Say what you wish about sjvn
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| SamShazaam Dec 28, 2006 3:31 AM EDT |
Not many other columnists would touch a story like this. This is one of the oldest tricks in the tech industry, although it is usually more subtle. More commonly, if you write a story that makes a certain company look bad, then your advertising revenues go down. You may disagree with his conclusions but at least sjvn understands what is happening. |
| dinotrac Dec 28, 2006 4:20 AM EDT |
Personally, I have no angst with regard to him. I don't understand why so many people go all fanboy over his columns, reacting as if he had killed the Pope, initiated global warming, and said that Marilyn Monroe had been rather attractive for a heavy-set woman, but nothing special. He says a lot of things we may or may not agree with, but...get this...he actually uses Linux. He likes it. He is guilty both of thought and nonsense. Hmmm. Sounds kind of familiar... |
| Rascalson Dec 28, 2006 9:05 AM EDT |
I Knew it!!!! SJVN is your Evil!!! twin ...errrr your his evil twin!! ummm.... One of you is evil? |
| dinotrac Dec 28, 2006 9:13 AM EDT |
>One of you is evil? Hmmm. Former lawyer is worth a lot of evil points. But, I haven't much practiced in years, so I should get redemption points. Still, like Lady McBeth, it can be awfully hard to wash that spot out... |
| tuxchick Dec 28, 2006 10:19 AM EDT |
It's his "yes but" attitude towards libre software that irks me. To paraphrase: "Yes, FOSS and Linux are great and I luvvs them to death, but let's not get all fanatical about this foolish freedom stuff." As though you can separate Linux from what makes it possible to exist at all. |
| dinotrac Dec 28, 2006 10:38 AM EDT |
>but let's not get all fanatical about this foolish freedom stuff. I think that's a mite unfair. I doubt very seriously that he considers the freedom foolish. I know that I don't, and yet I use acrobat reader, the nividia driver, etc. Different people draw the line at different places and for different reasons. You and I certainly draw the line a little differently. Doesn't mean we love or value freedom differently, though we might. Does mean we have a different approach to exercising and promoting it. |
| azerthoth Dec 28, 2006 10:55 AM EDT |
What gets me about him is his decidedly corporate leaning, in that he nearly always will take the side of the "for profit" distributions. He like many others seem to have forgotten that linux came a long way prior to it being a monetary adventure, and most all of the best work and development still comes from the people who dont make a red cent for doing it. While making a buck off linux isnt evil, heck its great if you can do it, ignoring where the changes are really coming from doesnt engender happy thoughts in me. Making bone headed statements is a right of all of us. It changes things though when your living is derived from whatever statements you make. From saying that SCO would never go after linux, to backing microvell he just repeatedly keeps missing the mark. Seldom making me believe he knows what he's talking about enough to actually comment on it professionally. |
| bigg Dec 28, 2006 11:20 AM EDT |
Let me be the first to admit that I respect sjvn. He knows at least ten times what I know about Linux, Unix, computing in general. I like reading his columns when he shares his expertise. Sometimes he is good to have in our camp. Where we differ, AFAIK, is that he is anti-Microsoft and I am anti-proprietary. If it takes a proprietary version of Linux to steal market share from Microsoft then sjvn is happy with proprietary software. To me proprietary Linux is useless, regardless of the market share numbers. I am neutral about Microsoft. They're just another company writing non-GPL code, albeit a very large company. What I don't understand is why he insists on pushing the buttons of the free software nuts. His columns in recent months make me think of Joe Lieberman. It's not the position, it's the fact that he throws in loaded language as a shot against people like me. I don't know why he seems to think Richard Stallman is going to break Linux. He seems to think open source has worked well through today, but next week it's not going to work anymore. I've seen it many times in the few years that I've followed Linux. He is free to do as he chooses, I just don't visit his websites as often as I used to. |
| tuxchick Dec 28, 2006 11:29 AM EDT |
dino, if only he had as much respect for free software advocates as you do for other folks. Note the loaded language and careful targeting of libre software advocates as "idealists" and "fanatics", and all the talk of religion and churches:
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9955615279.html So instead of disputing the claims of the folks who think Novell's deal is bad, or making some actual points why the deal is good, he just does plain old character assassination. This one gets the blue-ribbon, on the Firefox trademark dispute with Mozilla: http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS6695650917.html 'Yes, I know, I know, it's against a strict interpretation of the Debian Social Contract. You know what. I don't care for fundamentalists." Oh goodie, there's that religious brand again for something he doesn't like. Class act. Not. |
