Is Eben Moglen the Joan Crawford of IP law?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Nov 19, 2006 5:08 PM EDT |
Instead of saying "Call me Mommie, dearest", it's "Wait -- I'd better go redraft that license." Eben Moglen has officially become pathetic. Going back to the drawing board because of an agreement between Novell and Microsoft? C'mon, Eben, have you no principles? Wasn't GPLV3 guided by some vision of what your license should be and what it should accomplish? Never mind that I have yet to see a single cogent explanation of how the Novell Agreement affects anybody's freedom, including the freedom to use software. For those who insist in bumper sticker speak, that would be freedom 0, or freedom 1 in a more modern language that begins iteration from 1. Whether Moglen, Stallman, Ms. Groklaw Pamela, or a vast army of type fast-think later (if ever) character repeaters realize it or not, Novell does not own the Linux IP. Novell cannot enter into any agreement with anybody -- even Microsoft -- that affects anybody else's right to use, distribute, modify, etc. the Linux IP. Now, after the Novell-Microsoft agreement, I have precisely the same -- and I do mean precisely, as in not different in any way, shape or form -- the same freedom to use, modify, and distribute GPL'd code that I did before the agreement. Nothing has changed. That is because the GPL (v2) was a pretty good piece of work. A damned fine piece of work, in fact. The danger to Linux does not come from the Novell-Microsoft agreement. It comes from Microsoft. Period, end of story. Microsoft doesn't need anything from anybody to sue people over its claimed intellectual property. It doesn't need anything from anybody to try bullying potential Linux users with the legal equivalent of the vaporware it used for years to kill of potential software threats. Doesn't anybody here remember SCO? Microsoft pumped a lot of cash into SCO to help them in their legal attack on Linux. They managed to do that without any Novell agreement whatsoever. Let's face it: top Microsoft management is populated by a bunch of nasty and unprincipled sons of bitches. But that's nothing new. That was true before the Novell agreement, it was true before the SCO attacks, and it was true when Steve Jobs inked a deal with them. They are not respectable people. Quite honestly, I would rather my daughter marry an ex-con than a top Microsoft exec: I believe in the power of redemption. I respect the moral character required to overcome one's worst personal failings and bask in the warm glow of enlightened humility implied in that quest. None of that applies to the atavistic crew at the helm of Microsoft. Nevertheless, vile as these people are, Moglen has decided that they should help to draft the GPLV3. Sounds to me like putting coat hangers where they don't belong. Is that the new rule? In the absence of a principled position, we go back and redraft the license whenever somebody makes an agreement somebody else doesn't like? Sounds like a great way to get a license that doesn't matter in the least because nobody can use it. |
| jimf Nov 19, 2006 5:14 PM EDT |
I've got to agree with dino. > because nobody can use it. Nor will they if Moglen proceeds with this. |
| dek Nov 19, 2006 5:40 PM EDT |
@Dino: You should get a blog called dinoRants! Rant away, dude! I'm not saying I agree with everything you say but it sure is entertaining to hear you say it. ;-) >> Microsoft management is populated by a bunch of nasty and unprincipled sons of bitches. Not to mention largely incompetent and possessing no vision of their own. Don K. |
| rijelkentaurus Nov 19, 2006 5:46 PM EDT |
>Sounds like a great way to get a license that doesn't matter in the least because nobody can use it. FWIW, you've got a lot of people who feel that this is a perfect reason to rewrite GPLv3 and are in complete disagreement with you on the matter. I am personally undecided. However, I have a heckuva lot more faith in folks from the FSF to write a document beneficial to the Free Software community than I do in trusting companies like Novell and Microsoft to carve out agreements on their own. Moglen at least has some sense of decency about him, unlike MS and Novell execs. A lot of folks cried "Wait and see" after the MS/Novell deal, I think a "Wait and see" is appropriate here. >They are not respectable people. Agreed. |
| Scott_Ruecker Nov 19, 2006 5:54 PM EDT |
I guess today is 'Curse-word Sunday'.. I agree with what you are saying and I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that your vocabulary is large enough to express yourself without having to resort to cursing. I feel as strongly about this as you all do and I can curse up a storm as much as the next guy..but cursing just cheapens the message and the messenger. Trust me, I do a TON of self editing before posting in the forums and I end up trying to say things in a way that do not dilute my passion for the subject or my reputation as a writer. Its tough, I want to tell all kinds of people to go do things with themselves in not so many words..but. Come on guys, your better than that. We're all better than that. |
| dinotrac Nov 19, 2006 6:04 PM EDT |
Scott - Sorry that I have offended you, and I will be more careful. I apologize in advance for the fact that I will sometimes fail. I have the same problem some others do. For example, in someplaces, smattering f***in' and f***in' that is the norm, and somebody new to this forum may not realize they are in a different place. Likewise, in a society of "Frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn", especially with words have proper and appropriate uses, working up a lather will let you forget that some people don't even stretch things that far. |
| helios Nov 19, 2006 6:16 PM EDT |
I find myself tempering and throttling my expletives too, but I gotta say, (and it in no way excuses our bad language), coming right out and calling them exactly what they are instead of the acronym of SOB is gratifying at the most base of levels...for the author as well as the reader. And thank you all for the reminder. My daughter is required by DaddyLaw to visit this site three times a week and email me links to articles and forum responses she finds interesting. I am sure at 13, the occasional potty mouth phrase is the least of my worries.for her sensibilities. Has anyone been on a high school campus lately? Makes the arguement for private Christian Schools look like a good alternative and reason for a second job ;-{ h |
| Scott_Ruecker Nov 19, 2006 6:18 PM EDT |
Dino: You did not offend trust me, but I have to do my duty to try and keep things 'above board' so to speak. Don has been getting on others today who have used bad-english and I know if read this he would have said something to you too. LXer is the one place where the 'Linux Community' can come to find out what is going on with FOSS and I know I am not alone in wanting it to be as professional as possible. You are a welcome sight in the forums, I mean it. Your opinions are educated and passionate, a rare combination. |
