- no matter the license. At least, with OSS, you have the source.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by at2000 (715252) *
      GPLv2:

      4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. [...]

      FSF can allege Novell, on that they distribute the program not as expressly provided under the License. If this is proven in court, they automatically lose the right to distribute the program.

      7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment

      • Re:Premise is counterintuitive (Score:5, Informative)

        by hendersj (720767) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @12:53PM (#17907426) Homepage
        Stallman has said unequivocally that Novell has not violated GPLv2. He's said there should be something in GPLv3 to prevent this sort of thing from happening, but very clearly has said that there is no Section 7 violation.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by greginnj (891863)
          Let's not forget that while Stallman can opine authoritatively on his intent when writing the GPLv2, his intent or his current interpretation thereof is not binding on a civil court. The GPLv2 exists independent of Stallman's interpretation, and anybody who holds copyright on software distributed by Novell would have standing to challenge them in court if that copyright holder feels that Novell infringed. Stallman's opinion would serve as a possible interpretation offered by the defense, nothing more.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by theLOUDroom (556455)
          Stallman has said unequivocally that Novell has not violated GPLv2.

          Got a link to back that statement up?

          Stallman seems to be a pretty careful guy. I'm not sure that hearsay from a stranger on the internet is enough to convince me he did say exactly this.

          There seems to be an obvious case to be made that this agreement violated the spirt of the GPL, and a pretty good case to be made that this agreement violated the letter of the GPL v2 as well.

          The relevant text would be:
          "For example, if a patent l

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by hendersj (720767)

            Stallman has said unequivocally that Novell has not violated GPLv2.

            Got a link to back that statement up?
            Yes. Link [fsfeurope.org].

  • They can distribute linux (Score:5, Interesting)

    by at2000 (715252) * on Tuesday February 06 2007, @12:38PM (#17907106)
    They can distribute linux, but can they distribute glibc, coreutils, gcc, gdb, bash, tar, gzip, gpg, grep, gettext, readline, troff, ...?

    • Re:They can distribute linux (Score:5, Informative)

      by LurkerXXX (667952) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @12:44PM (#17907248)
      Anything under a BSD or GPL license, yes, they can distribute (as long as they provide source for the GPL stuff). They didn't violate the GPL, so they don't lose the license. If GPL3 is ugly, they will probably simply keep using the regular GPL version.

      • Re:They can distribute linux (Score:5, Informative)

        by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 06 2007, @12:51PM (#17907382) Homepage Journal

        If GPL3 is ugly, they will probably simply keep using the regular GPL version.

        Or in other words, we will end up with a Novell-only GPL2 fork of the GNU toolchain, and everyone else will use the GPL3 version? That is quite frankly an utterly untenable position, especially since they wouldn't be able to backport GPL3 code back into their GPL2 programs, meaning that they would have to independently re-engineer every fix or upgrade, or be left in an incompatible state.

        Let's think about this from another angle for a second, though; do you really want to do business with a company in bed with Microsoft? Me neither, which is why I also won't give Sun a dime.

        Microsoft is the devil (at least in computer-land) and anyone who does business with them is tainted, to say the least, regardless of licensing issues.

        • It'd be a mess, but they wouldn't be the only ones refusing to move to GPLv3. All the people refusing to move to 3 could still share each other's GPLv2-only code.

          Also, any code that still says GPLv2 or later, or whose author expressly puts it under GPLv2 for Novell and GPLv3 for the FSF they could use.

          Likewise, BTW, no contributions that are licensed GPLv2-only can be used in GPLv3 projects.

          How many people that would be I don't know. It'd still be worse than everyone sticking with the same GPL. If GPLv3 dri

          • It'd be a mess, but they wouldn't be the only ones refusing to move to GPLv3. All the people refusing to move to 3 could still share each other's GPLv2-only code.

            Frankly I think those people will not be around long. It would be a horrible nightmare. And I think that now that the GPLv3 hysteria has died down a bit, I think people are becoming more accepting.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by ConceptJunkie (24823) *
              And I think that now that the GPLv3 hysteria has died down a bit, I think people are becoming more accepting.

              No, I just think they are waiting for the next draft.

              • Re:They can distribute linux (Score:5, Interesting)

                by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 06 2007, @03:01PM (#17909656) Homepage Journal

                I haven't wanted to release code under the GPL since 98, when I actually started listening to what RMS was saying instead of what we all thought RMS was trying to say. The man's a lunatic.

                Well, I agree that RMS has an image problem. He's a scruffy bearded guy talking about freedom. The former makes you sort of persona non grata in most social circles, because most people care very much about appearances. And let's face it, he would be more effective if he didn't look like he lived under a bridge, or smell like stale cheetos.

