Stallman Absolves Novell 101
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."
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Comingling (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Comingling (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...
Re:Comingling (Score:1)
Re:Comingling (Score:3, Insightful)
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 that's unlikely. The main point of GPLv3 seems to be aimed at hardware locked down against modification. If the user can compile the two lots of source together, I don't think GPLv3 has a problem. It's when you want to mod a GPLv3 program distributed with hardware, and the hardware won't let you run the result that you hit problems. Think "Tivo".
Ones with the "...or later" boilerplate at the top won't need to, although I think some will explicitly re-licence as GPLv2 only. Not so many as I would have expected before recent shady dealings between MS and Novel, but some will. If nothing else, there are a lot of prominent FOSS devs being paid by large corporations. It's got to be difficult not to let something like that influence your thinking.
The interesting question is which projects will prosper and which not, post GPLv3. Which will attract developers, which will be bundled, and which wil fal by the wayside. Interesting days ahead, I feel
Re:Comingling (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 (except for cases of LGPL2 code or GPL3+a suitable exception).
What Stallman was quoted as saying is the simple fact that a system can have various licenses on it, GPL2, GPL3, Apache, BSD, Python, etc. etc. Which is of course true. What we will see, in all likelihood, is a GPL2 kernel and GPL3 GNU tools (compiler, etc.), which virtually every Linux distro will use happily. Novell, on the other hand, will have some problems with the GNU tools.
Re:Comingling (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 become GPLed it will definatly tain a kernel running under a former GPL. I don't see why these requirments should be "waived" just because it is OSS people doing it and not TIVO.
GPLv3 is bad news at it currently exists. It doesn't follow the spirit of the former GPL versions. It introduces too many unneeded problems and is more or less going to make the GPL weaker in the end. Some people are ok with that, some aren't. It isn't to hard to guess were i'm at on it.
Re:Comingling (Score:2)
Re:Comingling (Score:1)
English isn't my native language, but I'll try to explain that sentence to you as I understand it: "This" refers to "some code can be GPLv2 and some seperate code can be GPLv3" from the sentence before it. It's the statement that Stallman was willing to make. "This is about as far as you can get from addressing the problem" means "This does not address the problem at all". Stallman's statement deals with aggregation of separate programs. It does not address code with different licenses that forms one program, which is generally regarded as the problematic case. "while still saying GPLv2 and GPLv3" means: "in a discussion about these two licenses". In other words: Stallman was semi off topic. He got sidetracked.
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.
You mean... (Score:0)
(Warning : do not use the above slogan if you attend public school.)
Re:Shame on you Slashdot.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Shame on you Slashdot.. (Score:0)
Sincerely,
A Clueless Coward
Re:Shame on you Slashdot.. (Score:0)
Duh.
HTH
Re:Shame on you Slashdot.. (Score:1)
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
You forgot to mention Maureen O'Gara! (n/t) (Score:1)
Re:Shame on you Slashdot.. (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:Shame on you Slashdot.. (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, but if they manage to piss of everybody the ad-dollars are going bye bye sooner or later.
Re:Shame on you Slashdot.. (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.
Re:Shame on you Slashdot.. (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Shame on you Slashdot.. (Score:0, Offtopic)
So tag it "flamebait"
Re:Shame on you Slashdot.. (Score:1)
big white elephant in the middle of the room... (Score:0)
novell complained about msft getting contracts from novell and they will continue to do so under this contract.
however, now novell can go out and fudd redhat and, in their view, hopefully turn the fud used against red hat into cash.
this is the big white elephan tin the middle of the room that novell doesn't want to talk about.
"look, you don't want to use that stinky red hat stuff - msft might sue you! come on and use our cool green novell suse and msft won't you."
this will be repeated at sales presentations, ad nauseum.
novell did this to directly attack redhat - make NO MISTAKE about that.
This is why digg surpassed slashdots popularity (Score:0)
Re:Shame on you Slashdot.. (Score:0)
W00t. (Score:-1, Offtopic)
Re:W00t. (Score:0, Flamebait)
It means that slashdot's editors are as stupid as they always were, and still don't bother to do the most basic editorial checking on submissions. Hooray.