| dinotrac Nov 19, 2006 6:19 PM EDT |
>You should get a blog called dinoRants! I used to keep up a web site called a.k.a. dinotrac at dinotrac.com. I didn't rant, but I wrote (what I hoped were) somewhat humorous little stories about issues of the day. It was fun. One of my articles, "I want my DVD, your honor", was read by a number of people around the world. I got a nice note about the main character from Jerry Pournelle, science fiction writer and writer of the Chaos Manor column for Byte magazine (and, I think, for byte.com). That ranks as my third favorite accolade. Number 2: discovering that somebody had translated a little piece of satire called "An open letter to the Linux Community from Bill G" into Japanse. Very strange seeing all of those katakana characters punctuated by things like my name, which didn't translate into Japanse. Best of all? During the 2000 election ruckus, when the focus shifted to the courtroom of Tallahassee's folksy judge Sanders Sauls, I got an email from a reader telling me that the Florida judge reminded him of Judge Buford I Motion, who presided over the court in Half Moon Junction (We put the Southern in Southern), California, hero of I want my DVD. On 9/11/2001, I put up a page commemorating the day's events and haven't taken it down, but maybe the time has come to move on. FWIW, the old articles are still available at http://dinotrac.com/articles . |
| dinotrac Nov 19, 2006 6:21 PM EDT |
>our opinions are educated and passionate, a rare combination. **blush** |
| jimf Nov 19, 2006 6:26 PM EDT |
In the case above, 'dogs' simply doesn't have the same impact ;-) |
| Scott_Ruecker Nov 19, 2006 6:27 PM EDT |
Quoting:In the case above, 'dogs' simply doesn't have the same impact ;-) LOL!!! |
| jdixon Nov 19, 2006 6:28 PM EDT |
> Makes the arguement for private Christian Schools look like a good alternative and reason for a second job ;-{ Well, I argue for home schooling over even the private schools, but not everyone can do that, and a good Christian school is far better than most public schools. Just don't expect your child to actually learn very much. :( The government influence is felt even in the private schools, and while the results are better, they're still not what they should be. |
| dinotrac Nov 19, 2006 6:31 PM EDT |
>However, I have a heckuva lot more faith in folks from the FSF to write a document beneficial to the Free Software community than I do in trusting companies like Novell and Microsoft to carve out agreements on their own. The thing is, companies are going to reach agreements with each other. That's fine. That's what they do. What they can't do, is affect the license grants given by copyright holders. GPL'd software is GPL'd software no matter what Microsoft and Novell decide between them. What worries me about Moglen going back to the drawing board is that it looks like the FSF does not have a clear vision of its own principles. Why would this agreement cause him to redraft the license? Does it make sense to run willy-nilly to the keyboard and reactively rather than proactively alter something upon which so much effort and attention has been showered? Makes me wonder where the parents are. |
| jsusanka Nov 19, 2006 6:43 PM EDT |
I don't blame Eben at all and I commend the work he is doing. In light of this deal the GPLv3 probably should be gone over and looked at again and see if there something to be covered. He is a lawyer and that is the way they work - they go back and cover their bases. thanks Eben keep up the great work - and make sure no one can get cute again. |
| dinotrac Nov 19, 2006 6:47 PM EDT |
>He is a lawyer and that is the way they work - they go back and cover their bases. Good lawyers draft what they want in the first place. It is incomprehensible to me that anything in the Microsoft-Novell agreement should have sent him back to the drawing board. I guess Microsoft has a bigger say in these things than the Linux kernel hackers. |
| Scott_Ruecker Nov 19, 2006 6:53 PM EDT |
Quoting:I guess Microsoft has a bigger say in these things than the Linux kernel hackers. That is exactly what I thought when I read it. After everything that people have done in the Open Source Community all M$ has to do is sneeze and we have to, for some reason, change what we are doing because of it. I get tired of the knee jerking all the time. |
| rijelkentaurus Nov 19, 2006 7:02 PM EDT |
>I get tired of the knee jerking all the time. Understandable, for sure. We should have a plan and stick to it. However, just ask George Bush and you'll find that "Stay the course" isn't always the best way to do things. Sometimes you have to rethink things. >Good lawyers draft what they want in the first place. It is incomprehensible to me that anything in the Microsoft-Novell agreement should have sent him back to the drawing board. I'd rather have someone who is too willing to change than someone who is unwilling to change. It's not like Moglen is the enemy. I think we should stop knee jerking on this and see where the FSF goes. |
| dinotrac Nov 19, 2006 7:05 PM EDT |
> I think we should stop knee jerking on this Unfortunately, I have no control over Moglen's knee. |
| rijelkentaurus Nov 19, 2006 7:45 PM EDT |
>Unfortunately, I have no control over Moglen's knee. I'm referring to the knee jerk opinions on Moglen's and the FSF's actions. I thought I had made that clear, but reading my post I think I did not. 8) Or maybe it's just too late and I need to go to bed. |
| dinotrac Nov 19, 2006 7:51 PM EDT |
> I thought I had made that clear Fear not, you were plenty clear. Just 'cos we respond, doesn't mean we're responding to your point!!! ;0) |
| rijelkentaurus Nov 20, 2006 2:58 AM EDT |
> ;0) 8-) |
| jsusanka Nov 20, 2006 5:27 AM EDT |
"Good lawyers draft what they want in the first place. It is incomprehensible to me that anything in the Microsoft-Novell agreement should have sent him back to the drawing board." no they don't - good lawyers always revise and make sure they cover their bases. when I hire a lawyer I want him to be flexible and not think he is right all the time. here is a link for you if you think Eben is very good - again I thank him for his work http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061119163021490 |
| dinotrac Nov 20, 2006 6:14 AM EDT |
>no they don't - good lawyers always revise and make sure they cover their bases. I know who not to ask about a legal referral. Yes, good people in all lines of work adjust what they are doing as needed. A good lawyer working a contract or doing a license starts from the standpoint of knowing what must be accomplished. Once that contract is signed, or that license is put into use, it is too late to tweak. I realize that GPLV3 is in the draft stage, but there was nothing remarkable or innovative in the Microsoft-Novell agreement. It should not have resulted in re-drafting. Makes me think Moglen and Co. don't know what they want to accomplish. |
