Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Novell Software Linux

Final Draft of GPLv3 Allows Novell-Microsoft Deal 113

Posted by Zonk
from the and-we-all-go-forward-singing-together dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Final Draft of GPLv3 Allows Novell-Microsoft Deal

Comments Filter:
  • by nanosquid (1074949) on Friday June 22, 2007 @08:56AM (#19606939)
    This affects "GPLv2 or later" projects that can't be relicensed because some of the contributors can't be reached.

    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)

    by davermont (1001265) on Friday June 22, 2007 @08:57AM (#19606949)
    Good. Despite my displeasure with the MS/Novell deal, I think it's best not to create in-fighting within a community that has worked so hard to get where it is in the market. Divide and conquer is an old trick.
  • Kudos ! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by unity100 (970058) on Friday June 22, 2007 @08:59AM (#19606965) Homepage Journal
    All these stuff about free software, people acting together and stuff, are, despite the turmoil and bickering, maybe because everything moves forward in spite of the turmoil and bickering, filling me with much hope.
  • Foolish (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ThePolkapunk (826529) on Friday June 22, 2007 @09:00AM (#19606971) Homepage
    This seems a bit foolish to me. By not locking out the MS-Novell and other deals, it's as if they're being rewarded for weakning open source.
  • by smitty_one_each (243267) * on Friday June 22, 2007 @09:02AM (#19606987) Homepage Journal
    There is the court of law, and the "court of public opinion". One data point, and you can argue the significance, is the number of reputable kernel hackers who've dropped Novell like a cheating sweetheart.
    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.
  • by abaddononion (1004472) on Friday June 22, 2007 @09:58AM (#19607611)
    I hope your interpretation here is the right one, because this is the way I think things SHOULD be. I cant ever sort out legal mumbo jumbo for myself, though...
  • by ThogScully (589935) <neilsd@neilschelly.com> on Friday June 22, 2007 @10:30AM (#19608043) Homepage

    Once you make the mental leap that you are going to be giving your software away, then, what difference does it make how you do so? I really don't want to spend too much time worrying that someone might make money with my stuff when I know that I won't.

    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.

    -N
  • Re:TiVo (Score:3, Insightful)

    by metamatic (202216) on Friday June 22, 2007 @12:13PM (#19609585) Homepage Journal
    TiVo use a lot more than just the kernel.
  • by BeProf (597697) on Friday June 22, 2007 @12:39PM (#19609977)
    " In a display of forgiveness and bridge building..."

    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)

    by stinerman (812158) <nathan.stine@NOSpaM.gmail.com> on Friday June 22, 2007 @01:32PM (#19610757) Homepage
    You're either ignorant or trolling.

    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 ... actually whatever the fuck you want. The GPL exists so that other people can distribute your code with certain limitations. The BSD license does the same thing, just with different restrictions.

From Sharp minds come... pointed heads. -- Bryan Sparrowhawk

Working...