For Dino & Jimf's comments
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Abe Nov 27, 2006 10:37 AM EDT |
Where are you guys, I am impatiently waiting for your comments about this. I am eagerly wondering about what you have to say in regards to the latest and greatest GPL3 draft. |
| dinotrac Nov 27, 2006 10:46 AM EDT |
abe - Patience WeedHopper. One must feed the family before one curls up with a license. |
| Abe Nov 27, 2006 10:59 AM EDT |
So true. I will be patient hoping for a good healthy debate. I am all pumped up |
| tuxchick Nov 27, 2006 11:16 AM EDT |
Let me kick things off, then, in the traditional erudite LXer fashion: Your momma. |
| Rascalson Nov 27, 2006 11:40 AM EDT |
And as Dino is regrettably busy with RL does any one have a Dino script to fill in for Him :) |
| Abe Nov 27, 2006 11:51 AM EDT |
Quoting:Your momma.Your momma is so (!Cute) she made RMS to mess the GPL |
| Abe Nov 27, 2006 11:58 AM EDT |
Quoting:And as Dino is regrettably busy with RL does any one have a Dino script to fill in for Him :) if (article ~= RMS) { attack RMS; } else { print ("Nice article"); attack RMS; } |
| tuxchick Nov 27, 2006 12:07 PM EDT |
Your momma codes in Visual Basic. |
| jdixon Nov 27, 2006 12:16 PM EDT |
> Your momma codes in Visual Basic. Now THAT is an insult. :) |
| Abe Nov 27, 2006 12:29 PM EDT |
Quoting:Your momma codes in Visual Basic.I can't top that. I am going home crying...for help. |
| dcparris Nov 27, 2006 12:59 PM EDT |
Abe, Try this: Your mamma codes in QuickBasic. ;-) |
| number6x Nov 27, 2006 1:12 PM EDT |
"Try this: Your mamma codes in QuickBasic. ;-)" No, that's not too bad. That means she would have the redeeming quality of being comfortable at the command line. So its not as bad an insult. |
| Abe Nov 27, 2006 2:28 PM EDT |
OK take this, Your momma loves Windows so much she disowned her own child because of her name. There! |
| jimf Nov 27, 2006 3:31 PM EDT |
Humm... Abe actually wanting our opinion on this??? Ok, I thought that RMS's explanation and comments were quite reasonable. I just hope he wasn't wearing his halo during the whole thing. /me watches Abe's knee jerk (now that's programming) :) |
| rijelkentaurus Nov 27, 2006 3:38 PM EDT |
>I just hope he wasn't wearing his halo during the whole thing. I saw a video of a speech RMS gave in Australia, and he wore the robe and halo at the end. It was FUNNY. I especially like when he said something like, "vi is not evil, but vivivi is the sign of the devil." |
| Abe Nov 27, 2006 5:00 PM EDT |
Quoting:I thought that RMS's explanation and comments were quite reasonableHalo or no halo, I am satisfied enough with your comment. 1 down and 1 to go. LOL |
| dcparris Nov 27, 2006 9:25 PM EDT |
I'm proud of the old fella. He did very well, imo. He was right on point with the idea that the Free Software Movement really _is_ a social movement - something many out there don't seem to want. |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2006 3:21 AM EDT |
Sigh.
In the absence of actual text, it's hard to be sure, but...