| dinotrac Dec 28, 2006 11:33 AM EDT |
>What gets me about him is his decidedly corporate leaning, That does color everything he does pretty heavily, which is ok with me. I just remember hsi bias, just as I remember RMS's. Divergent views are good. A corporate focus in one corner reminds us that corporations can use free software can offer jobs to free software types can drive the further expansion of free software have the resources to butt heads with Microsoft, etc. So, i take him with a grain of salt, remember where he's coming from, and that he's a friend with whom I don't always see eye to eye, which is much better than an enemy. |
| dinotrac Dec 28, 2006 11:35 AM EDT |
>dino, if only he had as much respect for free software advocates as you do for other folks. yeah, How to Win Friends and Influence People ain't likely to be on his books shelf. But...that's my pot calling his kettle black. Look at it this way, he's not Dvorak. |
| swbrown Dec 28, 2006 6:22 PM EDT |
I think he's kinda like Nancy Grace - often clueless, yet loud and cocksure. |
| dinotrac Dec 28, 2006 6:28 PM EDT |
>often clueless, yet loud and cocksure. The good thing about him is that he isn't always clueless, and he's most likely to have a clue in areas where most free software folks are least likely to have one. |
| swbrown Dec 29, 2006 12:00 AM EDT |
> The good thing about him is that he isn't always clueless I'd agree in the sense that a broken clock is right twice a day. |
| dinotrac Dec 29, 2006 1:44 AM EDT |
>I'd agree in the sense that a broken clock is right twice a day. Which, in a backwards way, is my point. The things that he understands about the potential of free software are the things that most free software folks understand poorly, if at all. |
| tuxchick Dec 29, 2006 6:23 AM EDT |
Like what, dino? Given his history of trashing libre software advocates and principles, I'd say his understanding is limited to not liking them at all. |
| dinotrac Dec 29, 2006 6:46 AM EDT |
>Trashing libre software advocates and principles Probably true on the former, but only half-true on the latter. Business is a funny place where people don't always understand what's good for them. Truth is, the best thing about free software for corporations is, in fact, the freedom. Same as for everybody else. Trouble is that corporations are not people like everybody else and they don't (can't, in fact) have much tolerance for things that get in their way. So... The freedom is great, but it's much harder for a business to make an ethical choice for freedom over profitability. If free software can't do the job, they are ethically obligated to get something else. Corporations may be faceless, but the people working for them are not. Neither are the people owning shares, including retirees who own shares through their pension funds. That's business life. SJVN fits that world much better than he would fit a place like this. |
| tuxchick Dec 29, 2006 7:32 AM EDT |
True, folks don't always do what is best for their own interests. Yes, folks often choose non-free software. So what. No big deal. I'm still wondering what SJVN understands better than the free software advocates he so freely insults and belittles. I just want some examples of his superior understandings, apparently that are so superior they justify his badmouthing. |
| swbrown Dec 29, 2006 7:37 AM EDT |
> I just want some examples of his superior understandings I'll second that. |
| bigg Dec 29, 2006 7:44 AM EDT |
> his superior understandings, apparently that are so superior they justify his badmouthing. That's exactly my view as well. It's not like he's debating the technical details of a Linux distribution. His argument is that you're naive to use a distribution that doesn't install proprietary drivers and codecs by default. It's his opinion and nothing more. If he were the CEO of Novell, conducting a meeting to determine the direction of SLED, then his approach might be appropriate. But for him to say I'm an idiot for using Debian makes no sense. |
| jimf Dec 29, 2006 7:45 AM EDT |
> I just want some examples of his superior understandings When he simply acts as a reporter he can do a great job. As in this current one: http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/77348/index.html What bothers me are his opinion pieces, which seem to show a near complete dismissal of libre principals... The disparity is glaring. |
| jsusanka Dec 29, 2006 8:11 AM EDT |