Two seconds reading this article would show that the headline attached is complete bullshit and the article is poorly written flamebait.
Offtopic? (Score:1)
Re:Offtopic? (Score:0)
Go ahead and give us details on this "IP issue".
wow, i mean wow (Score:-1, Troll)
Re:wow, i mean wow. Get off slashdot fool! (Score:0)
Re:wow, i mean wow. Get off slashdot fool! (Score:0)
Seriously what's with you linux turds; the guy is a fucking idiot.
It is over for the GPL fool. (Score:0)
Considering how vague it can be and how selective the Free Software Foundation is in their GPL interpretation, I wouldn't want to touch or use any of it. Heck, I can see places going back to Microsoft or some other vender then to put up with the GPL 3.0.
Re:It is over for the GPL fool. (Score:2)
That surely sounds like a great plan: when GPLc3 gets release and code starts getting rereleased with the new licence, you can simply abstain to using any of it.
Good luck.
Stallman's entire comment on novell's deal (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Stallman's entire comment on novell's deal (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stallman's entire comment on novell's deal (Score:2)
Interesting. I'm thinking the answer is, in fact, no.
then presumably the problem with the Novell-Microsoft deal is not that some users are at less risk, but purely that this is as a result of an agreement between the parties. The fact that non-Novell customers are in precisely the same position they would have been if this agreement to which they are not a party did not exist appears irrelevant.
But perhaps not irrelevant to Microsoft. What they gain is a "supposed authority" to declare an imprimatur for the "blessed" version of Linux, as well as an implied threat that you're not "safe" if you're not using Novell's version. To put it another way, by offering a protection exclusively to a subset of Gnu/Linux users, they imply that there is some kind of risk to users of GPL software. Getting Novell to be a party to an "agreement" simply strengthen's Microsoft's "supposed authority" to offer a shield from such a "risk".
I can understand why some free software extremists dislike the Novell-Microsoft agreement, but I am bound to say that I do not find their position very logical.
Sorry to be so blunt, but your own statement doesn't seem logical. How can you say you "understand" their position if you think it isn't logical? But to continue: Insofar as the agreement generates FUD about the GPL, and (as Stallman points out) it reveals a possible weakness in GPLv3, it does indeed seem logical for free-software advocates (or "extremists" if you prefer) to "dislike" the agreement and respond by doing something about it (i.e., modify GPLv3).
Stallman (Score:0)
Say what? (Score:3, Funny)
This is joke, right! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is joke, right! (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:Stallman Absolves Novell. Absolves? (Score:2)
Re:Stallman Absolves Novell. Absolves? (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:Stallman Absolves Novell. Absolves? (Score:2)
Re:Stallman Absolves Novell. Absolves? (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)
Re:Mod parent up (Score:2)
You fool! From this day forward, every other Slashdot article will be given that tag by Slashdotters who like to bitch about their favorite site.
Re:Mod parent up (Score:0)
But we already have the Zonked tag....
Re:irresponsible journalism (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.
Re:irresponsible journalism (Score:1)
Re:irresponsible journalism (Score:1)
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 right to share
2 right to modify
3 right to share modifications
OMG, wow, and the BSD license is less anal than the GPL (because frankly, there are commercial interests out there, and the purpose of writing free software is to make free software available, at least that's my goal).
Of course I use the public domain as my release vehicle. Frankly, I couldn't care less if people proprietarize my code. I wrote it so people could use it.
Tom
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
Re:trying to care... (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, fuck off with your "this is what you can do with my software, but it's free" bullshit.
It's not free, it's just "more accessible". Freeer is probably a more correct term. Heck you get to keep the acronym FSF!
Tom
Re:trying to care... (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:trying to care... (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 and pick and choose who is "free" to use my software, it ain't free no more is it?
Tom
Re:trying to care... (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:
Those not following the basic terms of the BSD license don't have the right to distribute. Period.
