Glad to hear he's back
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| herzeleid Dec 20, 2006 7:24 AM EDT |
As one of the luminaries from the old pre-Novell S.u.S.E, he has the potential to help turn them around. I hope it's not too late. |
| Abe Dec 20, 2006 7:43 AM EDT |
Quoting:Interestingly, Novell's recent deal with Microsoft didn't stand in his way. Indeed, Mantel approves of the partnership. "I think it is a good thing especially for the users. Is that so? That doesn't change the fact that Novell goofed and haven't corrected their mistake. One person returning doesn't have any leverage on swaying my decision. I will just wait and see. Only favorable actions from Novell might sway my direction. |
| tuxchick Dec 20, 2006 8:36 AM EDT |
It's amazing how one's perspective is affected by the need for a paycheck. |
| jsusanka Dec 20, 2006 12:43 PM EDT |
well this is one step back in the right direction. hope it isn't too late for suse. |
| Abe Dec 20, 2006 2:01 PM EDT |
Quoting:well this is one step back in the right direction. hope it isn't too late for suse.I consider this as a step for damage control, it is not enough for me. Novell has to back out of the whole deal in order to be considered acceptable. Suse was my favorite distro for a while, with distros like Kubuntu & PCLinuxOS, I really don't need to bother with Novell or MS for that matter. |
| tuxchick Dec 20, 2006 2:16 PM EDT |
A weak, inferior SUSE doesn't help Linux or FOSS. I wish them the best. But I'm also keeping my roadkill barbecue cleaned and ready, just in case Novell becomes yet another one of Microsoft's casualties. |
| Abe Dec 20, 2006 7:04 PM EDT |
Quoting:just in case Novell becomes yet another one of Microsoft's casualties.A roadkill they will be if they get out of MS line, but my feeling is, it is not going to be soon. MS is going to help Novell just to serve its strategy and make a point. They will even pay Novell to do some of the development for them. But there is no doubt that MS will be controlling Novell in one way or another. Didn't MS invest about $150 in Coral and about $100 in Apple? As long as MS can keep them under the lid, they will survive. May be that is enough and all what Novell wants. |
| swbrown Dec 20, 2006 8:48 PM EDT |
Novell's already under a tire. You can't piss off the people who write your software and expect to survive. Which programmers other than those at Ximian are happy about the deal? |
| DarrenR114 Dec 21, 2006 10:30 AM EDT |
IBM provides a lot of FOSS and they expressed approval of the deal. OpenOffice.org has not come out against the deal. (LGPL) Mozilla has not condemned the MS-Novell covenant. (MPL) Sun has not condemned the MS-Novell covenant. (GPL v2 and/or CDDL) The Apache ppl have not condemned the agreement. (APL) Is there a single point of contact representing the Linux Kernel developers? Linus refuses to condemn Novell or the MS-Novell agreement. I'm thinking the naysayers and Novell-bashers are really a very vocal minority trying to represent themselves as the whole of the FOSS community. |
| Abe Dec 21, 2006 11:09 AM EDT |
Quoting:IBM provides a lot of FOSS and they expressed approval of the deal.I don't think IBM expressed approval, they just didn't say anything about the deal. two reasons a) IBM still needs Novell for SCO case b) IBM invested $50m in Novell. 3) IBM has their own patent portfolio and don't care whether Novell has or doesn't have such a deal with MS. Quoting:OpenOffice.org has not come out against the deal. (LGPL)Novel-MS deal doesn't violate LGPL and Sun has a big leverage over OpenOffice.org. See below about Sun Quoting:Mozilla has not condemned the MS-Novell covenant. (MPL)Mozilla doesn't care either, they have their own to worry about and it is not of their interest to take sides at this time. So what's is your point? Quoting:Sun has not condemned the MS-Novell covenant. (GPL v2 and/or CDDL)If you recall, Sun $ MS were on it with SCO against Linux. Sun deep in their heart would like to get rid of Linux. They think it is for their best interest because Linux is hurting Solaris more than Windows at this time. Of course you would expect them to side with this deal. Quoting:The Apache ppl have not condemned the agreement. (APL)they have their own license. Same as OpenOffice. What is your point? Quoting:Linus refuses to condemn Novell or the MS-Novell agreement.Linus, being the cautious person he is, he takes his time to make a decision. I bet you when GPL3 is finalized and out, I think he will adopt it. May be not him, but because of the kernel developers popular demand. We shall see. Quoting:I'm thinking the naysayers and Novell-bashers are really a very vocal minority trying to represent themselves as the whole of the FOSS community.You are thinking too much, be careful not to sink too much Just today, Jeremy Allison resigned from Novell because of Novel-MS deal. What more do you need? when the GPL3 is finalized and out, I think you will see that the majority of FOSS people will be adopting it for their software. |