"The freedom is great, but it's much harder for a business to make an ethical choice for freedom over profitability. If free software can't do the job, they are ethically obligated to get something else. Corporations may be faceless, but the people working for them are not. Neither are the people owning shares, including retirees who own shares through their pension funds." and there you have what is wrong with todays coporations. the corporations are in for a big lesson one of these days. you can make a profit and be ethical it just takes guts and some hard decisions that may not be easy in the short term but will pay dividends in the long run. I am sick of this marketing sell sell sell short term attitiude of business. they don't care about keeping customers they just want to sell more stuff to them - if something breaks just sell them another one - don't fix what they got. look at redhat - they don't do patent deals with other companies and ship an open source product and they have stuck to their ethics and seem to be making a profit. one other note - if you are relying on a pension from a company - I would say don't and start investing in other things. companies can do away with pensions whether they make ethical decisions or not. if they are making crappy decisions period your pension is going to go away because they will probably go out of business. pensions are just a savings for companies to take later on when they are hurting. with that said I think I would have more confidence in a company that is making ethical decisions with my pension. |
| dinotrac Dec 29, 2006 8:14 AM EDT |
>ne other note - if you are relying on a pension from a company - I would say don't and start investing in other things. companies can do away with pensions whether they make ethical decisions or not. I'm thinking about the big government employee pension funds and others that are independent of corporations. They invest a ton of money and wield a ton of power with corporations. |
| azerthoth Dec 29, 2006 10:57 AM EDT |
I'm still waiting on examples ... what was it you said in another thread dino? Something along the lines of "Be specific, details matter" |
| dinotrac Dec 29, 2006 11:07 AM EDT |
azerthoth - Stop waiting. I'm not going to bother. I think SJVN has a more business oriented mindset than most free software type. Feel free to disagree. With regard to "details matter"... Sometimes they matter more than others. When you are making specific accusations about somebody, for example, the details matter. A poster was lying about things I have said in the past. In that case, details do matter. |
| azerthoth Dec 29, 2006 12:00 PM EDT |
Ah, I must be one of the people with limited understanding. You have infered that I and others here are clueless and that we just dont understand. Several of us have asked you for enlightenment over your accusations of our limited understanding. So again, if you may insist on specifics when you feel unfairly set upon, I think the rest of us have the right to insist upon the same rights. |
| dinotrac Dec 29, 2006 12:12 PM EDT |
>Several of us have asked you for enlightenment over your accusations of our limited understanding No you have not. You have asked for examples of SJVN's enlightenment. Different thing. My sense is that many free software types have not had the experience of selling free software to management in a for-profit corporation, or even decry its use in corporations. That's fine. Nothing wrong with that at all. SJVN's outlook seems more typical of corporate users -- and I've encountered a lot of them. Please note that I have not said that his was better or more correct than others. Just useful. Free software has incredible potential -- far beyond what it has already achieved. It's good to remember that some of the people we wish to join the dance don't yet know all the steps. |
| azerthoth Dec 29, 2006 12:53 PM EDT |
>The things that he understands about the potential of free software are the things that most free software folks understand poorly, if at all. Those are your words and opinions there not his. You say he understands things others do not and in doing so have questioned the intelligence of those figurativly around you. Perhaps this is an example of your own flawed logic, and before you ask let me give you specifics 1: Debian vs KDE, Debian followed their stated mandate, and on top of that the letter of the law. However you took it as an ethical failing ... for following the letter of the law. 2: Microvell, an obvious ethical failing however you argue the letter of the law. Those are two I have seen within the past week (+/- a day or two). Which is all the time I have been actively following lxer. There are other recent postings quoting you that show other bits of insanely flawed logic. You can say that you think for yourself, I think perhaps that its not your strong suit. |
| dinotrac Dec 29, 2006 1:13 PM EDT |
1. Debian vs KDE, Debian followed their stated mandate, and on top of that the letter of the law. However you took it as an ethical failing ... for following the letter of the law. I do, in fact, consider it an ethical failing that was not required to happen. I have no idea what "letter of the law" you are talking about. The GPL v. QPL incompatibilities did, in fact, create a problem for them. It was their approach to the problem that irked me: Let us push our agenda with Trolltech (a good thing), let the users be damned in the meantime. 2. I don't see what the ethical failing is in the Microsoft-Novell disagreement is. Lots of people say there is one, nobody articulates it. What it boils down to is that lots of developers are upset and that Novell is ethically challenged for upsetting them. >You can say that you think for yourself, I think perhaps that its not your strong suit. You are entitle to believe whatever you wish. None of my business, frankly. |