"Part of being a magnanimous participant in the OSS movement means supporting people you don't like."
So what were you saying about a cause and hippies?
This has been interesting. Heh.
--
BMO
Re:trying to care... (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, debuging, optimizing, maintaining, documenting] and I want to share that with the world. I set up myself a set of principles that have served me well.
Part of not being able to choose my users means I must choose a license (in my case I release as public domain) that doesn't exclude a group of users based on their commercial or personal requirements. It has to be a "free" license so that my users do not have to compensate me. But I took #2 further and said they don't even have to give me credit for the work. And finally my users don't get to choose what my projects become. I work on them because I want to. I accept bug reports/fixes and new ideas, but ultimately the decision is mine whether I use them.
This isn't saying I don't like receiving stuff. I had part of my college tuition paid for by my users (for instance). I just don't make it a requirement. I also don't hold my users hostage over it too. I put in wicked cool features/optimizations not seen in any other library because I like studying the subject, not because I'm being compensated by fame or fortune.
Unfortunately, there is a [growing] minority of OSS developers who only want the resume stuffer that comes along with working on an "OSS project". Few OSS projects are properly maintained or documented. Most of the well maintained libraries are organized by OSS developers who are in their 30s, 40s, and 50s.
I've yet to meet any teenager or 20s OSS developer who really took a liking to writing documentation for instance...
Tom
Re:trying to care... (Score:3, Interesting)
What I DIS-like is proprietary operating systems and proprietary formats.
What I dislike about proprietary operating systems such as Windows is:
- The tendency to be available in any color I like, so long as it's blue, or a Microsoft-approved alternate theme (or hex edit Windows binaries to eliminate the DRM which will then allow me to create my own theme, at the risk of introducing incompatibilities)
- Vendors' insistance that ONE license is tied to ONE machine, so if I upgrade a motherboard, I'm forced to buy a new license according to the EULA (illegal since it's a commodity good, not a work for hire under contract, and first sale doctrine applies, thus such tying is not legal, EULA or not)
- The ability of the proprietary vendor to disable my machine at whim, or by mistake (e.g., upgrade from a M$-supplied video or NIC driver triggers activation, resulting in waiting on hold TWICE for twenty minutes but getting my call dropped due to their fluky system, then calling PSS and telling them I want to be transferred to a SUPERVISOR in the activation department so I can talk directly to a human)
- The lack of support for ancient or newer hardware (If I want to run an ancient device from a vendor which went belly-up during the dot-bomb, there's a 99.999% chance that hardware supported by the 1.xx Linux kernels is supported even in 2.6.19, and likewise, if I keep this machine I'm on now when the Linux 3.0.0 kernel and Xorg 38.1.5 comes out, this hardware will STILL run very happily, AND it will STILL make a great HTPC)
In short, I hate forced obsolescence and forced upgrades, because while I usually do periodically build a new bleeding-edge PC (I'm chomping at the bit for 2.6.19 so I can finally get full hardware support on my new machine), it's nice to be able to run new software on ancient machines. Older != useless for every task.
Now, the MAIN reasons I hate working in Windows is:
- Explorer sucks as a file manager. Konqueror is downright orgasmic by comparison because it's so fast, flexible, and extensible
- Explorer (the GUI) sucks because Microsoft has it locked down so tightly. I know about Windowblinds, WinFX, and so forth, but when you come down to it, those are hacks. In kwin (or even metacity) I can make KDE look like an artsy-fartsy wet dream, I can make it look like Windows 95 or even Windows 3.1, or I can make it look exactly like the latest Windows Vista builds. I stick with the plastik theme unless running XGL, but the flexibility is there to do ANYTHING I want with it, without having to pay Microsoft additional fees for the right to modify MY OWN SYSTEM, or without having to "violate" the EULA by hex editing system libraries to enable unsigned themes to be installed.
