I am not a lawyer, but...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| salparadise Nov 28, 2006 1:22 AM EDT |
Surely, if the agreement between Novell and MS was made under GPL2, then GPL3 is not binding on that agreement? Or can GPL3 be applied retro-actively?
Or would GPL3 effectively force Novell to fork Linux and provide all support for GPL2 versions? Or has the fact that I'm not a lawyer meant that I don't understand this issue at all? |
| rijelkentaurus Nov 28, 2006 2:41 AM EDT |
>Or would GPL3 effectively force Novell to fork Linux and provide all support for GPL2 versions? That's part of the idea, I think. What about those projects that are issued under a copyright of "GPLv2 or later"? Would 3 in that case take hold as soon as it's issued? |
| Teron Nov 28, 2006 3:31 AM EDT |
No. In that case, the user is allowed to choose his terms. In Novell's case, GPLv2 |
| Sachankara Nov 28, 2006 3:36 AM EDT |
No. In that case, the user is allowed to choose his terms. In Novell's case, GPLv2 Yeah, but when FSF releases gcc, glibc, etc as GPLv3, all Novell will be able to do is to continue working on the older GPLv2 releases, all by themselves. Will they have the man power they need to keep up with the GPLv3 version? Doubtful if you ask me. |
| Sander_Marechal Nov 28, 2006 4:10 AM EDT |
I doubt it too. But from the looks of it, it's MS that hurts more from the proposed GPLv3 changes, not Novell. So, when GPLv3 comes out with the anti novellization clauses and the GNU toolchain changes to GPLv3 or later, MS will want out of the deal and buy off Novell. Novell won't need to maintain the old GPLv2 versions by itself but can start using the new GPLv3 versions just like anyone else. At that point MS can stick to the deal and have it's IP protection stretched to cover any/all FOSS software everywhere or it can stop the deal. Novell just needs to keep shipping a good distro. That's all. |
| swbrown Nov 28, 2006 8:50 AM EDT |
"So, when GPLv3 comes out with the anti novellization clauses and the GNU toolchain changes to GPLv3 or later, MS will want out of the deal and buy off Novell." That's unlikey to happen. They'll just limit the terms of the covenant to only cover GPLv2 software. It won't bother Novell that the covenant is then highly ineffective, as they're just in it for the payoff - they've already indicated they didn't think there was a function to the covenant in the first place, as they claim no infringement. Most software either used the default 'or greater' clause of the GPL or assigned copyrights to a holding body, so most software will be able to continue as 'GPLv3 or greater'. Unfortunately, Linux did neither so will be stuck being screwed with by Microsoft unless the source can be fixed up. AFAIK, most of the GPLv2-only code in the kernel and busybox is Linus's, who is luckily still alive. |
| dinotrac Nov 28, 2006 9:14 AM EDT |
>they've already indicated they didn't think there was a function to the covenant in the first place, as they claim no infringement. Not infringing and not function to the agreement are not the same thing. It doesn't matter how convinced Novell is that no infringement occurs. it matters how safe potential Novell customers feel. |
| dinotrac Nov 28, 2006 9:38 AM EDT |
So ... how much toolchain are we talking about here, and how difficult is a fork, or, for that matter, what is indispensible? Given that the Linux kernel will be V2, I would think anything that makes the kernel hackers' lives more difficult -- or, for that matter, the *BSDs more difficult, will be replaced post-haste. |
| tuxchick Nov 28, 2006 10:08 AM EDT |
A toolchain fork? Perhaps another unintended consequence will be the death of info pages, and the resurrection of nice man pages. Yaaay! Bring it on! |
| Sander_Marechal Nov 28, 2006 10:35 AM EDT |
@dino: For Linux-as-a-kernel it's not indispensible. It's possible to build it without GNU tools - hard but possible. That's about it though. You have naked kernel. For linux-as-a-distro (which is what we're talking about here in Novell's case) it's indispensible. Pretty much everything in userspace depends on it directly or indirectly. Just open up your package manager of choice and do a reverse dependency list on libc. And that's just what depends directly on it. |
| dinotrac Nov 28, 2006 10:57 AM EDT |
>You have naked kernel. For linux-as-a-distro How do you figure? Last I looked, libc was LGPL, not GPL. Most of the other stuff in a distro is not GNU. |
| Sander_Marechal Nov 28, 2006 1:26 PM EDT |
> Last I looked, libc was LGPL, not GPL. Which will be GPLv3 + library clause, still carrying the full effect of the anti-novellization updates. It's not that the libc license affects packages that depend on it. It's that you can't simply replace libc to get GPLv3 free system without forking all GNU packages. |
| dinotrac Nov 28, 2006 1:32 PM EDT |
sander - Hmmm. Maybe RMS really is serious about killing off free software. |
| Sander_Marechal Nov 28, 2006 2:14 PM EDT |
If that threat exists then there will be a massice fork the like we have not seen since XFree86. Bit that will only happen if GPLv3 is indeed a threat to free software in general. It won't happen if e.g. only Novell suffers from it. And now we're only talking about the GNU tools. What about other widely used software packages? MySQL? KDE? PHP? What happens if they decide to move to GPLv3 too? More forks? |
| jimf Nov 28, 2006 3:20 PM EDT |
And, in his heart of hearts, we know that RMS's goal is to leave you with the choice of 'only' the HERD!!! HAHAHA, sucess at last!!! |
| rijelkentaurus Nov 28, 2006 3:52 PM EDT |
>And, in his heart of hearts, we know that RMS's goal is to leave you with the choice of 'only' the HERD!!! I was surprised (pleasantly) to hear in an interview with RMS that he doesn't consider the hurd to be a priority anymore. He'd like to get it done, but it's not really necessary because we have the Linux kernel. |
| dinotrac Nov 28, 2006 5:03 PM EDT |