| tuxchick Dec 21, 2006 11:14 AM EDT |
"I'm thinking the naysayers and Novell-bashers are really a very vocal minority trying to represent themselves as the whole of the FOSS community." Where do you get that? It's people representing their own opinions, I haven't seen anyone claiming they represent anyone else. And what difference does it make who approves or disapproves? Ok, it makes some difference. For example, I give more weight to someone like Jeremy Allison, because he is intimately acquainted with interoperability and licensing issues between Linux and Windows, and he worked at Novell. A lot of folks make a point of not commenting on things like this, so an absence of comments is not significant. IBM won't lose any sleep if both Microsoft and Novell ride off a cliff together. There are two main points being expressed by folks who think the deal is bad: 1. Novell is going to be hurt 2. Microsoft wants to use this as a way to hurt Linux overall Could be right, could be wrong. It's a safe bet that Microsoft's intentions are not to benefit either Novell or Linux; their history speaks for itself, as well as their own public comments on the deal. How successful they will be, time will tell. Linux is robust, the GPL is tuff, and the noisy public debate goes on. |
| devnet Dec 21, 2006 12:05 PM EDT |
I agree that in the long run, it means nothing to Open Source and Linux in general...until MS decides to investigate "violations of their eye pee" Thing is though, I really hate Novell for becoming Scovell...they trounced on the spirit of the GPL and for that fact alone, I steer clear of them. How can one speak out of one side of the mouth while chumming it up with MS and crapping on the spirit of the GPL out the other? It amazes me. And for anyone that says Novell isn't the new Sco (general comparisons here...not specifics)...you're mistaken. They're doing exactly what Sco was doing. Hence, Scovell. |
| jdixon Dec 21, 2006 12:25 PM EDT |
> How can one speak out of one side of the mouth while chumming it up with MS and crapping on the spirit of the GPL out the other? How? The person making the decisions at Novell doesn't understand what he's dong yet. From his perspective, this is a perfectly normal cross licensing deal, made somewhat harder by the fact that they have to work around the GPL. He doesn't understand yet that the GPL is what makes the business he wants to be in possible, and that "working around" it is not a good idea. Hopefully he'll learn. |
| Abe Dec 21, 2006 3:04 PM EDT |
Quoting:The person making the decisions at Novell doesn't understand what he's dong yet.I would say the group at Novell knew exactly what they were doing long time ago. I even believe that, the gang had it in their initial plans when Ximian was first established using VC money. When Ximian didn't make it big, Novell was the 2nd choice. Does anyone know why Novell acquired Ximian? |
| DarrenR114 Dec 21, 2006 3:37 PM EDT |
Quoted:
I don't think IBM expressed approval, they just didn't say anything about the deal. two reasons
a) IBM still needs Novell for SCO case
b) IBM invested $50m in Novell.
3) IBM has their own patent portfolio and don't care whether Novell has or doesn't have such a deal with MS. Actually IBM spokesman, Scott Handy, did an interview expressing their approval, by stating how this deal was good for the progress of Linux: http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS4468266798.html "Many customers prefer vendors to not be at odds with each other. There are a lot of pragmatic decision makers, CIOs, that think Windows and Linux interoperability is a good thing. A larger set of pragmatic customers are finding [the Novell/Microsoft deal] makes Linux more interesting." =========================== Note: it would be nice to find quick instructions on how to quote snippets from previous posters. Not all of us have been posting on LXer very much. |
| Abe Dec 21, 2006 6:04 PM EDT |
Well I guess they said something about it, but I still don't consider that approval.
