Novell May be Banned from Distributing Linux 553
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?
I'm confused (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is that so bad?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Spreading FUD (Score:5, Informative)
The whole Reuters article is FUD. Novell has not crossed any license, nor anybody at FSF thinks they can ban Novell from anything. What they are thinking about, is including something in GPLv3 to forbid wording that may suggest OSS breaking patents in those public deals. They even already posted a clarification! [linux-watch.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a very clear manipulation of what has been reall
FUD, Really? F at best ;) (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't see any FUD anywhere, at least not the D[oubt]. The FSF foundation is: "reviewing Novell Inc.'s right to sell new versions of Linux operating system software".
The FSF is doing a review of the matter to see if they can stop Novell (stop why? read below). Perhaps they can find a legal reason to stop Novell and perhaps they won't, but that the review is taking place isn't in [FU]Doubt.
What also isn't in doubt is that people (esp. the FSF, enough to do a review) are not impressed with Novell making back room deals with Microsoft in an apparent effort to circumvent the GNU GPL in playing patent agreement games.
The uncertainty is not really an issue, the FSF is making it clear that the will either restrict Novell now in using the FSF's software (if the review is successful), or they will be restricted (from using the latest FSF versions) later when the GNU GPLv3 comes out and the FSF moves all of its software over th the license which will prevent patent games.
As for Fear, I'd be afraid too if I was Novell going down the path it's on. They can remove any fear if they choose to back out of their Microsoft deal - the choice is theirs. What isn't their choice is to make use others' works without, at the very least, deference to the license it's under.
FUD, indeed. (Score:3, Informative)
The foundation is not.
Go to http://fsf.org/ [fsf.org], read the current event / news / etc... The words "Novel" "Stop" and "SuSE Linux" never occur in the same sentence. There are the BadVista campaign, events around the GPLv3, rants about iPhone, TiVo and other non-open platforms, news about openness in EU. Nothing about SuSE or Novell.
Jump to http://www.opensuse.org/ [opensuse.org]. There are news about SuSE Linux 10.2,
Re:Spreading FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
There is absolutely no point in stopping anybody from distributing quality open source software, however should companies infringe upon whatever version of GPL the code developers decided to use to protect their work, then those infringers should be made to pay and pay through the nose.
I could envisage a suitable charity fund that gives away the bulk of it's money every year (not just a miserly 5%) funded by those ass hats who would steal work that is meant to be shared by all and be for the common good.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Novell's problem is that the FSF controls the development of large pieces of software that are critical to the SuSE Linux distribution. Sure, The FSF can't retroactively change the license of existing versions of these software packages, but Novell is going to find itself in serious trouble if it is unable to distribute future versions of this software which will be release under the redesigned GPLv3. Even worse, there are plenty of people outside of the FSF in organizations like the Samba developers that
Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Insightful)
How exactly? Selling GPL software is quite clearly [gnu.org] within the bounds of the license. If you have a problem with that you shouldn't have given your code away to begin with. And this response is pretty asinine. How is linux lock-out any better than microsoft lock-in?
It's not about the money (Score:5, Insightful)
You are misreading the parent. It's not selling the GPL software that is prohibited; it's selling (or giving away) the GPL software in violation of the license agreement that is prohibited. Nobody is concerned about Novell making money; people are instead concerned about Novell sort of acknowledging that Microsoft may have patent claims as to what they are selling (which is software not produced by Microsoft, but produced by programmers who dislike being branded as plagiarists).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is one of the reasons I have always like the BSD style licenses more. A stunt like this would be laughed at and shrugged off.
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Insightful)
OTOH, the GPL is freer in a different way. With the GPL, derivative works are also GPL-free. With the BSD, there aren't significant limits on derivative works. They are frequently sold into slavery.
Saying that the GPL isn't free is like saying that because a country doesn't allow you to sell your children into slavery it isn't free. That would mean that YOU would be more free, but your children would be less free. The GPL is a rule requiring that the children remain free.
There is no absolute freedom. BSD is one compromise. GPL is another. I prefer the GPL.
P.S.: Sorry about the emotional nature of the argument, but it's the closest analogy that I can think of.
