A few days ago we linked the transcript of Richard Stallman's talk at the Tokyo GPLv3 meeting. Now bubulubugoth writes to point us to an analysis of what Stallman said in Tokyo. In particular, these quotes: "Microsoft has not given Novell a patent license, and thus, section 7 of the GPL version 2 does not come into play. Instead, Microsoft offered a patent license that is rather limited to Novell's customers alone." And, apparently resolving the conundrum of whether GPLv2 and GPLv3 licenses can be commingled: "There's no difficulty in having some programs in the system under GPL2 and other programs under GPL3."
And, apparently resolving the conundrum of whether GPLv2 and GPLv3 licenses can be commingled: "There's no difficulty in having some programs in the system under GPL2 and other programs under GPL3."
All this says is that some code can be GPLv2 and some seperate code can be GPLv3. This is about as far as you can get from addressing the problem while still saying "GPLv2" and "GPLv3".
Maybe if you RTFA, you'd understand. Or even the summary.
Stallman didn't actually give us ANY new information about GPL v2/3 compatibility. He only said that some programs could be v2, and some v3, and exist on the same system. He didn't say they could work together (they can), and he CERTAINLY didn't say their code could be compiled together (this is the issue, and I say they can't).
So what, we can use scripts that will download source code and compile it for us, that is legal.
Hard to say before the final draft of GPLv3, but that seems the most likely scenario. The GPL has never had a problem with people compiling and running software for personal use. It's just when they distribute that the GPL comes into play.
Of course, you could argue that distributing such a download-compile-and-link program would be an attempt to violate the intent of the new licence, but I still think tha
Stallman didn't actually give us ANY new information about GPL v2/3 compatibility. He only said that some programs could be v2, and some v3, and exist on the same system. He didn't say they could work together (they can), and he CERTAINLY didn't say their code could be compiled together (this is the issue, and I say they can't).
Well, we can just read the GPL3 draft ourselves. Assuming no big changes in that area (and I doubt there will be any), it will not be possible to link GPL2 and GPL3 code together
I don't think GPL3 toold like a compiler would work with a GPL2 kernel. One of the things the GPLv3 was trying to address was the shirking around obligations imposed by the GPLv2. A compiler will depend heavily on the kernel and all it's libaries to work making the operations of a GPLv3 compiler contrary to it's own license when using a GPLv2 kernel. In my opinion, this is nothing different from TIVOs attempt to lock people out. If the GPLv3 can taint the hardware to the points it forces signed keys to becom
Doesn't seem logical but Novell won't discuss it preferring, it says, to wait and see what happens in the GPL3 negotiations, clinging to the notion that Stallman and company - anarchist fanatics said to be cut from the same all-or-nothing cloth as suicide bombers - won't do anything to derail Linux.
Quite apart from the partial title, which is misrepresentative of the article, why would you post a link to anything that contained statements like this?
"Quite apart from the partial title, which is misrepresentative of the article, why would you post a link to anything that contained statements like this?"
Because I guess that the editors know nothing about sys-con. I had sys-con blackholed for a while and last time I cleaned my hosts file, I took them out. Looks like they're up to their same old BS. Sys-Con (system of a con) is a troll organization and most of what I have ever read WRT their attitude toward Linux and the GPL in general has been inaccurate and just plain nonsense. There was _no_ "absolution" of Novell. There was a "It's a good thing they did this now, so we can disallow it in V3." Even the title of the article is a troll. They publish articles "for the clicks and the lulz" like Dan "Lyin'" Lyons and Rob "I'll give a keynote speech for SCO World drunk" Enderle. How articles like that wind up on Slashdot? The editors don't do the least amount of due-diligence - not even a cursory reading of the articles themselves, apparently.
The editors don't do the least amount of due-diligence - not even a cursory reading of the articles themselves, apparently.
Well, that's certainly true, but don't forget also that anything that's controversial is going to generate a lot of discussion, which generates a lot of page hits, which generates a lot of ad impressions.
Don't forget that Slashdot is for-profit, and has been for years now.
Well, that's certainly true, but don't forget also that anything that's controversial is going to generate a lot of discussion, which generates a lot of page hits, which generates a lot of ad impressions.
