Final Draft of GPLv3 Allows Novell-Microsoft Deal 113
famicommie writes "All of Novell's fingernail biting has been for naught. In a display of forgiveness and bridge building on behalf of the FSF, ZDNet reports that the final draft of the GPLv3 will close the infamous MS-Novell loophole while allowing deals made previously to continue. From the article: 'The final, last-call GPLv3 draft bans only future deals for what it described as tactical reasons in a 32-page explanation of changes. That means Novell doesn't have to worry about distributing software in SLES that's governed by the GPLv3 ... Drafting the new license has been a fractious process, but Eben Moglen, the Columbia University law school professor who has led much of the effort, believes consensus is forming. That agreement is particularly important in the open-source realm, where differing license requirements can erect barriers between different open-source projects.'"
not binding--some projects will probably strike it (Score:3, Insightful)
For new projects, or if all the developers agree, or for new contributions to existing projects, you can strike the clause permitting earlier deals if you like.
Divide and Conquer (Score:4, Insightful)
Kudos ! (Score:3, Insightful)
Foolish (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:P:rotection from MSFT patent suits (Score:5, Insightful)
For all the sound and fury about GPLv3, I submit that it's really all good. Some strong ideas were expressed by the FSF, feedback came, and the wording was polished such that the final product may prove acceptable over time.
A gold star, a group hug, and a round of Koom Ba Ya for all my friends.
Re:Doesn't exempt, though (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is the GPLV3 REALLY That Important? (Score:5, Insightful)
The the appropriate license for your projects is BSD or public domain, but that doesn't necessarily mean that others have the same perspective. Is it so hard to imagine that others would want to ensure their code and modifications to it remain open? That's what the GPL is for: ensuring that is getting more complicated as the older defitions of using code and distributing code and modifying code are getting blurrier, so a new revision of the GPL is going to clarify some of that.
I haven't made my mind up on the v3 stuff yet, but I'm a GPL supported more than a BSD supporter. But I can still understand why someone would want to follow the "more free" BSD policies for simplicity's sake to avoid a lot of the legal wranglings and to encourage more ubiquitous acceptance of the code into more markets/uses.
-NRe:TiVo (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot needs an NPOV tag. (Score:2, Insightful)
What are you willing to bet that it would read quite like that if it were Microsoft displaying the forgiveness?
Re:free (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL tells you nothing about what you have to do with your code. The GPL tells you what you have to do with other people's code. In fact, BSD-style licenses are the same way.
The GPL and BSD license are both distribution licenses. If you own the copyright on your code, you can distribute it however you like. You can GPL it, then close the source later, relicense, dual licence