Ok, who's next?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| swbrown Dec 22, 2006 7:01 AM EDT |
Anyone else with some values still working at Novell? |
| DarrenR114 Dec 22, 2006 7:30 AM EDT |
Quoting: Anyone else with some values still working at Novell? Nat Friedman. There's also the guy who just returned to Novell on the SUSE Kernel team. And I'm pretty sure, considering the way the work environment at Novell was described by Jeremy Allison, that there are many other "unsung heroes." Of course, what I don't get is how Jeremy contradicts himself on the reasons for leaving. First he acknowleges there is no violation of the GPL by the covenant with MS. He does say that the deal - of which he doesn't know all details - circumvents the *spirit* of the GPL, but without specifics. He doesn't mention which patents encumber which GPL'ed software packages. So I don't even see the violation of the intent of the GPL which everyone keeps carping about. Then he says that he waited for a certain length of time to pass to cure the GPL violations. Again, he's not specific about any violations, neither the letter of nor intent of the GPL. In essence, he waited a certain amount of time for Novell to correct unspecified violations. Oh yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense. Based on this sort of logic, I have good reason to press charges against Richard Stallman and Eben Moglen for stealing from me. But I do agree with part of what he said - there is nothing that Novell can do to change the mind of the irrational idealogues who have been so vocal about something that they seem to understand little about. I keep hearing about how the sky is falling, but I see nothing but clouds floating above my head as it should be. |
| Rascalson Dec 22, 2006 7:49 AM EDT |
He did not acknowledge any such thing and he is not a lawyer or a judge. Here are his words: " I believe that even if it does not violate the letter of the license". Note the "if" part. When someone says "if" they are not confirming or denying anything. An if statement simply leads up to something else. In his case he was highlighting that no matter what is finally decided about their v2 violation status( I would imagine that would involve a court of "Law") they are very clearly violating the intent. There is also very little doubt that the Microvell agreement will Not be compatible with GPL v3. |
| swbrown Dec 22, 2006 7:56 AM EDT |
> Nat Friedman I'd have thought so too, but he's the guy doing PR for the deal. From the IRC chat, he seems quite fine with it sadly. Perens called him out earlier today on his position as well. Personally, I think the deal is more Ximian initiated than Novell initiated. |
| DarrenR114 Dec 22, 2006 8:16 AM EDT |
I keep hearing how there's some mysterious violation of the intent of the GPL. But what I don't see is anyone putting forth *any* specific evidence of such. When the U.S. was first organised under the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court established as a rule that it would only take "real" cases, and not "theoretical" cases. So then, I pose this challenge to any and all - Where is the specific violation of the GPL, either the letter of it or the intent of it? Until you can answer this, all you have shown is the *possibility* of "wrongdoing". Nice touch with the "Microvell" reference - it shows real reasoning behind what you have to say. You'll notice I don't lower myself to namecalling (I try not to - though I will use terms like "Novell-bashers") - and that is exactly what that is. Do you often conduct discussions by namecalling those who you believe to be on a different side of an issue? |
| DarrenR114 Dec 22, 2006 8:23 AM EDT |
Quoting: > Nat Friedman I think it may have been very much customer initiated - considering who the first three big clients that MS named were. 16,000 SUSE certificates. But who knows. IBM has stated that their customers were concerned at first, but now are satisfied with the explanations from Novell about the deal, so I'm thinking there is further evidence that this truly was "customer driven". I took a look at the petition Mr. Perens started and noticed one of the names that signed on was that of Jeffrey Murkey. That guy is a nutcase who has actually tried to hijack Linux and GNU code and put it under a new license he created out of whole cloth. |
| tuxchick Dec 22, 2006 8:24 AM EDT |
I call troll. |
| Rascalson Dec 22, 2006 8:37 AM EDT |
MIcrovell is simply one of the shortened names for the agreement that has become commonplace on the web. If you would like to assign some other meaning to it that is your problem. What part of everyone being treated fairly do you not understand? What the Supreme Court will or will not take has nothing to do with this discussion. As Novell is not the copyright owner of much of the code that they ship in Suse what right did they have to make any agreement which even comes remotely close to or even could be used to make a statement about the integrity of code they don't own? |
| dinotrac Dec 22, 2006 8:38 AM EDT |
TC - I counter that and call independent thinker able to resist the painful lockstep of jerking knees. But then, you knew I would! |
| Abe Dec 22, 2006 8:43 AM EDT |