Sounds like RMS is just beside himself with the Microsoft-Novell thing. Some thought questions: What if I start a company, Dino's Keep-U-Safe. I negotiate a deals with Microsoft, Oracle, Sun, and IBM. I then offer Dino's Harbor, a plan that keeps you from being sued for patent infringement for as long as you pay me. It is not transferable. I do not distribute any software of any kind to anyone. Question 1: People who buy my service use free software. Are they free to redistribute that software? People to whom they distribute will not receive my protection unless they come to me and buy it. Question 2: I offer a special service to users of certified distributions -- those whose packages have been tallied and seem free of any problems. Can those distributors continue to offer their distributions? What if they pay me to certify their distribution? Question 3: What if my company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Red Hat? |
| jdixon Nov 29, 2006 7:12 AM EDT |
1) > People who buy my service use free software. Are they free to redistribute that software? As far as I can tell, no. They're covered by a license, but can't distribute that license with the software. I would argue that the only way they can distribute free software is if they successfully argue that the license is completely unnecessary (in which case why are they paying for it?). You're not violating the GPL, but by distributing the software, they would be. IANAL, though, and I await the FSF's full legal review and will defer to their judgment on the matter. That's the key question (for me) with Novell's agreement with Microsoft. If Novell's customers are perfectly happy with not being able to redistribute Novell's software, then there's no problem for them. Since I wish to reserve that right, I won't touch SUSE with a ten foot pole (that was already true for other reasons, which I won't get into here). 2) > Can those distributors continue to offer their distributions? Yes. As above, their customers can't redistribute, but as long as your agreement is with their users, and not the distributor, the distributor is OK. 3) > What if my company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Red Hat? No, I don't think so. Red Hat, as the owner, would then be in the position of not transferring the offer to ALL of their customers. The GPL doesn't allow for selective transfer of rights, it's all or nothing. I'd think they could be a stockholder in your company, and possibly even have an executive on your board, but I don't think they could OWN you unless they gave your services to all of their customers as part of the purchase of their software. Note that Novell's agreement does cover ALL of their customers, not just some. Fortunately, given Red Hat's position on the Novell deal, I don't think that's going to be a likely scenario. So, does any of the above make sense? |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2006 7:28 AM EDT |
Jimf - Now -- take a look at that scenario # 2. Suppose some kind-hearted third party offered to step up and buy my protection for all users of certified distributions, but only those who received their distribution directly from the distributor. Now we have the RMS hot button, as "rectified" by the RMS fix. Those distributions could not distribute their software under RMS's terms because they could not distribute it in a way that provided the same rights to redistributors. Their immediate recipients would be patent-protected, but not downstream users. And -- there is no way the distributions can make that not be the case except by providing patent protection themselves -- protection that may not be available. Imagine that the kind-hearted third party was Microsoft. Imagine Red Hat going to Microsoft for downstream protection. Imagine Microsoft laughing. |
| jdixon Nov 29, 2006 8:01 AM EDT |
> Suppose some kind-hearted third party offered to step up and buy my protection for all users of certified distributions, but only those who received their distribution directly from the distributor. By my limited understanding of common law, being party to an agreement almost always requires an action on the part of the person affected. I'd say that a third party agreement CANNOT normally be binding on a sale between two completely unrelated parties. Therefore, if the distributor is not the one making the deal, the deal is not binding on the purchaser when they buy the software/service. The distributor IS providing all of the rights they have to the purchaser, and since the purchaser has NOT agreed to the deal by the act of buying the software/service, he can redistribute. No violation will have occurred. My problem with the Novell deal is I believe that unless you specify otherwise (in writing, signed by all parties, including Microsoft) when you purchase from Novell, you're assumed to be automatically covered by the agreement. That would not be the case in your scenario. There, the protection would only be binding if the purchaser took some active step to obtain it. Now, I haven't parsed how the GPL3 would affect that, since that provision isn't written yet. Again, IANAL. |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2006 8:24 AM EDT |
