totally agree
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jsusanka Nov 23, 2006 5:58 PM EDT |
I think their code needs to be isolated and I think opensuse needs to be forked off to a free and open version. this has nothing but setup from microsoft written all over it. who in their right would touch anything that novell and microsoft produced together. oh that's right their customers and only us "hobby coders" who don't pay for anything and don't respect licenses because our license is a virus and cancer - you know the GPL. novell said screw you to the community and gave a big hug and kiss to their stockholders. I just hope they think it will be worth it in the long run. |
| dinotrac Nov 23, 2006 6:07 PM EDT |
I thought opensuse already was a free and open version, as opposed to the Novell-released versions. |
| jdixon Nov 23, 2006 6:20 PM EDT |
That's the general idea, yes. OpenSUSE is supposed to be the free and open version of SUSE. Very similar to Fedora and RHEL. Now, not having used either, I can't speak to how well they've done the job. |
| dcparris Nov 23, 2006 6:20 PM EDT |
That's what I thought. Do you mean SLED & SLES? |
| Libervis Nov 24, 2006 7:49 AM EDT |
I am not so quick to agree with Petreley here. If we are to isolate ourselves from a perfectly good GPLed code contributed by Novell (even if in cooperation with Microsoft) in fear of tainting our code with Microsoft's patents, than our fear is pretty pointless. Who says that the next line of code you write doesn't infringe on some patent? Who says that even without Novell's code, our Free Software isn't tainted already? It is practically impossible to *make sure* our code doesn't infringe a patent. This is the biggest reason why software patents are so bad. I've written about this here: http://www.libervis.com/should_we_really_reject_code_from_no... It should appear in the newswire later I hope. Thanks |
| dinotrac Nov 24, 2006 8:18 AM EDT |
Libervis -- I agree with you, but not. I agree that it is foolish to isolate ourselves from perfectly good GPL'd code. The trick is to find out whether the code is perfectly good. Going forward, however, new code from Novell is different from old, pre-agreement, code. Given your very true points about the difficulty of avoiding patents in everyday work, it should be sufficient for Novell to describe HOW something got developed and to certify that code -- or design -- did not come from Microsoft. Even code that came from Microsoft would be OK if the code came from Microsoft came under the GPL. In that case, Microsoft would be granting a license to the world to use the code and no infringement could occur as infringement is use without permission, not use with. So...the Novell arrangement requires some extra assurance - not because we doubt the GPL, but because Novell (as opposed to Microsoft) could release code that infringed Microsoft's IP as an inadvertent result of their technology sharing. That's an extra layer of danger that other distros don't seem to have. Note the word "seem" in that last sentence. How many people in the lxer audience know that Microsoft and free browser developers meet somewhat regularly to discuss security problems and solutions? That could create as much danger as the Novell agreement. |
| Libervis Nov 24, 2006 9:14 AM EDT |
Quoting:Even code that came from Microsoft would be OK if the code came from Microsoft came under the GPL. In that case, Microsoft would be granting a license to the world to use the code and no infringement could occur as infringement is use without permission, not use with. Yes, I am not talking about code that is not under the GPL or at least any other free copyleft license, but if Microsoft gives us code under the GPL I would accept that. Quoting:but because Novell (as opposed to Microsoft) could release code that infringed Microsoft's IP as an inadvertent result of their technology sharing. That's an extra layer of danger that other distros don't seem to have. But my point is.. who cares! We know they may release some code which infringes on MS patents (note, I don't agree with use of the term "IP" as in intellectual "property") just as we know of the possibility of all other Free Software code written by a random anyone could be infringing. It seems like a futile battle to try and somehow separate our code from infringing code. Why bother with that then? To me, it seems like a better effort would be spent into long term software patents eradication and shorter term general shield developments like one in GPLv3 rather than this muddying with specific codes and infringements. |
| tuxchick Nov 24, 2006 9:23 AM EDT |
Right, libervis. It's a waste of time, energy, and talent to try to continually dodge all these threats of dubious legitimacy. Let 'em prove infringement. Even in the mess that is US civil law I believe there is a principal of good faith- you can't go straight for maximum punishment when a bit of discussion would have resolved the issue. And you still have to prove you've been wronged. |
| dinotrac Nov 24, 2006 1:19 PM EDT |
tc - Unfortunately, infringement is infringement. There's a kicker for bad faith, but no "boys will be boys" for good faith. The way the laws are written, users who infringe are every bit as liable as distributors who infringe. Not for the same amount , mind you. A user is responsible only for his or her own infringement. Patent recovery seems actually to be a bit gentler in that regard than copyrights. With patents there is a need for notice that may greatly limit potential damages. Patent law is not an area of strength for me, however, and I don't know all of the ins and outs of assessing damages. |
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!