- The command line environment sucks wind. Powershell would have been a nice inclusion in Vista (that and WinFS would have been the main selling points for me) but sadly it was dropped, and it's probably not as comprehensive as bash on Linux or BSD. The reason? On *nix everything maintenance-oriented is a CLU, and apps are usually front ends for the CLI. on Windows, even with Powershell, the CLI is an afterthough, and the CLUs are generally calls to the COM interfaces, and not standalone utilities of their own, forcing one to learn COM anyhow. If you need to go through that trouble to begin with, why don't they just tell everyone to hard-code C++ utilities for maintenance tasks?
Nope. (Score:2)
There are plenty of well intentioned people that do little good for not checking what consequences their actions may have in a wider context, either in the IT world or in many other areas.
Re:trying to care... (Score:2)
I do see your point, but if the functionality truly is trivial, you (or someone else) can easily add it to your version and release it under the BSD licence for free (and Free). If it isn't trivial, then to my mind perhaps they deserve to make some money from it - after all, the world hasn't actually lost anything, it's just not gained as much as it could have done.
Re:trying to care... (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 'trivial' code against a set of files, somebody else beat me to it and now sells an application that does it. It is partially based on my work; although he has since modified the method to do a better job of it.
At first I was a little annoyed, but then I realized how much support I had to give my trivial code and how much support he has to give his application and I came to the conclusion I didn't want the responsibilities that went with the full application and charging for it. I have a full time job (He didn't at the time.) and don't need the additional headache. It would not have been a profit center for me.
If I wanted to I could readily compete with him, but instead if people have problems with my utility I send them a link to his.
Re:trying to care... (Score:0)
And let's say that the Mona Lisa was under an equivalent license to the BSD.
If an unknown artist tried to change it, they would probably not go very far. Mainly because why see a Da Vinci knock off when you can see the real thing? But if they had a reputation, like say, Andy Warhol, they could paint multiple Marilyn Monroes in multiple colours, or they could re-use the image of the Mona Lisa (yes, I know that would change the significance of the painting, but go with it).
The reason to fear someone taking your stuff and holding it is mitigated by the fact that they are competing with the genuine article. Only big players have an advantage. And similar to the example, they could have just made their own standard from scratch, or they could use yours as a base. Which one would you prefer to work with or reverse engineer?
"I wouldn't worry about a closed fork harming the community; I think that's a self-punishing form of idiocy." - esr [onlamp.com]
Re:trying to care... (Score:2)
The original code is still there. Only the additions are not made available to others. You may see this as unacceptable, but to me, it seems like a restriction I do not want to have to deal with, which is why I prefer the BSD license.
Businesses are not going to deal with the FSF and stallman's antics much longer. The more restrictive the license, the less widespread usage.
Source availability (Score:2)
GPL license is more attractive to a for profit open source business, because it is essentially a form of barter. "Yes, you can use/distribute/sell our code with no license fee, BUT, we get to use/distribute/sell any enhancements you distribute." Endusers buy service and packaging. (I miss the RedHat CD retail packages.) BSD license is more of an out and out donation.
Re:trying to care... (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 from your point-of-view it is commercially worthless. In contrast, GPL is both encouraging and forcing people to share even software that is of central commercial interest to them.
Re:trying to care... (Score:2)
Forced? So it held a gun to their back and forced them to use GCC, the linux kernel, and so on, rather than writing their own?
If spending millions on writing your own operating system is just too expensive for you, maybe you too would find trading "valuable" 128-way SMP code for a ready-made platform a bargain.
right..and duty (Score:0)
Re:right..and duty (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 program or something with it that is proprietary. Am I really falling to the vendor lockin that the GPL was meant to prevent? No. I don't have to use their chat program, and more to the point, I'm free to write my own using my free library.
Tom
Ahw. Bullshit. (Score:2)
Lets say there is a river and that it passes through your land. Lets also say that you can do whatever you want with your land, including the river bit that crosses it.
The BSD guy will not block the river's flow, but will not care if somebody else's down stream does. He has done his bit to save the world and that gives him a warm and fuzzy feeling.