| swbrown Dec 30, 2006 3:34 AM EDT |
> Let us push our agenda with Trolltech (a good thing), let the users be damned in the meantime. You're faulting people for obeying the law, which is a severe ethical lapse. |
| dcparris Dec 30, 2006 6:31 AM EDT |
sw: dino seems to feel Debian should have taken a different approach, not that they shouldn't have upheld the law. I have to wonder what they could have done differently. They couldn't have commenced a gradual law-obedience process - they would still be in violation. I do think it's unfair to Debian to blame them for the affair, in any case. What I find disturbing, given the link provided elsewhere, is that a Debian developer attempted to help the KDE folks write a GPL-compatible license. They apparently went behind his back and made changes that destroyed his efforts. At least now I can understand the hostility toward KDE. |
| dinotrac Dec 30, 2006 6:48 AM EDT |
>I do think it's unfair to Debian to blame them for the affair, Depending on what you mean by "the affair", I would agree with you. They didn't draft the QPL, they didn't choose QT as the toolkit for KDE. They did not cause the problem. My beef is strictly their handling of the problem. I don't think I'm being unfair on that count, but I don't think it's unreasonable to disagree. They'd have had to go out of their way a bit to keep KDE users from being impacted unreasonably. Debian wasn't really all that KDE friendly at the time anyway --- after all, Debian is, without question, GNU/Linux, and GNU/Linux meant GNOME. As a KDE user, I probably should have been using another distro anyway. >They couldn't have commenced a gradual law-obedience process - they would still be in violation. When dealing with a license, you have to be careful about bandying the word "illegal" around, but I agree that the Debian folks should not have done anything that they sincerely believed violated the GPL. That leaves a lot of room to work with, though, so long as the KDE folks dealt with GPL'd code incorporated into KDE packages. My memory is hazy on this, but I remember that they did remove some or all packages from KDE where developers of GPL'd code complained. The distribution of KDE itself posed no problem. The distribution of KDE with QT posed a technical problem because of the GPL's language, but not a legal problem because the law will infer the developers' intent correctly. But, to be honest, all they really had to do was maintain and test with it in mind and keep users abreast of the latest "supported" version. Debian users at that time were a pretty geeky bunch. We could find stuff. I did that in fact, staying with Debian until my machine broke badly enough to be a royal PITA. |
| swbrown Dec 30, 2006 8:06 AM EDT |
> But, to be honest, all they really had to do was maintain and test with it in mind and keep users abreast of the latest "supported" version. They had no "supported" version, they had nothing they could distribute or test. If whoever was giving you packages of KDE wasn't maintaining or testing them, that's a problem with your supplier. If that supplier was you, then you can't blame Debian for your ineptitude at maintaining third party software. |
| dinotrac Dec 30, 2006 9:49 AM EDT |
>They had no "supported" version Yup. That was the problem and that is why I switched distros. It seems that you agree with my choice. |
| jimf Dec 30, 2006 10:32 AM EDT |
Dino, Looking at the histories of both Debian and SuSe, I can't help but think they can both be pretty grotty ;-). Debian may be politically volatile, but long term I've found it to be far more dependable. An early on dispute with KDE (way before my time anyway) is hardly a blip on the landscape. While I can understand that your choice and preference may be SuSe or something else, an ancient grudge is not a valid or particularly logical reason to outright condemn Debian. As far as history is concerned, I actually ran SuSe and 'at the time' thought it showed great promise. One of the reasons I don't currently find it particularly endearing is the subsequent drop in quality, and, it's sell out to Novell. Although quality's improved, the threat to drop the KDE desktop (problems with KDE?), and now, the current Novell/MS deal make SuSe a less than ideal or dependable choice. As I said there is some grottiness in every Distro, and we all have preferences. Let's just not be the pot calling the kettle black |
| dinotrac Dec 30, 2006 12:34 PM EDT |
>an ancient grudge is not a valid or particularly logical reason to outright condemn Debian. I agree completely and hope that nothing I have said is taken as a condemnation of Debian. They are who they are do what they do for the reasons they do it. I can be little too harsh in my language at times, but Debian is the distro that got me into Linux, and I was loathe to give it up. I simply don't consider going back. I am more than a little concerned about SuSE and am watching current events closely, hoping that the current team is smarter than some people give them credit for. My only major complaint is a strong desire to throttle whoever screwed up the YAST Online Update and replaced it with the horrible Zen thingie. Yick, Yack, Yuck. |
