Novell Won't Lose Right To Sell 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.

Well, duh.

Anyone who read the comments section of that story would know this.

Premise is counterintuitive

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.

Re:GPL is'da bomb

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:Premise is counterintuitive

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.

They can distribute linux

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

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

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.

Re:They can distribute linux

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.

Re:They can distribute linux

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.

Re:They can distribute linux

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

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

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 Linux, no...

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.

Gnu tools

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.

The whole point of GPL v3 ...

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.

Try removing glibc some time

try this on a debian/ubuntu system:

apt-get remove libc6

What about GNU projects moving to GPL 3?

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

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

> 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.

furthermore...

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 could become expensive for Novell long term

All the GNU utilities look likely to be relicensed under the GPL v3, which could make it very difficult for Novell to construct an operating system from only GPL v2 components. They may have to fork and maintain gcc, binutils, coreutils etc. This could become very expensive for Novell if no one else decided to follow suit. While what they are doing is technically not a violation of the license, it is certainly against the spirit and original intention of it, and will only be detrimental to their own success as a Linux packager, distributor, and provider of support contracts (which are actually very good in my experience). Maybe GPL 3 will not stop distribution of a product that consists of both GPL 2 and 3 components, and Novell's dubious 'agreement' with Microsoft can remain for the GPL2 components. Personally, I hope that the GPL v3 does forbid distribution with any product that is subject to dubious 'agreements' of this type, as it is the only way that we can assure long term that greedy commercial interests will not hijack the hard work of others. I don't want my software plagued by vehicles of commercial profit, and unnecessary restrictions. If you can accept anti-user technologies like DRM, there are commercial alternatives, and you can have to choice to go and use them. Open Source should guarantee our freedom not to have to endure restrictions imposed any greedy criminal mafioso.

Can't be

A reporter misunderstanding and taking statements out of context? Never happen.

Next thing ya know, they'll be making things up and calling them fake but accurate.

Novell isn't in the clear yet

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.

counting noses

Each Open Source project leader will determine whether or not his project will be released under GPL3. The FSF has said that their projects will move to GPL3. Linus Torvalds and Miguel de Icaza have said that their projects will not move to GPL3. Almost all of the other project leaders have either said nothing or indicated that they would move to GPL3 conditional on waiting to see the final form of GPL3.

The Microsoft-Novell agreement was met with widespread anger within the Open Source community. Many people look at the Microsoft-Novell agreement as a patent attack by Microsoft on Open Source. Part of the Open Source members' reaction was a renewed committment to using GPL3 to break the agreement. So it would be reasonable to predict that if the final wording of GPL3 is satisfactory that a large number of GPL project leaders will move to their projects to GPL3.

Novell and Microsoft can react to GPL3 by changing the Microsoft-Novell agreement to conform to GPL3. Or Novell can try to work around GPL3 by forking all GPL3 projects from a GPL2 base. The cost of doing so could be prohibitive depending on how many projects move to GPL3. Another problem is that some customers may be reluctant to buy a forked distribution.

Everybody seems to agree that whether or not Linus Torvalds moves Linux to GPL3 is extremely important to how strong the Open Source reaction to Microsoft's patent attack will be. Linus Torvalds is on record as disliking GPL3. But he has not said anything about GPL3 and/or the Microsoft-Novell agreement since the agreement was announced. Whether the Microsoft patent attack on Linux changed Linus Torvalds' thinking about GPL3 is unknown.

----------------------
Steve Stites

Talk about irresponsible reporting!

1. The FSF has absolutely no control over Novell's distribution of Linux. None at all. Zero.

The first part is unconditionally, unequivocally untrue. As the copyright holders in part of the Linux kernel, Novell has the right to distribute it ONLY because the FSF (and other copyright holders) have licensed them to do so via the GPL. Therefore the FSF does in fact have a great deal of control over Novell's distribution of Linux. Novell must distribute under the GPL, or they must secure a separate license from all the copyright holders of Linux contributors. If he is saying that the FSF cannot stop Novell from distributing Linux as long as they abide by the GPL, that is true.

It doesn't matter a whit how much Stallman hates the Microsoft/Novell deal. It's legal. It's legit. It's in full compliance with the GPL.

That is the case, for now. As soon as Microsoft alleges patent infringement in Linux GPL code and sues someone, that ceases to be the case. The GPL specifically states that patents must be licensed for free use by everyone or not licensed at all. By sublicensing Microsoft's patents for their customers, Novell is violating that clause and risks having their rights under the GPL terminated. It is specifically because Novell is licensing those patents for their customers' use that is a problem, if the patents were licensed for Novell's internal use that wouldn't be an issue since USE of software covered by the GPL is unrestricted. And don't be fooled by the deal not being drawn up as a 'license'. A license is indeed what it is. License is a legal term for rights being given to another, calling it a 'covenant not to sue' does not change what it is.

Tempest in a teapot.

Jesus Christ on a bicycle, folks, Microsoft themselves has been distributing an operating system and other packages containing all kinds of open source code, including GCC, for years. If people aren't up in arms about BSD code in NT and GPL code in Interix then why the hell should they be upset about a company that's just made an agreement with Microsoft?

Give me a break

You all are speaking as though GNU tools will be the only projects placed under the new GPLv3 licensing.

I think that it is safe to assume that the GNU Desktop, Gnome, will be placed under the new licensing. GPLv3 is also designed to be compatible with Apache, can we expect Apache to be ported to GPLv3? Possibly but not likely. We know that Apache, in the very near future will be using GPLv3 libraries since many of these projects currently under the GPLv2 that are already being used by Apache will want to be compatible with the Apache licensing. Novel can do what they want with MONO, keep it GPLv2, but in the end, in order for them to use a GPLv3 Gnome or a GPLv3 library within Apache they must kill their agreement with Microsoft, create a new one that does not infringe, fork off a myriad of various Free Software applications, or risk being taken to court. Once in court, they will not last very long.

Regarding a Debian only GPLv3, whoever said this is a moron. It would be more expensive than maintaining a GPLv2 only SuSe distro and there is no need to make a GPLv3 only distro since GPLv3 is compatible with GPLv2.

Before I get flamed, let me say that, yes, I hate Novel and Microsoft, I hate NetWare and Windows and I love Free Software but that does not devoid these facts

Dern!

Too bad... I was hoping the FSF would pwn Novell. Ah well... We can always daydream about a world without SLED... A post-apocalyptic world, probably.

They will if RMS gets his way

Here's a quote from Richard Stallman: "It turns out that perhaps it's a good thing that Microsoft did this now, because we discovered that the text we had written for GPL version 3 would not have blocked this, but it's not too late and we're going to make sure that when GPL version 3 really comes out it will block such deals."

Charming, I'm sure. Software wants to be free, and we'll bludgeon anyone who thinks otherwise.