                But that doesn't make him wrong. Users want freedom. They do not want to be locked in. The only way we can provide freedom to users is to have freedom of software, because software is how users actually use the computers. It's what actually makes you a user, and not just a person sitting in front of a collection of inert boxes.

                I don't see what's so crazy about trying to ensure that we can actually use the hardware we paid for.

        • Maybe... but a lot of people don't seem to like the nature of GPL v3 as it has been previewed so far, otherwise we wouldn't have seen so much debate on it. I'm not saying it will, but if something like this did happen (a Novell GPLv2 branch), could we see a split in the open source community along GPVv2 versus GPLv3 lines? Just a thought. If someone doesn't like something in a software program, they usually don't use it. Maybe the same could happen with a license. If I recall correctly, Linus Torvalds

          • If I recall correctly, Linus Torvalds has said he doesn't agree with GPLv3 and will continue releasing the kernel under GPLv2, so already there is a split. Having Stallman make it even more restrictive might encourage more.

            Nothing in GPLv3 or GPLv2 prohibits the distribution of GPLv3 and GPLv2 packages together, so this in itself does not cause a problem. With the second part, I doubt that GPLv3 will be made more restrictive, although I am open to the possibility. I think that it will either remain equall

            • I think that it will either remain equally restrictive, or it will become less restrictive.

              Not if they don't remove that silly DRM clause. The very fact that Stallman et al are willing to use the GPLv3 as a bully pulpit for their political views (with which I happen to agree vis-a-vis DRM, BTW) compromises some of the legitimacy of the license and will make it look to many people like some kind of stand in favor of piracy.

              You know it isn't and I know it isn't, but CEOs and lawmakers are not likely to see i

              • Re:They can distribute linux (Score:5, Insightful)

                by F452 (97091) * on Tuesday February 06 2007, @02:35PM (#17909168) Homepage

                And while it sounds like you understand better, this:

                Not if they don't remove that silly DRM clause. The very fact that Stallman et al are willing to use the GPLv3 as a bully pulpit for their political views (with which I happen to agree vis-a-vis DRM, BTW) compromises some of the legitimacy of the license and will make it look to many people like some kind of stand in favor of piracy.

                suggests you're missing something. Stallman and the FSF are pressing forward with the same vision and agenda as they always have. Now that free software has achieved some mainstream acceptance -- despite being quite radical already -- you seem to be afraid of pushing the original goals of the project for fear of what short-sighted corporations might think. I'd rather see the goal of freedom be preserved, as I think you do also. Let's not worry about popularity contests. Stick with principal, and let the chips fall where they will. The original license was all about politics, as are all our decisions about how to conduct a free (or closed, or somewhere in between) society.

        • As I replied to others in the thread, it's been done before by other OS's/distros. For example, OpenBSD has forked or re-written a lot of apps that initially started as open, but changed to more restrictive licenses. It can be done. Besides, not everyone is in love with GPL3 and will move to it. Plus others might like to, but can't because they can't track down all the authors to get them to agree to the change. My personal prediction is GPL3 is going to be a bust as far as moving most current GPL stuf

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by omeg (907329)
          You're correct. They'd have to start maintaining their own GPLv2 fork of the GNU toolchain, as they wouldn't be able to use any GPLv3 code. Any code that Novell would want in the GPLv3 versions of the software would be rejected. Afterall, it seems that Novell is exempt from patent infringement litigation, which means that there's the possibility of patented code being inserted into GPL programs if they're allowed to edit it, and that would be a serious problem. Because they've made this dodgy deal with Micr

          • Re:They can distribute linux (Score:5, Informative)

            by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 06 2007, @02:24PM (#17908964) Homepage Journal

            How dare anyone tell me what I can and cannot do with my own hardware. I am looking forward to the GPL2 / GPL3 fork so we can get that nut Richards Stallman out of our business.

            Well, I do think you have a point, but the whole point of the free software movement is that the software is Free. I don't see a problem or a disconnect here. Well, okay, I see a problem, largely that those who are in favor of DRM being used to lock down the computer so that you cannot modify it will not be able to use the code in a product which does that. Here is the "objectionable" part of the license:

            The Corresponding Source also includes any encryption or authorization keys necessary to install and/or execute modified versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of use, such that they can implement all the same functionality in the same range of circumstances.

            So the only form of DRM that the GPLv3 seeks to prohibit (by castration) is that which prevents you from modifying any GPL-licensed code on your device. Let's take a close look at what this actually means. If your box (like a Tivo) is only able to run signed code, then you must give people the means to sign that code. Otherwise, that code cannot be licensed under the GPL.

            Well, if you don't believe this, why would you use the GPL anyway? The whole point of the GPL is Software Freedom. It's not about your freedom precisely; as the developer of new software, you already have freedom because you hold the copyright. If you want to license it both under the GPL and to a company under a proprietary license, you have the right to do that provided your licenses do not conflict.