Notice how he was speaking generically!Quoting:...customers are finding [the Novell/Microsoft deal] makes Linux more interesting."The key words here Quoting:makes Linux more interestingmeaning that the deal proves that MS has to contend with Linux as viable alternative. To add snippets, all you need to do is start the quote with [quote] and end it with a [quote] with a slash before second quote. I didn't include the slash in correct location to keep the tags visible. |
| swbrown Dec 21, 2006 7:41 PM EDT |
> Sun has not condemned the MS-Novell covenant. (GPL v2 and/or CDDL) Sun has been quite publically trashing it, even going as far as to say it was the reason they GPLed Java. |
| dinotrac Dec 22, 2006 2:14 AM EDT |
>Well I guess they said something about it, but I still don't consider that approval. Two questions: 1. Why not? Does anything short of jumping up and down and shouting "Golly gee whiz, Clarabel, that is just SO COOL!!" constitute approval? 2. Why would IBM disapprove? This one's a serious question. As a business selling primarily to enterprise clients, I would expect that IBM benefits from anything that increases the viability of Linux in the enterprise. |
| swbrown Dec 22, 2006 4:03 AM EDT |
> As a business selling primarily to enterprise clients, I would expect that IBM benefits from anything that increases the viability of Linux in the enterprise. Which is why they would disapprove of the deal, as this harms Linux in the enterprise. However, IBM's also worried about winding up with just a single supplier (RedHat). As such, you're not likely to see them strongly approve or disapprove. |
| DarrenR114 Dec 22, 2006 4:47 AM EDT |
Quoting: > Sun has not condemned the MS-Novell covenant. (GPL v2 and/or CDDL) Could you provide a link, please? So much traffic has been flying around about the deal, it's sometimes difficult to catch all the quotes. ============================================= Thanks, Abe, for explaining how to "quote" in posted replies. |
| rijelkentaurus Dec 22, 2006 6:00 AM EDT |
>Could you provide a link, please? So much traffic has been flying around about the deal, it's sometimes difficult to catch all the quotes. From Jonathan Schwartz's blog, link here: http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/ And in closing, I want to put one nagging item to rest. By admitting that one of the strongest motivations to select the GPL was the announcement made last week by Novell and Microsoft, suggesting that free and open source software wasn't safe unless a royalty was being paid. As an executive from one of those companies said, "free has to have a price." |
| Abe Dec 22, 2006 7:03 AM EDT |
IBM lately is being a very pragmatic business. They approves few things and disapproves other things in the deal.
Quoting:1. Why not?No need for all of that. IBM spokesperson highlighted only the positives in the deal and ignored the outrageously dangerous parts for the time being. I outlined the reasons before. No one disagrees with the positives (not be at odds, Windows and Linux interoperability, making Linux more interesting. As a matter of fact, many of the things FOSS does are to increase and improve interoperability. Ex. Samba, NTFS support, Wine, FOSS apps on Windows, etc... On MS side, although mostly because of MS is being forced and getting concerned about their isolation and eventually its death, MS is making Xen, PHP, Python, etc... more legitimately supported. IBM likes all of that because they still want to, and would be stupid not to, sell what ever the customer wants, whether Linux, Windows or even Unix. IBM sells hardware and services and they don't care for what platform, as long as they keep expanding their business. So IBM likes that, wants that and have been doing that since they got into Linux. Nothing new here. And I still don't consider it approval, because the deal has patent part in it which MS insisted on including. If the deal didn't include patents, no one would have rejected it. Quoting:2. Why would IBM disapprove?This is not only a serious question, it is also an excellent question. MS is still out in full force to kill FOSS. They failed competing on technical merits because FOSS keeps advancing and improving. They failed proving that Windows is lower cost because FOSS could be licensed for free. While developers are busy refining FOSS, MS is busy developing a strategy to some how stop FOSS. They have been trying to put a cost on FOSS. They backed SCO law suit and they see it failing. They found Novell as a new partner. They are trying to fight FOSS using their lousy patent portfolio under the cover of cooperation and interoperability. Don't you think that IBM knows that? IBM had several bad experiences with MS. Remember OS2? IBM doesn't approve of the deal because MS is trying to accomplish what SCO law suit failed to. MS is trying to collect indemnification fees to increase its revenue and to add cost to FOSS and make it more expensive than Windows. MS wants to and is behaving like they own FOSS. It sounds like and looks like OS2 all over again for IBM, doesn't? If you think IBM wants to put its business under the mercy of MS, then I would say IBM approves of this deal Now you tell me, unless IBM may want to commit suicide, why would IBM want to approve this deal? |
| devnet Dec 22, 2006 9:33 AM EDT |
Quoting:By admitting that one of the strongest motivations to select the GPL was the announcement made last week by Novell and Microsoft, suggesting that free and open source software wasn't safe unless a royalty was being paid. As an executive from one of those companies said, "free has to have a price That sums it up...if Novell allows the GPL to be pulled through this muck...that is, the muck of disinformation that Open Source software isn't safe unless it is Novell Linux "because we have a get out of jail free card from Microsoft"...then it's just as bad as violating that same license. Hell, they might as well seal the code and run. |