Yeah, but if they manage to piss of everybody the ad-dollars are going bye bye sooner or later.
why would you post a link to anything that contained statements like this?
Quite. Particularly when the author so blatantly displays his lack of understanding of
the subject. He's unable to see the difference between distributions shipping GPLv2 and GPLv3
code and a program that mixes code with both licenses.
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday December 03 2006, @06:58AM (#17088334)
Sorry for the karma whoring, but the article seems to imply that RMS thinks that there's nothing wrong with Novel's deal, which is not quite the case, as can be seed below.
However, there's another way of using software patents to threaten the users which we have just seen an example of. That is, the Novell-Microsoft deal. What has happened is, Microsoft has not given Novell a patent licence, and thus, section 7 of GPL version 2 does not come into play. Instead, Microsoft offered a patent licence that is rather limited to Novell's customers alone.
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. We were already concerned about possibilities like this, namely, the possibility that a distributor might receive a patent licence which did not explicitly impose limits on downstream recipients but simply failed to protect them.
What if one company pays Microsoft for a patent licence where Microsoft says "Alright, we won't sue you, but we're just not making any promises about your customers if they redistribute it". We had already written a downstream shielding provision into GPL version 3 saying that if you convey the program, and you are benefitting from a patent licence that is not available, that does not extend to the downstream users, then you have to do something to shield them.
This is, it turns out, inadequate in two ways. First of all, "shielding them" is vague. We're replacing that with a specific list of methods, and second, once again it assumes that the distributor has received a patent licence, so the Microsoft/Novell deal cunningly does not give Novell the patent licence, only Novell's customers.
Well, now that we have seen this possibility, we're not going to have trouble drafting the language that will block it off. We're going to say not just that if you receive the patent licence, but if you have arranged any sort of patent licensing that is prejudicial among the downstream recipients, that that's not allowed. That you have to make sure that the downstream recipients fully get the freedoms that they're supposed to have. The precise words, we haven't figured out yet. That's what Eben Moglen is working on now.
As I understand it, the Novell-Microsoft agreement does not protect either Novell or Microsoft directly. It only states that Novell's customers will not be in the firing line if Microsoft goes after Novell or Redhat, for instance. This advantage that Novell's clients would have is seen by some open source advocates as against the spirit of the GPL which, apparently, is that everyone should be equally vulnerable. I am sort of curious. Let us say that Microsoft unilaterally decides to offer protection to
Reading the headline I almost instinctivly looked out of the window to see if there were any pigs or penguins flying by... but then I remembered that I was reading/.
Stallman might be a sort of pope, but he is not selling indugence to M$. Well I guess that if the bill and melinda fondation would offer to give him ALL their money, he would at least think about it. Of course the way he would be using this money might be even more irritating to the current US rulers thant what he is currently doing, since I suspect that he would still have the same choice of entertainments (playing irish flute in front of a large crowd rather than buying a large mansion in beverley hills:-))
As in, really did find a loophole that let's them legally stab everyone in the back? One that we will be sure to fix in v3 and then they can't play such games anymore.
That kind of absolves, or did he say they what they did was perfectly fine and such practices will be ok going forward?
Doesn't seem logical but Novell won't discuss it preferring, it says, to wait and see what happens in the GPL3 negotiations, clinging to the notion that Stallman and company - anarchist fanatics said to be cut from the same all-or-nothing cloth as suicide bombers - won't do anything to derail Linux.
This statement is ambiguous; is it saying that Novell made these statements about Stallman, or is it the journalist's own statement?
Either way, likening someone who takes a principled stand on intellectual property to "suicide bombers" is highly irresponsible. By the same reasoning, you might liken the Founding Fathers, Microsoft Management, or the US Supreme Court to "anarchist fanatics... suicide bombers".
This sort of shitty journalism shouldn't be rewarded with ad impressions.
This statement is ambiguous; is it saying that Novell made these statements about Stallman, or is it the journalist's own statement?
Since the unquoted quote under question includes the phrase "clinging to the notion" it is highly unlikely that it is Novell's own statement. Using that kind of phraseology would be way beyond even a radical change in american corporate honesty.