>What happens if they decide to move to GPLv3 too? Not going to happen. Certainly not in the case of PHP, which hasn't been GPL'd since v3.0. MySQL AG is not stupid enough to move to a V3 that would put RMS in the middle of their marketing plans. As to KDE, I doubt they would do it, if only to further distinguish themselves from GNOME. And, of course, OpenOffice, apache, python, postgresql, ruby, zope, firefox, x.org, and scads of others won't be making the move either. |
| Abe Nov 28, 2006 6:33 PM EDT |
Am I reading ZDNet!!! Nooo, that can't be, I never had an account on ZDNet. Without going into details, I think majority of v2 GPLed software will be moved to v3. Behold the power of the GPL3!!! |
| dinotrac Nov 28, 2006 7:50 PM EDT |
>Without going into details, I think majority of v2 GPLed software will be moved to v3. Behold the power of the GPL3!!! Could be, but: 1. There is not yet a GPLV3 2. I have no idea what will happen if the GPLV3 turns out to be impossible for businesses to live with. |
| Sachankara Nov 29, 2006 4:05 AM EDT |
MySQL AG is not stupid enough to move to a V3 that would put RMS in the middle of their marketing plans. Not really on-topic, but it's "MySQL AB", not "MySQL AG". ;) |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2006 4:17 AM EDT |
Sach -- OOPS!!!! Never can keep straight who's what! Thanks. |
| Abe Nov 29, 2006 8:35 AM EDT |
Quoting:1. There is not yet a GPLV3There will be, no doubt about it and because of the latest loophole found by MS & Novell in v2. With this loophole, there will be no more FOSS with the spirit it was intended to have. You can be sure of it. Quoting:2. I have no idea what will happen if the GPLV3 turns out to be impossible for businesses to live with.I don't see a reason for it to be impossible for businesses to adopt. Those who can't adopt it, they will have to live without FOSS. They can fork and support their own. FOSS wasn't created for businesses, it exists for software Freedom. If Freedom can't be preserved, no use of having FOSS. |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2006 12:15 PM EDT |
> Those who can't adopt it, they will have to live without FOSS. And in the case of companies providing software under GPLV2 -- like MySQL and TrollTech -- they may decide to go with some other license altogether to avoid the risk of confusing their software's terms with those of something businesses can't live with. |
| Abe Nov 29, 2006 12:45 PM EDT |
Quoting:they may decide to go with some other license altogether to avoid the risk of confusing their software's terms with those of something businesses can't live with. The key word is MAY. They also MAY NOT and move to GPL3. They have to weigh and consider their business options. Unless FOSS is totally safe from patent suits, that may have to be done any ways. This is not worse than the current situation where we currently have various licenses for different software any way. I still feel that v3 is not adding any more restrictions or inconveniences, if any, than what v2 already does. |
| Sander_Marechal Nov 29, 2006 2:03 PM EDT |
Also, it's entirely possible for the GPL itself to be forked if it's business unfriedly. Take the text of v2, remove GNU, add some of the fixes proposed for v3 but not the Novellization and Tivoization clauses. ... or people will simply stick to v2. |
| dinotrac Nov 29, 2006 3:17 PM EDT |
>The key word is MAY. Yup. Only word we've got until we see what actually develops. RMS and co may find a way to make V3 workable, in which case the sky doesn't fall, there is no wolf, and life goes on. |
| swbrown Nov 30, 2006 3:26 AM EDT |
"It doesn't matter how convinced Novell is that no infringement occurs. it matters how safe potential Novell customers feel." Do their customers feel safer when a huge number of people who write Novell's software are in open rebellion against them? If I had based systems on Novell's distribution, I'd be in a state of panic right about now and trying to figure out what my migration options are. Novell surely knew this would happen as it was blatantly obvious that attempting to circumvent the GPL with the help of Microsoft would absolutely infuriate folks, so we can safely count out it being done 'for the customers'. |
| swbrown Nov 30, 2006 3:47 AM EDT |
"Also, it's entirely possible for the GPL itself to be forked if it's business unfriedly. Take the text of v2, remove GNU, add some of the fixes proposed for v3 but not the Novellization and Tivoization clauses." No, it isn't possible. The GPL does not permit modification or derivatives of itself. And the Noviolate and Tivoize fixes (and patent retaliation) are the most important parts of GPL3. If you think the Noviolate fix is anti-business, you're crazy. Ditto re patent retaliation. The only seriously debated one is if you think the Tivoize fix is anti-business. For that, look at the market popularity of LinkSys's modifiable GNU/Linux boxes and think twice. When LinkSys moved to CISCO, the extreme demand for modifiable GNU/Linux boxes led to their production of a separate line of the product that remains GNU/Linux based. The market wants to buy it modifiable, and LinkSys makes money selling it, so the Tivoize fix must not be anti-business by definition. |
| dinotrac Nov 30, 2006 6:44 AM EDT |
>The market wants to buy it modifiable, and LinkSys makes money selling it, so the Tivoize fix must not be anti-business by definition. And, it would appear, that you are anti-logic by example. First, I have never called the GPL (any version) anti-business. Those are your words. Please to not ascribe them to me. Read more carefully and you'll see that I talked about the dangers of drafting a V3 that is difficult for businesses to live with. That could be anti-business, or could simply be something that businesses can't effectively use. Second, no example you give can have logical weight because you have no example of action under GPLV3, which was the topic. Third, If Cisco had changed over ALL of their boxes, instead of created a separate line, your example would have more going for it. As it is, Cisco is making a separate line of products, presumably because they don't buy the business case for moving all of their products to the GPL. Tivo, on the other hand, has ALL of its products running on GPL'd software. |
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!