N.B.: I'm a bit of a dreamer. I freely acknowledge that current code is not sentient, and can't be properly considered to have any rights. But the GPL is, essentially, all about giving code ownership of itself. It hasn't gotten there yet, it's only a couple of steps along the way. The BSD was one step, and the GPL is a successor step. I think that the GPL3 is a third step, but I could be wrong. Where we ought to be headed, my guess, is towards sentient code that owns itself. We won't get there for awhile, but the pieces need to be crafted separately, and they need to be able to work together. That means a license that encourages code with compatible license. BSD code tends to flake off into proprietary branchings. This probably puts a limit on the complexity of the systems that can evolve. OTOH, something like BSD (or LGPL) is needed for things like interfaces. GPL3 is trying to be a "one size fits all", and this is probably a mistake. I suspect that GPL4 will branch into GPL4a and GPL4b (c? d?) with different specialized purposes...but mutually compatible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a bit harsh really. What licence an author decides to use is up to him/her. If he/she is up for other party using the code for their benefit then so be it BSD otherwise GPL, it's about how yuo're happy with how people treat your code. to compare it with slavery etc. is bit over the top imho.
Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Insightful)
If it were GPL then mega-corps can borrow code, embrace and extend it, and be required contribute the derived work back to the community. Apple's Safari and KHTML, for example (Thanks, Apple!).
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Insightful)
That reasoning is, initself, flawed. Calling somebody names is hardly a constructive way to begin a discussion. Moreover, as you say yourself, it's an opinion. His opinion. As such, it's hard to see where the flaw is. The OP states his preference for BSD licensing. I read his post as saying "The GPL places restrictions on what you can do with the software under its license. BSD doesn't" as such, I see no flaw in that argument, even if you feel it is important to safeguard the continued access to the sourcecode. As you say yourself, Contributors are free to choose the license they prefer.
"It is a moron who tries to ridicule the free choice people make.
Huh? So first you ridicule somebodies preference for a certain type of license, the you go on to state that people who do that are morons? I don't get it.
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Informative)
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
Your Confused (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apart from legal nitpickings, imagine a reversed situation. We find a way to distribute Vista for free by a loophole in their EULA. Now do you really expect MS to not try to remedy this?
Therefore, the OSS community has every right to protect the spirit of the GPL vigiously. If
Section 7 and explicit claims (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft and Novell have agreed not to sue each other over patent violations. Therefor, Novell can now (continue to?) develop software that violates Microsoft's "Intellectual Property".
The catch is: Novell develops GPL software. It helps *existing* GPL'd projects, like Evolution, SAMBA, OpenOffice.org.
Novell doesn't have to worry about patent violation anymore, so they can code whatever they want into those type of projects. The Community, however, does not have this luxury deal with Microsoft.
SAMBA could get sued. Debian could get sued for distributing SAMBA. All kinds of nastiness that may never happen, but scares the hell out of people. Scares them enough to stay away from all those 'nasty hacker' distributions, and go for Litigation Free Novell Linux.
*That* is why it is bad. That is why we should do everything and anything to stay away from Novell.
Regards,
mverwijs
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Interesting)
My question is: Can they release that code under the GPL, knowing that it cannot be freely distributed?
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Interesting)
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Novell would seem to have a patent license for any of MSFTs patents. Unless Novell can guarantee anyone who uses their GPL'd code would have the same indemnification, they wouldn't be allowed to distribute the code. Of course, Novell can't guarantee this. In fact, the whole point of the deal with MSFT is so that they are the only ones with such a guarantee.
To get academic, if Novell wrote the code from scratch, they could license the code under the GPL, but I'm not sure how that would work. The GPL can't diminish rights held by the owner of the copyright. One could argue that placing code under the GPL would be a blanket patent license, but that doesn't seem likely to hold up. You'd have to talk to a copyright and/or contract lawyer about that.
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Insightful)
The agreement DOES endemnify anyone that Novell distributes to, but it will not endemnify anyone else. Novell is trying to claim that the people they distribute to get the protection so the GPL is followed to the letter. The people that recieved it can not comply with the GPL by providing endemnification and therefore cannot redistribute it. Thus defeating the entire purpose of the GPL.
Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Informative)
As long as the entirety of what was distributed is created only by Novell, then this is so. However, if any part of what Novell distributes consists of GPL components from others, then this is a violation by Novell because Novell does not have the rights to limit or restrict distribution of anything containing such parts. The entirety of the GPL must apply in whole to the whole thing being distributed (e.g. a Linux kernel ... and other components like glibc) and that requires the distributor (Novell at that point) to grant all the rights of the GPL (which means anyone who gets it from Novell also has to have royalty-free patent rights, too).
Basically, Novell is losing its right to distribute the components it does not create that are covered by GPL because it is attaching something that cannot be redistributed. It's similar to linking in some piece of code they write and saying "You can distribute the rest of Linux but not this little part we wrote". The GPL does not allow that.
Novell could go write their own OS entirely themselves and distribute that under any terms they choose. But they can't distribute the pieces of Linux (as part of the whole) they did not develop unless they grant to the entire thing all the rights they have in it. If they add patent indemnification to it, they have to grant full free and infinite redistribution of those rights for the whole thing to be able to legally distribute that which contains the other parts (other parts being parts of Linux they did not distribute).
Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the crux of the issue: if Novell develops code to extend any existing GPL program to be more compatible with MS software, they have to distribute it under the GPL. By doing this, they are granting everybody else the right to read, modify, redistribute their contributed code. If said Novell-contributed code makes use of MS protected intellectual property which Novell has the newly-acquired right to use, by redistributing it under the GPL Novell will be granting everybody the right to use such protected intellectual property —a right they do not have.
This actually means that Novell cannot legally distribute programs that they changed by adding MS protected intellectual property, if and when they will do such changes. The GPLv3 has nothing to do with it: Novell would be in breach of contract even for GPLv2 programs.
Indeed if Novell does make MS-IP-protected changes to GPL programs and if they do distribute such modified programs (which they must do under the GPL, if they do it at all), it's up to Microsoft to go after them, because Novell would be granting other people rights (the right to use MS protected IP) they (Novell) don't have the right to grant. That's because the Novell-MS deal only protects Novell customers, but the Novell-released GPL products would also be accessible to non-Novell customers, so by distributing such modified programs Novell would be breaking its side of the deal with Microsoft, and not just their contract (licence) with the copyright owners of the GPL programs they would have modified. The FSF (or any other GPL-program-copyright-holder) cannot prevent Novell from distributing their programs currently, but they can sue Novell for breach of contract if and when Novell starts distributing versions of GPL-protected programs modified to include MS-IP-protected changes.
IOW, Novell has wedged itself in a situation where they can't really exploit the potential benefits of their deal with Microsoft without getting sued by Microsoft, the FSF, or both.
Finally, a question for the lawyers, if there are any here: if Novell does distribute such conflicting changes and if MS chooses not to sue Novell over this, can they (MS) go after anybody else? Don't they lose the rights they choose not to defend?
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Insightful)
See now, here's the critical issue in the suckerpunch. If Novell had recieved a proper patent license, everything would be very clear cut. They haven't, they've recieved a "promise not to get sued" which smells, acts, talks and walks like a patent license, but in legal terms isn't. For example, say I'm the RIAA and I'm off to sue people. I can arbitrarily decide not to sue people whose names start with 'A' - that doesn't mean those people have any explicit license to the music. I can even choose not to sue people that have donated to the "Friends of RIAA" foundation, which makes it a protection racket but AFAIK not an illegal one. Selective enforcement of civil law by a private company is AFAIK not illegal.
Indeed if Novell does make MS-IP-protected changes to GPL programs and if they do distribute such modified programs (which they must do under the GPL, if they do it at all), it's up to Microsoft to go after them, because Novell would be granting other people rights (the right to use MS protected IP) they (Novell) don't have the right to grant.
This is in any case a wrong legal interpretation. Even if we assumed Novell had recieved a proper patent license, they don't have the right to sublicense it beyond their direct customers. Thus it is never granted and Microsoft can sue whoever they want with impunity. It is the FSF (or other GPL copyright holders) who'd have to sue Novell over violation of the GPL (if you can not comply with this license and your other legal obligations, you must refrain from distributing it completely).
However, let's get back the facts where Novell has nothing but a "promise not to get sued" and not an actual patent license. Because they formally have no license to use the patents, they're in a position much like say the XviD codec. It's covered by plenty patents, they have no patent license but distribute their code under the GPL. Nobody seems to have a problem with that, because they're distributing all the rights that they have even though it's obviously not all the IP rights to the code. Anyone who claimed they had gotten patent licenses by downloading the XviD codec and pointing to the GPL would be laughed out of court when the MPEG4 LA sued them.