| swbrown Dec 31, 2006 4:19 AM EDT |
> Yup. That was the problem and that is why I switched distros. It seems that you agree with my choice. I disagree with your choice in that you chose to use software illegally. I agree with your choice in that it's obvious you don't mind using software illegally, so it was the right choice for you. You'd probably also like w32codecs and automatix, which are basically warez. However, such choices give you absolutely zero standing to criticize others for not breaking the law. The Free Software community is not about warez. |
| dinotrac Dec 31, 2006 6:29 AM EDT |
>I disagree with your choice in that you chose to use software illegally. That is a flat-out lie. I used no software illegally. I used no software in violation of licenses. It is clear that you understand neither the law nor the GPL. It is equally clear that you don't care for the facts. Your statement is wrong, defamatory, and legally actionable. I won't take any legal action, because I don't see how anybody with more than 3 or 4 active brain cells could take your ravings seriously. |
| dcparris Dec 31, 2006 9:53 AM EDT |
O.k. guys. Let's chill. swbrown, I agree that your comment went too far. Please remember that a little discretion goes a long way. |
| swbrown Dec 31, 2006 10:00 AM EDT |
> That is a flat-out lie. I used no software illegally. And yet you couldn't explain how the GPL and QPL were compatible. How'd you manage to get a derivitive work you couldn't be legally given? > Your statement is wrong, defamatory, and legally actionable. I won't take any legal action Well there's a new way to attempt to win at the internets I've not seen before. :) |
| jdixon Dec 31, 2006 10:19 AM EDT |
Moving back to the original point of the story, I disagree with SJVN's story but agree with Sam's point. SJVN is complaining about the bloggers being bribed, and saying that journalists are better. I disagree. Journalists are every bit as susceptible to such bribery, as well as having business pressures which most bloggers do not have to deal with. SJVN may rightly consider himself above such actions (I'm not in a position to say, and am willing to give him the benefit of a doubt), but attributing such integrity to all journalists is a mistake. |
| dinotrac Dec 31, 2006 10:20 AM EDT |
>And yet you couldn't explain how the GPL and QPL were compatible. How'd you manage to get a derivitive work you couldn't be legally given? You have displayed your own ignorance. If you were to go back and try understanding the actual problem, you would know that it was a matter of distributing software together. Nothing prevented me from acquiring the parts separately, compiling them, and using them. If you knew the first thing about the GPL, you would know that it borders on being entirely unrestricted with regard to use. I can even, without violating the GPL, incorporate GPL'd code into completely proprietary software so long as I don't distribute it. > attempt to win at the internets That's the problem. You were trying to "win", I was trying to discuss. I had the same problem Bill Bradley had trying to debate Al Gore during the 2000 presidential primaries: it's difficult to "win" when the other person is willing to lie shamelessly. |
| jdixon Dec 31, 2006 10:21 AM EDT |
> And yet you couldn't explain how the GPL and QPL were compatible. How'd you manage to get a derivitive work you couldn't be legally given? He used SuSE. If SuSE was distributing KDE illegally, why did no one take action against them at the time? |
| dinotrac Dec 31, 2006 10:26 AM EDT |
>He used SuSE. If SuSE was distributing KDE illegally, why did no one take action against them at the time? At first, I stayed with Debian and obtained KDE on my own -- perfectly permissible. I don't remember the timing on my SuSE switch...whether it came after GPL'd QT or before, but... Even so, nothing prevented me from using KDE. SuSE may or may not have violated the GPL. I, however, was free to use everything there so long as I didn't distribute it myself. None of which matters, because swbrown doesn't care about truth, fact or law, just "winning". |
| azerthoth Dec 31, 2006 10:41 AM EDT |
Dino's right on this one. You can do any blessed thing you want with linux legally for personal use. GPL doesnt kick in until you distribute any changes you have incorporated. The movie companies might have a different take on that, but thats a different issue. |
| dcparris Dec 31, 2006 11:16 AM EDT |
Which is why I believe swbrown's accusation went too far. I also think it's wrong to blatantly accuse someone of illegal behavior like this. Look, I have to moderate these discussions, and I think it's only fair to uphold the US legal standard of innocent until _proven_ guilty in a court of law. Unless someone comes right out and says, "I broke the law", I would caution against making such accusations lightly. |
| swbrown Dec 31, 2006 12:49 PM EDT |