Failed. I never really found a use for SUSE before, still haven't now. I use Gentoo. About as far off that I'll go is Fedora, and even then it's only for work. That RMS approves of it, or that it fits with GPLv3 doesn't really matter. RMS doesn't use SUSE. Why does he care?
While I'm all for the FSF and what not, the GPL is just one of many licenses you can choose while supporting the notion of "free software." The BSD license also grants you the same four freedoms that is
"I never really found a use for SUSE before, still haven't now. I use Gentoo. About as far off that I'll go is Fedora, and even then it's only for work. That RMS approves of it, or that it fits with GPLv3 doesn't really matter. RMS doesn't use SUSE. Why does he care?"
Because there are programmers at Novell that write stuff that winds up in _all_ distributions. Don't forget that Novell has the Mono and Ximian crew. Other distributions using Mono and Ximian software are downstream from Novell (such as Gentoo). Since Microsoft is saying "we won't sue you or your customers, but we're thinking about suing other people" tells everyone else that maybe they're tainted because they've got code that Novell employees wrote for Gnome and Mono. Whether that matters or not remains to be seen, but the chair throwing howler monkey that is Steve Ballmer has everyone involved with this stuff looking askance, to say the least.
So just because you're not a SuSE user doesn't mean that you're unaffected.
"0 right to use as you see fit 1 right to share 2 right to modify 3 right to share modifications"
You forgot
4. Right to restrict downstream users/programmers rights, which the downstream doesn't participate in 0 through 3.
Suppose I make AnAwesomeProgram and distribute it freely under the BSD license, thus releasing it to the world uninhibited. SomeoneElse comes along, takes the code he didn't write, adds some trivial functionality, and resells for $$$$, but doesn't allow his customers the same rights he had (thou shalt not reverse engineer, thou shalt not decompile, thou shalt not redistribute, thou shalt worship only me and live).
To me, that would be unacceptable.
In a perfect world, the BSD license would be ideal, but the world is neither perfect and not all people have good intentions, imo. That's why there's the GPL. The world is also full of choices, which is why there's more than just the GPL.
See that's the difference. You write software to prop up a cause. I write software to solve problems and have the software out there. More often than not, a lot of my fixes come from users who stick my software in places you can't even imagine (from IPMI controllers, DSL modems, video games, etc...). Their improvements make it into the public domain code which benefits everyone (even GPL/BSD hippies).
I don't write my software to make GNU or FSF more popular. To me, free means just that. Free. As in, fu
All I'm saying is if you wrote the software to be truly free you'd not use the GPL. GPL is nice, but it's not free in the sense RMS claims. Part of being a magnanimous participant in the OSS movement means supporting people you don't like.
I personally hate DRM and proprietary software. I hate it a lot. But I'll let them use my software just the same. I wrote it to be out there and used [because I think for the most part it does more good than harm and the stuff is of high quality].
"If I were to sit down and pick and choose who is "free" to use my software, it ain't free no more is it?" Total anarchy helps nobody. Even if you use the BSD license, you still say who gets to distribute your software and who doesn't.
To wit:
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Total anarchy helps nobody. Even if you use the BSD license, you still say who gets to distribute your software and who doesn't.
That's a subjective line there. You may dislike proprietary software, but if that provides 10, 20, 50, 100, 1000s of jobs, chances are even if 1% of them do something on their ownright [with the security afforded them by their employment] then hey that's alright.
So what were you saying about a cause and hippies?
I distribute my software because I love working on it [coding, debugin
I run Linux almost exclusively, or did until very recently (until I get Myth and my PVR-150 and TV@nywhere to cooperate on SuSE I boot Windows frequently now, running it while posting this in fact since I am recording a movie in the background). I have NO problem with running proprietary software. I LIKE Diablo, I LIKE Return to Castle Wolfenstein, I LIKE Video Wave and Media Studio Pro (cinelerra and klives both suck, VideoWave is great for very simple edits, and MediaStudio Pro blows the hell out of Adobe
Suppose I make AnAwesomeProgram and distribute it freely under the BSD license, thus releasing it to the world uninhibited. SomeoneElse comes along, takes the code he didn't write, adds some trivial functionality, and resells for $$$$, but doesn't allow his customers the same rights he had (thou shalt not reverse engineer, thou shalt not decompile, thou shalt not redistribute, thou shalt worship only me and live).