DarrenR114, Couple questions: Are you a friend of Dino by any chance? You sure sound like Dino. lol Do you know Nat Friedman personally? What makes you not to think he is on the deal with the others that came from Ximian? The "spirit" of the GPL is different from its legal wordings. It is its intent of the rights it grants you to FOSS software. There are no restriction in the GPL other than to share back by keeping open your additions/changes if you use from it. The Novel-MS deal adds restrictions on the GPL software and that is in violation of the legal and the "spirit" of the GPL. Jeremy wasn't necessarily talking about the legal aspects of the GPL Quoting:He does say that the deal - of which he doesn't know all detailsHow do you know that? Do you work for Novell? Or do you have an inside source? Have you thought of a some sort of non-disclosure that Jeremy might have had to signed that is preventing him from disclosing any specifics? Quoting:But I do agree with part of what he said - there is nothing that Novell can do to change the mind of the irrational idealogues who have been so vocal about something that they seem to understand little about. From the article Quoting:"Whilst the Microsoft patent agreement is in place there is nothing we can do to fix community relations."This is all what I can find in that specific article. Here is a better link for you to read "exactly" what he said in his letter http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061221081000710 I am really surprised if he did say that, are you sure he said those things or are you putting words in his mouth? You seem to be resourceful, would you care to offer a link? |
| swbrown Dec 22, 2006 8:44 AM EDT |
> I call troll. Ditto. |
| Rascalson Dec 22, 2006 8:45 AM EDT |
Also Darren, If you think the community needs to keep explaining its reaction to the deal over and over again for you? Then you are sadly mistaken. |
| jdixon Dec 22, 2006 9:18 AM EDT |
> I keep hearing how there's some mysterious violation of the intent of the GPL. RMS crafted the GPL. He's stated that version 3 will will not allow such a deal. If the deal did not violate his intentions, why would he need to modify it to prevent such deals. The deal sidesteps the current language of the GPL, but (based on his own statements) RMS definitely intended that such deals not be allowed. Edited typos for clarity. |
| Abe Dec 22, 2006 9:19 AM EDT |
Quoting:> I call troll.It must be the big blob on MS radar screen labeled LXer.com. Are we to seem more! |
| rijelkentaurus Dec 22, 2006 9:32 AM EDT |
>I call troll. I abstain for the moment, but I am leaning your way.... As far as Jeremy Allision goes, he found himself in a position where he felt to stay would be against his personal morals. Whether you agree with his reasoning or not, it takes a great deal of courage to stand up against something you find wrong in this fashion, and I think it is admirable on his part. It was not an easy thing to do. |
| devnet Dec 22, 2006 9:39 AM EDT |
DarrenQuoting:But what I don't see is anyone putting forth *any* specific evidence of such. The spirit is being trampled by Novell ALLOWING Microsoft (as part of the deal) to put forth the idea that the ONLY SAFE LINUX...IS NOVELL LINUX. End of story. That's misinformation...if it were a fact, they'd back it up by revealing WHY Novell is safe and how other Linux vendors AREN'T. |
| dinotrac Dec 22, 2006 9:54 AM EDT |
>whether you agree with his reasoning or not, it takes a great deal of courage to stand up against something you find wrong in this fashion, Absolutely. It is also courageous for members of the team who think it's a good thing to say so in public, given the volume of scorn being heaped upon them. Folks like Miguel and Nat don't stay unemployed long, so it's not like the have to agree. |
| tuxchick Dec 22, 2006 9:58 AM EDT |
dino, I enjoy disagreements and good debate. Sometimes I learn stuff and even change my mind. The last time I knew everything I was 16 years old, and it's been downhill ever since. I don't call troll just because someone disagrees. Sure, I could be wrong, but so far I haven't seen anything to change my mind. Maybe turfer? Anyway, when I sees troll/turf tactics, well, that's when I think troll. If I am wrong I will accept suitable chastisement. |
| jdixon Dec 22, 2006 10:01 AM EDT |
> Whether you agree with his reasoning or not, it takes a great deal of courage to stand up against something you find wrong in this fashion, and I think it is admirable on his part. It was not an easy thing to do. I think we can all agree about that. |
| DarrenR114 Dec 22, 2006 10:23 AM EDT |
Rascalson, You are very much on track - Justify the negative attacks on Novell with real evidence. Show the world something besides the same hype spewed over and over again with no proof behind the accusations. Until that's done, then all that anyone new to the scene can see is a narrow segment of the FOSS community behaving in the same manner that they castigated SCOG for - accusations without proof. To Linuxchick: good retort! Nice to see that the ad hominem is in full force here at LXer. I guess it's easier to call names than to make real dialog. As for the proposition put forth that "The spirit is being trampled by Novell ALLOWING Microsoft (as part of the deal) to put forth the idea that the ONLY SAFE LINUX...IS NOVELL LINUX," I disagree. Where is any statement by MS or Novell that states this? Surely you have a link? Surely you're talking about more than theory put forth by opponents to the deal? Surely you have something along the lines of a real incident for which to pummel Novell? This deal has not removed any freedoms from anyone. That deal did not suddenly bring about rumblings from MS about IP infringement in Linux. Ballmer was making the same implications literally years ago. The Chicken Little attitude as expressed by a few vocal opponents is tiresome. As for the compliment about sounding like Dinotrac, thank you. Yes, I do happen to often agree with him. Often I'm not as eloquent as he in my discourse. I think it may be that we have similar backgrounds in dealing with heterogenous IT shops in business and government - though I've not been so "successful" in my career, monetarily speaking. |