| Rascalson Nov 20, 2006 6:43 AM EDT |
/S I eagerly await the DPL(Dinotrac Public License) version 1.0 /s |
| dinotrac Nov 20, 2006 6:47 AM EDT |
Rascalson -- You'll be waiting a looooooooooong time. If these guys can't get it right, I've got no hope at all. |
| jimf Nov 20, 2006 8:00 AM EDT |
Imagine you're in the 6th inning of a ball game. The referee comes out and announces that the rules have just been rewritten because some think their may have been cheating. The officials think that the new rules 'may' prevent that. There is a low moan from the crowd, but many fans accept that the officials know what they are doing, so in spite of a few catcalls, the game goes on. Now imagine that we've gotten to the 9th inning and the referee calls time again with the announcement that they're just going to toss out the game rules and rewrite the whole thing cause some player signed a advertising contract with a TV station. At that point I'm guessing that most fans and players are at least scratching their heads, and more likely booing the officials. I'd also think that those officials will, not too eventually, be dismissed and the rules restored to what they were at the beginning of the whole fiasco, cause if they're not, no one in their right mind will watch or play the game. |
| jsusanka Nov 20, 2006 8:13 AM EDT |
">no they don't - good lawyers always revise and make sure they cover their bases. I know who not to ask about a legal referral. Yes, good people in all lines of work adjust what they are doing as needed. A good lawyer working a contract or doing a license starts from the standpoint of knowing what must be accomplished. Once that contract is signed, or that license is put into use, it is too late to tweak. I realize that GPLV3 is in the draft stage, but there was nothing remarkable or innovative in the Microsoft-Novell agreement. It should not have resulted in re-drafting. Makes me think Moglen and Co. don't know what they want to accomplish." now I know whose license I won't use like the title says getting cute with the GPL - Eben wants to make sure that nobody else can get cute with it - maybe there isn't anything remarkable or innovative in the novell-microsoft deal - I can't say that because I haven't read it full - but Eben wants to make sure if there is it is in GPL compliance and avoid this situation in the future. don't really see anything wrong with that or any kind of incompetence. looks like to me he is addressing a slime ball company that will use anything to destroy it competition. and to me I hope he goes over and over and over the deal so he knows it in his sleep to make sure of what they are doing. |
| dinotrac Nov 20, 2006 8:14 AM EDT |
jimf - Something like that. Look...people -- and especially people who can hire lawyers -- will always be looking to push things as far as they can go. No lawyer in the world is smart enough to figure out everything that all of the other lawyers in the world might try to come up with. At some point, you figure out what you want to do, you do it, and you live with it. GPLV2 has been around for years. The GPLV3 process has gone on for a near eternity. If something radical and new came up, I could see adding language to cope. The Microsoft-Novell agreement is not radical and new. It's a more or less routine agreement between two companies with IP portfolios. Will this license ever actually be released? Will it be meaningful? Will it be usable? Is there some hidden agenda at work? Who knows. |
| jimf Nov 20, 2006 9:20 AM EDT |
dino, You've covered very well how a mind trained in the legal system sees this. I'm just trying to describe how the rest of the crowd might perceive the situation. What I do see in both cases is that the FSF is impeaching it's own credibility and causing far more damage to their own cause by the involuntary muscle response to the situation. It comes off as pretty pathetic. |
| Abe Nov 20, 2006 9:34 AM EDT |
Dino: Bad words or not, I liked what you said about MS. You expressed my feelings and the feelings of others so well. I must say, you have great wealth of vocabulary I wish I have. I doubt it since English is my 2nd language You blasted Eben MogIen unfairly and I have to disagree with you. You love freedom so much you tend to forgive its enemies. This guy is a visionary and I have no doubts that he loves freedom probably as much as all of us combined. He is part of a group who are leading and protecting the Software Freedom movement for better times. You say he is restricting the GPL in v3 to the extent of making it unacceptable by anyone. I disagree with you again. In my opinion, all what he is doing is to protect Software Freedom. MS & Novell found a loop hole and he is working on plugging it. Like PJ said, it is the intent and the spirit of the GPL that should be considered not the loop holes it contains. Novel should have known better. This guy is a professor of law and knows the danger of this loop hole in the court of law, not only as of today, but more importantly in the future. He is trying to update the GPL so the intent and spirit are put in words to stand clear and firm in courts. This isn't the first case and is not going to be the last to challenge the legality of the GPL. MS is trying to break up the F/OSS community to retain its control over IT industry. He is determined to stop them now and for ever before it is too late. I and many others who appreciate the value of Software Freedom would do the same. If you don't agree with him, you have a choice. If you don't like the new restrictions, you and many companies who disagree don't have to use F/OSS. Exercise your choice and no one can stop you. MS is nothing but about control, GPL is about nothing but Freedom of Choice. MS will never rest until it over comes the GPL and have their control over IT again. If MS can win this battle, F/OSS is doomed. This should never be allowed. Evolving the GPL is a natural process and should never stop. It has to be updated constantly to protect F/OSS. If we allow exceptions for the sake of F/OSS succeeding commercially, we will end up with no F/OSS at all. And yes, I do read PJ's articles. If you have, please read them again so you may understand her points better. In courts of law, ethical or not, MS can find loop holes to win, they even would lie to win their arguments. If we don't make sure no opportunity is left for them, you can be sure they will find it and use it to destroy F/OSS. So please don't split hair ( I know you like to play devils advocates a lot, you are a lawyer aren't you!) and believe in the work being done by Moglen and others like him. |