| DarrenR114 Dec 22, 2006 10:36 AM EDT |
Quoting: That sums it up...if Novell allows the GPL to be pulled through this muck...that is, the muck of disinformation that Open Source software isn't safe unless it is Novell Linux "because we have a get out of jail free card from Microsoft"...then it's just as bad as violating that same license. Hell, they might as well seal the code and run. Might I have a source of such statements by Novell? I don't recall reading it anywhere but from some people who are slamming Novell. I'd like to make sure that the castration of Novell is for something actually done, or statement actually issued, by Novell. |
| DarrenR114 Dec 22, 2006 11:33 AM EDT |
I find it strange that Sun would point to the MS-Novell agreement as the reason for going with the GPL. They chose GPL v2 - which the MS-Novell agreement doesn't violate (as acknowleged by Mr. Stallman and Prof. Moglen). And the reason they haven't chosen v3 is very sensible - it's still in draft (that could lead to a whole other discussion on including a "future versions" clause and still another discussion on how the Samba team could possibly decide, with any sort of due diligence, to agree to implement a license that not all terms are necessarily completely published yet) Of course, that entire last paragraph is poorly composed - I'm not entirely certain what it's saying. It seems to imply that Novell has made statements to the effect that Linux isn't safe unless royalties are paid. Novell has made no such statement. In fact, IBM's eagle-eyed legal beagles are satisfied that Novell has not done so (as far as IBM's public statements abou the deal go.) In fact, Novell has made explicit, public statements to the contrary - saying that they do not believe there is any infringement on MS IP within Linux. It is very reckless of Mr. Schwartz to claim that Novell has made statements to the contrary. Of course, as I said, that sentence is poorly constructed so it may not say that at all. In any case, is that the extent of the Sun condemnation of the Novell and MS covenant? |
| devnet Dec 22, 2006 11:41 AM EDT |
Darren, It's a bit hard to pin down the trashing of the GPL spirit...afterall, how can you get a statement from someone's actions? I don't know of anyone or any company that states repercussions to their actions before or during taking said action. Take the quotes from Microsoft (Ballmer) which I'm sure you can find on the net about patent infringing and Linux http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;839593139;fp;2;fpi... If Novell approves of the deal, then they have to approve of the partner in the deal as well. Think of it this way...two guys decide to rob a bank and split it 50/50 (the deal is made). They get caught. Are they both guilty? What if one guy actually lifted the money from the safe but the other didn't...is the other less guilty? Not really...they're partners in this endeavor. The same can be said with Novell...they've partnered up and they have to live with the partner and all of the partner's crazy antics (Ballmer) and statements. |
| rijelkentaurus Dec 22, 2006 1:14 PM EDT |
>In any case, is that the extent of the Sun condemnation of the Novell and MS covenant? You wanted confirmation that Sun's decision to GPL java was based on the deal, and you got it. That's pretty strong condemnation in and of itself. You don't need to write 10,000 words to condemn something mightily. >Novell has made explicit, public statements to the contrary After the fact, only after the fact, and only after teeing off the members of the community that they couldn't afford to tee off. Those statements were damage control only. They remind of Bill Clinton's "I never had sexual relations" statements. They still don't get why people are mad. |
| DarrenR114 Dec 22, 2006 1:50 PM EDT |
devnet:
Quoting: If Novell approves of the deal, then they have to approve of the partner in the deal as well. Think of it this way...two guys decide to rob a bank and split it 50/50 (the deal is made). They get caught. Are they both guilty? What if one guy actually lifted the money from the safe but the other didn't...is the other less guilty? Not really...they're partners in this endeavor. The same can be said with Novell...they've partnered up and they have to live with the partner and all of the partner's crazy antics (Ballmer) and statements. Not true. This country had many agreements with secret terms with the Soviet Union. Do a google search on "ABDKR" and "SIOP" and you get a hint of my background (I'm not going to say much, if anything, beyond the publicly available documents on this particular subject). I know about "Deals With The Devil". Just because responsibility of leadership demanded we strike bargains with those we have fundamental philosophical differences with, that does not mean we approve of them or their methods. IBM is known as the original corporate innovator for using FUD as a business tool (thanks to the founder of Amdahl.) IBM has also struck many deals with MS and will continue to do so. Should we castigate IBM as well? How about Sun, who also entered into a patent truce with MS? ============================================== rijelkentaurus: Quoting: After the fact, only after the fact, and only after teeing off the members of the community that they couldn't afford to tee off. Those statements were damage control only. They remind of Bill Clinton's "I never had sexual relations" statements. They still don't get why people are mad. *I* don't get why some people in the FOSS community are upset, so it's no surprise to me that many of the people at Novell don't get it either. But from I glean from your response, it seems like you expect the FOSS community should be some sort of final authority from which Novell should seek approval in order to make business deals. Is that an accurate perception? |