I do see your point, but if the functionality truly is trivial, you (or someone else) can easil
I've written something which I thought was trivial. Other people obviously did not as I have received numerous emails about it. While I didn't go so far as to release it under a full blown license (it WAS trivial) I should have simply released it under BSD. I've been contacted on a couple of occasions and asked if I would allow the idea to be implemented in other programs and I've always answer the same way. Go ahead. I had intended to make a full blown application and allow the users to easily apply the 'tri
That's fine, but what do you mean by "available"? It is the GPL license of Linux that has forced companies like IBM, Intel, Sun, SGI, etc. to contribute valuable codes like enterprise-level schedulers and >128-way SMP support, RCU, great compiler optimizations, etc. Linux people aren't smarter than BSD (I'd even say it's the opposite), but GPL helps them to use the market forces to their advantage.
My guess would be that the only reason you share your code is because you have no business interest in it, so
Who says YOU have to use software that doesn't grant you proper freedoms? I think we have to draw a line on what exactly needs the PROTECTION of the GPL. Kernel, gcc, binutils, coreutils, similaretc...., == YES.
Random user library/util == NO.
If some person sells a C compiler for GNU/Linux, does it matter if it's proprietary? Hells no. I have GCC. Now if GCC went proprietary that would suck. I think GCC needs the protection of the GPL license.
If someone downloads my [say crypto] library and makes a chat
FTFA: ".. will create a schism in the open source community and fork Linux."
What's the big problem with a fork? So you have Microvell Linux and the real Linux.
Microvell Lizard Linux is going to be a pregnant toad injected full of politics, DRM and Microsoft IP. Microsoft will have the option that way of killing it then with litigation, or letting it stick around to sell to Windows people that think they are smart switching to (MLL) Linux.
The real Linux will still be around, minus whatever Microsoft pays the courts to tell everyone they can't use anymore. The inevitability of all this is approaching like a garbage truck, so what is the problem with forking? M$ has been preparing for this for a long time buying up patents and everything else. Beginning over with a forked code base may be the only alternative. Either that, or put all your computer gear in front of the garbage truck and let it have it's way.
You do understand that the Novell hackers frequently contribute code to many open source projects such as xorg, gnome and the Linux kernel. If you truly wish to separate yourself from whatever Novell touches you will have a hard time doing so and keeping a competitive modern desktop. Also it's totally unfounded that Novell is going to start injecting Microsoft IP into their code submissions. But if you are still designed on isolating Novell from the rest of the community I suggest you get on the devel mailin
More Sys-con trolling. This page is classified as "News," but how can any journalist use the phrase "said to be?" How can this be taken at all seriously: "...Stallman and company - anarchist fanatics said to be cut from the same all-or-nothing cloth as suicide bombers..." Three fallacies in one sentence: Ad Hominem, Ad Baculum, and the Appeal to the Unnamed Authority.
Don't feed the trolls. As we found out last year, there is little point in complaining to the management of Sys-con: Another LinuxWorld [groklaw.net]
Logical fallacies only count when one is making a logical proposition. Failing to realize that connection in a rhetorical argument is in fact itself a (rhetorical) fallacy, Ad Logicam.
Not that you're wrong in any sense... they're certainly not helping their case or image with their shoddy prose. As if the article had any purpose other than trolling for hits. Sys-con is circling the drain, and I really wish they would go down for good soon.
It should be noted, since Sys-Con is hiding it as "by Linux News Desk", all articles with that by-line are written by none other than PJ-stalker Maureen O'Gara.
The proof? It's currently the free article on Maureen's poorly-named LinuxGram website: http://www.linuxgram.com/ [linuxgram.com]
That's all her.
(For those who live in a cave, only surf for porn, etc., Maureen O'Gara wrote a slanderous piece about Groklaw's PJ, wherein she literally tried to stalk PJ, peeking in windows, generally making an ass of herself.)
Sys-Con swore they'd never publish an O'Gara piece again. Good thing noone believed them, since they just hid her behind a "Linux News Desk".