Finally, a question for the lawyers, if there are any here: if Novell does distribute such conflicting changes and if MS chooses not to sue Novell over this, can they (MS) go after anybody else? Don't they lose the rights they choose not to defend?
No, trademarks have to be defended but copyrights and patents don't.
Anyway, here's the end game if it goes the way Microsoft and Novell wants:
1. Novell contributes code covered by patents
2. Customers get code
3. Non-customers get code
4. Microsoft sues non-customers
5. Non-customers claims they have patent license through GPL
6. Courts: "Nope, it hasn't been sublicensed to you"
7. FSF sues Novell over not distributing all their rights
8. Courts: "Nope, they're distributing all their formal licenses"
9. FSF sues Novell over being bound by patent lawsuits
10. Courts: "Nope. that only applies to the sued parties"
11. Non-customers buy Novell products
12. Microsoft and Novell: Profit
Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Insightful)
A company trying to hijack Linux by providing kind of a "safest" distro for enterprises
A SCO-like proxy to hurt free software
Therefore, Novell must end the SCO way.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
SCO looks like they may pretty much end when their assets are frozen due to a preliminary injunction filed by... Novell. It's all so confusing.
Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Interesting)
But in doing that the courts would be affirmatively establishing a contract violation. That is the Novell claimed to be distributing all patent rights they had when the distributed the software under the GPL. The non customer could then argue that they acted in good faith. I think the non customer has a pretty strong claim that any monies owed microsoft are owed by Novell.
Further you might get
6a. licensing code containing your patented material to be distributed in a GPL product constitutes a waver of patent and thus there is no more enforceable patent with respect to this code. A very reasonable outcome btw.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not necessarily. If you read what the grandparent said about the XVid codecs, you'd see that the Novell agreement is similar. Novell can acknowledge that they don't have the full rights, but as long as they're distributing the rights the do have, they can stay in compliance regarding the GPL.
As fo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1. If patented code is in there, its being placed there knowingly/mistakenly by Novell, the project can deny it knew it was patented and further, can take steps to remove the offending code.
2. Is this any different from an employee (ex or current) adding patented code into a GPL project? There is no ban/special treatment of employees of companies with software patents.
3. Code still has to be accepted into a project. Why not let the individual project leaders decide if they trust
WRONG! (Score:2, Informative)
You mean, therefor Novell CUSTOMERS can now develop software that violates Microsoft's "Intellectual Property.
Quite Honestly it makes little difference what these customers develop in the first place because their are not redistributing this software.
Now when a customer using Windows and Linux needs to copy a feature used by MS to get proprietary application X to run on Linux they have an agreem
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Quite Honestly it makes little difference what these customers [of Novell] develop in the first place because their are not redistributing this software.
You are making a major assumption that no customer of Novell's would ever develop and distribute a derivative of Suse-- and that is absurd.
One of our projects in early incubation is developing a distro on a flash drive or low cost portable computer that would provide adult students in back-to-work programs with an affordable interactive curriculum. If we can get this funded and developed, we will want to distribute it under GLOSS [see below] licensing both directly to students and to similar back-to-wo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No I am not. Any software you plan to distribute will be handled the same as it always has. You can rebrand and distribute Suse if you see fit. If you contributed code you are welcome to release it under GPL as well so long as it does not infringe on someone elses legal rights. The only thing that changes is that you CAN develop and use portions of MS code in house.
Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Informative)
Actually thats not true. Cases Like VirtualDub and SCO - Microsoft suing by proxy - are examples that Microsoft can do a fair share of suing - when needed.
Since Microsoft has been crusing opponents in other ways they do not need to use the courts to stop them. But be well aware that even the hint from Microsoft that they will sue can force a company to rethink its strategy. Noone wants to be on the other side of a lawsuit brought upon them from Microsoft.
You are confused (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, yes, indeed [eweek.com]!