| dinotrac Nov 20, 2006 9:40 AM EDT |
Abe - Fair enough. Moglen has definitely done good stuff and is one of the good guys, but I'm puzzled by the recent past. And yes, I came down pretty hard on him. He's earned a few respect points a long the way. Still... I wonder if some people haven't gotten a little full of themselves. Or...maybe it's the old saw "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." I know that the FSF can't magically make the Microsoft's of this world respect our freedom. They can't rewrite the laws or do a lot of things they would like to do. Writing a license is one thing that they actually can do, but... There is a software phenomenon with regards to the second release of anything. I could be wrong...but I think Fred Brooks wrote about it in the Mythical Man Month. It goes something like this: A programmer's first release of anything will tend to be leaner and better than the second release. While doing the first release, the programmer doesn't know what he doesn't know, and tends to play it close to the vest. With the second release, flushed with the knowledge of all he would like to have done in the first release, things that he didn't like in the first release, and just plain cool ideas, he starts working on something bigger, better, and more wonderful than the first time around. Except that...it's slower, buggier, and less usable than the first release. Shiny things on the horizon draw eyes off the prize. That's what I worry about. The GPLV2 wasn't the first GPL, but it might as well be. It's the first release to make a large impact on the IT world at large. The world certainly has changed since the license first came out, but the GPL has accomplished much good. Will second release syndrome cause the FSF to reach for too much and, as a result, accomplish less than what they already have? Will they remember that some things in life really aren't nails, no matter how much they wish it weren't so? I really don't know, but this stuff doesn't look good to me. |
| jimf Nov 20, 2006 9:46 AM EDT |
> a little full of themselves I'd call that an understatement. |
| tuxchick Nov 20, 2006 10:16 AM EDT |
Dino and jimf, you're starting to sound rabid. When these discussions veer into ascribing motives and characterizations, they're veering off-course. Full of themselves? Unprincipled? How about, alarmed at possible end-runs around the GPL and wanting to do something about them? Whether they're the right things or not are the debatable bits. The characterizations are plain old low blows, especially when you have zero evidence that their motives are anything other than what they've always been- trying to promote and protect free software. You see coat hangers- I see someone going "those dirty dogs are trying something dangerous. We must do something about it." Eben Moglen is an actual practicing lawyer, and history and law professor with a special interest in free software. He and his team have access to Novell's internal documents. Call me naive, but I think that provides a stronger basis for his actions than being full of himself or unprincipled. Given Microsoft's long successful history of getting away with everything short of murder, it's not over-reacting to be hyper-vigilant and suspicious. |
| Abe Nov 20, 2006 10:27 AM EDT |
Dino: Analogies analogies, I think they are for the birds and don't apply all the time. The GPL is not a program, it is a license of rights, it is a contract that can stand in court and relies on Copyrights laws. Let's not take it lightly. It is sort of the constitution of F/OSS. Even the US Constitution had to be amended. Nothing is engraved in stone. I understand your concern and where you are coming from, but consider how many times the GPL has been modified or ammended. Not many. So it is a good solid license but not perfect. Let's give the guy a break, he is admitting that it has weaknesses and he is trying to remedy them. You are not suggesting to find a weakness and to just ignore it, are you! I doubt it. The GPL3 is out for comments and I am sure you are not the only one who have that concern. Others already made their opinions heard (Linus for one). But I am sure they will see the need for the new version after this deal with the devil. Hey, keep up the good work like always. |
| Abe Nov 20, 2006 10:31 AM EDT |
Tuxchick: Well said. I am sure I couldn't have said it better. |
| dcparris Nov 20, 2006 10:32 AM EDT |
One thing I can say for sure is that I have never seen the FSF vary from their message. They have always been adamant about maintaining linguistic integrity, the 4 freedoms (for users), and the anti-patent stance. I would be far more concerned with their actions if they were somehow changing course. But the whole situation just goes to show that you cannot separate the philosophy from the license - not when it is a philosophical license to begin with. |
| dinotrac Nov 20, 2006 11:26 AM EDT |
tc - When you take things out of context, you can make them mean whatever you want. I didn't claim that Moglen is full of himself, though I had precious few law professors who weren't. I said he could be, or could be caught in hammer-nail syndrome. I don't know. But this stuff looks funky to me. Even in context -- did you read what you wrote? Practicing lawyer? History professor? Law professor? Guy's probably the height of humility, but if those aren't 3 hubris red flags, I don't know what is. I certainly didn't accuse him of being unprincipled. The closest I came was to ask if he might have a hidden agenda. There are many reasons to hide your true agenda. Consider FDR and the Lend-Lease program. Nothing unprincipled about his actions, but he understood the isolationist sentiment throughout the country. He couldn't come out and say , "I hope this will drag us into the war to defeat the Nazis." And no, I do not want to ignore weaknesses. However, at some point one must admit that a license can only do so much and still function as a license. These guys have years of experience with GPLV2. They've had more than a year of deliberations on V3. Cross-licensing agreements between companies are nothing new. What could have sent him scurrying about this Novell deal other than Microsoft being on the other side? |
| jimf Nov 20, 2006 11:27 AM EDT |
> you're starting to sound rabid. 'rabid' huh? Lol, you do so like to obscufate the issue ... :). I can't speak for dino, but, what I'm saying is that no matter how one looks at it, the 'perception' is that Moglen is responding with a whole lot of spin and FUD without any apearent basis for his concern. I also agree with what dino was saying about GPLv2 being a brillant first effort, and GPLv3 going off track. Whether or not that's true, Moglen's response to the MS / Novell deal gives 'the impression' of a lot of foot shuffeling, and, that 'just maybe', the guys at FSF are following an agenda, or worse yet, don't know what they want. Whatever... I'm sure that Moglen will end up 'explaning' it to us poor deluded mortals ad nauseam. |