It isn't James Turner who lied. He actually took a stand against the publisher demanding that Maureen O'Gara's material be removed from all of Sys-Con. If Sys-Con is publishing her again, it is the publisher, Fuat Kircaali, who went back on his commitment.
v2 might allow what Novell is doing. v3 will not allow what Novell is doing.
After v3 is finalised and a lot of software, including all GNU software, is shifted to "v3 or any later version", Novell will either have to comply with GPLv3 (as well as whatever other licences they distribute software under) or fork gcc, glibc, gdb, binutils, coreutils, emacs, etc. etc. etc.
Launching a big legal project to determine whether v2 is violated is pointless because v3 will be violated, so whether or not there is also a v
We're talking about contract law here. What's important is what is written on the paper and how it stands up in court, what judges and civil juries think it means, not what the author thinks. Unless there's some sort of clause in the GPL requiring arbitration by Stallman for all disagreements (and there isn't), his opinion and statements aren't worth more than anybody who posts on Slashdot.
Oh yeah, he just absolved Microsoft (hee hee). I think what the world needs is a free bullshit filter to overlay on all feeds from Slashdot. It might not let much through these days, though.
Comingling (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Stallman didn't actually give us ANY new information about GPL v2/3 compatibility. He only said that some programs could be v2, and some v3, and exist on the same system. He didn't say they could work together (they can), and he CERTAINLY didn't say their code could be compiled together (this is the issue, and I say they can't).
Re:Comingling (Score:4, Insightful)
Distributing that executable to the public is where the problems start...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hard to say before the final draft of GPLv3, but that seems the most likely scenario. The GPL has never had a problem with people compiling and running software for personal use. It's just when they distribute that the GPL comes into play.
Of course, you could argue that distributing such a download-compile-and-link program would be an attempt to violate the intent of the new licence, but I still think tha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, we can just read the GPL3 draft ourselves. Assuming no big changes in that area (and I doubt there will be any), it will not be possible to link GPL2 and GPL3 code together
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In my opinion, this is nothing different from TIVOs attempt to lock people out. If the GPLv3 can taint the hardware to the points it forces signed keys to becom
Shame on you Slashdot.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shame on you Slashdot.. (Score:5, Funny)
I'm guessing it's for the hits. Hits = advertising dollars. Controversial articles are often more popular.
Or maybe they just didn't read the article.
Parent
Re:Shame on you Slashdot.. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Shame on you Slashdot.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because I guess that the editors know nothing about sys-con. I had sys-con blackholed for a while and last time I cleaned my hosts file, I took them out. Looks like they're up to their same old BS. Sys-Con (system of a con) is a troll organization and most of what I have ever read WRT their attitude toward Linux and the GPL in general has been inaccurate and just plain nonsense. There was _no_ "absolution" of Novell. There was a "It's a good thing they did this now, so we can disallow it in V3." Even the title of the article is a troll. They publish articles "for the clicks and the lulz" like Dan "Lyin'" Lyons and Rob "I'll give a keynote speech for SCO World drunk" Enderle. How articles like that wind up on Slashdot? The editors don't do the least amount of due-diligence - not even a cursory reading of the articles themselves, apparently.
--
BMO
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that's certainly true, but don't forget also that anything that's controversial is going to generate a lot of discussion, which generates a lot of page hits, which generates a lot of ad impressions.
Don't forget that Slashdot is for-profit, and has been for years now.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, but if they manage to piss of everybody the ad-dollars are going bye bye sooner or later.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite. Particularly when the author so blatantly displays his lack of understanding of the subject. He's unable to see the difference between distributions shipping GPLv2 and GPLv3 code and a program that mixes code with both licenses.
Stallman's entire comment on novell's deal (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Say what? (Score:3, Funny)
This is joke, right! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well I guess that if the bill and melinda fondation would offer to give him ALL their money, he would at least think about it.
Of course the way he would be using this money might be even more irritating to the current US rulers thant what he is currently doing,
since I suspect that he would still have the same choice of entertainments (playing irish flute in front of a large crowd rather than buying a large mansion in beverley hills
Stallman Absolves Novell. Absolves? (Score:5, Informative)
That kind of absolves, or did he say they what they did was perfectly fine and such practices will be ok going forward?