No, that would, actually, be a great thing — they should've started with a better OS to begin with (ha-ha). But it would not help the problem, which is largely with applications — Evolution, Samba, et al. are licensed the same way, independently of the
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Put a little differently, would you be upset if your friend was helping you and the neighborhood bully showed up and paid your friend not to help you anymore? You might be upset at your friend if he accepted the neighborhood bully's money and stopped helping you.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Insightful)
It's bad because Novell is paying Microsoft for the use of Microsoft patents in Linux. Linux is free software. When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. The fact that Novell has effectively admitted that Microsoft holds some Intellectual Property leverage over Linux, implies that Linux is non-free. And that's not acceptable to the community. Worse, it implies that Linux is non-free and beholden to Microsoft, a convicted monopolist, the owner of Linux's principal competitor, a company with no love for Linux and one which is well known for shafting its partners and enemies alike.
It appears likely that the patent covenant which Novell signed violates the GPL - either Version 2, or certainly Version 3. If so, Novell loses its right to distribute affected code under the GPL. No other license permits it to do that, so Novell must cease distributing.
Also, the possibility that Novell has insider access to Microsoft Intellectual Property creates a risk that Novell's contributions to Linux will leak some of that Intellectual Property into Linux. Thus, the scenario described in the first paragraph, while Linux may not presently be tainted by Microsoft's IP, in future it may become so. I think it is purely common sense for the community to reject patches supplied by Novell.
So, people don't hate Novell, but by their actions they are putting Linux at risk, in order to line their own pockets (presumably funded by patents which Novell owns and which may be used in Windows). Novell aren't playing fair with the community.
Re:I'm confused (Score:4, Insightful)
What is bad is that it's a complete lie, it's the most plausible, positive-sounding story they could come up with to explain away what they are doing. Microsoft has described Linux and the open source movement using terms such as "a cancer", "communist", "viral", and more recently referred to open source developers as "pawns" engaged in a "one-night stand". Also immediately after the Novell-Microsoft deal was announced Balmer said publicly that he believed any non-Novell distribution was now a legitimate target for Microsoft legal attacks. They are doing everything they can to smear, stall, and frustrate open source developers while simultaneously trying to sell the "we cooperate and inter operate with everyone to make your life easier" image to the corporate types with these sort of cover stories.
What Microsoft is trying to get out of the deal is to turn Suse into the one-and-only Linux distro that is blessed by Microsoft as being "safe" from patent concerns via indemnification. Then when the indemnification period runs out Microsoft can choose to charge Novell an exorbitant amount of money for renewal, or simply pull the plug altogether. This would also have the bonus effect of making lawsuits against other Linux distros more plausible in the minds of corporate customers because the fact that one distro is seeking indemnification makes the notion that others are at risk without a similar deal seem logical. Allowing Microsoft to create yet more FUD around Linux without putting itself as much immediate risk. I personally doubt Microsoft will actually sue any distro directly because of the potential nuclear patent war that could be triggered if, for example any of the Open Invention Network members felt compelled to get involved (specifically IBM).
What Novell gets out of the deal is a big pile of quick money and potentially greater market share as a side effect of the afore mentioned FUD around competing distros. Unfortunately for Novell these are both short-term benefits that come with the cost of making them beholden to Microsoft, and alienating them from many in the developer community (see samba).
How Novell thought they could get away with this is beyond me, If I had to guess I would say either the upper management sees other Redhat taking the server support market, and Ubuntu taking the desktop Market, leaving Suse out in the cold so they decided to cash out, not caring what happens in the long term. Or their lawyers came up with their now famous gpl2 end run, thinking themselves clever for coming up with a deal that Microsoft was happy with and didn't violate the letter of the gpl, but having little understanding of what the repercussions would be from the developer community and the fsf. After reading some comments from Novell employees I suspect the latter.
In either case Novell made the decision to cut this deal, they acted with great disregard to the effect it would have on the community whose work sustains them. They have attempted to sneak through a legal loophole and if it closes around them it will be their comeuppance.
How can they do this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Considering that the software is still all under the GPLv2 and not GPLv3, on what grounds could the FSF revoke Novell's right to distribute copyrighted FSF software?