| dcparris Dec 22, 2006 2:53 PM EDT |
> it seems like you expect the FOSS community should be some sort of final authority from which Novell should seek approval in order to make business deals. Is that an accurate perception? I'll jump in here. No one has to seek the FOSS community's approval for anything. But they can't pretend to be surprised when they discover the community doesn't like what they did. Secondly, approval for circumventing the goals of a license will need to come from the author/maintainers of the GNU GPL. That doesn't stop the community from crying foul. Many (most?) in our community oppose software patents. IBM has contributed numerous patents to the community, ensuring that they are licensed in a way we can all benefit. That's a step in the right direction. Making patent agreements with Microsoft is going the wrong freakin' way. |
| DarrenR114 Dec 22, 2006 3:32 PM EDT |
Quoting: Many (most?) in our community oppose software patents. IBM has contributed numerous patents to the community, ensuring that they are licensed in a way we can all benefit. That's a step in the right direction. Making patent agreements with Microsoft is going the wrong freakin' way. I agree that patent reform is necessary. What many opponents to software patents don't realize is that there is no such thing as a "software patent." There are Plant, Design, and Utility Patents. Doing away with Utility Patents would be like throwing out the baby with the bath water. That said, I read an article not too long ago that quoted an earlier piece about the need for patent reform. Many of the points were valid, IMHO. The surprising part of the whole thing was that the earlier article that was quoted was written in the 19th century. IBM has not "given" the patents away. They still maintain ownership of even those few that they have given free, egalitarian license to. What IBM has agreed to do is not seek enforcement of their ownership rights over those patents - a unilateral convenant not to sue, if you will. IBM is a big supporter of Utility patents - if you take their actions over their words. They are suing Amazon over one at this very moment. Sun has entered into patent agreements with MS, within the last year even. Where is the castigation and criticism of Sun? Who knows what kind of patent encumbrances are looming over Java and OpenOffice? With these very specific cases in mind, I still don't get the reaction by some in the FOSS community regarding Novell. I have been involved with Linux and GNU since 1994, and I've learned one thing in all that time - the sometimes irrational discord by a vocal few scares new people away from Linux. |
| rijelkentaurus Dec 22, 2006 4:36 PM EDT |
>the sometimes irrational discord by a vocal few You act like there are only three people who disapprove of the Novell/MS deal, and that most approve. I think it's the other way around. |
| swbrown Dec 22, 2006 4:39 PM EDT |
> Sun has entered into patent agreements with MS, within the last year even. Where is the castigation and criticism of Sun? Who knows what kind of patent encumbrances are looming over Java and OpenOffice? Sun's agreement was considered non-harmful due to the terms of the GPL - they'd not be able to leave infected or infect the software they distribute, only the software they use. Novell's agreement was considered harmful due to their FAQ on how they're skirting the GPL by proxy - they effectively claim they are able to leave infected or infect the software they distribute. Which, is why we need GPL3 to close that proxy patent loophole so we again don't have to worry about someone handing us a spiked drink. |
| dinotrac Dec 22, 2006 5:44 PM EDT |
>Novell's agreement was considered harmful due to their FAQ on how they're skirting the GPL by proxy If that were the case, all is lost and nobody stands for anything. Even if that were what Novell's FAQ said -- and it doesn't -- nothing in an FAQ should make an iota of difference to anybody. What's done is what matters, not what's said about what's done. |
| swbrown Dec 22, 2006 5:51 PM EDT |
>> Novell's agreement was considered harmful due to their FAQ on how they're skirting the GPL by proxy > Even if that were what Novell's FAQ said -- and it doesn't "Q1. How is this agreement compatible with Novell's obligations under Section 7 of the GPL? Our agreement with Microsoft is focused on our customers, and does not include a patent license or covenant not to sue from Microsoft to Novell (or, for that matter, from Novell to Microsoft). Novell's customers receive a covenant not to sue directly from Microsoft. We have not agreed with Microsoft to any condition that would contradict the conditions of the GPL and we are in full compliance." FAQ on how they skirt the GPL by proxying the patent license. You were saying? :) |
| dinotrac Dec 22, 2006 11:12 PM EDT |
swbrown - > FAQ on how they skirt the GPL by proxying the patent license. You were saying? :) Eye of the beholder. Your characterization presumes ill intent because you see Microsoft and it makes your brain cells jangle. Had this been a deal between Novell and Red Hat, nobody would have said "boo". |
| swbrown Dec 22, 2006 11:54 PM EDT |