jdixon - >By my limited understanding of common law, being party to an agreement almost always requires an action on the part of the person affected. Mixing apples and oranges. You don't have to be a party to an agreement to be affected by it, hence the term "third party beneficiary". In my example, the agreement is between Dino's Keep-U-Safe and the third party vendors. The benefits of that agreement, however, go to the assorted linux customers. However -- WRT GPLV3, you may or may not be right: RMS: We're going to say not just that if you receive the patent license, but if you have arranged any sort of patent licensing that is prejudicial among the downstream recipients, that that's not allowed. The "If you have arranged", if a requirement, would protect the distributors if they had nothing whatsoever to do with this protection being offered. Would sending a copy of their distro to the the protection agency for certification be "arranging"? Don't know. The bigger problem is "receive". What does that mean? Do you receive it if it is made available to all of your customers? What if it is made available to you and to your customers but nobody downstream? In the Novell case, Novell didn't receive a patent license, but some sort of something -- I won't call it a license because I don't want to imply that anybody is actually using Microsoft property -- is provided to their customers. This was arranged by Novell, so the "arranging" branch should get them. Of course, Novell could spin off a subsidiary to do that sort of arrangement, in which case Novell would be arranging anything .... At any rate, I'm sure they'll have a lot of fun drafting this stuff up so that it only does what they want it to do... |
| jdixon Nov 29, 2006 8:58 AM EDT |
> You don't have to be a party to an agreement to be affected by it, hence the term "third party beneficiary". Dino: Granted, but note the term beneficiary. Accepting liabilities is a whole nother matter, which would normally require an act of active agreement. Losing the ability to redistribute would almost definitely be considered a liability by a court. |
| Abe Nov 29, 2006 9:34 AM EDT |
Dino:
Quoting:What if I start a company, Dino's Keep-U-Safe.Is this company of yours to sell services for GPLed software? No problem there, that is what distributors are for. Your company can be a distributor too. Is it to sell licenses for GPLed code? No, you can't do that. GPLed code is already Copyleft licensed. Your company and everyone else who distributes GPLed software should abide by the rules. RMS & Moglen realized the loophole and they are trying to correct it. That is the main reason for it and they are trying to make sure no loopholes are left to be abused in the future. Is it to sell insurance for using GPLed code? That is exactly what Novell's agreement with MS was for. With this agreement, Novell became an insurance sales agency for MS. The bad thing about it is, Novell and MS want to scare GPLed software users into thinking that they need such insurance coverage. MS started beating the drums and Novel started dancing. They even want to go beyond that, they want to sneak in MS patents into FOSS to guarantee future business for themselves. This is nothing new if you recall, that was started by XXX company (I can't recall their name). The first thing XXX did was to publicize that Linux could be infringing on over 280 patents. The same is being done by MS now. This has to stop, GPL3 has to be finalized and all software has to adopt it to stay GPLed FOSS. Distributors and end users should not be liable for patent infringement if it exists in FOSS. I covered that in another thread, either FSF, OSDL, a combination of, or totally new organization should be offering protection for any FOSS patent infringment. I believe this could be the best solution. This organization will determine if any code has any patent infringement before it is included into any GPLed code. If found after the fact, it either can be removed or recoded to become patent free. |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2006 12:10 PM EDT |
>Accepting liabilities What liabilities are you talking about? The only thing that Keep-U-Safe does is protect you from being sued. It imposes no liabilities on you whatsoever. |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2006 12:13 PM EDT |
>Is this company of yours to sell services for GPLed software? This company has nothing whatsoever to do with GPLed software except by coincidence. All this company does is provide assurance that some people will not be sued for patent infringement. The point of the exercise was simple -- how do RMS and friends draft the license so that Microsoft can't make it impossible for anybody to distribute GPLV3 software within the terms of the license? |
| Abe Nov 29, 2006 12:56 PM EDT |
Quoting:What liabilities are you talking about? I wasn't referring to any liabilities imposed by Keep-U-Safe, I was talking about patent infrigments, if any, found in FOSS software or MS claims it does have. Quoting:how do RMS and friends draft the license so that Microsoft can't make it impossible for anybody to distribute GPLV3 software within the terms of the license? They are working on it. We just have to wait and see. When that is out, and along with a protection organization with it, as I suggested above, should take care of MS threats. |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2006 1:12 PM EDT |
>I was talking about patent infrigments, if any, found in FOSS software or MS claims it does have. That's not something you accept or not, it's something you do or you don't. If you infringe, you are liable for your infringement. No agreement required. |
| Abe Nov 29, 2006 3:02 PM EDT |
You lost me there. Accept and do what? Liable for what infringement? Don't we have to wait for court of law to establish any infringement first? Doesn't the protective organization have to have its day in court to dispute the claims? I am really lost. |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2006 3:13 PM EDT |