Re:How can they do this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I would support the FSF if they decide to do this. The Novell/ MS deal is nothing, but a way to provide Novell with a marketing tool, the ability to say "use our Linux distro and be safe from MS patent claims", at the expense of the overall community. Novell is essentially saying that it's OK for MS to sue everyone, except Novell customers, for so-called IP infringements. It is a move by Novell to establish themselves as the Linux monopoly by making their product "safe" from MS lawyers. Novell is hoping that the business community will make wholesale migrations to their products in order to avoid the threat of MS litigation and is a, somewhat silent, partner in MS' efforts to spread FUD about the "use of MS proprietary technology in Linux". Make no mistake about it Novell is evil: to my mind it is more evil than MS in that it portrays itself as a friend of the Linux/FOSS community, while doing whatever it can to undermine the philosphical and legal basis for that community. MS at least makes no claim that Linux is OK - they just flat-out hate us and do everything that they can to prevent the spread of freedom within the community of computer users.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
i.e. they're saying that they'll change the license of code they own to be GPL3 once it has been finalised, and they may revoke Novell's right to distribute said code, since they will be in breach of this new license. That is why it will only affect 'future versions of linux'. By which the author probably actually meant 'GNU', not the Linux kernel - e.g. gcc for instance.
Which would force Novell to fork and contin
Re:How can they do this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
For the best (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Poor Article (Score:5, Informative)
However, the point is somewhat (perhaps) valid - if most of SUSE goes GPL3, and if the GPL3 is indeed in conflict with the Novell-Microsoft agreement, then there may be an issue (both qualifications seem likely, at present, but time will tell). The issue may be easily solvable, however, depending on the details of the Novell-Microsoft deal - which we do not know (Eben Moglen, however, supposedly does, or so we have been told).
Ah, that actually makes some sense (Score:2)
In any case, I switched from SUSE to Linux Mint [linuxmint.com] a while ago... it's the only other distro I've found that supports my wireless card with WPA-PSK "out of the box". Being able to play DVDs and videos without finding and manually installing the packages is a bonus.
Re:Poor Article (Score:4, Informative)
Well, from what I know, it would be really difficult to migrate the Linux Kernel from GPL2 to GPL3, even
But from this:
The foundation controls intellectual property rights to key parts of the open-source Linux operating system.
I assume they are talking about the GNU toolchain (remember kids, its GNU/Linux, not just Linux). I guess the FSF *will* use the GPL 3 for the new GNU tools version, if they prevent Novell from *distributing* the GNU tools, then I guess things will get difficult for Novell.
Re:Poor Article (Score:5, Insightful)
Difficult yes, impossible - no. And Linus may get additional motivation soon. If OpenSolaris goes GPL3, then it can use any "GPL2 or above" code from the Linux kernel (which I have heard is the majority). The Linux kernel, on the other hand, won't be able to use anything from OpenSolaris. This 'one-way-street' of code certainly isn't in Linux's interest.
Re: (Score:2)
So OpenSolaris can't use any of it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"[...]the terms of the GPL state that if no version is specified, then any version may be used, and Alan Cox pointed out that very few other Linux contributors [other than Linus] have specified a particular version of the GPL."
So OpenSolaris would
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They can't legally change that without contacting every contributing author and getting permission to change to v3... and I can bet that more than a few would refuse (not least Linus). I'm sure my meagre contributions don't exist any more (long time ago) but I
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Changing the entire kernel to GPL3 would be very hard, as you say, while getting various parts of it would be much easier. Now, obviously you are right that 'bits and pieces' of the kernel are not functional by themselves. Yet OpenSolaris would want precisely just 'bits and pieces'; they already have a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Competition is good for everyone!
Re: (Score:2)
ALL the copyright of the kernel is assigned to one entity (not sure if its Linus, but there is only one owner of the source).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't take my word for it, let me dispell your beliefs with this thread [lkml.org] on the LKML, or if you're not feeling like reading
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Also GNOME (which is the default on SUSE these days), and Samba.
But lots of other stuff won't. So a sizable part of SUSE will be moving to GPL3 (barring any surprises), but not the overwhelming majority (e.g. the kernel).
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid move... (Score:2, Insightful)
Statements like that make lawyers see dollar signs. Nice move, idiots.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stupid move... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is retarded (Score:2, Insightful)
Yep, this could really screw Linux adoption (Score:2)
A big part of selling Linux's freedom is letting people do things that you may not like
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, the GPL pretty much states that plain and clear. The intent of the GPL is for users to be able to:
1. Redistribute their software freely.
2. Obtain the source to their software.
If you distribute GPL software and you want to interfere with either of these g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kill SuSE and you've killed the most popular business oriented linux distribution in Europe.