            Put another way, people who release code under the GPL want that code to be editable. That's why they use the GPL. Otherwise they could use the BSD license, or just release it into the public domain. But instead, they have chosen the GPL. For their code to wind up in a product where it cannot be modified and run is a serious perversion of their wishes. I think that Tivo was probably the biggest reason that this clause ended up in the GPLv3 draft. I think a lot of people who worked on the Linux kernel were pretty upset when their code was used in such a way that the ability to modify it, the whole reason it's GPL-licensed, was utterly nullified.

            Put simply, if you want to be able to use GPL code, you have to be willing to comply with the author's wishes. If you're the type that would follow the letter of their wishes, but not the spirit, then frankly, we don't need you in the Free Software community anyway.

          • Re:They can distribute linux (Score:4, Informative)

            by CoughDropAddict (40792) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @02:41PM (#17909274) Homepage
            I don't know about anyone elses, but IMHO GPL3 is as invasive a liscense agreement as the one in Windows Vista. How dare anyone tell me what I can and cannot do with my own hardware.

            Huh? How does GPLv3 tell you what you can and cannot do with your own hardware?

            Or is your real beef that you cannot tell your customers what they can and cannot do with their own hardware after they buy it?

      • Re:They can distribute linux (Score:5, Insightful)

        by at2000 (715252) * on Tuesday February 06 2007, @12:51PM (#17907386)
        For sure we are talking about new version of the said programs/libraries.

        The parent article said:

        If the foundation decides to take action, the ban would apply to new versions of Linux covered under a licensing agreement due to take effect in March.

        Replace "Linux" with any program in the list, and this is what they can do.

        If everyone else is using the GPL3 version, sooner or later what distributed by Novell will be obsolete.

        • Not if Novell forks the current GPL versions of the apps and continue to develop them. It's been done before. Lots.

      • If GPL3 is ugly, they will probably simply keep using the regular GPL version.

        If the FSF decides to only distribute future versions of its software under the GPLv3+, then Novell may be stuck with 2007 versions of GNU. That won't sit well with customers.

        • There is nothing that says Novell can't fork off the 2007 version and keep making it better. OpenBSD has done it with lots of apps that changed to unfriendly licenses.

      • Anything under a BSD or GPL license, yes, they can distribute (as long as they provide source for the GPL stuff). They didn't violate the GPL, so they don't lose the license. If GPL3 is ugly, they will probably simply keep using the regular GPL version.

        That may or may not be exactly true. I believe the Microsoft/Novell deal covers the cross licensing of various patented technologies. If Novell implements one of Microsoft's patents in a piece of software, and then tries to distribute it as GPL'd software c

        • What's more likely is that Novell is just using this as a marketing technique where they can say, "Other Linux distributions are probably infringing on lots of Microsoft's patents, we have the only distribution safe from a lawsuit from Microsoft."

          I think this is exactly what is going on, and your other argument isn't what is happening at all. This is a typical 'don't use your patents against us, and we won't use ours against you' business deal. It's very common. You can give Stallman all the credit you w
    • Well, now that would be a great way for OSS to shoot itself in the foot. "Here, we'll give you some ideological crusade disguised as a license, and we can revoke it at any time for as little as making a deal with a corporation we don't like, or having more patents than we like, or also distributing some closed source programs we don't like, or simply because we've had a bad day and don't like you any more." Dunno about Novell, but I'm willing to bet that a lot of companies would drop Linux like a hot potato

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by cparker15 (779546)
        Well, now that would be a great way for OSS to shoot itself in the foot. "Here, we'll give you some ideological crusade disguised as a license, and we can revoke it at any time for as little as making a deal with a corporation we don't like, or having more patents than we like, or also distributing some closed source programs we don't like, or simply because we've had a bad day and don't like you any more." Dunno about Novell, but I'm willing to bet that a lot of companies would drop Linux like a hot potato
  • Linux, as in referring to the Linux kernel? Not likely, of course, for reasons TFA states.

    But to new versions of the GNU toolchain (gcc, gdb, gas, automake etc.)? To new versions of binutils? To new versions of coreutils? Maybe, yes, if GPLV3 looks anything like the current drafts.
    • That was my first thought, as well. "Linux" as people know it is not just the kernel. It is the toolchain, the desktop environment, and the applications as well, much of which could easily be released under GPLv3. And GPLv3 could easily contain provisions prohibiting this kind of deal. That's more than likely many years down the road, but it could have an impact. My question is, would it only impact SLES and SLED, or would the restrictions apply to OpenSUSE as well? We use all three where I work...

