Yes we should
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| maggrand Nov 25, 2006 9:45 AM EDT |
We should spread the word about the poision that novells suse is. Everyone in the opensource movement should stop contribute to it. Everything that MS/Novells contributes to the community should be handled whith care and tossed into the garbage can. MS only intention is to destroy the Linux market. Novell has lost there goal in a short term deal. So please use the still good distros. There are loads of them. But Linux has gained on this deal anyway. One of the biggest names in Microsoft has told the world that Linux is mature and good enought. So now lets take over the desktop too. |
| Scott_Ruecker Nov 25, 2006 9:55 AM EDT |
OpenSuSE is a separate entity from Novell, no? and 99.9% of their code is the same as anyone else's. Abandoning there code is asinine. Besides, GPL'd code is GPL'd code no matter what you put on top of it. Look at the code more closely? OK, but I'll bet the SuSE developers will do that anyway. |
| dinotrac Nov 25, 2006 10:09 AM EDT |
There is one potential danger -- And it's one that could be cleared up with process transparency. The danger is this: Microsoft provides code (or the basis for code) to Novell. That code is provided on some basis other than the GPL. Novell then does something that it shouldn't do -- uses that code (or basis for code) in something that it releases under the GPL. In that case, Novell would be in the wrong because it has no right to GPL Microsoft code that is not GPL'd by Microsoft itself. That would pose a danger to downstream users. Nothing else presents a danger that is different from those already faced by all developers and distributors. Incidentally, If Microsoft provides code to Novell under the GPL, that would be good as gold. The free software would be utterly idiotic to reject such code on anything other than technical grounds. If it's crap code, toss it. We don't need it. Otherwise, it would be code that Microsoft licensed us all to use, meaning that it could not infringe any Microsoft IP. |
| Abe Nov 25, 2006 10:27 AM EDT |
Dino: Well put, now you are talking. Novell made a huge mistake signing the deal with MS without realizing its consequences. Now they know better and unless they retrieve their commitment, some people feel that Novell should reap the consequences and I happen to be one of them. Correcting a mistake can be rewarding. |
| maggrand Nov 25, 2006 5:51 PM EDT |
That 'gold' that you mention could also be Linux worst threat ever. Is it worth to take that risk ? Isn't better to build Linux/Foss software on its own inventions then 'resuse' Microsofts stuff ? Well i think that. Linux needs deliver something new that Mr Ballmer and company never had a single thought on. That might also be the triggering effect that Linux needs to grab the desktop section. |
| dinotrac Nov 25, 2006 6:58 PM EDT |
>That 'gold' that you mention could also be Linux worst threat ever. No it could not. Put your thinking hat on and re-examine. It is not rocket science. You only have understand what a license is and what the GPL grants. |
| swbrown Nov 25, 2006 8:02 PM EDT |
They're still barred from knowingly distributing infringing code as per GPL section 8, so it's really not an issue. One could argue it's Microsoft's intention to thin the contributor pool. |
| dinotrac Nov 26, 2006 1:52 AM EDT |
swbrown - The big danger, I think, would be an inadvertent distribution, ie, not knowing that the code infringes. If it comes from Microsoft under the GPL, that is not a problem because, by definition, you cannot infringe when the rights-holder has granted you a license to do the things you do. |
| swbrown Nov 26, 2006 3:20 AM EDT |
"The big danger, I think, would be an inadvertent distribution, ie, not knowing that the code infringes." If they don't know they're making infringing code, then they're no worse off than we are. If they are intentionally making infringing code and continue to distribute, or intentionally avoiding due diligence, then they'll either be sued based on GPL2 section 7, or blocked by GPL3. Also remember that we can basically guarantee that some of GNU/Linux violates one or more patents (likely thousands), as every line of code likely violates at least one software patent. The software patent situation in the US is a total disaster due to the kinds of insanely trivial, self-evident, and broad patents being granted, and it being used to block competition rather than its stated goal of promoting it. You can't let it grind development to a stop, though. Just be sure to avoid reading any patents, and contribute when possible to get the USPTO reformed (if you're an American). |
| dinotrac Nov 26, 2006 4:37 AM EDT |
>If they don't know they're making infringing code, then they're no worse off than we are. That's not true because most of us are not getting code or other proprietary information from Microsoft. Microsoft could accidentally give Novell code that infringes patents (ie...developer to developer chats/IMs without first consulting Legal) or it could do so maliciously. Novell could receive infringing code, but in the hustle and bustle of everyday business find that it gets in the hands of somebody who was not made aware and who incorporated it into a piece of GPL'd code. Most comments on this topic are silly and alarmist, but it's wrong to air on the other side. Just because everybody faces risk doesn't mean that all risks are the same. Novell faces/imposes a risk different from other distributions. It is managable, but it is there. I haven't read the current Time magazine, but the cover story looks very much in point for this discussion: People's inability to properly assess risk. I may have to break down and pick it up. |
| swbrown Nov 26, 2006 5:40 AM EDT |
"That's not true because most of us are not getting code or other proprietary information from Microsoft. Microsoft could accidentally give Novell code that infringes patents (ie...developer to developer chats/IMs without first consulting Legal) or it could do so maliciously." Novell is no more a threat than anyone else in this regard. Why have a patch rejection policy that singles them out? Remember the guy who attempted to submit Microsoft's C# test webserver as new code to Mono during its early stages? He didn't need any such close contact with Microsoft to be able to potentially infect. Microsoft's .NET newsgroups had Microsoft devs that would give out code snippets despite their email sigs saying the content was all rights reserved. SenderID almost became a standard if it wasn't for someone noticing late in the game the RF license wasn't transferable. Microsoft is quite capable of seeding potential infringement on their own, and to a wide base. Discarding Novell's patches blindly is a bit like only searching Arabs for bombs - you cause a lot of delay yet you get blown up by Timothy McVeigh. Instead, use the same common sense patch rejection policies on all patches. I'm much more suspicious of Joe Nobody's patches than I am of Nat Friedman's. |
| dinotrac Nov 26, 2006 5:42 AM EDT |
swbrown - Seems that there is more than one way to cast a blind eye. |
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!