You think that businesses will go back to Linux after that fiasco? Nope. Hell, I'd think twice myself! I can't afford to fight legal battles. It used to be that you comply with the license then you're OK. Now if you comply with the license and the FSF take a dislike to your distribution - or worse, you - you're stuffed.
So you get either one of two outcomes:
1. Migration to BSD (OpenSolaris is GPL so n
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Kill SuSE and you've killed the most popular business oriented linux distribution in Europe.
You think that businesses will go back to Linux after that fiasco? Nope. Hell, I'd think twice myself! I can't afford to fight legal battles.
But in Europe the mysterious MS software licence claims that Novell wants to protect it's customers from are null and void, Suse like any other distribution is not affected.
(I'm not talking here about IP claims).
Of course this is bad for Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
This will be another example of Microsoft's very successful "take and break" strategy. Once SuSE is up to speed and working well with Windows abominations such as Active Directory, other distributions will be the ones which are somehow not compatible with the "SuSE Linux Standard". Once Microsoft has killed off the other major distributions, they will quietly break compatibility even with SuSE, in a flood of tiny little things that just have to be that way, because of the structure of the WIndows kernel (or some damned thing).
The only reason we are not all using Java desktops with a common intermediate layer is the Microsoft "take and break" implementation of the JVM.
Disproportionate (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, That's a Good Idea... (Score:4, Insightful)
It wouldn't matter if it was technically correct or not, the perception would be enough. And frankly, the fact if the FSF is really even considering this casts a bit of a shadow on Linux and Enterprise Support in general: Is it FSF sanctioned businesses only?
Besides, why just Novell? IBM has patent agreements with Microsoft. IBM sells Windows Servers. This seems like nothing more that "We don't like the MS/Novell deal, so let's punish them!"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Suppose I am and ISV that produces SuperWonderfulMagicPony for Linux. I run SUSE in house for my operational systems. The deal is grea
Re:Um, That's a Good Idea... (Score:5, Funny)
OK. So, what do you do about all the 12 year-old girls stalking you?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Novell seems to believe that only its patent agreement with MS protects its customers. *If* this is the case, then Novell's customers cannot exercise their rights to redistribute or modify software under the GPL without violating patents. The GPL (yes, even V2) forbids Novell from distributing GPLd software if this is the case.
The FSF is (probably) working out whether this applies in this case.
What a stupid idea (Score:2)
"f 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."
Which means Novell would be free to fork v2 and keep anything they do under v2 as well as prevent it from being incorporated in any v3 licensed version; since they could limit it to v2 and earlier lice
Re: (Score:2)
It's inevitable that forks will happen - a lot of people don't like the way gplv3 is headed - but a major player doing it is a big issue.
Bad move (Score:2)
They could become another SCO.
This article is poo. (Score:4, Insightful)
Secondly, John Dragoon doesn't get it. He honestly thought that this was a Good Idea and we parted ways agreeing to disagree. He's a PHB sales-type. He's not "one of us."
I have ranted here and vehemently castigated Novell (see sig) for the stupid move, but I'm not sure that they should be "kicked out of linux" yet. They should be given the chance to redeem themselves or at least clear the air on what they really signed. But I have yet to hear anyone from Novell explain exactly what was in that contract. I've waited and waited for a clear explanation, and it has not been forthcoming from what I can see. So all I've had to base my opinion on is a smattering of articles and analysis on Groklaw of generalities taken from press releases. For all I can tell, it's a lot of hot air.
I am more of the opinion that we don't need a "Novell Clause." Instead I think that Linux market forces will relegate Novell's brands of Linux to the dustbin if they don't get their act together and get right with the community.
--
BMO
"I have never come upon a post which makes its point so excellently, and also contains so many F-words." - Bruce Perens
They haven't thought this through (Score:2)
Every company and every person should be banned from using Linux.
I labeled this fud and i will tell you why... (Score:2)
So, Microsoft sees that Novell gets it's deal (20 000 workstations and 5000 servers, come on, if it is not serious, then what is), goes in panic mode and starts to create FUD. FSF could be overreacting on all stuff what happens around Novell and Microsoft deal, but there is no WAY they could stop Novell to distribute GPL code
Re: (Score:2)
News article itself here: http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/01/30/HNpeuge
Article is FUD. (Score:5, Informative)
"According to a recent Reuters report, the FSF's (Free Software Foundation) board was going to be looking into Novell Inc.'s rights to continue selling its version of the Linux operating system. That's not actually what's will be happening.