| SFN Nov 20, 2006 11:58 AM EDT |
Just for the sake of argument, let's suppose GPLv3 has all sorts of nonsense in it. Let's say that on top of everything that was in GPLv2, GPLv3 states that anyone who modifies code that was released under GPLv3 must dance naked every year on Dick Clark's Rockin' Eve. It seems to me that there is a simple way around that: don't use GPLv3. Use GPLv2 or some other license. Or make your own license up. It's not like anyone can be forced to release their code under GPLv3. What part of this am I missing? |
| jimf Nov 20, 2006 12:02 PM EDT |
> It seems to me that there is a simple way around that: don't use GPLv3. Use GPLv2 or some other license. Or make your own license up. It's not like anyone can be forced to release their code under GPLv3. What part of this am I missing? Well, for one thing, I thought the purpose of GPLv3 was to be a license that people would want to use over GPLv2... Guess I was misinformed. |
| Abe Nov 20, 2006 12:05 PM EDT |
OK good enough. My questions is, do you think that SCO suit was appropriate? If yes, your out, end of story. If not, then, don't you think MS is trying to do the same as SCO when it is getting royalty for Linux by way of Novell in their new deal? It sure does exactly that. The deal covers Novell's customers for now and MS was so "kind" to extend it to others, doesn't that look like MS owns Linux IPs? It sure does to me. OK, fine. The guy might have an agenda (I doubt it), but what is the big deal about making the license more stringent? Lawyers would love to keep it ambiguous so they can make money on law suits. The guys is a lawyer, so if he had an agenda , wouldn't it be more beneficial for him to keep it as is? It doesn't jive does it? Unless he sees better opportunities for himself. In my prespective, I think he is doing what is better for F/OSS not for any one else, not even for himself other than getting more popularity and I have no problem with that because I happen to believe he deserve the credit. Divide and conquer is the name of the game for MS, I am sure you know that. So let's not give them a chance otherwise Linux will end up like Unix in the end. A poisonous snake, the only way you can feel safe when it is around is to chop its head. No argument about it. I don't eat snakes, but this one I would. lol |
| SFN Nov 20, 2006 12:12 PM EDT |
Quoting:Well, for one thing, I thought the purpose of GPLv3 was to be a license that people would want to use over GPLv2... Guess I was misinformed. So you think that, with the changes that are being proposed, nobody will want to use GPLv3? |
| dinotrac Nov 20, 2006 12:17 PM EDT |
>My questions is, do you think that SCO suit was appropriate? If yes, your out, end of story. If the SCO folks really believed, on the basis of investigation carried out in good faith, that IBM violated the terms of its agreement for the use of UnixWare IP by sliding it into Linux, then yes, the suit was appropriate. Doesn't look that way, though, does it? If not, then, don't you think MS is trying to do the same as SCO when it is getting royalty for Linux by way of Novell in their new deal? 1. It's a funny kind of royalty deal where you pay the other guy ($108- 40 = $65+ million to Novell 2. Novell has a lot of IP. Don't know how those royalties that Novell isn't actually paying are divied up. 3. SCO actually sued IBM and sent threatening letters to Linux users. Microsoft hasn't done that yet, but they certainly could. What in the name of blazes does that have to do with anything? Novell isn't suing or threatening anybody. >but what is the big deal about making the license more stringent? Depends. If he can do it without hurting it, fine. If it starts becoming difficult to apply in everyday use, not so fine. |
| Abe Nov 20, 2006 1:13 PM EDT |
"1. It's a funny kind of royalty deal where you pay the other guy ($108- 40 = $65+ million to Novell" I am surprised at you letting this shell game go by you. have you given a thought that MS might have bought something else with with net $65 million? SCO got $50 mil. for the same. "2. Novell has a lot of IP. Don't know how those royalties that Novell isn't actually paying are divied up." Ballmer assured everyone that it was money for 70,000 Suse Linux licenses, what the heck MS is going to do with them? Sell them to their customers when they or their customers can get Suse for free! "Depends. If he can do it without hurting it, fine. If it starts becoming difficult to apply in everyday use, not so fine." I guess we just have to wait and see. So let's give him the benefit of the doubt for now. |
| dcparris Nov 20, 2006 2:36 PM EDT |
> Well, for one thing, I thought the purpose of GPLv3 was to be a license that people would want to use over GPLv2... Guess I was misinformed. Well, if that's what you really thought, I'd say you were definitely misinformed. The purpose of the GPLv3 is to address new issues that have arisen since GPLv2. If more people choose to use it, that's a plus. One could even hope (regardless of the merits for such hope) that, spurred on by the initial success of v2, v3's enhancements would encourage more people to use it. Frankly, any effort to write a license with the express purpose of making it more popular would be absolutely silly. I would be ranting against a popularity-based re-write. |
| dinotrac Nov 20, 2006 2:44 PM EDT |
>Frankly, any effort to write a license with the express purpose of making it more popular would be absolutely silly. I would be ranting against a popularity-based re-write. No more silly than re-writing a license so that nobody can use it. |
| dcparris Nov 20, 2006 3:10 PM EDT |
In this case, anybody can use it. Whether they will or won't is the question. |
| jimf Nov 20, 2006 3:16 PM EDT |
> Frankly, any effort to write a license with the express purpose of making it more popular would be absolutely silly. I would be ranting against a popularity-based re-write. Hold on there! I never said that it 'should be' a popularity contest. I'm only saying that it should be as clearly beneficial as is GPLv2. So far it arguably isn't, and the way Moglen is talking about a rewrite doesn't seem to be making it any better. GPLv3 was already getting into areas where I don't believe they could be effective, and maybe don't belong anyway. Moglen's purposed rewrite seems to be headed further into uncharted territory. This is rapidly coming down to 'what if we have a license and nobody wants it?'. |
| dcparris Nov 20, 2006 3:21 PM EDT |
I see where you're coming from, Jim. I'm sorry I misread your statement. |
| dinotrac Nov 20, 2006 3:38 PM EDT |
