Novell Won't Lose Right To Sell Linux 216
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.
Premise is counterintuitive (Score:5, Insightful)
Not Linux, no... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
The whole point of GPL v3 ... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:They can distribute linux (Score:5, Insightful)
The parent article said:
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 That Simple (Score:4, Insightful)
> 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.
Re:What about GNU projects moving to GPL 3? (Score:2, Insightful)
It could become expensive for Novell long term (Score:1, Insightful)
You got it backwards (Score:0, Insightful)
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?
Ummm, no.
We will end up with a Debian-only GPL3 fork of the GNU toolchain, and everyone else will use the GPL2 version.
RMS has a gun pointed at the head of open source. Will he pull the trigger?
Re:GPL is'da bomb (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Gnu tools (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe the number of FSF developers is small, but managing your own fork would still force you to remove resources from maintenance and development on other projects, so unless you have a strong motivation to cut of your upstream, you won't. The community will take what GNU gives them.
Re:They can distribute linux (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Way to shoot F/OSS in the foot (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you wrote your tirade in a Web browser, which displays with the aid of a graphics toolkit, which runs on top of your window manager, which runs on top of X, which runs on top of the kernel called "Linux". You can't write things "in Linux". People need to understand the distinction between a kernel and some programs run on top of an operating system, which runs on top of a kernel.
This "idealogical crusade", as you put it, is what gave developers the freedoms necessary for creating Linux and all of the other free components of your operating system.
There's also a fundamental difference between free/proprietary and open source/closed source. They may look similar on the outside, but in actuality, they are very different. Generally, a person who uses free software shuns proprietary software because they understand the dangers that come coupled with it. Conversely, a person who uses open source software typically doesn't have a problem with using closed source software and often uses both in parallel without making an effort to replace the closed source software with an open source software alternative.
Free is a matter of principals and ethics. Open source is a matter of convenience and cost.
If you want to abandon the freedoms that free software affords you and lock yourself into a proprietary system where its creators have complete control over what you can and cannot do with your computer, by all means, go right on ahead. But don't come crying back to the community when Microsoft or Apple have implemented a feature in their operating system that prevents you from being able to run your open source software in conjunction with their closed source software*, because you've been warned well in advance.
* See also Trusted Computing [wikipedia.org].
Re:Gnu tools (Score:2, Insightful)
Does anyone really believe that Novell will update/develop/maintain the GPLv2 versions of ALL of the packages in SuSE that will likely be GPLv3'ed? Recreating GNOME as NOME-vell isn't gonna be easy, even if you can port BSD-licensed replacements for some of the core utilities.