>Don't we have to wait for court of law to establish any infringement first? Technically, no. You infringe or you don't. If you contest an infringement action, the job of the court is to find facts and reach a decision. Kind of like the police investigating a robbery. The robbery took place whether or not police find the perpetrator. Most disputes do not actually go to court, and the vast majority of disputes that do are not resolved by the court. Rather, the parties reach an agreement and settle the matter. |
| jdixon Nov 29, 2006 7:35 PM EDT |
> What liabilities are you talking about? Dino, are deliberately being preverse to pull me into a flat out argument? Not that there might not be merits to it, but as I've noted before, I'm not on Paul's level. :) I repeat: Losing the ability to redistribute GPL'ed software would almost definitely be considered a liability by a court. Accepting a liability normally takes a positive action under the law, it cannot be done by default. My position, subject to refutation by the FSF lawyers, is that accepting the offer from Novell or Keep-U-Safe removes your ability to redistribute because you are then covered by an agreement which you cannot transfer. |
| jdixon Nov 29, 2006 7:39 PM EDT |
Oh, I do note that Stallman appears to agree that the Novell/Microsoft deal does not break the spirit of the GPL in it's current form. The question now is does it break the letter of the GPL or not. I'm waiting for Eben Moglen's opinion on that. He also indicated that he thought it would be possible to mix GPL2 and GPL3 code in the same distribution. |
| dcparris Nov 29, 2006 10:11 PM EDT |
jdixon, I think you have the spirit and the letter reversed. If it didn't violate the spirit of the GPL, I don't think he would attempt to amend it. He has acknowledged that the letter of the GPL has been kept. Too much, or too little coffee? :-) |
| swbrown Nov 30, 2006 12:01 AM EDT |
"Oh, I do note that Stallman appears to agree that the Novell/Microsoft deal does not break the spirit of the GPL in it's current form" It absolutely violates the spirit. The idea is to prevent companies from almost taking over ownership of Free Software. E.g., that could happen by several means (assuming the license did nothing to prevent it), the two most common expected: 1) Company A has a patent on some Free Software, will give you a non-transferable license to that patent. Company A effectively now owns that Free Software project, as they control its use and distribution. 2) Company B distributes Free Software to you, but in such a way that if the Free Software is modified, it will no longer work. Company B now effectively controls your right to modify and use that Free Software project in the distribution it provided you. Note that #1 is effectively what Microsoft+Novell did using sneaky language to try and avoid the prohibition on this, leaving the threat of a lawsuit hanging over everyone else's head except for their own distribution of it. It's basically attempting to steal control of the project from the authors, which is why you see so many authors of Free Software pissed off. |
| jdixon Nov 30, 2006 3:33 AM EDT |
> jdixon, I think you have the spirit and the letter reversed. Nope. From memory, since I don't have time to go back and read it right now, Stallman said in the speech that the Novell/Microsoft deal did not break the GPLv2. Since he's not the lawyer, but rather the architect, he had to be referring to the spirit. Eben Moglen is the lawyer, and I want to see what he has to say on the subject. Since IANAL, my opinion on the matter is worth what you've paid for it. The Novell/Microsoft deal, by working directly with the users, bypasses the GPL completely with respect to the companies involved (but not with respect to their customers, which is my concern). |
| swbrown Nov 30, 2006 3:50 AM EDT |
"Since he's not the lawyer, but rather the architect, he had to be referring to the spirit." I promise you that RMS would not have said the Microsoft/Novell deal does not violate the spirit of the GPL. :) |
| jdixon Dec 04, 2006 3:15 AM EDT |
> I promise you that RMS would not have said the Microsoft/Novell deal does not violate the spirit of the GPL. :) Quoting from the article: "However, there's another way of using software patents to threaten the users which we have just seen an example of. That is, the Novell-Microsoft deal. What has happened is, Microsoft has not given Novell a patent licence, and thus, section 7 of GPL version 2 does not come into play. Instead, Microsoft offered a patent licence that is rather limited to Novell's customers alone." That sure sounds like what he said to me. |
| Abe Dec 04, 2006 8:51 AM EDT |
Quoting:That sure sounds like what he said to me. Not quite. He said "section 7 of GPL version 2 does not come into play." That doesn't mean that the whole GPL, and consequently it doesn't mean "it does not violate the GPL" either. IANAL, Dino is, what do you think? |
| dinotrac Dec 04, 2006 9:01 AM EDT |
>That doesn't mean that the whole GPL, and consequently it doesn't mean "it does not violate the GPL" either. But it probably means that it doesn't violate the whole GPL because, to my knowledge, section 7 was the only part that it might affect. |
| dcparris Dec 04, 2006 10:17 AM EDT |
It still violates the spirit of the GPL, just not the letter. :-) |
| Abe Dec 04, 2006 12:02 PM EDT |
Quoting:But it probably means that it doesn't violate the whole GPL because, to my knowledge, section 7 was the only part that it might affect.Probably? Well, leave to RMS and he could find something else. Hay, wait it a minute, isn't that why the GPL3 is going to be for? There is the justification for you Dino to accept it. |
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!