Just asking.
all the best,
drew
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, is absolves the right term? Especially in relation to RMS.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+ab
all the best,
drew
Re: (Score:2)
irresponsible journalism (Score:5, Insightful)
This statement is ambiguous; is it saying that Novell made these statements about Stallman, or is it the journalist's own statement?
Either way, likening someone who takes a principled stand on intellectual property to "suicide bombers" is highly irresponsible. By the same reasoning, you might liken the Founding Fathers, Microsoft Management, or the US Supreme Court to "anarchist fanatics
This sort of shitty journalism shouldn't be rewarded with ad impressions.
Mod parent up (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Since the unquoted quote under question includes the phrase "clinging to the notion" it is highly unlikely that it is Novell's own statement. Using that kind of phraseology would be way beyond even a radical change in american corporate honesty.
trying to care... (Score:2, Insightful)
I never really found a use for SUSE before, still haven't now. I use Gentoo. About as far off that I'll go is Fedora, and even then it's only for work. That RMS approves of it, or that it fits with GPLv3 doesn't really matter. RMS doesn't use SUSE. Why does he care?
While I'm all for the FSF and what not, the GPL is just one of many licenses you can choose while supporting the notion of "free software." The BSD license also grants you the same four freedoms that is
0 right to use as you see fit
1
Re:trying to care... (Score:5, Interesting)
Because there are programmers at Novell that write stuff that winds up in _all_ distributions. Don't forget that Novell has the Mono and Ximian crew. Other distributions using Mono and Ximian software are downstream from Novell (such as Gentoo). Since Microsoft is saying "we won't sue you or your customers, but we're thinking about suing other people" tells everyone else that maybe they're tainted because they've got code that Novell employees wrote for Gnome and Mono. Whether that matters or not remains to be seen, but the chair throwing howler monkey that is Steve Ballmer has everyone involved with this stuff looking askance, to say the least.
So just because you're not a SuSE user doesn't mean that you're unaffected.
"0 right to use as you see fit
1 right to share
2 right to modify
3 right to share modifications"
You forgot
4. Right to restrict downstream users/programmers rights, which the downstream doesn't participate in 0 through 3.
Suppose I make AnAwesomeProgram and distribute it freely under the BSD license, thus releasing it to the world uninhibited. SomeoneElse comes along, takes the code he didn't write, adds some trivial functionality, and resells for $$$$, but doesn't allow his customers the same rights he had (thou shalt not reverse engineer, thou shalt not decompile, thou shalt not redistribute, thou shalt worship only me and live).
To me, that would be unacceptable.
In a perfect world, the BSD license would be ideal, but the world is neither perfect and not all people have good intentions, imo. That's why there's the GPL. The world is also full of choices, which is why there's more than just the GPL.
--
BMO
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
More often than not, a lot of my fixes come from users who stick my software in places you can't even imagine (from IPMI controllers, DSL modems, video games, etc...). Their improvements make it into the public domain code which benefits everyone (even GPL/BSD hippies).
I don't write my software to make GNU or FSF more popular. To me, free means just that. Free. As in, fu
Re: (Score:2)
I could say the same thing about the BSD license, no? Is Theo de Raadt any less foaming than Stallman?
Choose the license you want. Saying that using other licenses are inferior and that the GPL is for hippies is a troll.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Part of being a magnanimous participant in the OSS movement means supporting people you don't like.
I personally hate DRM and proprietary software. I hate it a lot. But I'll let them use my software just the same. I wrote it to be out there and used [because I think for the most part it does more good than harm and the stuff is of high quality].
If I were to sit down a
Re: (Score:2)
Total anarchy helps nobody. Even if you use the BSD license, you still say who gets to distribute your software and who doesn't.
To wit:
Re: (Score:2)
That's a subjective line there. You may dislike proprietary software, but if that provides 10, 20, 50, 100, 1000s of jobs, chances are even if 1% of them do something on their ownright [with the security afforded them by their employment] then hey that's alright.
So what were you saying about a cause and hippies?
I distribute my software because I love working on it [coding, debugin
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I do see your point, but if the functionality truly is trivial, you (or someone else) can easil
Re: (Score:2)
I've written something which I thought was trivial. Other people obviously did not as I have received numerous emails about it.