| rijelkentaurus Dec 22, 2006 1:13 PM EDT |
>the ONLY SAFE LINUX...IS NOVELL LINUX," I disagree. Where is any statement by MS or Novell that states this? You and your links. "essentially an arrangement under which they pay us some money for the right to tell the customer that anybody who uses Suse Linux is appropriately covered." That's here http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/108806... You'll find similar statements elsewhere. |
| dcparris Dec 22, 2006 2:28 PM EDT |
> I keep hearing how there's some mysterious violation of the intent of the GPL. There is nothing mysterious about it. Stallman and the FSF have long been adamantly opposed to software patents to begin with. I am very much in agreement on that point. Why allow a software patent agreement when you're trying to fight software patents to begin with? The GPL (including Section 7) was written a long time ago. Even so, I don't see the great mystery. |
| DarrenR114 Dec 22, 2006 2:41 PM EDT |
rijelkentaurus: There's a reason for my insistence on links - in this world of fast moving information, it becomes too easy for people to say "I do not remember, I cannot recall." It's not that they are lying, necessarily, but that facts get misconstrued, or mischaracterised. This is not to say that such occurances are intentional, but they happen in this imperfect world. This is the sort of thing that becomes apparent in the game "Chinese Whispers". Also, getting access to original source material has been the way I approach research for a very long time. I should have been more picky in my request: where are the statements by Novell? I know MS has been up to their usual FUDge baking behavior, but I don't believe that Novell has characterised the deal this way. |
| DarrenR114 Dec 22, 2006 3:07 PM EDT |
Ok... We keep going around in circles on this. Let's see if I can break the cycle - RMS says that the deal violates the intention of the GPL. For a person who tries very hard to be very exact with his language, I would expect to see specific violations offered up. But there have been none given. When I ask for specific evidence, I get more "RMS says the deal violates the spirit of the GPL, and since he wrote it, it must be so." No. It must not necessarily be so. In order for a violation to occur, either in spirit, or of the letter, there must be a specific piece of software involved which is encumbered by some Utility Patent held by MS. This is why the Supreme Court only takes on real cases, and not "theoreticals". There is no violation of the law when there is no real incident. What software is encumbered by MS patents, distributed by Novell, and licensed under the GPL, that there is a violation of just the intent of the GPL? I won't even bother asking for violations of the letter, since there aren't any. If you can't provide any examples, then imagine yourself telling your employer that you have no specific information when accusing a vendor to your own company of stealing. If you went to your employer, speaking against any vendor, with the sort of evidence offered here against Novell, you'd be reprimanded if not fired. And this sort of outcry without specifics or evidence does *not* ingratiate the FOSS community to the vast majority of people who run businesses. I have a tough enough row to hoe in convincing my PTB about the virtues of FOSS without having to assuage concerns about irrational behavior on the part of a few outspoken members of the FOSS community. |
| Abe Dec 22, 2006 4:01 PM EDT |
Darren,
Quoting:We keep going around in circles on this. Let's see if I can break the cycle - You seem to be on a mission (mission impossible if you haven't figured that out yet) How do I know? Well, you seem to be either incapable of or don't want to understand all the reasoning that has been furnished to you already. Instead, you keep coming back to the same questions. I guess the only way I can explain your attitude is you are missing the spirit of software Freedom. Sorry, but you just don't have it. Rascalson summarized best for when he said Quoting:Also Darren, If you think the community needs to keep explaining its reaction to the deal over and over again for you? Then you are sadly mistaken., |
| Rascalson Dec 22, 2006 4:24 PM EDT |
http://www.novell.com/coolsolutions/author/1342.html . Is that you Darren? The community does not need to ingratiate itself to any business. If it is just a few outspoken members of the community then what is the problem? Surely this will fade away and Novell will have smooth sailing right? In addition if there really is no trouble then there should be definitive statements soon from Eben Moglen stating that the deal is truly free and clear of V2 violations. If GPL V3 is "not" needed to address the Novell-MS an other issues then we can also expect very little uptake of the license outside of the gnu tool chain and Samba right? |
| swbrown Dec 22, 2006 4:28 PM EDT |
> Well, you seem to be either incapable of or don't want to understand all the reasoning that has been furnished to you already. Instead, you keep coming back to the same questions. *cough* troll *cough* :) Some LXer reader is bored. |