> Eye of the beholder. Your characterization presumes ill intent because you see Microsoft and it makes your brain cells jangle. 1) People said it would run foul of GPL section 7 2) Novell issues a FAQ stating their proxy attack doesn't violate /the letter/ of section 7 3) I refer to this as a "FAQ on how they skirt the GPL by proxying the patent license" I still don't see why you think #3 is wrongly stated. Was it patents by proxy? Yes. Did Novell claim to not be violating the GPL? Yes. Was it a FAQ? Yes. What's to argue? > Had this been a deal between Novell and Red Hat, nobody would have said "boo". If this deal was between Novell and (deity) people would have still objected, as Novell is using a loophole against the intent of the GPL. Think not? Go find me the part of the FAQ where Novell says it doesn't violate the "spirit" of the GPL. Can't find it, can you? Novell knows it does, but they did it anyway because they thought they could get away with it, which makes them horrible people for attempting to screw over those who they owe their existence to. Just like SCO did. |
| dinotrac Dec 23, 2006 1:15 AM EDT |
>Go find me the part of the FAQ where Novell says it doesn't violate the "spirit" of the GPL. Why would it? That's a losing claim to make because "spirit" is in the eye of the beholder. |
| swbrown Dec 23, 2006 3:28 AM EDT |
> That's a losing claim to make because "spirit" is in the eye of the beholder. So you're arguing that Novell had no idea whatsoever that authors might be mad at how they were treating the GPL? Because if they did, and they did this anyway, they're horrible people. If they didn't, and they refused to stop when they learned that, they're still horrible people. Quite simple. So which version of "they're horrible people" do you want to defend? |
| dinotrac Dec 23, 2006 4:28 AM EDT |
>So you're arguing that Novell had no idea whatsoever that authors might be mad at how they were treating the GPL? So you're arguing that leprechauns make lousy mathemeticians and that Ruby on Rails should give way to Jade in Jets? Feel free to make up all of the arguments you wish, but do not attribute them to me. |
| swbrown Dec 23, 2006 8:03 AM EDT |
> Feel free to make up all of the arguments you wish, but do not attribute them to me. I'm reducing your arguments to find the core issue. Follow me: As you say I infer "ill intent", and that a violation of the GPL's spirit "is in the eye of the beholder", that means you must be arguing from the standpoint that Novell acted without knowing that authors like me would consider this a violation of the spirit of the license they use; that in Novell's eye, what they were doing was not a violation of the spirit, so there was no ill intent. Otherwise, you would have to agree that Novell acted with "ill intent" as they knew what they were doing was not intended to be permitted and so against the spirit. Got it? Ok, that position point settled, let's move on. Novell now knows how strongly authors feel this violates the spirit of their license, even having one of their key developers resign over it. Thus they are in the position of knowing what they are doing was not intended to be permitted, a violation of the spirit as seen by the authors whose works they are covering, yet they continue despite having the option to stop. This means they do act with "ill intent" against the authors, even if what they are doing is legal. So, either way it began, I claim Novell is now a horrible company, as they are clearly acting with "ill intent" against the authors who share the software that allows Novell to exist. |
| dinotrac Dec 23, 2006 11:30 AM EDT |
>without knowing that authors like me would consider this a violation of the spirit of the license they use It means nothing of the sort. The GPL is a single license adapted by thousands of developers, many of whom have their own quaint interpretations. It would be silly for Novell to presume that every developer of GPL'd software would like their deal. It would be equally silly for them to care. |
| azerthoth Dec 23, 2006 12:57 PM EDT |
Its moot, there is nothing in GPL2 to prevent microvell from doing it, plain and simple. I would pose this to you about intent. If it the intent hadnt been there in spirit, why then was it announced that GPL3 would include language to specifically exclude such a deal in the future by the man who wrote the GPL2 inside of a day of the deal being announced. I think that pretty much indicates intent. Actually the microvell agreement did do one thing for me. Prior to the deal I was in the camp of anti-GPL3 and of the opinion it would be still born for lack of implementation. Now however I see the GPL3 as a good thing as long as it stops the muck dragging lawyers from finding their precious loopholes so that they can increase their grasp on the allmighty dollar. And face it, no one can claim that the deal is anything other than a legal loophole. (*&*$#&^*(&^ Laywers. |
| dinotrac Dec 23, 2006 1:14 PM EDT |
>I think that pretty much indicates intent. It certainly indicates intent for V3. Probably indicates "Wish we would have thought of that" for V2. It is wrong, however, to say that a license embodies an intent that was formulated ten years after it was drafted. |
| swbrown Dec 24, 2006 3:32 AM EDT |
> Probably indicates "Wish we would have thought of that" for V2. It is wrong, however, to say that a license embodies an intent that was formulated ten years after it was drafted. The intent was formulated ten years ago, and covers this. Proxying the license to avoid the wording of the first sentence of section 7 is called a loophole. You're so fueled by FSF hatred you can't see this, just like you couldn't see KDE not being illegally distributed by Debian was not Debian's fault. |
| dinotrac Dec 24, 2006 4:34 AM EDT |