While I didn't go so far as to release it under a full blown license (it WAS trivial) I should have simply released it under BSD. I've been contacted on a couple of occasions and asked if I would allow the idea to be implemented in other programs and I've always answer the same way. Go ahead.
I had intended to make a full blown application and allow the users to easily apply the 'tri
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is the GPL license of Linux that has forced companies like IBM, Intel, Sun, SGI, etc. to contribute valuable codes like enterprise-level schedulers and >128-way SMP support, RCU, great compiler optimizations, etc. Linux people aren't smarter than BSD (I'd even say it's the opposite), but GPL helps them to use the market forces to their advantage.
My guess would be that the only reason you share your code is because you have no business interest in it, so
Re: (Score:2)
I think we have to draw a line on what exactly needs the PROTECTION of the GPL. Kernel, gcc, binutils, coreutils, similaretc...., == YES.
Random user library/util == NO.
If some person sells a C compiler for GNU/Linux, does it matter if it's proprietary? Hells no. I have GCC. Now if GCC went proprietary that would suck. I think GCC needs the protection of the GPL license.
If someone downloads my [say crypto] library and makes a chat
Move along! (Score:4, Funny)
What's the big deal with forking? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the big problem with a fork? So you have Microvell Linux and the real Linux.
Microvell Lizard Linux is going to be a pregnant toad injected full of politics, DRM and Microsoft IP. Microsoft will have the option that way of killing it then with litigation, or letting it stick around to sell to Windows people that think they are smart switching to (MLL) Linux.
The real Linux will still be around, minus whatever Microsoft pays the courts to tell everyone they can't use anymore. The inevitability of all this is approaching like a garbage truck, so what is the problem with forking? M$ has been preparing for this for a long time buying up patents and everything else. Beginning over with a forked code base may be the only alternative. Either that, or put all your computer gear in front of the garbage truck and let it have it's way.
Novell, we smell poniez: http://techp.org/ [techp.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But if you are still designed on isolating Novell from the rest of the community I suggest you get on the devel mailin
sys-con trolling (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't feed the trolls. As we found out last year, there is little point in complaining to the management of Sys-con: Another LinuxWorld [groklaw.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Not that you're wrong in any sense
Written by Maureen O'Gara! (Score:5, Informative)
The proof? It's currently the free article on Maureen's poorly-named LinuxGram website: http://www.linuxgram.com/ [linuxgram.com]
That's all her.
(For those who live in a cave, only surf for porn, etc., Maureen O'Gara wrote a slanderous piece about Groklaw's PJ, wherein she literally tried to stalk PJ, peeking in windows, generally making an ass of herself.)
Sys-Con swore they'd never publish an O'Gara piece again. Good thing noone believed them, since they just hid her behind a "Linux News Desk".
Sys-Con Killed the Story! (Score:2, Interesting)
First the "Feedback" page disappeared, interestingly less than 15 minutes after I posted there that the true author of the drivel was Maureen O'Gara.
Now the entire story is gone.
The power of proving hypocrisy strikes again!
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, wasn't MOG supposed to be persona-non-grata at Sys-Con?
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/05/05/10/1653207.
James Turner is a lying weasel.
This explains all of it. I clicked on the LinuxGram link and I feel soiled now.
Must...wash...brain.
--
BMO
Re:Written by Maureen O'Gara! (Score:4, Informative)
Reference: Sys-Con Dumps Maureen O'Gara [groklaw.net]
But at least one editor from LinuxWorld still resigned less than a week later: Another LinuxWorld Resignation [groklaw.net]
Parent
TFA is confused - Novell will distribute v3 also (Score:2)
v3 will not allow what Novell is doing.
After v3 is finalised and a lot of software, including all GNU software, is shifted to "v3 or any later version", Novell will either have to comply with GPLv3 (as well as whatever other licences they distribute software under) or fork gcc, glibc, gdb, binutils, coreutils, emacs, etc. etc. etc.
Launching a big legal project to determine whether v2 is violated is pointless because v3 will be violated, so whether or not there is also a v
And this means what exactly? (Score:2)
What crap! (Score:2)
New icon? (Score:2)