Eben Moglen, the Software Freedom Law Center executive director and FSF board member, explained: "This is a story being hyped by the Reuters guy who wrote it."
The Reuters quote was: "The community of people wants to do anything they can to interfere with this deal and all deals like it. They have every reason to be deeply concerned that this is the beginning of a significant patent aggression by Microsoft."
"What he actually asked me," said Moglen in an e-mail interview, "was 'Is it true that some members of the community want GPLv3 to keep Novell from distributing future versions of GPL'd software?' I said, 'Yes, the Free Software Foundation is opposed to the deal, and is thinking about what to do; there will be a new draft soon [of the GPLv3 (Gnu General Public License Version 3).]"
See Special Report: Novell's Linux Facelift
Therefore, "The actual quote he prints is entirely accurate, but his lede destroys the context and is making unnecessary waves."
The FSF, which governs the GPL (GNU General Public License), has long been concerned about Novell recent patent deal with Microsoft Corp. The Samba Group has stated that it wants Novell to abandon the deal. Open-source figure Bruce Perens started a petition that accused Novell of betraying the free software community. And, one group of free software supporters launched a Web site with a self-explanatory name, Boycott Novell. "
Handing MS a huge victory on a platter (Score:4, Interesting)
Consider how this ban will affect those customers of Novell who use Linux. And consider the kind of reputation that this will give the open-source community.
One reason companies pay for expensive proprietary software is that the companies that write proprietary software are considered reliable. They won't suddenly throw a tantrum and refuse to deliver.
If the open-source community is seen as throwing a tantrum and refusing to deliver, then good-bye credibility. Companies just won't dare use open-source software.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because a company charges for their software doesn't prevent them from adding terms to their EULA that allow them to do just this. I recently had a large well-respected graphics software company (I won't name names, but it starts with 'a' and ends with 'dobe') functionally revoke my licenses because I had
So much for "open" (Score:3, Interesting)
(?)
And You Wonder Why People Avoid Open Source? (Score:3, Interesting)
Nor does the fact that when open source hits the non-techie media, the story is usually about geeks and lawyers fighting about byzantine licensing issues that only they care about. If open source delivers better technology, why isn't open source making sure people read about it? (To that, I'm sure, some will blame the Great Evil Mainstream Media Conspiracy. Nonsense, Play the media game as others play it, and the coverage wil be there. If you think that means abandoning your principles, sorry. Convincing all the other players to change the rules is the wrong way to win the game.)
This would be atni-free-software, wouldn't it? (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole point of Free Software is freedom - enforced by the GPL. Why would Novell not be able to distribute Linux software? Perhaps there may be trademark issues, but restricting someone from doing what they want with GPL software would make Stallman quite the hypocrite.
lets hope not (Score:3, Insightful)
However, this could kill SUSE, thus hurting a lot of blameless businesses that use it, no doubt pissing them off considerably, and costing a lot of money. Microsoft would love that, they can charge to the rescue amid the confusion, offer cheap license deals with gr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It could well be the turning point where linux itself gets killed. Which is what MS wanted all along, really. Way to play into their hands, stallman.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but the GNU toolchain belongs to the FSF. You could replace shell utils, etc with a set from (say) netbsd but that doesn't give you a compiler. In fact, I am not aware of anything free which can replace GCC.
Re:Most likely an overraction ... (Score:4, Interesting)
The pragmatists want a Windows alternative. They want Linux to be this alternative. License issues are secondary. This group well accepts closed-source software and -drivers. Their primary goal is to push Desktop Linux so that MS is no longer the hyperpowerful monopoly.
The idealists want everything to be free. They couldn't care less about Linux being popular, they want a 100% free system, even if it means that only 5 people in the world use it.
The FSF belongs to the latter group. However, one argument the pragmatists definitely have is by not pushing Linux the idealists ultimately give MS carte blanche to redesign the IT sector to their liking. This can't happen if there is a real competitor. In the end, Linux may not run at all on *any* PC because of this.
This is why I wonder why BSD wasn't pushed. It does not have any license worries, and could work just as well on a desktop.