Rev - I think you once said it, I've said it numerous times, and various others have said it: There is a reasonable question as to how much can be accomplished with a software license. The GPLV2 showed that a software license can do powerful things, but it also carries a warning in the form of projects like apache, postgresql, python, mozilla, x.org and others. For whatever reason, these projects have chosen not to use the GPL. Even the GNU project's own desktop, GNOME, is built on a toolkit licensed under the LGPL instead of GPL. There comes a point at which you must remember that any social engineering you may wish to accomplish can take place only if the license gets used. Clearly, the GPL is scraping at the edges now. Pushing further should be done only with extreme caution. |
| Abe Nov 20, 2006 3:49 PM EDT |
"This is rapidly coming down to 'what if we have a license and nobody wants it?" I guess the question is why wouldn't anybody wants it? I haven't read v3 fully yet, but my understanding it is v2 plus more section(s) to address the patent issues. Could some one be more specific and cite why nobody wants it? |
| rijelkentaurus Nov 20, 2006 4:06 PM EDT |
>Clearly, the GPL is scraping at the edges now. If it was clear, we wouldn't need to have this discussion. >Pushing further should be done only with extreme caution. I agree with that. It's usually good advice regardless of the situation. |
| jimf Nov 20, 2006 4:08 PM EDT |
Abe, The short version is that not all of use believe that the DRM portions of GPLv3 is a good or even appropriate inclusion. This discussion has been going on for at least the last 3 months. Suggest that you search the message board if you want to see details. |
| Abe Nov 20, 2006 4:18 PM EDT |
Thanks Jim. I am off for the rest of the week so I will have time to research it a little. |
| dinotrac Nov 20, 2006 4:42 PM EDT |
Eben Moglen, from another article in today's queue: "Suppose GPL3 says something like, 'if you distribute (or procure the distribution), of a program (or parts of a program) - and if you make patent promises partially to some subset of the distributees of the program - then under this license you have given the same promise or license at no cost in royalties or other obligations to all persons to whom the program is distributed'." OK. Cool. Now, what happens when two companies cross license their patent portfolios. Must they now say...we won't sue you for any of your proprietary programs, but your GPL'd stuff is fair game? We want to send that message why? |
| rijelkentaurus Nov 20, 2006 5:23 PM EDT |
dino, have you addressed any of these concerns with the FSF and the comments on the GPLv3? I'm not being a smarty asking that, please don't think that. But you've raised concerns that should be addressed, whether or not they are correct. Who knows if you'll have any effect, but it can't hurt, and it might do some good. I'd encourage everyone with any qualms or questions to address the issue to the comments on the new draft of the GPL. >Now, what happens when two companies cross license their patent portfolios. Must they now say...we won't sue you for any of your proprietary programs, but your GPL'd stuff is fair game? Seems like it's being said that GPL software CAN'T be covered in a patent agreement between companies. I think I see what you're saying. A company doesn't have to admit to their being infringing code, just that the two (or three) companies have agreed not to sue on the matter. It's somewhat of a tricky area...and I think it'd be best if the agreement stated that the GPL code indemnity was offered to everyone who used it, not just the customers of the ones in the deal. That's probably wishful thinking. But Novell doesn't really have a right to negotiate anything relating to GPL software, no one does, since it's essentially become community property. They have themselves stated that they are not covering any infringing code in the deal with MS...perhaps they should have screamed that at the announcement with MS and not whispered it afterwards? Novell really CAN'T cross license GPL code, since everyone is free to use it anyway. Man, did any of that garbage make sense? What this deal can't cover? GPL software, because Novell has no right to negotiate terms on it. If they are negotiating because they feel MS's claims are valid, they cannot in good faith distribute it because of GPL sec 7, so it's not really GPL software anymore (or, if the patents are valid, it never was). If MS decides to agree not to sue Novell's customers, fine, that's one thing, but Novell should make it LOUD AND CLEAR that the deal DOES NOT cover GPL software and that MS has NO VALID CLAIMS against it, at least in the opinion of their lawyers. They should also spell out EXACTLY what the deal covers. There's too much secrecy and doubt involved. Us Free Software types don't like that, not in business and not in government or law. The ramble button has been turned off, thank you for your patience. |
| Libervis Nov 20, 2006 5:33 PM EDT |
You know, dinotrac, FSF probably doesn't give a damn about such a situation. The patent system as a whole is simply incompatible with the Free Software goal so if this GPLv3 modification makes it inconvenient to make patent cross-licensing, so be it. Why would they care? Why would we care anyway? GPL is an incredible legal phenomenon when you look at it this way. It is so popular and widely used and at the same time viral which is an explosive combination. It can, apparently, make even the patent ecosystem buckle in on itself. What GPLv3 will do about MS-Novell deal is simply make it undesirable for Microsoft to maintain the deal, because Microsoft doesn't want to end up automatically extending the patent covenant to *all* users of the GPLv3 software Novell distributes. It is quite cunning really. Do I support it? Well, why not.. it kills an apparently largely negative deal (cause it allowed for all this litigation FUD and threats) and buckles a patent system on its way a bit. It targets the right things at the right time. You can argue all you want about GPL being the wrong tool to do it, but darn, it has the best chances of working. |
| jimf Nov 20, 2006 6:22 PM EDT |
> But Novell doesn't really have a right to negotiate anything relating to GPL software, no one does Well, that's what I keep coming back to, and that's with GPL2. |
| dinotrac Nov 20, 2006 6:39 PM EDT |
>You know, dinotrac, FSF probably doesn't give a damn about such a situation. I guess not. And that's fine. And I suppose they don't care if some bright person at nVidia one day says, "Y'know ... let's release our Linux driver under the GPL.." At which point some other bright person says, "Nah. The folks in Legal are very concerned that we'll assume a lot of liability because our cross-licensing agreements with ATI and Intel can't be applied to a GPL'd driver. We might be ok...but do we really want to walk into that minefield?" First bright person, "Yeah, I see your point. Besides, if people really cared about putting software under the GPL, they would make it so golly gosh gee whiz hard to do." |