| dcparris Dec 22, 2006 6:51 PM EDT |
Darren, why do you assume we don't know that the Supreme Court deals in real cases? We're not stupid. The FSF - and the community at large - have acknowledged that there is no violation of the letter. That does not mean that there is no violation of the spirit. The agreement - not the software - violates the spirit of the GPL. It's as if you are trying to argue that, because there is no violation of the letter, then there can be no violation of the spirit. Judges frequently acknowledge the difference between letter and spirit. The whole point of the GPL's section 7 is to avoid patent royalties, which the Microsoft-Novell deal provides for. It just does it in a round-about way. I simply cannot get any more specific than that. Go back and re-read section 7 of the GNU GPLv2. Thanks, Rascalson, for pointing out the obvious! |
| dinotrac Dec 22, 2006 11:08 PM EDT |
>Darren, why do you assume we don't know that the Supreme Court deals in real cases? We're not stupid. Rev - Get your hackles back down, bro'! Lots of people DON'T know that, and it's not as stupid as you might think. The scenario that comes to my mind involves legislation, regulation, etc.. It's not silly to think the court might hold a session to say a law, regulation, or ruling is unconstitutional. That, of course, isn't how it works. The Court waits for a petition from an actual litigant who has been harmed in some way by the law, regulation, etc. |
| DarrenR114 Dec 23, 2006 9:28 AM EDT |
Final Word from me: Not a single reply from the anti-Novell faction has provided any evidentiary support for your reasoning. I understand the reasoning that you've presented and you'll note that it is not the reasoning I'm questioning, it's the lack of support for it that I'm looking for. What you seem to be incapable of understanding, or refuse to comprehend, is that what I'm saying is that there has been no proof offered ... That's a whole lot different than not understanding the reasoning. The accusation: Novell has violated the spirit of the GPL. The support: RMS has said that Novell violated the spirit of the GPL, so it must be so. What I say (and this in no way says I don't understand the reasoning behind your claims): RMS' statement is *not* good enough to prove the accusation. There is *not* one single instance offered up by RMS, or anyone here, on what violation has occurred. When the FSF went after Linksys, they had a specific instance. The accusation: Novell made a deal with MS - that means they must approve of MS. This non-sequitor has no proof behind it. What I say, based on my experience during the Cold War, the US made plenty of agreements with the USSR - it didn't mean that we approved of the Soviet way of doing things. There were even agreements where not all terms were made public. The accusation: Novell made an agreement about software patents. This means that Novell supports software patents What I say: There is no such thing as "software patents" so they can't possibly support them. My smartass response aside, Sun made the same sort of agreement involving patents with MS, and yet I don't see anyone referring to Sunsoft, Microlaris, or Microsun. I don't see any references to MS/Sun when trashing Oracle. IBM maintains ownership of hundreds of software-related Utility Patents (even the ones they've agreed to license to the FOSS community.) IBM is even suing Amazon over a couple of their Utility Patents. Yet I don't see anyone clamoring to put IBM out of business over it. It isn't that I don't understand the reasoning, it's that I see the reasoning as flawed. And yet, the crowd passively refuses to fix the flaws that I point out, and instead a few resort to calling me names. Oh yeah - real mature that. If you don't agree with my points about the flaws in your reasoning - show me where I'm wrong. Don't throw in red herrings like "Troll" or "Why do you assume we're stupid?" I assume nothing about any of you - I mentioned how the Supreme Court works to explain why it is important, from my POV, to consider that the reasoning offered up so far by the anti-Novell faction lacks standing as far as evidence is concerned. What has been done by the likes of Mr. Perens, Ms. Jones, and Mr. Stallman is to try Novell in the court of public opinion without evidence - plenty of reasoning but no proof. Ms. Jones, especially, should know better. Lynch mobs are never a good idea. By the way, it matters not one whit that RMS wrote the GPL, if the software in question is not owned by the FSF. Regardless of whatever his intent in writing it was, it is the intrepretation and intent of the actual owner of any code that counts. This is why it had to be IBM, and not the FSF, to bring charges of violation against SGOG. This is why it had to be Fyodor, and not the FSF, to revoke SCOG's license to use nmap. That is why it is Linus' opinion that counts when considering the Kernel and DRM. He reads the GPL a certain way, and since it's his code, that's the reading that matters (yes, I *know* there are hundreds of other copyright holders involved with the kernel.) This is why Eben Moglen has stated: "We don't conclude compliance arrangements where we believe that there is non-compliance with the license with respect to other software for which we do not hold copyright, or those copyright holders for whom we are not negotiating on their behalf." If the best response you've got for me is "Troll", "You must work for Novell", or "Why do you assume we're stupid?", then you've proven for yourself, and LXer audience in general, that your arguments against Novell are hollow. When I see real evidence, and not just some line of reasoning that is full of assumptions, then I'll join in the anti-Novell chorus. But as yet, there has been none. It seems to be "guilty until proven innocent" with the anti-Novell faction. I know full well that this entire missive will probably not change the mind of anyone who is absolutely certain they are right and RMS is right, but I write this so that anyone new to the scene might see that not everyone is ready to convict Novell on the unsubstantiated accusations leveled by that small faction. And that's what it boils down to - no one has presented any information with specific instances on how exactly Novell violated any trust. I agree with Rascalson about one thing: the anti-Novell faction who claims (but has not demonstrated it) to represent the entire FOSS community does not have to keep explaining its reaction to the MS-Novell deal. What it has not done, but should do, is *justify* it with any kind of proof. Every complaint, except the violation of the "spirit of the GPL," so far applies to other companies such as IBM and Sun, and there has not been similar 'outrage' towards those companies. This seems to be quite hypocritical to me. And the charge of "violating the 'spirit' of the GPL" has been brought without any indication as to what software actually is in violation of the "spirit." It's the same style of accusation that Darl McBride and the people of SCOG brought forth about Linux. The phrase "all hat and no cattle" comes to mind. So go ahead - continue to call me names, make all sorts of innuendo against me, and cast aspersions on my character. It just strengthens my point about the irrational behavior of the anti-Novell faction. ============================= note: I do not take it as an insult when people ask me for links to background information, nor do I intend it to be an insult in asking for the same. note 2: I don't work for Novell, IBM, Sun, Microsoft, Jupiter Media, or Ziff-Davis. If you want to know who else I don't work for, just ask. note 3: If you want to know why I'm pounding this point about proof so hard, all you have to do is ask. Anyone who has called me "troll", or accused me of "astroturfing", or implied that I must be working for Novell is not asking. |
| azerthoth Dec 23, 2006 9:54 AM EDT |
Actually I think the thing you missed out on is the what "spirit" means. No one has said that there is a legally enforcable violation. Spirit = intent = implied but not laid out specifically. What Novell did is known as a legal loophole. You can violate intent all day long and not have to worry about legal ramifications (well most of the time). Since it wasnt laid out specifically in the GPL there is no violation. This does not mean that the intent (spirit) was to prevent such an action. So there is NO legally enforcable violation, what Novell did was break a "Gentlemans Agreement" and for that the community at large is taking them to task. |
| DarrenR114 Dec 23, 2006 11:23 AM EDT |
I know I said that the previous post was the last for me on this thread, but in reading azerthoth's reply, I think the whole discourse is boiled down to one salient point:
Quoting: So there is NO legally enforcable violation, what Novell did was break a "Gentlemans Agreement" and for that the community at large is taking them to task. What I see in this point is that is that there isn't any specific piece of software that is impacted by this "loop-hole". Is that correct? |
| dinotrac Dec 23, 2006 11:27 AM EDT |
azerthoth - The other problem is that spirit is hard to pin down. I don't think that the Novell deal violates the spirit of the GPL, but RMS does. RMS's view should carry more weight because he is the force behind the thing, but... It's hard to blame somebody for presuming that the language in a license put together by and with an individual so precisely intimate with the english language would fully embody its spirit. |
| Rascalson Dec 23, 2006 11:42 AM EDT |
Don't have to justify it either. As already pointed out most of the code Novell distributes does not belong to them! QED |
| Abe Dec 23, 2006 12:06 PM EDT |
Quoting:The other problem is that spirit is hard to pin down.I disagree. The whole merit of the GPL is to grant software freedom, Freedom is its "spirit". When you are putting restriction on GPLed software, like MS is doing with the agreement and with the consent of Novell, you are violating the GPL "spirit". Quoting:I don't think that the Novell deal violates the spirit of the GPL, but RMS does. RMS's view should carry more weight because he is the force behind the thing, but...RMS is not the only one, a whole army of people happen to fully agree with him Quoting:It's hard to blame somebody for presuming that the language in a license put together by and with an individual so precisely intimate with the english language would fully embody its spirit.True but, Novell, with the help of MS, worked hard and for a long time to unearth the loophole. Novell, as it claims to be a community member and advocate of FOSS, could have been more responsible and cautious. All they had to do is work with FSF or any community member to seek advice about their agreement. Actually, it was their duty to seek advice from members of the community because the contract/deal doesn't cover their software, but mostly involves GPLed software and patents. They ought to have known how touchy the GPL is about patents and especially MS patents. Even if we assume Novell didn't realize the extent of their mistake, they still have a chance to correct it. Jeremy Allison gave them a grace period, unfortunately, they haven't take any appropriate action. What that tells us is that Novell knew exactly what they are doing and there is no doubt about it. For that, they are being chastised, which could cost them their existence. We shall see. |