> I agree that your comment went too far. I don't see how it went too far. We have that: 1) Distributions couldn't legally distribute KDE because there was no valid license to distribute. 2) If you couldn't be distributed KDE, you couldn't get KDE legally. So it follows: 3) If you were getting KDE anyway, you were doing so illegally. How else would you phrase it, or is there something wrong with the above? This was why everyone was in a state of panic at the time. With no valid license to distribute, it doesn't matter what license there is on use, as it couldn't be distributed to the users. It was an inconvenient thing to come to terms with for a lot of people. It was down to two choices to fix the legal issues: relicense KDE, or relicense Qt, and the 'relicense KDE' choice would likely have crippled the project due to the resulting license being unpalatable. It could have ended really badly, and the ball wasn't in our court. It's my opinion, I believe it true, it's clearly derived from my reasoning, I try and show people that reasoning, and I'm not falsifying anything, so threatening that it's defamation is silly, and way over the top regardless. I want people to understand this issue and not blame those not responsible for it. > He used SuSE. If SuSE was distributing KDE illegally, why did no one take action against them at the time? Relying on something you can't with a justification of 'because no one's stopping me' isn't a safe practice, as things can change. E.g., GIF and MP3. You don't want there to be any ambiguity in your permission to do what you do. A modern example of a 'no one taking action' that hasn't yet become a disaster but is probably not more than a couple years from a disaster is proprietary kernel modules. That's one people are currently justifying with 'because no one's stopping me'. Attitudes are changing, and I'd certainly not want to be one relying on attitudes. |
| dinotrac Dec 31, 2006 12:58 PM EDT |
swbrown - Your logic is just plain wrong. KDE could be distributed legally. Even RMS never claimed that. The only claim he made, one that was never tested, was that you could not distribute QPL'd and GPL'd software together. KDE software itself was not a problem, because the developers granted that right. When you go back and try to puzzle this out, consider this: The sky is not black does mean that the sky is white. The statement really does permit the sky to be blue. |
| jdixon Dec 31, 2006 1:33 PM EDT |
> 2) If you couldn't be distributed KDE, you couldn't get KDE legally. I don't recall anyone ever saying KDE couldn't be distrbuted. Only that various distributions couldn't or wouldn't distribute it. > Relying on something you can't with a justification of 'because no one's stopping me' isn't a safe practice SuSE wasn't the only one distributing KDE. Mandrake was (remember that Mandrake was originally Red Hat with KDE), and possibly others. When major, money making, distributions were doing something and not getting sued by the developers, it's reasonable to expect you to prove that they were wrong, not the other way around. If you want a modern equivilant, you can try to prove that it's wrong for me to buy from allofmp3.com. |
| dinotrac Dec 31, 2006 2:23 PM EDT |
>that it's wrong for me to buy from allofmp3.com. allofmp3.com may be a bad example. They have taken advantage of being in Russia - not so much for its legality as for the lack of enforcement. Russia, wanting to join the World Trade Organization, has recently agreed to shut down allofmp3.com and similar sites. |
| cr Dec 31, 2006 2:23 PM EDT |
Red Hat included that version of KDE/Qt in their 2.2-kerneled 6.0, 6.1 and 6.2 releases. If you wanted a default runlevel-5 boot into KDE, you edited /etc/sysconfig/desktop to read 'KDE', no biggie; Gtk/Gnome1 apps still ran fine on that desktop. |
| jdixon Dec 31, 2006 3:00 PM EDT |
> They have taken advantage of being in Russia - not so much for its legality as for the lack of enforcement. I didn't say they hadn't, but they do insist they're complying with all applicable Russian laws. Everything I've seen so far is a matter of "he says, she says", which is pretty much where the above debate stands too. > Russia, wanting to join the World Trade Organization, has recently agreed to shut down allofmp3.com and similar sites. I've heard that several times over the past year, but they still seem to be up. I know that Visa and Masercard have supposedly stopped paying them, and that some folks recently sued them in a US court (how they figure it has jurisdiction is beyond me, but...). We'll have to wait and see what happens. I expect they'll be shut down eventually, but as with Pirate Bay, whether it will be done in a legal manner is debatable. |
| dcparris Dec 31, 2006 4:27 PM EDT |
> Distributions couldn't legally distribute KDE because there was no valid license to distribute. Your claim seems pretty screwy. My understanding is the same as dino's - namely that people could not distribute KDE (or is it QT?) _with_ GPL'ed software, not that it couldn't be distributed. That is seriously reaching. Even with dino switching to SUSE, I haven't seen any proof that SUSE violated the law. You only claimed that they did so - no proof whatsoever. Thus your claim that dino had violated the law is just plain baseless. I don't have a lot of experience with this, but I honestly don't believe I can allow baseless accusations like this to be bantered around on LXer. Your accusations do, after all, affect an individual's reputation. Is the proper term "slander"? I won't tolerate such comments here. See para #6 of the ToS. Otherwise, I really appreciate your contributions to our discussions. Let's keep it clean. That's all. |