| Abe Nov 20, 2006 6:39 PM EDT |
I was reading the same article and I think it is crystal clear. What ever covenant you grant for a software code shall be extended and applied to the same code no matter where it was obtained from. In other words, if Suse gets a covenant, all other distros that have the same software code as Suse such as Red Hat, PCLinuxOS etc... shall have the same covenant. That will stop any devious agreements like the one Novell & MS just did. Bu the issue of patents infringements by the GPL is still open. If there are no covenant, then GPLed code still open for patent litigation. Which is basically the same as with GPL v2 |
| dinotrac Nov 20, 2006 6:43 PM EDT |
>That will stop any devious agreements like the one Novell & MS just did. Abe - Why don't you explain to me how that applies. As I understand things, Novell is not the one promising not to sue. Microsoft is. What does that have to do with anything Novell distributes? |
| Abe Nov 20, 2006 7:02 PM EDT |
True Novell didn't and MS did. But Novell is the distributor of Suse and they are obliged to make sure that the terms of the GPL3, if Suse is GPL3, has to make sure the agreement fulfills the terms of GPL3. If Linux is GPL3, then Suse has to be. If Linux is not and Linus and the developers still release Linux under GPL2, then the new terms will not apply. According to the article, Moglen thinks that they will agree. I agree with Libervis, the GPL is viral. Of course, Ballmer knew that long time ago when he said F/OSS is cancerous. |
| dinotrac Nov 20, 2006 7:30 PM EDT |
>if Suse is GPL3, has to make sure the agreement fulfills the terms of GPL3. How so? If Microsoft distributes Linux, then Microsoft needs to be sure that it's pledge applies. I would agree that Novell, if it refrains from suing any Linux users must refrain from suing all (at least with regard to Linux IP violations). Novell is not required to honor Microsoft's commitment any more than Red Hat is. |
| dcparris Nov 20, 2006 7:38 PM EDT |
> According to the article, Moglen thinks that they will agree. I sure didn't read it that way. He did say consensus was at hand, but not necessarily including the kernel devs. Even then, agreement or consensus is very different from migrating Linux to the GPLv3. What will be GPLv3 is most of the GNU tools that are used along with the kernel. That will affect the various OS distributions, including SUSE. SUSE does not have to be GPLv3 just because Linux is, and Linux isn't likely to be. One cannot license a whole OS distribution on the basis of the kernel's license. Otherwise, you would have to also GPL OpenOffice.org, Apache & Python. But those packages that are GPLv3 will prevent companies from making any agreements covering them. The GPLv3 would not even affect the other, non-GPL'ed, packages. |
| dinotrac Nov 21, 2006 2:13 AM EDT |
>The GPLv3 would not even affect the other, non-GPL'ed, packages. That has yet to be determined, but one hopes that it is true. I wonder how, in light of this cobble me a provision here, add a restriction there, approach, the FSF avoids the kind of problem that kept KDE out of Debian 5 years ago or so. Will the GPLV3 be compatible with the GPLV2, BSD, LGPL, etc? Just remember what a great contribution XFree86 made to the free desktop. Now consider what a great contribution it makes today. |
| Libervis Nov 21, 2006 3:09 AM EDT |
dinotracQuoting:And I suppose they don't care if some bright person at nVidia one day says, "Y'know ... let's release our Linux driver under the GPL.." The new GPL will make it clearer than ever, what has been the case all along, that GPLed code is essentially a collective property of the community, and that it should be respected as such. If you make a protective deal with anyone from that community the deal must apply to everyone in that community. You could see it as kind of a new type of "corporation", a new kind of entity as a whole. "The Community Incooperated", if you will. You want to deal with us? Respect our rules. FSF, as the one who essentially founded this "The Community" entity with its legal letter of the GPL continues to shape "The Community" as a cohesive and relevant partner that even the biggest corporations have to deal with, if they want the benefits of the products of "The Community". Since "The Community" consists of so many ordinary people like you and me, it gives us a say we might have not had otherwise. And Nvidia, ATI and others should realize that. In their terminology, everything under the GPLv3 is the "intellectual property" owned by "The Community". Their intention to release GPL drivers is good, but only if what they release is provided under the same rules for every single member of "The Community" (meaning that all patent promises now must apply to all members). If they fear this, there are alternative licensing choices which may not force this, such as BSD. The BSD code is like a periphery of "The Community", the code that "The Community" does not collectively own since everyone can just take from it and relicense however they want. But GPL is the constitution of the new great entity I'm calling "The Community" above, one which even Microsoft has to deal with on an equal foot. |
| dinotrac Nov 21, 2006 3:29 AM EDT |
>everything under the GPLv3 is the "intellectual property" owned by "The Community". In which case, Hell will freeze over before nVidia releases a GPLV3'd driver. |
| Libervis Nov 21, 2006 3:54 AM EDT |
They don't have to make it GPLv3. Case closed. |
| dinotrac Nov 21, 2006 3:57 AM EDT |
>They don't have to make it GPLv3. Goodness!! Even you can see the light. Who'da thunk? |
| Libervis Nov 21, 2006 4:25 AM EDT |
See the light? I never said GPL should be an exclusive Free Software license and I don't have any problems with other FS licenses in principle. I just think GPL is the best. :) But if it doesn't suit Nvidia and AMD, they can choose a different FS license. As long as I can have a fully working free driver I'll be happy. Just give us the source and four freedoms and we'll take it from there (yes, they don't even need to distribute binaries, we'll build it ourselves) no matter which license you use to grant us those freedoms. |
| dinotrac Nov 21, 2006 5:09 AM EDT |
L - On that I can agree completely. I get more than a little antsy on the GPLV3 stuff -- especially when so many useful and important tools are GPL'd. The thought of the Linux kernel being on one license and tools on another, potentially incompatible license, gives me the willies. And, to be honest, it does spook me to see them running back to the drawing board because of the Novell-Microsoft deal. I know these are smart people who've given everything a great deal of thought, but that particular scurry doesn't fit the picture. |