| dinotrac Dec 23, 2006 12:21 PM EDT |
>The whole merit of the GPL is to grant software freedom, Which means what exactly? Seems to me that the Novell deal granted Novell customers freedom from worry that Microsoft would sue them without having any effect whatsoever on the freedom of anybody else. So, if the GPL is all about granting software freedom, the Novell deal is very much in the spirit of the GPL. |
| azerthoth Dec 23, 2006 1:03 PM EDT |
Its easier than that. If even one developer says that it violates the spirit of the license that he released his work under, then it IS in fact a violation of intent. Last I looked there were more than a few that were very vocal over it. and Dino, I really hope your playing devils advocate. |
| galeru Dec 23, 2006 1:10 PM EDT |
>RMS says that the deal violates the intention of the GPL. For a person who tries very hard to be very exact with his language, I would expect to see specific violations offered up. But there have been none given. According to the Novell-Microsoft deal (which hasn't been released to the public), there are a couple of terms of agreement. There is some money handed over on both sides, along with a covenant not to sue. If you make an agreement to license patents from another company, such as Microsoft, to be used only by your customers, and not by anyone else, that is in direct violation of the GPLv2, section 7. Taken directly from the GPLv2: If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. This is the pertinent clause. The GPLv2 states that you can't sublicense a program protected under the GPLv2 (section 4). By giving patent immunity for only a subset of people (your customers), this is effectively saying, you can use the program, but only if it's distributed by us (if you don't want to be sued). That is the illegal part, as far as I understand it. By just saying they won't sue each other or their customers, it's a loophole that says the same thing, without there being any letter violation. >What software is encumbered by MS patents, distributed by Novell, and licensed under the GPL, that there is a violation of just the intent of the GPL? I won't even bother asking for violations of the letter, since there aren't any. This question doesn't make sense to me. I'm going to assume there are two questions here. correct me if I'm wrong and I'll do my best to append this. "What software actually infringes upon MS patents, is distributed by Novell, and licensed under the GPL?" and "Do any of these violate the intent or letter of the GPL?" First off, Microsoft hasn't brought any charges against any GPL'd software, as far as I am aware. Steve Ballmer, in the interview question at http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/108806... states that Linux "uses our patented intellectual property". Now, Novell states that they don't but regardless, they're protected if they do. Technically, assuming there is some GPL'd program that violates copyright, it can still be distributed underneath the GPL, except if a patent violation or similar is brought against it, then it cannot (section 7 again). Novell distributes a large number of packages that they don't actively develop, that doesn't mean it isn't protected underneath the covenant not to sue. Does that answer your questions adequately? |
| dinotrac Dec 23, 2006 1:12 PM EDT |
>and Dino, I really hope your playing devils advocate. I'm doing nothing of the sort. I am trying to make clear the nature of the problem. The words of a license matter. They are what a court will rely on, and for good reason. To give your position any merit at all, you would have to assume that, in the case of 1,000 developers licensing their software under the GPL, that the GPL had, potentially, 1,000 different meanings. If that were the case, the GPL would be utterly meaningless. In fact, it would be legally meaningless as well. A license so vague that it means something different to every reader, with no commonly understood provisions will not be upheld by courts and therefore, as a practical matter, does not exist. If developers who license their code under the GPL meant for it to cover something that it doesn't, they should not have used the GPL in the first place, but substituted a license that squares with their intent. |
| azerthoth Dec 23, 2006 2:15 PM EDT |
ah but I was talking intent, your talking about bottom dwelling lawyers. There is a differance. We all know legally there isnt squat to be done. There is a differance between what is right and what is legal. Bottomfeeders will insist insist to the heavens "I have done nothing wrong, see the courts says so" while still being morally and ethically bankrupt. Here lies the problem of our debate. You are expounding legal. I am defending ethical. In this I see that we are both correct, and why I dislike lawyers as a species for allowing such distinctions or right and legal to come into being. |
| dinotrac Dec 23, 2006 3:23 PM EDT |