| dinotrac Dec 31, 2006 9:31 PM EDT |
>Thus your claim that dino had violated the law is just plain baseless. Especially since the KDE folks themselves, who, as the copyright holders, didn't need to rely on rights granted by the GPL in order to distribute their software, also distributed the stuff. At most, one can claim that the actions of Mandrake and SuSE could be interpreted as violating the terms of the GPL, and that some software authors, had they objected to the distribution of software, could have taken legal action against the distributors. |
| tuxchick Jan 01, 2007 10:48 AM EDT |
yo teh jdixon-
>Moving back to the original point of the story, I disagree with SJVN's story but agree with Sam's point. SJVN is complaining about the bloggers being bribed, and saying that journalists are better. Excellent point. Tech reporters are the biggest freeloaders on the planet, and even worse, they sell out for cheap. A t-shirt, a book, a gadget, a boxed software. Not all of them, obviously, but a significant percentage. Going all holier-than-thou is simply not justified. |
| dinotrac Jan 01, 2007 11:23 AM EDT |
>Going all holier-than-thou is simply not justified. But if I were doing it, it would be ok, right? |
| tuxchick Jan 01, 2007 11:36 AM EDT |
>>Going all holier-than-thou is simply not justified.
>But if I were doing it, it would be ok, right? That depends on how much of your loot you shared with your good LXer friends. |
| dinotrac Jan 01, 2007 11:42 AM EDT |
>That depends on how much of your loot you shared with your good LXer friends. So... It sounds like you're saying it wouldn't be ok! |
| jimf Jan 01, 2007 11:49 AM EDT |
> It sounds like you're saying it wouldn't be ok! Either that or she's rubbing together her thumb and forefinger ;-)... |
| jdixon Jan 01, 2007 11:57 AM EDT |
> But if I were doing it, it would be ok, right? Well, Dino, that depends on whether you were splitting it with us, doesn't it? Ack, Tuxchick beat me to it. Rats. |
| swbrown Jan 02, 2007 8:27 AM EDT |
> Your claim seems pretty screwy. My understanding is the same as dino's - namely that people could not distribute KDE (or is it QT?) _with_ GPL'ed software, not that it couldn't be distributed I'm not exactly sure what you mean here, do you mean as long as either KDE or Qt weren't distributed in aggregate with GPLed software like in a distribution? You could still distribute Qt (I believe they did) as there's no problem with the QPL - it's a Free Software license. Distributing it aggregated with GPL software is no problem, and you could distribute applications using it that had QPL-compatible licenses with no problem, and bundle them with no problem. KDE was a problem however, as it was KDE's license that was the issue, independent of anything else but Qt. It didn't matter if they were distributed together, as KDE was subject to the QPL no matter where it was due to (for one) the QPL's section 6 which covers "software items that link with the original or modified versions of the Software" that comes into affect "when distributed", not "when distributed together". It's similar to the GPL when used on libraries in that there are conditions imposed on all software designed to use that library. Ignoring the 'derivative work' issue re section 3 (There's no explicit barrier, but TrollTech's position was they didn't intend for works using the library to be considered derivative, so we'd be arguing "spirit of the license" like was happing in 2000 which will go nowhere), you still have 6(c) which imposes a form of forced distribution clause in a specific case on KDE which is GPLed software. It's my understanding that forced distribution clauses are not GPL compatible as it's not necessarily true that you will still be able to redistribute GPLed software from a state the GPL allows you to put it in. That would mean that piece of GPLed software couldn't be distributed per section 7 due to terms conflicting the license, which means it would never be able to reach users. As such, you couldn't get KDE without the license being violated. This could have been fixed by relicensing KDE with an exception, or relicensing Qt with a modified section 3 and 6. TrollTech was planning a QPL 2.0 that modified 3 and 6 for this reason, but wound up dual licensing it GPL/QPL instead. Problem solved, KDE could be distributed. > You only claimed that they did so - no proof whatsoever I've been trying to provide as much proof as possible in each thread this comes up in complete with links to the people involved at the time - maybe it's my fault for not first repeating the significant portions of discussions in past threads that lead to this point, since it's spanned threads. See above for a condensation of the details of why I believe KDE wasn't distributable in any manner by anyone at that time. Dino's theory, as per past threads, is that there was an 'implicit exception' in the license given by the KDE developers as it was their intent to allow you to use it together with Qt, so should have been distributable. Effectively, arguing 'spirit of the license' trumps the license, and that all KDE contributors implicitly agreed to these conditions. Would be nice, as it would mean we could now sue Novell over the 'spirit of the license' GPL issue. ;) |