| Libervis Nov 21, 2006 6:15 AM EDT |
I would also be concerned if GPLv3 ends up incompatible with GPLv2. I hope that it is compatible. About running to the drawing board because of the Novell-MS deal I don't think that's what happened. I mean, I don't think that they have deliberately and specifically made this new patent provision the goal *after* the deal. I think the goal was such all along. So it can't be just a reaction. They're just staying their course. ;) |
| rijelkentaurus Nov 21, 2006 6:45 AM EDT |
>I would also be concerned if GPLv3 ends up incompatible with GPLv2. I hope that it is compatible. RMS doesn't appear to be concerned about that and considers such talk as good as FUD. There was a radio interview with him recently that expresses his position (I thought) rather well. I can't remember the show it was on, but it was within the past 2-3 weeks. I'd be interested to hear what his personal take on Novell/MS is. He's a sharp cookie. |
| Abe Nov 21, 2006 7:09 AM EDT |
Dino, Don, I don't see what is the big deal about Moglen's addition in v3. V2 says if you use GPLed code in your application, your whole code has to be GPLed, take it or leave it. Many developers and companies are happy with it and as a matter of fact, many prefer it because it protects their code. The addition into v3 does the same thing by extending v2 to cover patent covenants granted by any company. what is wrong with that? Why wouldn't any one who has GPLed their code not like it or accept it? What are they going lose? Linux Kernel is a crucial part, If its developers adopt v3 many code will or will have to adopt it. And even if they don't, companies that use any v3 code will have to deal with at lest some code that is v3. Let's wait and see what happens after Moglen issues his draft. Let's not kill it before we give it a chance to be reviewed by developers and companies. One thing I would like to see is what is so bad about this new proposed terms? Again, I don't see anything that the GPL2 didn't intend and v3 is only making it clear and assertive. Let's stop splitting hair for moment. |
| dinotrac Nov 21, 2006 7:57 AM EDT |
Abe - >The addition into v3 does the same thing by extending v2 to cover patent covenants granted by any company The problem comes when you are trying to extend convenants granted by somebody else. You don't have the power to do that. They do. I see potential nightmares that could keep code from being released under V3. |
| jimf Nov 21, 2006 8:20 AM EDT |
> I see potential nightmares that could keep code from being released under V3. And ultimately cause everyone to reject GPLv3. > Let's stop splitting hair for moment. All the speculation on this deal, and on GPLv3 has become the equivelant of the medieval monks delema of 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?'. We simply don't have enough information to make a valid judgement, and in this case, faith just doesn't cut it. |
| dinotrac Nov 21, 2006 8:33 AM EDT |
>We simply don't have enough information to make a valid judgement, and in this case, faith just doesn't cut it. I'll admit, however, that I feel better about it than I did before. I am now convinced that, other than adding confusion, V3 isn't likely to do substantial harm. If it's really out there, people won't use it. If they need to, they will fork. |
| Libervis Nov 21, 2006 8:48 AM EDT |
jimf Quoting:And ultimately cause everyone to reject GPLv3. "Everyone" is a gross generalization, don't you think? Quoting:We simply don't have enough information to make a valid judgement, and in this case, faith just doesn't cut it. Noone is taking it on faith. Otherwise why would we even bother discussing. We'd just say "everything is going to be fine, FSF knows best etc." Observing, putting the dots together and discussing is not a faith based initiative. It is science. ;) |
| jdixon Nov 21, 2006 8:54 AM EDT |
> Observing, putting the dots together and discussing is not a faith based initiative. It is science. ;) Where did you learn your scientific method? That's not even remotely correct. The scientific method is: 1) Observe, 2) Hypothesize, 3) Predict, 4) Test. See http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/Appendix... What we are doing is more akin to the Socratic method: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method |
| Abe Nov 21, 2006 9:39 AM EDT |
"The problem comes when you are trying to extend convenants granted by somebody else. You don't have the power to do that. They do. I see potential nightmares that could keep code from being released under V3." I don't see how this could be a problem. GPLed code has the GPL (2 or 3) stuck with it and should be honored no matter who, how, or from it was obtained. If MS bought/downloaded Suse, they do that under the agreement of the GPL, otherwise the can't and shouldn't. If GPL3 was not widely accepted, then it will not be adopted. Just like you stated, developers/companies will still use GPL2 as long as they can, or they will fork when they can't. My point is still to wait and see how v3 is going to be received. |
| dinotrac Nov 21, 2006 9:43 AM EDT |
>My point is still to wait and see how v3 is going to be received. As I said earlier, this whole exercise has had a palliative effect on me. I'm still perplexed by Moglen's midnight dash, but now convinced that his prior work (V2) is good enough to pull our tails out of the fire in the event he impales himself on good intentions. I still get to yap, but not so worried. |
| Abe Nov 21, 2006 9:58 AM EDT |
"I still get to yap, but not so worried." May be Lxer should have sound too so we can hear our yap. I must warn you though, mine could be very harmful. |
| dinotrac Nov 21, 2006 10:30 AM EDT |
>May be Lxer should have sound too so we can hear our yap. Hmmm.... If that ever happens, I may have to get our Chihuahua involved. Thinks he's a macho little dude, but if that bark is worse than his bite, he's gumming his way through everything. |
| Libervis Nov 21, 2006 1:18 PM EDT |
jdixon Quoting:The scientific method is: Sounds like the socratic method fits well with the scientific method. Besides, a lot of the hypothesizing and predicting is done in cooperation and through discussion. The point was simply that we're not taking anything based on faith here. Just that. Some think GPLv3 will be bad and some believe it will be good, based on their observations from their perspectives. |
| dinotrac Nov 21, 2006 1:25 PM EDT |
>Some think GPLv3 will be bad and some believe it will be good Probably should substitute "could" for will, given that we have only a draft to date. |
| Libervis Nov 21, 2006 2:06 PM EDT |
Indeed, you're right. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!