> You're so fueled by FSF hatred you can't see this, just like you couldn't see KDE not being illegally distributed by Debian was not Debian's fault. I have no hatred whatsoever for the FSF. I've never even met RMS or Eben Moglen, so I have no reason to hate these people. What I do have is some understanding of law and contracts. I also understand the difficulty of trying to read minds. You may be gifted in a way that I am not, but I am stuck with my limited abilities, knowledge, and experience, all of which tell me that you can't reasonably expect people to read minds. |
| swbrown Dec 24, 2006 5:07 AM EDT |
> What I do have is some understanding of law and contracts. Yet you continue to blame Debian for not illegally distributing KDE. That makes your other positions re legality suspect. |
| dinotrac Dec 24, 2006 5:30 AM EDT |
>Yet you continue to blame Debian for not illegally distributing KDE. And you continue to ignore the simple english im my posts. That makes my presumption that you have reasoning capacity logically suspect. |
| swbrown Dec 24, 2006 5:41 AM EDT |
> And you continue to ignore the simple english im my posts. That makes my presumption that you have reasoning capacity logically suspect. Ok, let's test reasoning capacity. Explain to me why the QPL was not incompatible with the GPL, then explain to me why you blame Debian for this despite their writing neither the QPL nor GPL. |
| dinotrac Dec 24, 2006 10:17 AM EDT |
>Explain to me why the QPL was not incompatible with the GPL, then explain to me why you blame Debian for this despite their writing neither the QPL nor GPL. Premature to test reasoning when english comprehension is the question. I have never claime that the QPL was not incompatible with the GPL and have never blamed Debian for that fact. Words matter, grasshopper. Try reading them. |
| swbrown Dec 24, 2006 8:55 PM EDT |
> I have never claime that the QPL was not incompatible with the GPL So do you see the QPL and GPL as incompatible, or compatible? |
| dinotrac Dec 25, 2006 4:39 AM EDT |
>So do you see the QPL and GPL as incompatible, or compatible? What I see doesn't matter. And imcompatible/compatible is far too simplistic a viewing. To the extent a problem might have existed -- RMS said it did, lawyers for other distributions said it did not -- The real problem was in KDE components that wrapped third-party GPL'd code. KDE authors themselves granted a license to link their code with QPL'd code by the very act of writing software that depended on QT and any KDE developer who tried to sue on that basis would be tossed right out of court. It might have been too painful to excise those components, but it wouldn't have been painful to distribute KDE as source packages only, as Debian distributes source packages for everythng in the distribution anyway. Source ain't linked to anything til you link it. No GPL violation there. And -- oh, as you are a GPL expert, you are probably aware that users (as opposed to distributors) can link anything to anything. |
| swbrown Dec 25, 2006 6:43 AM EDT |
> What I see doesn't matter. It does for the matter at hand - I want to find out exactly why you blame Debian for not distributing KDE during the QPL period. If you see the QPL and GPL as compatible or incompatible will guide how I continue. > To the extent a problem might have existed -- RMS said it did, lawyers for other distributions said it did not Lawyers from Debian, Red Hat, and the FSF agreed, and they were the 800 pound gorillas at the time with real lawyers. I don't remember Slackware's position. The QPL is probably the easiest Free Software license to determine is GPL incompatible, as it's blatantly obvious - the requirement that allows forcing release of non-distributed source that links to covered software and the requirement to distribute modifications only as patches are going to be a conflict. > KDE authors themselves granted a license to link their code with QPL'd code by the very act of writing software that depended on QT That's not how it works. They needed a written exception in KDE's license. A relicensing was an option on the table at the time and was quite feasible, but there was a lot of resistance to KDE doing that as it would mean anyone writing code that uses KDE would be unable to use other GPLed code without having to propagate the exceptions and requirements (e.g., you wouldn't be able to use GNU MP in a KDE app). As such, the same resistance to having to propagate the exceptions would have been there even if the implicit license exception theory was valid. > and any KDE developer who tried to sue on that basis would be tossed right out of court. It wasn't KDE developers suing that people were worried about. The issue would be that anyone using or linking to KDE would be depending on the good will of TrollTech to not enforce their license against the large violations. That's a dangerous situation to be in, for both sides. > but it wouldn't have been painful to distribute KDE as source packages only, as Debian distributes source packages for everythng in the distribution anyway. The GPL deals mainly in derivative works under copyright law. It's not going to matter if it's compiled yet (if it didn't, you could imagine a Just-In-Time source compiler circumventing the entire license). It'd be hard to argue that KDE is a separable, independent work from Qt. > oh, as you are a GPL expert, you are probably aware that users (as opposed to distributors) can link anything to anything. For the GPL side of it, yes. The lack of use restrictions is a core freedom. |
| dinotrac Dec 25, 2006 7:15 AM EDT |
