Hans is teh king! and there's that patent covenant thang aga
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Dec 11, 2006 7:15 PM EDT |
Over on OSNews there were hardly any flames or trolls on this article. Amazing! Well done.
http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=16691 This quote caught my eye: " As we’ve stated, we undertook an analysis of our patent portfolio and concluded that it was necessary and important to create a patent covenant which Novell and Microsoft agreed on for the benefit of our customers." But such a thing violates the GPL, and Novell has been dancing around "patent covenant" like it's a flaming pit of heck. |
| hkwint Dec 11, 2006 11:20 PM EDT |
Thanks chick. I read those comments too, and one of them was pretty nice, stating first they say (when asking which part of Linux is infringing on what) they didn't do a full analysis, and later, stating they undertook an analysis and concluded it was necessary to create a patent covenant. Now, what is it? That's probably why they told me to attribute it to a 'MS Spokesperson' without a name; so they can back off if necessary. |
| Sander_Marechal Dec 11, 2006 11:53 PM EDT |
hkwint: Definately do a follow-up on this with a second open letter raising that point -- among other points. Be sure to incude in full the first letter and their response because it's bound to be read by some other "anonymous spokesperson". You should be able to write a much better letter now that the air is clearing from the initial anger and rationality creeps back in. |
| dinotrac Dec 12, 2006 3:09 AM EDT |
>But such a thing violates the GPL, and Novell has been dancing around "patent covenant" like it's a flaming pit of heck. Not according to RMS. You, of course, may be better versed in the GPL than he. |
| Rascalson Dec 12, 2006 5:11 AM EDT |
Not according to RMS Hmmm, and when exactly did RMS become a lawyer? If he did some how manage to squeeze a law degree into his busy schedule did he suddenly become the lawyer to every copyright holder of GPL'ed software by default? Wow, thats amazing. Also, when I see someone write that Novell is violating the "GPL" I generally interpret that as "Either now under v2 or later under v3". Doesn't much matter which, does it? |
| Abe Dec 12, 2006 5:54 AM EDT |
Quoting:Hmmm, and when exactly did RMS become a lawyer?Since he started working with Moglen, Professor of law at Colombia U. I think Literaly, and according to Moglen, Novell is not violating the wording of GPL2 but violating the spirit of it. The MS-Novell agreement will violate GPL3 because Moglen is going to make GPL3 bluntly say so. |
| Libervis Dec 12, 2006 6:14 AM EDT |
Don't forget RMS wrote GPL. If he doesn't know what violates it then I guess no-one does. He should know better than anyone actually. Also, you don't write a license so popular and acclaimed as GPL without knowing *something* about law and copyrights. |
| dinotrac Dec 12, 2006 6:14 AM EDT |
Rascalson - They do not violate V3 because there is no V3 to violate. And, when there is, they will violate it if, and only if, they distribute V3 software in violation of its terms. That has not happened and nobody knows if it ever will happen. |
| bigg Dec 12, 2006 7:54 AM EDT |
> Not according to RMS. If what Microsoft said is true, it would violate the GPL. So obviously this "Microsoft spokesperson" is lying. |
| jdixon Dec 12, 2006 8:24 AM EDT |
> "Microsoft spokesperson" is lying. Now, now. Microsoft doesn't lie. They do, however, reserve the right to "innovate" with the truth. :) |
| dinotrac Dec 12, 2006 9:06 AM EDT |
>So obviously this "Microsoft spokesperson" is lying. And what part of that sentence do you find shocking? |
| tuxchick Dec 12, 2006 9:10 AM EDT |
dino, you're right about what RMS said. It just surprised me to see the fatal 'patent covenant' phrase in what was otherwise a masterpiece of obfuscation, because patent covenants break the GPL. Unless the obfuscator wasn't referring to GPL software. |
| Abe Dec 12, 2006 9:11 AM EDT |
Quoting:That has not happened and nobody knows if it ever will happen.I wouldn't set my hopes so high if I were you. It will happen because not every one thinks the same. As a matter of fact, there are a lot more posters who are very much in favor of GPL3 over GPL2 just after and because of the MS-Novell agreement. This agreement gave GPL3 a huge boost. I never imaged myself saying thank you to MS. But thank you Novell & MS, I don't know if we will ever be able to re-pay you. |
| dcparris Dec 12, 2006 10:38 AM EDT |
> That has not happened and nobody knows if it ever will happen. Given that we have a one-man GPLVioliations.org running around helping the FSF and copyright holders enforce the GPLv2, I'd say it's a safe bet that someone will. |
| hkwint Dec 12, 2006 12:46 PM EDT |
Quoting:That has not happened and nobody knows if it ever will happen.Huh? You were referring to Microsoft revealing which of their IP Linux is infringing, and Microsoft going to court to seek economic reward for their IP, weren't you? Or did I miss something? Anyway, if you have a gun, and you want to kill (one of) your biggest enemie(s) which make you lose a lot of money, what would _you_ do? Shoot and kill that somebody, and get rid of it forever? Or would you rather threaten your enemy: "I might éven(!) have some bullets, but if you join company A which is easier for me to kill, and thereby pay my tax, nobody will get hurt!" Nonetheless, my bullets, if I have them at all, might not work in Europe (we're working on that), but you better be scared! Oh, and I told I was going to shoot two years ago, but we had other priorities, and we had to evolve our thinking over that past two years. Though, be scared! Please? Would you trust those threats? If you do or don't doesn't matter, you would laugh somebody like that in his face anyway. About Novell breaking the GPL: that's merely a technical discussion, but as long as the patents are not valid, the patent covenant isn't too, and they won't break the GPL, I believe. |
| dinotrac Dec 12, 2006 12:52 PM EDT |
>Huh? Actually I'm referring to the fact that there is no V3. Until there is one, we can't even be sure what a violation is. Once we know, we can't be sure that Novell will violate it. For example, they could simply abstain from distributing V3 software or they could disclaim coverage for V3 software (might require a little jockeying with Microsoft), etc. That would be entertaining... A list of "safe" software, perhaps, and a list of software that could subject you to a lawsuit? |
| hkwint Dec 12, 2006 12:56 PM EDT |
Quoting:Actually I'm referring to the fact that there is no V3.Of course I knew that, but it's fun to re-use that sentence in another way which is also valid. It's called 'functional commenting'. If we only had some garbage collection here at LXer... |
| dinotrac Dec 12, 2006 1:14 PM EDT |
hans - I am much better at dysfunctional commenting. I'm not so sure the current arrangement will pass muster under V3 -- valid patents or no. They seem determined to write it away. |
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!