| jimf Jan 02, 2007 8:36 AM EDT |
> spirit of the license I keep hearing that over and over ad nausium... Funny thing is that Courts virtually always go with the letter of the law instead. |
| Abe Jan 02, 2007 9:02 AM EDT |
Quoting:Funny thing is that Courts virtually always go with the letter of the law instead.That is why the GPL v3 is so important. It will make the letter reflect its spirit. Hopefully you wont be hearing it any more! |
| jimf Jan 02, 2007 9:07 AM EDT |
> It will make the letter reflect its spirit Well, some think so. We'll see how that goes. |
| dinotrac Jan 02, 2007 9:14 AM EDT |
>As such, you couldn't get KDE without the license being violated. Of course you could. For starters, you could get it from the KDE project,who, as copyright holders, did not need any rights from the GPL in order to distribute their own work. >Effectively, arguing 'spirit of the license' trumps the license No. I am arguing that the law trumps the license. In this case, it is the rules that judges apply when interpreting contracts and license. Judges interpret documents in an effort to preserve their intent -- at least so far as it can be determined from the document itself. Now, follow closely as this requires the ability to combine 2 + 2 and get 4: 1. The only people with any standing to complain about misuse of the KDE projects IP were GOSH! the people on the KDE project itself. 2. Those people posted the code on an ftp site and affixed the GPL to it. Also, their website announced that KDE software was licensed under the GPL. A judge would toss any KDE developer out on his ear as the clear intent of the project was to allow people to use the software in a way consistent with the GPL. |
| swbrown Jan 06, 2007 12:21 PM EDT |
>>As such, you couldn't get KDE without the license being violated. >Of course you could. For starters, you could get it from the KDE project,who, as copyright holders, did not need any rights from the GPL in order to distribute their own work. This is becoming like arguing religion - if people are determined to believe, there's really nothing that can be done. Here's my last attempt at reason for this thread - there are two basic claims: 1) That it wasn't a problem for you, even if it was a problem for distributions. - If distribution of KDE was a problem as the lawyers said, and none of the problems involved aggregation (the QPL and GPL don't enforce any aggregation rules), then how is it it could be a distribution problem for distributions, but not you or where you got the code from? 2) That the copyright holders of KDE could do first-party distribution regardless as it was their code. - Which copyright holders? There's no central copyright holder like in FSF projects - KDE's mirrors are redistributing many copyrighted contributions under their own terms. If such a theory of 'primary author distributability' is to be used, you'd have to get each component directly from the primary author, which no one would be doing. And for the other side of the issue, which copyright holders were excused from the /QPL/'s requirements? > No. I am arguing that the law trumps the license. In this case, it is the rules that judges apply when interpreting contracts and license. Judges interpret documents in an effort to preserve their intent -- at least so far as it can be determined from the document itself. Do you really want to be in a position where you're doing something clearly against the license and could some day find yourself defending against a SCO and having to argue intent in court? The legal system is a bit of a gamble and an expensive one to play - I'd not want to be in that position even if you're confident you can win. Neither did Red Hat or Debian. > 1. The only people with any standing to complain about misuse of the KDE projects IP were GOSH! the people on the KDE project itself. Kinda like me? E.g., check Help->About->Authors in KMail (I used to do KDE stuff back in the day, stopped around 2001). Glad you agree I have standing to argue about this. :) 2. Those people posted the code on an ftp site and affixed the GPL to it. Also, their website announced that KDE software was licensed under the GPL. They licensed their code GPL, but the GPL wasn't a license that could be used to link to the QPL (there were compatibility problems on both sides as I've gone over before). Now if they had agreed to dual license, or license with an exception, or relicense with an exception, or have Qt relicense GPL, then no problem. They had not at the time. Hence, the problem. You can't just treat GPLed code as QPLed code because it's convenient. Some authors on discovering that licensing problem might have refused to relicense their code if it had come to that. |
| dinotrac Jan 06, 2007 12:43 PM EDT |
>This is becoming like arguing religion - if people are determined to believe, I quite agree. Your steadfast determination to avoid the facts is frustrating. |
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!