>They needed a written exception in KDE's license They needed nothing of the sort and a million "I say sos" -- even from RMS -- won't change the facts. The law (yes, the law that is not written down in the text of the license matters) will imply a right in cases like this. >The issue would be that anyone using or linking to KDE would be depending on the good will of TrollTech to not enforce their license against the large violations. The QPL granted all the rights needed. Trolltech would have no basis for suit. If you're going to argue this hard, you should make at least a minimal effort to reason test what you are saying. >It's not going to matter if it's compiled yet (if it didn't, Yes it is going to matter very much if it's compiled. Again, the GPL does not live in a legal vacuum. It is, in fact, based on rights derived from copyright. If RMS and the FSF tried going to court on the basis of some "magic law", they would be thrown out on their kiesters. They are, of course, both too smart and too knowledgable to do that. |
| swbrown Dec 26, 2006 1:29 AM EDT |
>>They needed a written exception in KDE's license > They needed nothing of the sort and a million "I say sos" -- even from RMS -- won't change the facts. The law (yes, the law that is not written down in the text of the license matters) will imply a right in cases like this. Funny how Debian's, Red Hat's, and the FSF's lawyers all agreed they did if they were to redistribute. But let's pretend the KDE authors didn't need to add an exception as per your implicit exception theory. You're still left with the exact same situation as the "What if we relicensed to add an exception" option (it was on the table), which was considered unworkable at the time due to third party KDE applications not being able to touch existing non-KDE GPLed code without having them also include an exception (per your theory, they wouldn't have given an implicit exception since their software had nothing to do with Qt or KDE). E.g., you'd need to convince the GNU MP team to relicense their code in order for you to use it in an application that uses KDE which uses Qt. It would have made KDE and Qt distributable together after such a relicensing, but there would be a resistance to code apps for it in such a condition, which is why the KDE folk didn't do it. |
| dinotrac Dec 26, 2006 3:04 AM EDT |
>It would have made KDE and Qt distributable together after such a relicensing, but there would be a resistance to code apps for it in such a condition, which is why the KDE folk didn't do it. Had Debian made me download Qt on my own, I would not have complained. Grumbled a bit, perhaps, but gotten over it. The Debian folks went about their business as if it didn't exist -- that is, the business of packaging a distribution. Until that time, I had had glitches with KDE on Debian, but nothing major. For something called unstable, it was amazingly good. Once the politics began, it grew increasingly difficult to keep my KDE desktop up to date and usable. It really doesn't matter why, my workstation simply became too difficult to keep up to date, so I switched to SuSE. I've considered going back to Debian once or twice over the years, but it seems there's always some political brouhaha to remind me why I left in the first place. It's not that their hearts aren't in the right place. I just don't to be a captive of their politics. |
| swbrown Dec 26, 2006 9:51 PM EDT |
> Once the politics began, it grew increasingly difficult to keep my KDE desktop up to date and usable. It really doesn't matter why, my workstation simply became too difficult to keep up to date, so I switched to SuSE. It was difficult to update because it was illegal for them to do so, for the aforementioned reasons. SuSE broke the law for you. TrollTech themselves were planning a QPL 2.0 that would remove the patch clause and the forced distribution clause that conflict with the GPL that I pointed out, before they decided to just GPL it. > The Debian folks went about their business as if it didn't exist -- that is, the business of packaging a distribution. The Debian folks were the most involved in fixing the license situation for you. They hardly ignored it. You're really being extremely rude to them which is why I refuse to drop this. Read this: http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/167/ > It's not that their hearts aren't in the right place. I just don't to be a captive of their politics. If you prefer functionality to legality, I'd recommend you try out Ubuntu with automatix and w32codecs. Lots of functionality, completely illegal. Just please don't try to redefine 'politics' to mean 'not breaking the law'. |
| dinotrac Dec 26, 2006 11:34 PM EDT |
swbrown - Yawn. I thought broken records went out with vinyl. |
| swbrown Dec 27, 2006 1:10 AM EDT |
> Yawn. I thought broken records went out with vinyl. Your way of giving up? :) Ok, so to summarize what we've learned in case I need to link back to this: - Functionality is more important to you than legality. "It really doesn't matter why, my workstation simply became too difficult to keep up to date" - You are unable to show how the QPL and GPL weren't incompatible - You don't blame KDE for not relicensing with an exception to link with Qt or agreeing to an 'implicit license exception' as per your theory, which would have made it distributable, instead you blame Debian - You confuse Debian obeying the law and halting distribution with 'politics': "Once the politics began, it grew increasingly difficult to keep my KDE desktop up to date and usable." - You parrot that Debian was ambivalent to the KDE situation despite having not responded to this link twice now: http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/167/ "The Debian folks went about their business as if it didn't exist" - You single out Debian for not distributing KDE in that state despite other major distributions like Red Hat doing the same |
| dinotrac Dec 27, 2006 2:05 AM EDT |
>Your way of giving up? Absolutely. |
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!