The GPL guy will also allow the stream to flow, but since he could potentially stop the flow (hint: copyright) and he is a fair chap, he writes a rule that mandates that nobody downstream can stop the river flowing, and whoever tries will be taken to court and if possible blocked to have access to the water.
The GPL guy understands that his actions take place in a societal context, the BSD guy is affiriming, in the best of Thatcherite traditions, if there is such a thing as society.
(as an aside, the MS guy will try to damn the river, make you go thirsty, and then charge you every couple of years for a bit of coloured water).
By releasing software with a BSD licence the flow of information stops with a commercial vendor, the users of products created by that vendor are exactly in the same situation as if a closed source advocate was providing the software. TO the user there is a point where BSD and closed sour code are completely undistinguishable from a practical point of view.
So tell us again, how BSD released code is more free? It is looking pretty locked down to me.
Oh my (Score:1, Insightful)
Serves them right .. (Score:1)
"because other people who don't know anything about the GPL read this shit, and then they think that they do"
Your observation reminds me of one of my favorite quotes...
"It ain't what folks don't know thats gets them in the most trouble, it's the things they think they know that ain't so"
Will Rodgers (or a close paraphrase of something he said anyway)
Wabi-Sabi
Matthew
How about a fork - FreeSuSe the Karma Khameleon , as an icon I kinda like the twisted little lizard-like navigator/engineer character off of "Trippin The Rift", I know he was a bit of a perv, but none the less a kool one, don't ya think! It seems to me he would fit in well on
Move along! (Score:4, Funny)
Oh no, not SYS-CON again.... (Score:0)
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:What's the big deal with forking? (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 mailing lists and argue for a fork. AFAIK no one other than the vocal minority at Slashdot has suggested such a thing.
Re:What's the big deal with forking? (Score:1, Informative)
Red Hat has developed most code for the linux distros. They are active almost everywere. Red Hat and Sun together has arguable been the two most important contributors to Gnome 2.x. Sun helped develop the HIG and accesability framework. Red Hat developed HAL, Network manager, and a lot other things.
I see a future where Ubuntu and Sun will play a more active role. Even Asianux might start contribute more actively.
Red Hat bought Sistina GFS file system, LVM2 and associated clustering tools acquired for 31 million dollars and Netscape directory server for around 25 million dollars. Both are totally open sourced and given to the community.
Some of their contribution to Gnome:
* pango: originally written and maintained
* glib, gtk+: most primary maintainers and developer work
* metacity: written and maintained
* cairo: written (employee) and maintained
* gconf: written and maintained
* dbus: written (employee) and maintained
* hal: written (employee) and maintained
* gnome-keyring: written and maintained
* NetworkManager: written and maintained
* vino: written and maintained
* gnome-menus: written and maintained
* sabayon: written and maintained
* http://gnome.org/ [gnome.org] infrastructure, hosting and bandwidth
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RedHatContributions [fedoraproject.org]
Ximian (Novell) used to be extremly important for Gnome, but their focus seems to be less of desktop infrastructure and architecture this days. Looks like their focus more on Mono and OpenOffice.org and less on everything else.
Re:What's the big deal with forking? (Score:2)
The idea that Novell is just working on Mono and OpenOffice is simply incorrect.
Re:What's the big deal with forking? (Score:1)
"live free or die"
sys_con get its wrong again (Score:1)
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 Resignation [groklaw.net]
Re:sys-con trolling (Score:2)
Not that you're wrong in any sense
Obligatory Princess Bride Quote (Score:1)
Inigo Montoya: "I do not think it means what you think it means."
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:Sys-Con Killed the Story! (Score:0)
Re:Written by Maureen O'Gara! (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]
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 violation in non-v3 code is a non-issue.
(Actually, when I tried to RTFA, I got a "page could not be displayed", but I've a good guess that it confused and the above explanation explains why)
And this means what exactly? (Score:2)
What crap! (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:2)
Re:New icon? (Score:2)
Don't blame the article author (Score:1)
---> i.e. Slashdot
I guess I'll have to reshuffle my bookmarks today(with
Loophole for a loophole? (Score:2)