>You are expounding legal. I am defending ethical. Only in a world where we can divine intent without reliance on the things people say or reduce to writing. Those bottom-dwelling lawyers you are so anxious to demean (Say -- What does that make Eben Moglen, who is both a lawyer and a law professor who helps unleash more bottom dwellers on the world every year?) server a vital role: In the absence of mind-readers, it is the lawyer's job to figure out what a license means. There is nothing remotely unethical about asking what a license does and does not allow and that is what lawyers do. In fact, a lawyer who failed to do so is likely to violate his own professional ethics. We have no mind-readers at bar, and no mind-readers in the judiciary. In the case of a custom drafted license, there is some chance that a litigation will shed light on the intent of the parties, and that facts developed in the case will aid the interpretation of the license. With the GPL, however, that kind of process isn't possible because the license is generic, and is applied by people who were not involved in its drafting. The courts and the lawyers have no choice but to rely on what it actually says. |
| azerthoth Dec 23, 2006 4:36 PM EDT |
I'm not disagreeing with you on that point, legally correct while being morally and ethically bankrupt. The GPL is written with referance to the individual. The individuals right to the do what they will with the code. I cant remember anywhere in there where it mentions the individual rights corporate amalgamation, only of individual users. We can spend the rest of eternity battling this back and forth, so I depart the thread with this. When one see's an issue that is morally or ethically abhorrent to them, should they not stand up and say in no uncertain terms "This should not be". It does not take the courts, nor should it take the courts to legislate morality. We all know right from wrong, or if you do not, dont blame your parents or your schools, instead look inside yourself to find something of value that doesnt have a dollar sign attached to it. Jeremy Allison took the path of the moral high ground, and I salute him for it. I hope if faced with a similar situation I can have the fortitude to do the same. That is morality in action, that is seeing a wrong and moving against it, and THAT requires no lawyers to debate the if's, how's, and why's of an action. 'nuff said |
| dinotrac Dec 23, 2006 4:39 PM EDT |
>I'm not disagreeing with you on that point, legally correct while being morally and ethically bankrupt. I believe that Novell is neither neither morally nor ethically incorrect. You are free to disagree, but please, do not mis-state my position. |
| devnet Dec 23, 2006 6:28 PM EDT |
Quoting:The accusation: Novell has violated the spirit of the GPL. RMS DIDN'T say there was a violation...in fact, he agrees with you Darren http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3940699940.html A good summary of what this deal does to FOSS is found on the Samba Team letter: http://lwn.net/Articles/208961/ Samba points this out: Quoting: So now, we have to wonder whether or not MS will sue individuals who work for companies, consultant firms, or other commercial venues. Thanks Novell! But you neither confirm nor deny that this is a problem so...I guess you're in the clear right? Oh and thanks again Novell! Your deal has cast a legal shadow over the top of Linux. Paid programmers aren't safe as part of this deal (http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-6132156.html) and now when people give money to you to put more back into Open Source...you have to give money back to Microsoft. Eben Moglen stated (http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-6132156.html ) Quoting:"If you make an agreement which requires you to pay a royalty to anybody for the right to distribute GPL software, you may not distribute it under the GPL. Section 7 of the GPL requires that you have, and pass along to everybody, the right to distribute software freely and without additional permission." But Novell got around that didn't they? How? By using different language so they didn't infringe. Is this skirting around the GPL? You bet it is...they're still doing exactly what Eben stated...but they're calling it a different name. When you say Po-Tay-Toe, I say Po-Tah-Toe right? It doesn't work that way. The spirit here is being tread upon...calling something by a different name doesn't mean you're not doing it. I can rob a bank tomorrow but tell everyone I'm just borrowing the money...that doesn't mean I'm innocent. If you need more evidence than this Darren, I suggest you invest in VERY thick bi-focals and a tinfoil hat. |
| dinotrac Dec 23, 2006 8:09 PM EDT |
>By using different language so they didn't infringe. Do you have even the slightest idea of what you're talking about? Didn't infringe what? >So now, we have to wonder whether or not MS will sue individuals who work for companies, consultant firms, or other commercial venues. Thanks Novell! Thanks Novell? What kind of thought process is leading you to blame Novell for threats by Microsoft? Wait! Silly question. There is no thought process involved. It's all reflex to the knee bone. The agreement between Novell and Micrsoft does not touch on anybody's right to distribute GPL'd software. In no way does it increase, permit, or otherwise enhance Microsoft's right or inclination to sue anybody on the face of the earth. Quite the opposite. Come on. You're no idiot. Apply those brain cells. |
| swbrown Dec 24, 2006 3:42 AM EDT |
> The accusation: Novell has violated the spirit of the GPL.