    • Gnu tools (Score:5, Interesting)

      by flaming-opus (8186) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @12:56PM (#17907468)
      But the current versions of those tools are all licensed under GPLv2. If the FSF wants to play hardball, and releases future versions under GPLv3, Novell, or anyone else for that matter, can fork the GPLv2 version and continue developments from that base. The FSF would have to count on the community adopting the v3 versions, rather than the v2 versions. Since the number of FSF developers is small, relative to the number of other contributors, it's a fight the FSF may not want to start.
      • If there is one thing I have learned about rms, it is that he cares far more about ideology than popularity or practicality. To him and the FSF, "freeing" software from the evils of DRM, etc. MUST be done even if it sets FLOSS back 5-10 years (which it almost certainly will). I wonder if the BSD toolset will now be ported to Linux?

        • Available options:

          1. Attack DRM. Consequences for FOSS? Slithe says it'll set it back 5-10 years (probably hyperbole. What is the basis of the logic? I've yet to see any.)
          2. Don't attack DRM. Consequences for FOSS? Effectively made impractical. Sets it back permanently.

          Here's the thing: most people don't realise that the practical option is usually the one that protects the ideology. Linus "learned" (actually, he didn't, he acts like a whining two year old about it to this day) this lesson with the B

  • The whole point of GPL v3 ... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    is to make sure people cannot distribute FOSS in an 'encumbered' manner.

    In other words, if you distribute GPL v3 code, you wouldn't be able to attach conditions, like patent licenses for instance. Free means free and any attempt to circumvent this goes counter to the spirit of the GPL.
    • > In other words, if you distribute GPL v3 code, you wouldn't be able to attach conditions, like patent licenses for instance.

      I fail to see how they can keep Novell from distributing gcc, binutils, and so forth if they don't even modify them. Or is the "mere aggregation" clause completely out now. Libraries might have some leverage, but the only one that links to more or less everything is glibc, which is under the LGPL. I sure wouldn't mind concerted efforts to kill glibc, but for purely technical re

  • Try removing glibc some time (Score:5, Informative)

    by myowntrueself (607117) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @12:45PM (#17907268)
    try this on a debian/ubuntu system:

    apt-get remove libc6

    • okay, i did it. now wh

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Raul654 (453029)
      I remember I nearly fell out out of my chair when I found out Ubuntu Dapper didn't come with gcc by default. The idea that Linux would (nay, could) be shipped without gcc was quite shocking. IMHO, where usability is concerned, it's a huge a step in the right direction (by not requiring the end user to compile his own code) but it was shocking nonetheless.

  • What about GNU projects moving to GPL 3? (Score:5, Informative)

    by the_womble (580291) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @12:52PM (#17907392) Homepage Journal
    Its true that the FSF does not have the power to move the Linux Kernel to GPL version 3.

    However, the FSF is the principal sponsor of the GNU project, and run by the same people.

    So, we can expect most GNU stuff to move to GPL 3. If GPL 3 mucks up the Novel deal, I do not see that Novel is going to find it very useful to be able to distribute the Linux kernel without all the GNU stuff.

  • Why I read Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)

    by flynt (248848) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @12:54PM (#17907440)
    A zealous Reuters reporter apparently conflated the FSF with the open source community in general, took some quotes out of context, and ended up with a sensational headline that fooled a number of people.

    This just reinforces why I read Slashdot instead of other news, there's no chance of something like this happening here.

  • Not That Simple (Score:4, Insightful)

    by John Hasler (414242) on Tuesday February 06 2007, @12:55PM (#17907466)
    > Well, the Free Software Foundation has absolutely no control over Novell's
    > distribution of Linux.

    The FSF owns significant copyrights in the Linux kernel as well as in many utilities and applications.

    > The Novell deal is completely within the bounds of the GPL...

    While I agree that this is probably true, it is a legal opinion. I am not a lawyer. Are you?

    > GPLv3 isn't even done yet, and even when it is the Linux kernel is unlikely
    > to be covered by it.

    True, but irrelevant.

    I agree that the Reuters reporter is an ignorant doofus, but this is no reason to follow him off the deep end.
      • > Richard Stallman has publicly stated that the deal is within the bounds of the
        > GPL [linux-watch.com], so I think it is fair and reasonable to state it as a
        > fact and not an opinion.

        Richard Stallman is also not a lawyer (nor a judge) and neither he nor his organization own most of the copyrights in question. While his opinion carries a lot of weight I give it a great deal of respect, it remains an opinion.

        To repeat (this _is_ Slashdot), In my opinion Novell is in full compliance with the GPL. H
  • even with the GPLv3, the way it looks now, there is no reason that Novell would have to stop distributing the code. The GPLv3 mainly just takes away the incentive for such deals.
  • it's premature to say. GPLv3 could affect Novell's ability redistribute a bunch of code in Linux. But right now it's all in the air. No story here yet.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.