> The support: RMS has said that Novell violated the spirit of the GPL, so it must be so. Just for fun, ask Novell to post a statement on the website stating they "did not violate the spirit of the GPL" and see what programmers who GPL licensed their code think of that. :) And remember, no "ad hominem" as you said by blaming it on them liking RMS. |
| dinotrac Dec 24, 2006 4:26 AM EDT |
>Just for fun, ask Novell to post a statement on the website stating they "did not violate the spirit of the GPL" and see what programmers who GPL licensed their code think of that. That would be a stupid thing for anybody to do because the results are predictable. You nee only look at Debian and Dunc-Tank to see why. Besides, it doesn't matter anyway. A thousand developers will have a thousand interpretations of the GPL. Some of those interpretations may agree, some may disagree, some may even be contradictory. Some may be flat-out stupid. It doesn't matter. Novell has done its due diligence. Developers who slap a common license onto their code are agreeing to its common interpretation. "But what I thought it meant" doesn't matter for squat. Developers with specific interpretations should not use a common license unless they are certain users, distributors, lawyers, and judges can all read minds. |
| swbrown Dec 24, 2006 5:29 AM EDT |
> That would be a stupid thing for anybody to do because the results are predictable. So you predict authors that GPL licensed their code see this as violation of the spirit of the GPL, barring any ad hominem excuses re RMS's statements. > Novell has done its due diligence. Developers who slap a common license onto their code are agreeing to its common interpretation. And that common interpretation is clearly that the deal violates the spirit if not the letter, or this would all be a non-story. So now you can see my point - Novell knows it is violating the spirit of the GPL by the common interpretation yet will not back down, making them horrible people for doing so, and acting with "ill intent" as you've mentioned. |
| dinotrac Dec 24, 2006 5:33 AM EDT |
>ad that common interpretation is clearly that the deal violates the spirit if not the letter, or this would all be a non-story. The common interpretation in this case is a legal concept referring to the plain meaning of the language. It is how a judge is supposed to interpret a contract. It is not a democratic concept, and it doesn't matter if 40,50, or even 80% of developers would agree, disagree, or be able to parse a simple sentence. |
| swbrown Dec 24, 2006 5:40 AM EDT |
> It is not a democratic concept, and it doesn't matter if 40,50, or even 80% of developers would agree, disagree, or be able to parse a simple sentence. The issue is developers considering the spirit of their license violated. As an aggregate, they do. Novell has been made aware of this. They continue regardless. Novell is horrible. Case closed. Quite simple. |
| swbrown Dec 24, 2006 5:41 AM EDT |
Anyway, it really doesn't matter what you think of this, seeing as you have no GPLed code. |
| dinotrac Dec 24, 2006 10:19 AM EDT |
>it really doesn't matter what you think of this, It doesn't matter in the least what I think of this, even though I have, in fact, contributed patches to a couple of small projects under the GPL. |
| devnet Dec 25, 2006 4:52 PM EDT |
DinoQuoting:Thanks Novell? What kind of thought process is leading you to blame Novell for threats by Microsoft? Wait! Silly question. There is no thought process involved. It's all reflex to the knee bone.So when you partner up with someone, you aren't responsible for how they act? What are you smoking? No one was twisting Novell's arm to make this deal and they have to reap what they sow here...they did a deal with the devil and now they have to pay the devil the dues AND they have to be considered as with the devil..whether they like it or not, whether it is true or not. That's business. As far as what they didn't infringe or did...they trampled on the spirit of the GPL by using language to get around it. That's the loophole everyone is speaking of...the one they're closing in v3 of the GPL. When you find a loophole, what should be done? I can tell you that it shouldn't have been exploited that's for sure. Quoting:In no way does it increase, permit, or otherwise enhance Microsoft's right or inclination to sue anybody on the face of the earth. Wrong. IT does. Why? Because there is a perceived threat there. That means that the threat is real simply because it is perceived to be. There are those people out there that don't have a clue what Linux and Open Source is because they aren't using it...and after statements like that from buddy Microsoft they won't consider it. All of this thanks to a deal that Novell agrees with...are you getting this now? It's cause effect to the nth degree. I'm using my brain cells...but everyone seems to think that this doesn't effect anything and that's a mistake. You open the door a crack and you still let cold air in...eventually, the door will be forced open...it's just a matter of when...we know the how. BTW, my patches are bigger than your patches of GPL code :D :P |
| dinotrac Dec 25, 2006 5:22 PM EDT |
>Wrong. IT does. Why? Because there is a perceived threat there. That means that the threat is real simply because it is perceived to be Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Novell deal and everything to do with Microsoft. We have already established that Microsoft is a bad player. Frankly, it seems rational to me that Novell would seek a legally binding instrument ensuring its ability to interact with Microsoft products, given how many are out there. It also seems rational to me that Novell might welcome an opportunity to protect its clients. Perhaps they also know the devil when they see it. After all, they've been fighting Microsoft -- in the market AND in the court room -- for years. |
| dinotrac Dec 25, 2006 7:05 PM EDT |
>BTW, my patches are bigger than your patches of GPL code :D :P And a good thing, too, given my coding skills! ;0) |
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!